Well, I believe we've got to go for the obvious this evening... What are the best and worst Halloween costumes you've ever donned?
Daily Highlights
Paul the Spud: Obama and McCain, Together at Last
Shakes: Fox Fires Back
The Heretik: Rumsfeld as Metaphor
Shakes: Happy Halloween—here's some Jesus Christ!
Paul the Spud: Witch Hunt Waiting to Happen
Shakes: No Only Sometimes Means No
Paul the Spud: Happy Halloween!
Shakes: Back to the Reality
Waveflux: A Match Made in Mordor
Misty: Another Great Idea from the Anti-Sex Government
Shakes: Allen Campaign Hits Yet Another Low
Tart: Yummy
Shakes: Kerry's Revenge
Shakes: Borat
Shakes: Suspicious Shreddery
Hmm
Why is there a Mid-Atlantic Shredding Services truck heading up to the Cheney compound? Curious. If I didn't have full faith and total trust in every member of our government, I might think he's up to no good.
Kerry Strikes Back
So John Kerry gave a speech yesterday in which he made the following statement: "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Now, immediately when I heard this, I knew two things: 1) He was referring to President Bush being a dumbass who got us stuck in a quagmire; and 2) The White House would accuse him of talking about the troops.
Sure enough, this has played out precisely as I predicted.
White House press secretary Tony Snow was asked about Kerry's comment at his regular briefing with reporters, and had clearly come prepared with a lengthy attack. He said the quote "fits a pattern" of negative remarks about U.S. soldiers from the decorated Vietnam veteran and suggested that whether Democratic candidates — particularly those running on their military service backgrounds — agree with their 2004 standard-bearer should be a campaign litmus test.I also expected that Kerry’s staff would issue a clarification, which they did: “Kerry was supposed to say, ‘I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq’.”
The White House also released in advance remarks Bush was to deliver later in the day while campaigning in Georgia, in which the president called Kerry's statement "insulting and shameful." Bush, like his spokesman earlier, said soldiers deserve an apology from Kerry.
Here’s what I didn’t expect: Kerry called a press conference and went off, bitchez.
Swift Boat him once, shame on you. Swift Boat him twice, shame on him. No shame for Mr. Kerry today.
(I’ve typed out the transcript, which is below the fold, for anyone who can’t view the video.)
“Let me make it crystal clear, as crystal clear as I know how. I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy. If anyone owes our troops in the field an apology, it is the president and his failed team, and a Republican majority in the Congress that has been willing to stamp—rubber stamp—policies that have done injuries to our troops and to their families. My statement yesterday, and the White House knows this full well, was a botched joke about the president, and the president’s people, not about the troops. The White House’s attempt to distort my true statement is a remarkable testament to their abject failure in making America safe. It’s a stunning statement on their willingness to reduce anything in America to raw politics; it’s their willingness to distort, their willingness to mislead Americans, they’re willingness to exploit the troops as they have so many times, as backdrops, at so many speeches, in which they have not told the American people the truth. I’m not gonna stand for it.
What our troops deserve is a winning strategy, and what they deserve is leadership that is up to the sacrifice that they’re making. Sadly, this is the best that this administration can do in a month when we have lost 100 young men and women who have given their lives for a failed policy. Over half of the names on the Vietnam wall were put there after our leaders knew that our policy was wrong. And it was wrong that leaders were quiet then and I’m not going to be quiet now.
This is a textbook Republican campaign strategy. Try to change the topic; try to make someone else the issue; try to make something else said the issue, not the policy, not their responsibility. Well, everyone knows it’s not working this time, and I’m not going to stand around and let it work. If anyone thinks that a veteran, someone like me who’s been fighting their entire career to provide for veterans, to fight for their benefits, to help honor what their service is, if anybody thinks that a veteran would somehow criticize more than 140,000 troops serving in Iraq and not the president and his people who put them there, they’re crazy. It’s just wrong. This is a classic GOP, textbook Republican campaign tactic.
I’m sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won’t take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes. I’m sick and tired of a whole bunch of Republican attacks, most of which come from people who never wore the uniform and never had the courage to stand up and go to war themselves. Enough is enough. We’re not going to stand for this.
This policy is broken—and this president and his administration didn’t do their homework. They didn’t study what would happen in Iraq. They didn’t study and listen to the people who were the experts and would have told them, and they know that’s what I was talking about yesterday. I’m not going to be lectured by the White House or by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, who’s taking a day off from mimicking and attacking Michael J. Fox and who’s now going to try to attack me, and lie about me, and distort me. No way. It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who have never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did. It’s over.
This administration has given us a Katrina foreign policy—mistake upon mistake upon mistake. Unwilling to give our troops the armor that they need. Unwilling to have enough troops in place. Unwilling to give them the Humvees that they deserve to protect them. Unwilling to have a coalition that is adequate to be able to defend our interests. Our own intelligence agency has told us they’re creating more terrorists, not less. They’re making us less safe, not more. I think Americans are sick and tired of this game. These Republicans are afraid to stand up and debate a real veteran on this topic, and they’re afraid to debate, you know, they want to debate straw men, because they’re afraid to debate real men.
Well, we’re going to have a real debate in this country about this policy. The bottom line is, these Republicans want to distort this policy, and this time it won’t work because we are going to stay in their face with the truth. And no Democrat is going to be bullied by these people, by these kinds of attacks, that have no place in American politics. It’s time to set our policy correct. They have a stand still and lose policy in Iraq and they have a cut and run policy in Afghanistan. And the fact is, our troops, who have served heroically, who deserve better, deserve leadership that is up to their sacrifice. Period."
People make me laugh.
In Starbucks with the baby, when an older man of Eastern Eurpoean origin noticed me placing a handful of dried fruit on a leather ottoman for her to graze on while I read the paper:
Man: People put dirty feet on there, you know.
