The fuller text of her statements: Patricia Arquette spoke two times on Oscar night.
Below, you see the full statement she made as she accepted her Oscar. To watch the speech, click here:
ARQUETTE (2/22/15): Okay, Jesus. Thank you to the Academy, to my beautiful, powerful nominees.GiveLove.org is Arquette’s public interest org. To visit its web site, click this.
To IFC, Jonathan Sehring, John Sloss, Cathleen Sutherland, Molly Madden, David DeCamillo, our whole cast and our crew. My Boyhood family, who I love and admire. Our brilliant director, Richard Linklater. The impeccable Ethan Hawke. My lovelies, Ellar Coltrane, Lorelei Linklater.
Thomas and Paul, thank you for giving me my beautiful children. Enzo and Harlow, you’re the deepest people that I know.
My friends, who all work so hard to make this world a better place. To my parents, Rosanna, Richmond, Alexis and David.
To my favorite painter in the world, Eric White, for the inspiration of living with a genius. To my heroes, volunteers and experts who have helped me bring ecological sanitation to the developing world with GiveLove.org.
To every woman who gave birth to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else’s equal rights. It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.
That last paragraph in Arquette’s speech launched a thousand ships. This part of her backstage press conference launched about ten thousand more:
ARQUETTE: It is time for women. Equal means equal. The truth is, the older women get, the less money they make. The more children—the highest percentage of children living in poverty are in female-headed households.To watch that statement, click here.
It’s inexcusable that we go around the world and we talk about equal rights for women in other countries and we don’t—one of those superior court justices said, two years ago, in a law speech at a university, we don’t have equal rights for women in America, and we don’t because when they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t intend it for women.
So the truth is, even though we sort of feel like we have equal rights in America, right under the surface there are huge issues that are at play that really do affect women. And it’s time for all the women in America, and all the men that love women, and all the gay people and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for, to fight for us now.
How should progressives have responded to that? There is no single answer, of course.
More on this topic tomorrow.
Yes, please! More!!! Because Patricia Arquette is a liberal leader.
ReplyDeleteI would also like more on "eligibility for free and reduced lunch is not a measure of poverty.
And so you took time out of your busy life to read a blog written by someone you (evidently) do not respect so that you could have the opportunity to complain about something that he hasn't done yet. Please get a life.
DeleteIt's not a measure of poverty. Did you think it was?
DeleteIt is not? Who told you that?
DeleteIt is a definition of who qualifies for free or reduced price lunch, not poverty. Because the legislation containing that definition is about who gets lunch, not who is poor for any other purpose.
DeleteBetter go read the No Child Left Behind Act.
DeleteYou posted it. It is about who gets free lunch. It is not a government definition of poverty. It states inclusion criteria for the lunch part of the program.
DeleteHere is your statutory reference:
Delete20 U.S.Code Part A, Subpart 1, Section 6313
This is the section which instructs local school governing bodies how to measure and rank poverty in their individual schools in order for those school to be eligible to receive and in what priority, federal funds targeted for, in the words of the law's purpose statement, which is found in Section 6301: "meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation’s highest-poverty schools....."
To reinterate what the five measurements of poverty are, according to federal law, I will repaste the exact language I posted last night for people such as yourself to read.
"(5) Measures
The local educational agency shall use the same measure of poverty, which measure shall be the number of children ages 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary, the number of children eligible for free and reduced priced lunches under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act [42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.], the number of children in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], or the number of children eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program, or a composite of such indicators, with respect to all school attendance areas in the local educational agency—
(A) to identify eligible school attendance areas;
(B) to determine the ranking of each area; and
(C) to determine allocations under subsection (c) of this section."
He apparently read it before, and he is still denying it says what it says.
DeleteBy the way, does our friend also know that very few, if any, "safety net" programs for the poor use the federal poverty line as a strict definition of poverty?
For example, WIC uses exactly the same criteria as free and reduced lunches -- up to 185 percent of the poverty line. Many, though not all, states also draw the line well above the official poverty line in determining eligibility of Medicaid subsidies. The ACA sets the top income for Medicaid eligibility at 133 percent.