Me: Yeah, probably.
Man: Maybe she get athlete's foot! Heh heh-heh heh heh.
Me: Yeah, she also licks the slide at the playground.
Man: (Clear disapproval.)
Ha! I'm a bad nanny.
Quote of the Day
"I go out to Walter Reed quite often and see these brave young soldiers who have served and sacrificed so much. Many of them have lost limbs, as you know. And it's a very sad thing to see. But at the same time it's very uplifting. Because these young people are so proud of what they've done."—Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), campaigning for congressional candidate Peter Roskam (R), whose opponent is Tammy Duckworth (D), an Iraq war veteran who lost both legs during her service. (Via Political Wire)
More Allen Campaign Shenanigans Caught on Video
DailyProgress: “A first-year University of Virginia law student shouted a question at U.S. Sen. George Allen Tuesday at the conclusion of a rally at the Omni Charlottesville Hotel. Allen declined to answer the question about whether he had ever spat at his first wife and the student, Mike Stark, was pushed away from Allen by a former Albemarle County GOP official.”
Carpetbagger: “Stark, whom many of you may know as the blogger behind Calling All Wingnuts, wasn't just 'pushed away' by a Republican activist; he was quite literally tackled by a series of Allen supporters, some of whom may have been Allen staffers.”
You can watch the video here.
watch your mailboxes, single twenty-somethings!
Your government-issued chastity belt will soon be in the mail, thanks to the Dept. of Faith-Based Initiatives Dept. of Health and Human Services. You see, the government has decided that abstinence education isn't just for those hoodlum teenagers anymore, it is for people up to age 29 (apparently after you turn 30, you no longer have sex).
The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.
Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.
[...]
Abstinence education programs, which have focused on preteens and teens, teach that abstaining from sex is the only effective or acceptable method to prevent pregnancy or disease. They give no instruction on birth control or safe sex.
The National Center for Health Statistics says well over 90% of adults ages 20-29 have had sexual intercourse.
So "well over 90%" of adults are having sex and the government wants to "educate" them with programs that do not include birth control or safe-sex measures. Now, why would that be?
Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.
"The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children,' " Horn said. "The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."
So, because there are "too many unwed mothers" by government thinking, the solution is not to further educate the public on birth control but to say "no sex for you!". Because, as we all know, sex is only for procreation.What utter bullshit. Expensive bullshit too--$50 million dollars worth.
I am vehemently opposed to AO-ed in classrooms, as it just doesn't work. The idea of it being forced upon adults as some sort of moral medication ("for prevention of whores and bastard children!") is just insane.
The Mouth of Sauron endorses Senator Hobbit
A match made in Mordor
It's somehow fitting that news of this comes out on Halloween: Zell Miller, faithless and accursed, crosses party lines to support noted Tolkien scholar Rick Santorum.
Former Sen. Zell Miller, a Georgia Democrat who supported President Bush in 2004, will head a new group of Democrats supporting Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Rick Santorum's reelection bid."I am not involved in any other race in the country," Miller said during a radio interview Monday, according to a news release from Santorum's campaign. "I am only doing this for Rick Santorum. I believe in Rick Santorum's leadership that much."
Santorum is trailing in public polls to his Democratic challenger Bob Casey, Jr.
Apparently Miller just couldn't pass up yet another opportunity to betray his former party, much as he did when he spoke in support of George Bush's reelection at the GOP convention. He's hasn't exactly backed a winner this time; not only is Santorum behind in the polls, but he's hard up for funds for TV ads in this critical final week before the election. Frankly, it's hard to imagine what Miller can possibly do for Santorum's sinking campaign that a doorstop couldn't do, and with considerably less anger.
(Cross-posted.)
Happy Halloween from President Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Soon we will be celebrating one of our holidays, one that typifies for me much of what we mean by the American freedom. That will be Halloween. On that evening I would particularly like to be, of course, with my grandchildren, for Halloween is one of those times when we Americans actually encourage the little individuals to be free to do things rather as they please. I hope you and your children have a gay evening and let's all give a little prayer that their childish pranks will be the only kind of mischief with which we Americans must cope.” (Link.)
Back to the Reality
A quirky sci-fi adventure about a time-traveling stem cell research advocate named Marty McFly and a hideous monster named Biff Limbaugh. (Because when the Shakers ask, the Shakers receive.)
Fin.
The Narrow Window When No Means No
Jessica finds what she describes as "perhaps one of the scariest rulings I've ever seen," and I totally agree:
An appellate court said Maryland's rape law is clear -- no doesn't mean no when it follows a yes and intercourse has begun.This is truly, deeply disturbing. As Jessica says: "So ladies, once it's in, it's in. Ain't nothing you can do about it. Changed your mind? Suck it up. He's hurting you? Oh, sorry -- should have thought of that before. After all, it's not like your body is yours or anything." Patently absurd. What kind of FUBAR ethical paradigm allows someone to argue that consent to have sex means you cannot change your mind if you're being hurt or forced to do something you don't want to do or any one of a number of other reasons, including just not bloody enjoying it?
A three-judge panel of the Court of Special Appeals Monday threw out a rape conviction saying that a trial judge in Montgomery County erred when he refused to answer the jury's question on that very point.
The appeals court said that when the jury asked the trial judge if a woman could withdraw her consent after the start of sex, the jury should have been told she could not. The ruling said the law is not ambiguous and is a tenet of common-law.
The entire premise of this decision appears to be that women are not active players in the sexual act, but instead consent to turn their bodies over to their partners, who are then free to do with it whatever they please until they're damn well ready to be finished. Feministing commenter Thomas says: "They have made a policy choice that a man has a right to orgasm once intercourse begins and that this right supercedes a woman's right to decide who gets to be within the boundaries of her own body. That is a policy choice that cannot be justified except as bareknuckled patriarchy." Absolutely spot-on.
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
You Chose a Child Molester's Jam!
Right. I'm about to do the frug on some very thin ice here, so let me just spell out a few things right off the bat.
1. I do not support or condone anyone that sexually assaults a child.
2. I am not in any way suggesting that convicted sex offenders should not be punished for what they did.
3. I believe that extra caution and taking steps to protect children from being assaulted is a good thing.
Okay. We have that out of the way? Let's dance.
I've kind of touched upon this subject before, in a post I wrote critiquing the MSNBC "To Catch a Predator." I'm of the opinion that the big bugaboo in America right now (aside from those eeevil terrorists, of course) are sexual "predators." There is a lot of media attention being paid right now to pedophiles, in particular. From MSNBC to Mark Foley, molestation is getting a lot of air time.
So, my clock alarm goes off yesterday morning; I have it set to news radio. The story at that moment was reporting that the Illinois Attorney General had issued a press release suggesting that parents go to the Illinois Sex Offender Registry website to look up convicted sex offenders in their area, and plan a safe trick-or-treating route. I also saw, in googling for this press release, that Illinois isn't the only state making this suggestion. In fact, in Maryland, sex offenders are being ordered to keep off their porch lights on Halloween, and are not allowed to decorate their homes. Similar orders are being handed out in other states.
Now... on one hand, I think this is intelligent. By showing a little forethought, and advocating parental responsibility, they are hoping to prevent children from being exposed to possible risk.
On the other hand, I have a few problems with this.
A little background: A guy I work with recently went out on a date. The guy he dated is a cop, and one of his duties is to go "undercover." Basically, he does a plainclothes patrol in "cruisy areas;" namely, a public place where men go for anonymous sex. He'll hang around in this area, and if some slob flashes him, he's immediately arrested and taken in. Men that are caught in this manner having consensual sex (in other words, not flashing the cop, but caught by the cop) are also arrested. Now, my issues with this go a little further; the whole thing smacks of entrapment to me, but my big problem is this: when Flashy is convicted, he's convicted as a sex offender. And who does he get lumped in with? Child molesters.
Now, it could of course be argued that anyone that would flash someone in public needs to be kept away from children, and on one level, I agree. However, I would also argue that some, if not most of these men haven't the slightest interest in any sort of sexual act with a child. But now that they have been registered as a sex offender, they are cemented with that stigma, permanently. And if a concerned parent finds this person on the R.S.O. (I'm getting really tired of typing registered sex offender) website, they will immediately assume that this person is a child molester, when they may in fact just be a closeted, horny guy. So, because he got a little desperate, went to a cruisy area, saw this really hot, buff guy and assumed he was there for the same reason... he's going to be thought of as a pedophile by his neighborhood. The R.S.O. website does not describe the crime of the convicted person. Therefore, because people are looking at the website specifically for people that have sexually assaulted children, and because of the current mindset in this country that sexual offenders are all pedophiles, and the fear of assault that's been whipped up with all the media coverage, the conclusion will always be drawn that anyone on the site is a child molester.
Again, I'm not saying this might be someone you would want giving your kid a tootsie roll, but I'm also concerned about people being slapped with a stigma that they don't necessarily deserve.
Which brings me to my second point. When you're encouraging every parent to search for sexual predators in their neighborhoods, there is always the possibility of "witch hunt" mentality. Now, when I was told that the men mentioned above were being labeled as R.S.O., I was pretty surprised. I always assumed that conviction was for the more severe and heinous sexual crimes; rape, pedophilia, etc. In this case, a crime that seemed to me to be pretty benign was being lumped in with the lowest of the low. What if a neighborhood's citizens got together and decided to run one of these guys out of town? Or worse?
I'll throw in another bit. Statutory rapists are also listed as registered sex offenders. So, an 18-year-old guy that gets caught having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend (or whatever ages would be appropriate for a particular state's consent laws) would also be lumped in with (and most likely thought of as) the pedophiles. When non-consensual and consensual sexual crimes are, according to the state, equal, sending people to keep tabs on the R.S.O.s in their area could lead to some bad situations.
Again, I'm not saying that statutory rape is fine and dandy.
I'm all for keeping children safe. I'm all for working to eliminate possibilities of children being exposed to the risk of sexual assault. However, I also feel that the nature of sexual crimes have to be defined a little more accurately when people are listed as registered sex offenders. I don't think it's really fair to label someone a pedophile, when they're really just a "pervert."
(Post title taken from one of my favorite Kids in the Hall sketches. The fabulously creepy "Boogeyman" painting was done by Michael Whelan. Thanks to Shakes. These are the cross-posts I know, I know... )
Happy Halloween—here’s some Jesus Christ!
Why give out candy when you can proselytize?
Bruce Watters used to simply hand out candy on Halloween, just like his neighbors in St. Petersburg, Fla., until he decided the holiday's ghoulishness really didn't jibe with his Christian beliefs.Wow—lucky kids. I never got any religious tracts when I was trick-or-treating. When we built our Halloween bonfires around which to dance in Satanic rituals, sometimes it took hours to find all the kindling.
But rather than skip the neighborhood ritual, he's put a Christian stamp on it. For the third year in a row, kids will leave his porch with a piece of candy, plus a religious tract - a concise, colorful handout telling how to attain salvation through Jesus Christ.
"If they want supernatural, let's give them Godly supernatural," Mr. Watters says.
…Halloween, long associated with pagan traditions, is now high season for an old American tradition of evangelizing through tracts. The nation's four major publishers of tracts say they sell more at Halloween than at any other time of year, including Christmas and Easter. And the push is on to grow the seasonal market. This year, thanks to new glow-in-the-dark tracts, the Texas-based American Tract Society expects to set a new Halloween record by shipping out more than 4 million tracts.