And finally, eligibility for Section 8 housing assistance is not set at the poverty line, but at 50 percent of median income for the county or metropolitan area, which can be well above the official federal poverty line.
Unfortunately, they call it the "poverty" when perhaps "destitution" line would be a better term. That would not allow excessively literal people like Our Own Harvard Blogger to pretend that there is only One True Measure of poverty and that 101 percent is not "poor".
Isn't "excessive literalism" a proxy for mental illness or brain injury? I think I read that in a disclaimer somewhere.
DeleteMaybe it was a "symptom" instead of a proxy. Or maybe is was excessive literalism is a "measure" of mental illness or brain injury.
Is there a literalist in the house? A novelist? An esteemed blogger yearning to stream false facts?
Evidently she didn't think "Boyhood" bored us enough.
ReplyDeleteWarning to casual readers of this blog: These comments are unmoderated. They are infested by one or more trolls who routinely attack the blog author in a variety of ways, rarely substantive. Such attacks are not an indicator of the level of interest of other readers, the validity of the content posted nor of the esteem in which the blog author is held by others.
ReplyDeleteBetter late than nevah, or no single answer of course, whatevah.
Delete"That last paragraph in Arquette’s speech launched a thousand ships."
ReplyDeleteI do not know what port Bob lives in where those thousand ships might still be sailing.
But where I live, Arquette's speech was uttered on Sunday, news on Monday, then gone on Tuesday.
That was not my experience at all.
DeleteIn my experience Rosanna launched a thousand ships until Madonna blew her armada into the East River in "Desperately Seeking Susan."
DeleteBut what does you care? I'll never be as big a critic as Frank Rich or even Joe Bob Briggs. I could be stuck on a Carnival Cruise with no useable restrooms.
You cursed troll! Look what you've done. My culture is melting, melting! Oh what a world, what a world! Who could have though a good little troll like you could destroy my beautiful bloggership.
Well, Kholmst, it is also my experience -- but probably also not yours -- that at every Oscar show, somebody says something somewhat controversial that gets discussed for a couple of days, and then we move on.
DeleteOf course, those who can't tell the difference between show biz people and policy makers are free to continue to obsess.
You see, my attention quickly turned Netanyahu's big lie at the U.N., the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, and the Boehner's faceplant in his attempt to shut down the DHS.
But you and Bob are certainly free to continue to discuss Arquette's Oscar speech this week.
Rejoice and Be Glad!
DeleteThe Long February of Kristof and Williams is finally over, as we March into the Spring of Arquette! Or is it Spring into the March of Arquette?
Beware the Ides of Arquette.
DeleteBeware the Ida Lupino.
DeleteInteresting choice, considering Somerby's topic.
DeleteMs Lupino was an actress shunted aside as she aged. She became a writer,director and producer.
She was only the second woman admitted to the directors Guild.
From her IMDB bio:
"She was an ardent Democrat who strongly supported the presidency of John F. Kennedy. During the 1940s when she was under contract with Warner Brothers, she was close friends with future president Ronald Reagan (whom at that point was a registered Democrat) and later was a guest at his wedding to Nancy Reagan and babysat the couple's children. Upon Reagan's 1962 switch from Democrat to Republican, Lupino was so livid by his decision that she ended her friendship with the Reagan s via a handwritten letter informing them that she believed it was both inexcusable and unacceptable that Reagan would abandon the Democrats in an election year. She never spoke to the Reagan family again for the rest of her life."
The trolls are gonna hate this: A parade of left-wing sites and columnists today apologizing or falsely stating that Scott Walker wanted to keep colleges from reporting rape: http://twitchy.com/2015/02/28/lying-hacks-campus-rape-reporting-hit-piece-on-scott-walker-implodes/
ReplyDeleteIn fairness, I blame Bob. LMAO.
When you LYAO do you shake your Tater Maker?
DeleteI just love my taters topped with tweets from twitchy. Thanks A.P. We can always count on you to keep them spuds coming baked and buttered.
ReplyDeleteLiberals lie, troll blames Twitchy.
DeleteFear not, Mr. Hilton. Bob will come rushing to Walker's defense any month now.
DeleteDoes Patricia Arquette know that it's already illegal to discriminate against women or against old people? If, as she claims, older women are being underpaid, she should blame President Obama for not enforcing the law properly.