Buoying tract sales, observers say, is a rising tide of evangelical passion for Halloween rituals. Four years ago in Frisco, Texas, for instance, most churches either shunned the holiday as a perceived festival of mischief or staged their own alternative event.Look for my new book Culture Warrior: Protecting Halloween from the Religious Right and Other Tales of Progressive Fun Protection on bookshelves next spring.
This year, at least 11 congregations are equipping members with tracts for doorbell-answering adults and trick-or-treating kids to hand out.Look for my follow-up book How to Turn Your Kid Into a Lunatic in One Easy Step on bookshelves next summer.
For his part, Watters regards Halloween as "a satanic celebration" that he tries to counter by displaying a cross and an angel statue on his porch. He also asks parents for permission to pray over their children.I can imagine he’s got loads of takers.
"After we saw the evil side of this night, we decided we were going to bring light to it," Pam Malone says. The Malones now set up tables in their front yard, play recorded Christian music, and hand out doughnuts along with collections of scripture verses to trick-or-treaters.I like how they still hand out sweeties along with the unsolicited religious dogma.
Of course people are free to do whatever they like, but I find this just ridiculous. There are plenty of Christian parents who don’t want their kids exposed to conservative religious rubbish, no less non-Christian parents. Two Halloweens ago, my nephew got two Christian books in his goodie bag that represented a version of Christianity about which my sister was decidedly unthrilled. She took the books away from him immediately—and this is a kid who’s been to church every week of his life and attends a Christian school. (You can see the books here and here.)
Something tells me the people handing out this stuff wouldn’t be too happy if their kids came home with an Islamic tract or pamphlet on atheism in their bags, so why do they presume that it’s fine and dandy to hand out their crap which might be greeted with the same animosity? Oh right—because they don’t give a flying shit about anyone else’s beliefs.
When I read about stuff like this, I can’t help thinking about how the religious right is always going on about the radical homosexual agenda, and how gays try to recruit children for “their lifestyle.” Yet in all my many gay-filled years, with all the time I’ve spent in gay bars, at gay film festivals, baking in the sun at the gay pride parade, and hanging out with queers of every description, I’ve never met anyone who had joined up as part of a recruitment program—and no one ever tried to recruit me. (Maybe I should be offended!) On the other hand, the religious right is constantly trying to recruit people, especially children, and here we have the perfect example of a campaign to do precisely what they erroneously accuse gays of doing. Worse yet, it’s a stealth campaign, where unsuspecting kids go to their doors on a hunt for candy and walk away instead with a religious tract. (Or, in some cases, the candy they’re after and a religious tract to boot, as the proselytizers treat them then throw in a trick for good measure.)
Like I said, people are free to do what they like, but as long they’re going to do it, they need to can the projection. It isn’t liberals who are commandeering holidays, and it isn’t gays who are out on recruitment drives. And it isn’t we who are shoving our lifestyles in anyone else’s faces—no less in kids’ Halloween bags.
Rumsfeld as Metaphor
. . . in just two words, you have the Bush administration's approach to the war in Iraq. Indeed, you have the Republicans' theory of government:
Back off.
Donald Rumsfeld personifies the arrogant incompetence of the Bush junta. What two words would you use?
Fox Fires Back
At an event for Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, Michael J. Fox explained, in no uncertain terms, his decision to keep campaigning on behalf of candidates who support funding stem cell research:
As you may know, I had a run-in with a less than compassionate conservative. I guess I'm not supposed to speak with you until my symptoms go away, or maybe I'm supposed to go away, but I'm not going to go away and neither are the millions of Americans and their families who live with these diseases...Meanwhile, in the battle between Fox and that less than compassionate conservative, Americans have chosen their sides—and they aren't too keen on Rushbo, who gets a 26% approval rating to Fox's 75%. Says John Amato, who’s got the video at Crooks & Liars, "I guess attacking people with diseases isn't a very popular move." Huh. Who woulda thunk it?
The stem cell policy of President Bush that was supported by Senator DeWine is a rejection of the future of medical research. Well, forgive me for this, but it's time we get back to our future...a vote for Sherrod Brown for Senate is a vote for hope and for a better quality of life for millions of Americans...
I'm asking you as an advocate, and a husband and a father to all get active and to stand up for what is right—what is right for the future of hundreds of millions of Americans who have or are touched by debilitating diseases.
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
Guh.
So, I have the tube on last night, and I see a political ad... I can't even remember who it was for, or what it was about in general. I was too busy groaning in disgust.
In this ad, Barack Obama appears, and states how he and Tammy Duckworth support John McCain's "plan for immigration," and how he is against amnesty.
Barack Obama and John McCain. Together at last.
I think I may need to go back to bed for the next twenty years or so.
Update: Here it is.
Question of the Day
What's your least favorite traditional Halloween treat?
Mine's got to be those popcorn balls, followed closely by candy corn. Ugh. I have a terrible sweet tooth, but candy corn is too sweet even for me.
Daily Highlights
Waveflux: The Wrong Fairy Tale
Shakes: Ask a Stupid Question...
Shakes: America 2.0: The Military State
Shakes: Culture of Life
Waveflux: We're, uh, Number One
Paul the Spud: Random Annoyances
Shakes: Calling All Allies
Shakes: And Then What?
Shakes: Crikey
Shakes: Your Kickass Economy at Work
Good Lord
I just received the following email from Angelos:
Subject: vlhjkbs bdlfghjkasgr losdhfbvpiaesobrgiaeyubrgpbaeyrgNeither did I. There's nothing I could add to his commentary, except perhaps a bunch of four-letter words.
I have nothing else to say about this.
Go to listen to ads.
Try #17.
That's the one we've heard about.
I didn't realize there were 24 of these fucking things.
Your Kickass Economy at Work
Temporary homeless in U.S. face tough choices. Right now, there's not a single housing market in the United States in which a one-bedroom apartment is affordable on the federal minimum wage. How many temporary homeless people do you think are able to get jobs paying significantly more than the minimum wage?
A more accurate headline would be "Temporary homeless in US face left with no choices at all."
Crikey
So, apparently, a popular Halloween costume this year is Steve Irwin, otherwise known as The Crocodile Hunter. Of course, the point isn’t to go as Irwin the man, but Irwin the victim of a tragic death. Here, Bill Maher demonstrates the idea at a Halloween party (via):
You know, I’ve got a pretty gallows sense of humor, but this is just ridiculously rude. I’ve seen people at Halloween parties who were supposed to be JFK, made up to look like they had holes blown in their heads, and I found that distasteful, too. It’s one thing to dress up as a nonspecific victim of some type of violent death (“guy with knife sticking out of head”), but when you start mocking the deaths of real people, who lived real lives that meant something, and died tragically—for real—it just seems to contribute to a sense of human disposability. Maybe I’m just the oversensitive prude here, but there’s got to be some middle ground in between the “All life is precious” bullshit spewed by the anti-choice and anti-science brigade and the “Fuck you—nothing’s off-limits” attitude affected by costumes like the one pictured above. There are too many places on this planet where life really is disposable, which is why dressing up like a starving Sudanese man or a mangled dead Chinese baby girl aren't funny costumes.
I’m all for irreverence, but that picture just makes me sad.
'My ideal woman is a man. Sorry, mother.'
They Call Me Naughty Lola is a new book collecting the most “witty and eccentric lonely hearts ads from the London Review of Books… It features some of the most brilliant and often absurd ads from what's been billed as the world's funniest—and most erudite—lonely-hearts column.”
At the link are some examples from the book. My favorite, aside from the one serving as the title of this post, is: “'Bald, short, fat and ugly male, 53, seeks short-sighted woman with tremendous sexual appetite.” Ha.
I’ve never actually placed a personal ad, although Mr. Shakes and I met online (just not at a dating site), and I was always impressed that he was willing to chat up a girl whose handle was “sarcasticunt.”
And Then What?
Ditto LeMew (still the smartest French kitten in all the land). I, too, don’t understand how, exactly, Democrats should "reach out to disaffected evangelicals,” beyond what they’re already doing, including, not least of which, being an almost exclusively Christian party. If evangelicals still aren’t willing to get on board with the Democrats at this point, it’s either because they’re still held in the thrall of a spin machine that turns grand fictions like “liberals want to criminalize Christmas” into conventional wisdom, a situation over which Democrats have very little control, or because they don’t care for the particular brand of Christianity practiced by most Democrats, which isn’t something the Democrats can do much to change, either. Are they supposed to visit the home of every disaffected evangelical and reeducate them on the fundamentals of Christianity? “See here, Jim—Christians are actually meant to give a shit about the poor!”
At some point, people like Amy Sullivan are just going to have to face the fact that there are a lot of evangelicals who are fucked off with the Republican Party because they’re not conservatively Christian enough—and there’s no way in hell the Democrats are going to appeal to those people who are constantly whinging about the marginalization of Christians. And why should they try? Those people are barking lunatics.
We’ve got a Christian president with an almost unanimously Christian administration who relentlessly pander to conservative Christians, including nominating three openly Christian justices to the Supreme Court (two of whom made it to the bench), an almost entirely Christian Congress who start each session with a prayer, guaranteed freedom of religion, money that says “In God We Trust,” a pledge of allegiance that describes us as “one nation under God,” television networks who will accept advertising from conservative religious groups but not liberal political groups, schools who are incorporating a religious belief into science classes, gays being denied marriage in order to protect its “sanctity,” conscience clauses for pharmacists and healthcare providers, religion-based residential communities being built, Museums of Creationism springing up, laws still on the books that respect Christians’ holy day (like in Indiana, where you still can’t shop for a car or buy booze on a Sunday), churches not required to pay taxes, Christmas recognized as a national holiday, and on…and on…and on. Anyone who looks at the American landscape and sees a problem for Christians is delusional.
Meanwhile, you couldn’t get elected to national office as an atheist or pagan, but I don’t see any hand-wringing about how the Democrats (or Republicans) need to reach out to them—probably because atheists and pagans don’t give a shit what box you check on a form as long you share their policy views. Neither, as it happens, does any Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Sikh, or agnostic, or Pastafarian) who doesn’t want to legislate their religious beliefs.
I don't give a good shit about someone who needs pathetic demonstrations that the people for whom they’re voting are sufficiently religious. If you don’t believe that someone who doesn’t subscribe to an approved denomination can be moral, and do believe that someone who simply assures you he’s a Christian, even if he doesn’t act like it, must be moral, then you’re a fucking idiot, and the last thing we need in this country is another party who contorts itself into an unrecognizable shape to placate the obstinately idiotic.
Calling All Allies
Another horrible story about horrible parents:
Lisa Holland cried quietly as jurors found her guilty of first-degree felony murder and child abuse in the death last year of her adopted son Ricky. … Prosecutors said Holland struck the boy in the head [with a hammer] and then neglected to seek help as he slowly died of his injury.Once the 7-year-old had died, the father dumped his body in a game area, and the parents reported the boy missing. After a massive search, the father eventually confessed and led authorities to the body. He pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and testified against his wife, who has now been found guilty of first-degree felony murder and child abuse.
What I find particularly horrifying about this story is that the father came home from military training a week before the boy died to find him “with a cut on his head, listless and unable to walk.” During that week, the mother, who had inflicted the injury, didn’t take him for help, but neither did the father. And his reason is just astounding:
He said he didn't take him to a doctor because he didn't want a confrontation with his wife and thought his son would get better.Protecting his masculinity was more important than protecting his son.