ReplyDeleteQuick question, David. Does the remedy for unequal pay rest in criminal law or civil law?
DeleteSecond question: Do you know the difference?
"she should blame Obama ...."
Deletebecause it all started January 2009.
I am glad Somerby discussed this Howler. It is his best work since he expose Emma (Whodat?) Brown:
ReplyDelete"Today, Brown tells readers of the Post that eligibility for the federal lunch program is “a rough proxy for journalism.” "
Keep up the fight to advance real progressive causes, Mr. Somerby.
May the esteem be with you.
Anonymity 9:20 didn't discuss the poverty rate and free lunch eligibility. Useless post.
ReplyDeleteYou are right Anonymity @ 6:59. Anon @ 9:20 praised Somerby for spreading another of his false facts in his fight against false facts. And you didn't discuss that.
DeleteDo you agree with Somerby when he wrote on February 28,
"By the norms of the society, Brown has received an elite education. But so what? Today, Brown tells readers of the Post that eligibility for the federal lunch program is “a rough proxy for journalism.”
She never tells them just how rough this “proxy” actually is!"
If so, why shouldn't eligibility for lunch be a proxy for journalism?
When we have done the that maybe we can discuss the federal law which makes eligibility for free and reduced lunch one of the measures of poverty schools use to qualify campuses for federal aid to education.
For crying out loud, the thrust, the raison d'être of TDH is that the MSM and the so-called "Liberal Press" run scripted "news".
ReplyDeleteWhy can't the trolls grasp that simple concept?
That the right wing media run scripted news is not moot.
Jan. 16, 2015 WAPO claimed the majority of US public school kids live in poverty.
That statement went viral.
Now, is that statement a matter of fact? Yes or No?
The undisputed fact is the media followed in a headlong rush to repeat the statement, and yes, some outlets DID challenge it, TDH being only one of them.
Ages ago, liberals came up with the factoid that American women do the same work as men for only 77% of the pay.
That statement has achieved immortality, but it it true?
Pontius Pilate asked, "What is Truth?"
Or did he?
Did Pontius say that almost a dozen times before he did Jesus in?
DeleteBecause that is about the number of times Bob has said the number of students eligible for the Free and Reduced lunch program is neither a proxy nor a measure of poverty. By law it is the latter.
Do full time working women earn 77% in wages and salary compared to full time working men? According to the U.S. Census Bureau they did for a number of years. Last year they improved to 78%.
Does Bob Somerby or anyone else have a right to criticize those who take these facts and stretch them? Absolutely.
But Somerby doesn't do only that. He goes way beyond it. He makes false statements himself or, using his magic words "assumes" or "would think" and other terms of novelization he alleges accurate statements are false.
I feel really bad for The Daily Howler's raison d'etre.
DeleteRe: Pontius Pilate's question and gravymeister's comment.
ReplyDeleteWhat is truth?
Is it a Washington Post headline which reads:
"Most public school students now living in poverty"
No.
Is it a Howler headline which reads:
"Governor Ultrasound still hasn’t been charged!"
No.
Head Howler Bob used the erroneous WaPo headline to call them "inhuman."
A Howler reader used the erroneous Howler headline to say "headlines say the darndest things."
In defense of Somerby it must be noted that, while he posted his Howler headline about an hour after the WaPo announced Ultrasound's indictment, and he took a pounding from readers for a day, the next day he set things straight, covering the charges against Ultrasound with the following, more accurate headline:
"The very large problem with scandal culture!"
Being Head Howler means never having to say you are sorry. Or in error. That is what the inhumans need to do.
"Today, Brown tells readers of the Post that eligibility for the federal lunch program is “a rough proxy for journalism.” "
DeleteBob Somerby quoting Emma Brown in "Supplemental: Who in the world is Emma Brown?"
It is Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteTime for more liberalworld reaction to liberal leaderette Arquette.
* Activists for Accuracy from Actors is not to be confused with Accuracy from Activist Actresses.
May the cherry picking go on. And on. And on.
ReplyDeletePontius Pilate: "If I cherry pick one source, is it the absolute truth?
Or is consensual validation the path to absolute truth?"