"I didn't want her to start pushing me around in front of the kids," Tim Holland said.
This goes back to a lot of stuff we’ve been talking about lately regarding redefining manhood, and highlights, so tragically, the pitfalls of a traditional model which defines the masculine in opposition to (and superiority over) the feminine. It wasn’t as important to this man to be good or ethical as it was to be dominant. He didn’t want to get “pushed around” by a woman in front of his children, and, though the cost of such appearance of strength was the death of his child, it was a price he was willing to pay.
Certainly, this is an extreme example, but the sacrifice of honor and decency to protect a dignity which originates from a subjugating and oppositional definition of manhood is not rare. At rape trials, male witnesses have said they didn’t step in to help a female victim because they were afraid of what the male rapists would think of them. At gay bashing trials, straight male witnesses have said they didn’t step in to help a gay male victim because they were afraid of being marginalized as queer themselves. So powerful is the urge to protect against the possibility of humiliation, of having one’s manhood undermined, that it can supercede even the associated corollary of traditional manhood that a man’s role is to protect women and children. In the true story of a gang rape, The Accused, men cheer each other on as they take turns raping a female victim in a bar, in full view of other men who do nothing to stop it—and they egg on a hesitant young man to participate, by questioning his manhood.
That we are still seeing such assertions of masculinity playing out with devastating consequences further underlines the need for a progressive men’s movement to begin redefining what it means to be a man, without rooting that definition in oppression of and opposition to The Other. It needs to be men who take up this cause in the form of a vibrant and organized movement, because, as evidenced by this case, misogynist men not only don’t want to listen to women; they actually find it emasculating, prompting an ugly backlash. They’re not going to learn anything from women, and certainly not feminist women. I understand the need, as suggested several times recently, for men to feel as though they can protect women (and children), and the best way to do that is to become our allies.
Random Annoyances
(Forgive my recent absence... I've been attending a conference for work and was away from the computer)
It's a beautiful day in Chicago today... 68 degrees and sunny, and yet, I'm irritable. Partially because my allergies have gone completely berserk, but also because I keep running into little things that are very annoying. For example:
Billboard seen off the Kennedy expressway yesterday:
Don't get it? Read it out loud.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, considering the venue, but jeez...
Speaking of objectifying women, why not start them out early with the Drama Queen Major Flirt Costume? It's in the top five, after all... and don't forget to slather on the makeup and lipstick.
Creepy.
Britain Hires Al Gore
“Unchecked global warming will devastate the global economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression, according to a major British report released Monday that seeks to quantify the costs and benefits of action as well as inaction. British Treasury chief Gordon Brown, who commissioned the report and who could very well become Britain's next prime minister when Tony Blair steps down next year, said former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who has dedicated himself to warning about global warming, would advise the British government on climate change.”
Remember when we hired Gore?
Good thing the British don’t have the US Supreme Court to step in and get all Donald “You’re Fired!” Trump on their decision.
We're, uh, number one
St. Louisans flush with pride over their baseball team and its world championship have a more dubious distinction to their account today, one that probably doesn't warrant a parade down Market Street. The Gateway City tops the nation in crime, and here, as in baseball, we...uh, beat Detroit:
St. Louis named most dangerous U.S. cityA surge in violence made St. Louis the most dangerous city in the country, leading a trend of violent crimes rising much faster in the Midwest than in the rest of nation, according to an annual list.
The city has long fared poorly in the rankings of the safest and most dangerous American cities compiled by Morgan Quitno Press. Violent crime surged nearly 20 percent in St. Louis from 2004 to last year, when the rate of such crimes rose most dramatically in the Midwest, according to FBI figures released in June.
"It's just sad the way this city is," resident Sam Dawson said. "On the news you hear killings, someone's been shot."
The ranking, being released Monday, came as the city was still celebrating Friday's World Series victory at the new Busch Stadium. St. Louis has been spending millions of dollars on urban renewal even as the crime rate climbs.
Mayor Francis Slay did not return calls to his office seeking comment Sunday.
You bet your ass Slay didn't return any calls. He was probably too busy cheering Scott Spezio. Look for City Hall and the police department to issue strenuous objections to Morgan Quitno's methodology - the weighting of particular crimes measured, not including St. Louis County in the metro roundup, and so forth. That's been our standard response in the past. But it's an ill wind indeed that doesn't blow somebody some good news:
The bad news for St. Louis was good for Camden, New Jersey, which in 2005 was named the most dangerous city for the second year in a row.Camden Mayor Gwendolyn Faison said Sunday she was thrilled to learn that her city no longer topped the most-dangerous list.
"You made my day!" said Faison, who has served since 2000. "There's a new hope and a new spirit."
Camden will doubtless throw its own parade shortly.
(Cross-posted from inside the panic room...)
Culture of Life
Let’s file this under faith-based conservation: If God really loved these animals and plants, he wouldn’t let them get all endangered and shit.
A senior Bush political appointee at the Interior Department has rejected staff scientists' recommendations to protect imperiled animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act at least six times in the past three years, documents show.Awesome. To put this contempt for protecting Endangered Species into perspective, under the Bush administration, only 56 species have been listed as endangered—less than 10 a year. Under Clinton, 512 species, just over 60 a year, were listed, and under Daddy Bush, 234, just under 60 a year, were listed.
In addition, staff complaints that their scientific findings were frequently overruled or disparaged at the behest of landowners or industry have led the agency's inspector general to look into the role of Julie MacDonald, who has been deputy assistant secretary of the interior for fish and wildlife and parks since 2004, in decisions on protecting endangered species.
…In several instances, MacDonald wrote sarcastic comments in the margins of the documents, questioning why scientists were portraying a species' condition as so bleak. When scientists raised the possibility that a proposed road might degrade the greater sage grouse's habitat, which is scattered through 11 Western states, MacDonald wrote: "Has nothing to do with sage grouse. This belongs in a treatise on 'Why roads are bad'?"
So we can add wildlife to the very long list of things that Bush Conservatives aren’t really interested in conserving.
Super Duper
Supposedly, Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) plans to announce today that he's considering a 2008 presidential run.
Hunter, a 13-term incumbent who represents the San Diego suburbs, is a strong conservative who's focused on supporting the military, particularly the country's troops, and on stopping illegal immigration. He's a stubborn advocate for those causes, pushing for completion of the western portion of a U.S.-Mexico border fence over objections from Democrats and environmentalists.Not only would Duncan Hunter make a fantabulous president, his presidency would have the added novelty of its officeholder’s name being a homonym for his policy against uppity feminazi enemy combatants like me.
America 2.0: The Military State
Not good:
Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."Read the whole thing.
President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."
Ask a Stupid Question...
Here’s a question I’m so tired of hearing that each time a war supporter now utters it, I feel as though I may slip into a coma at any moment: “Do you want us to win in Iraq?”
In the past couple of days, Lynne Cheney has directed this question at Wolf Blitzer and Bill O’Reilly has directed it at David Letterman, two good little soldiers who have in their debate arsenals nothing but rejoinders issued straight from GOP Talking Points Headquarters. Any attempt to point out the question is ludicrous on its face is met with some variation on what O’Reilly lobbed back at Letterman: “It’s an easy question.” To his credit, Letterman didn’t back down, but instead replied, “It's not easy for me because I'm thoughtful.”
Amen, brother.
I despair that patriotism and pragmatism have become mutually exclusive. Before that “easy” question can be answered by anyone with two brain cells still knocking together, a few other question have to be answered, like What is the definition of winning? and Can we win it? and If so, how are we going to? You know, the kind of questions that certain people resistant to the hypnotic combination of flag-waving and fear-mongering were asking before the war, people who were dismissed as unpatriotic cuckoos. To continue to question whether a person with legitimate questions and concerns wants to win is to obfuscate the frustrating reality that those other questions still have not been answered, three years on.
The implication has been, since before we ever marched into Iraq, that people with “hard” questions never wanted us to win, and still don’t. But speaking as someone who has never viewed “Do you want us to win in Iraq?” a fair question under these circumstances, wanting us to win was never as important to me to understanding whether we could. I have never suffered from the misapprehension that my will and desire to win could magically overcome a lack of competence and ability to win. I never felt able to root for an illusion.
(Crossposted at Ezra's place.)
People were paying attention to the wrong fairy tale
Cardinal Nation hopes ESPN's Keith Law can get over the heartbreaking Redbird victory
It's no fun being the ogre in someone else's fairy tale. The St. Louis Cardinals did that in 2004 - losing to the Red Sox in four straight and having to watch Boston clinch in the middle of the old Busch Stadium.
This year - with another darling of destiny, the universally-favored Tigers, awaiting them - the Cardinals said something along the lines of "Screw that." It was entirely improbable, but not impossible...because, as FOX Sports kept telling us, you really can't script October.
The new Busch Stadium has been officially christened. There's your fairy tale ending.
And hey - it finally stopped raining in Mudville. Just in time for the parade.
(Cross-posted.)
Today is a Good Day
Today is a good day because it one of those beautiful, crisp, sunny autumn days where the breeze coming in the window is cool and smells of burning leaves on distant lawns. And it's a good day because I'm going to be spending time this evening with one Mr. Paul the Spud, whose charm and wit and profound decency, as evidenced within the pages of this blog, make richer the lives of everyone who knows him. And it's a good day because today I got tickets to see Morrissey at the Aragon Ballroom, which is not only one of my favorite venues in the city, but also the very first place I ever saw him perform.
We'll be together again soon, darling.
You may not realize that this makes it a good day for you, too. But it does. Because had I not gotten these tickets, there would have been hell to pay across the land. I would have sent plagues of locusts. I would have turned rivers into blood. I would have killed the firstborn of every family in America—except my parents', which would have meant suicide. Although, if I hadn't gotten tickets, that may have been in the cards, too.
Okay, maybe not. But I would have been really fucked off.
All devastation has, however, been averted. And my record of having not missed a single Morrissey show in Chicago for 15 years remains unbroken.
Letterman vs. O'Reilly
Crooks and Liars has the video.
What I love about this is that O'Reilly seems to think that he has something to tell Letterman about global politics because he's the host of a political talk show and Letterman's only the host of a variety show. The difference between them is not the content of their shows, but that Letterman knows he's only an entertainer and O'Reilly likes to pretend he isn't.
Menny the Menace
Love this post from Jennifer. I imagine parents especially will like it, but those of us who refuse to grow up will appreciate it, too.
Saved
Or In Which I Barely Manage to Stop Myself from Ruining Gospel Hour and Humiliating My Parents
Last night, Mr. Shakes and I did something best described as outside our typical social activities—we went to a gospel concert.
The reason we attended is because we love my mother, who is a member of what was the concert’s opening act, a local trio of three ladies who have been singing together at church for nearly 30 years. Mama Shakes is the soprano. And they were very good. They always are.
The 4th Annual Gospel Singing Celebration was held in the small auditorium of the high school and began at seven o’clock. Mr. Shakes and I arrived early, and exchanged our tickets for a program, introducing the acts and filled with local sponsors. The two-page center spread had been bought by the local GOP, whose candidates for the upcoming election were pictured and named, centered around a flag, the ubiquitous elephant logo, and, in large block lettering, “The Republican Lineup: When Family and Values Matter.”
Did I mention I really love my mom?
The show started promptly as the emcee, a gospel minister from Nashville, came out onstage. He began with a curious opening, telling the audience, approximately, “Don’t make fun of my voice now. It’s been this way all my life, and I’ve been called ma’am over the phone more times than I care to count.” The audience laughed. Mr. Shakes and I looked at each other. What was he talking about? His voice wasn’t particularly high. I listened to him speak a bit more. Ah—I get it. It’s not that his voice is high; it’s that it’s effeminate. Apparently, this is something that needs comment in front of a gospel crowd, lest anyone whisper that he “talks like a fag.”
He then introduced my mom’s group, and proceeded to forget my mom’s name. Idiot.
After her trio performed, Mr. Shakes and I considered sneaking out, like we usually do, rather than stay for the other acts—traveling groups also from Nashville. But we were seated close to the front, since I’d been positioned to take photos while Mama Shakes was onstage, so we decided to stay. My mom joined us and sat in front of me; I ran my fingers through her hair and lightly dragged my fingernails across her scalp, which she loves and relaxes her.
The emcee came back out onstage, and bantered while they took up a collection. He started talking about his wife, and then said, managing to be both snide and jovially smug, in the manner of the ingratiatingly self-righteous who assume the accord of their listeners, “We got married a long time ago, back before you had to tell people that marriage is between a man and a woman. Did you ever think you’d see the day?!”
I literally had to clench my fists and grind my teeth, putting every nerve in my body on full alert, to keep myself from acting on my immediate impulse, which was to scream “BIGOT!!!” at the top of my fucking lungs. Instead, I tersely said, “Right, that’s it. Time for us to go.” I kissed my mom, who understood, goodbye, and Mr. Shakes and I left—to the sounds of the audience laughing and applauding the emcee’s routine, which had segued into jokes about women commandeering the remote.
On the way home, Mr. Shakes and I fumed. Didn’t anyone ever mention to this guy that not everyone, not even all Christians, share his views on gay marriage? Peculiar public relations strategy. With evangelicals on the back foot trying to convince the country they’re not bigots, perhaps a good first step is to, you know, not be bigots. A perplexing outreach plan, as well; I imagine the organizers of a gospel concert don’t hope they’ll send people off feeling ill will.
But, then again, in that auditorium full of people who believe that you’re supposed to love everyone and treat them equally, it was only the godless duo from Shakes Manor who stood up and walked out as discrimination was celebrated.
Silly Amusements
Daily Highlights
Zack: Stop Hitting Yourself
Shakes: How desperate is George Allen?!
Shakes: Through the Looking Glass
Shakes: Blacklisted
The Heretik: Sacred BS
Waveflux: Scrunch
Shakes: "Tradition" is the Ultimate Dog Whistle
Shakes: 18 Months for Bush Official
Shakes: Douchery
Friday Cat Blogging
Matilda ferociously guards the pizza box which is her new favorite napping spot.
I've been trying to throw it out for days, but every time I reach for it, she runs
over and sits on it.
Douchery
"No doubt in my mind with your help Dave Lamberti will be the next United States congressman." — President Bush at a fundraiser for Jeff Lamberti. Think Progress has the video.
It’s not his fault, though. From what I understand, "Dave" and "Jeff" are nearly indistinguishable to the human ear when it's attached to a head planted firmly in one’s ass.
Bush Administration Official Heads to Jail
18 months, bitchezFormer Bush administration official David Safavian was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison Friday for concealing his relationship with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.Safavian told the judge that Abramoff manipulated him and cried while he begged for leniency. Aww. Somebody call the waaaaaaaaaaambulance!
…Safavian was convicted in June of lying to investigators about his relationship with the lobbyist while Safavian was chief of staff in the General Services Administration. He helped provided Abramoff with details about GSA projects and offered advice on dealing with the agency.
“Tradition” is the Ultimate Dog Whistle
The GOP is the party that will protect traditional values. That’s what we hear all the time. Don’t want the radical homosexual agenda to render marriage and families obsolete? Vote Republican! Don’t want abortion to be used by soulless hussies as a form of birth control? Vote Republican! Don’t want erase our identity as a Christian nation? Vote Republican! Don’t want to see Christmas and Easter made illegal? Vote Republican!
Never mind whether the threats aren’t true; the message is what’s important, and it’s quite clear: Republicans will protect your way of life and what you believe in. They’ll protect tradition.
Liberals see an American tradition of slowly but surely making good on that promise of equality for every citizen, but we tend to call it “progress” and ourselves “progressives.” Social conservatives, on the other hand, define American tradition as the good old days, when there was no question that men were superior to women, straights were superior to gays, and whites were superior to everyone else. They want to preserve and protect that “tradition,” and, though some of them call themselves culture warriors, mostly they call themselves “traditionalists.”
Not only is that shorter than “sexist, racist, homophobic retrofuck jackholes,” but it sounds a lot nicer, too.
“Tradition” is the kind of word that appeals to people who don’t pay attention all that much, but might have a notion that the world is changing more rapidly than they can comfortably keep up with, who have heard some things about how feminism is responsible for the breakdown in the family and maybe that explains why all of Junior’s friends are such smart-alecks; maybe their mothers are feminists. “Tradition” is a word that plays well with that mushy middle, who can’t be bothered to examine anything too closely.
But it’s an even better word for speaking to the unabashed bigots of the base, reassuring them that they’re right to hate women and gays and brown people, and promising them, without saying as much, they’ll be protected from the onslaught of the radical hordes. America’s great tradition of conferring undeserved privilege on you won’t fail. Not on our watch. “Tradition” is the ultimate dog whistle to the social conservative base.
In Tennessee, where the bitter Senate race between white Republican Bob Corker and black Democrat Harold Ford, Jr. has escalated into one of the ugliest campaigns in recent memory, the GOP has sent out a flyer to voters which says across its top: “Vote early to preserve your way of life.” Already it’s being called out for its nefarious implications, as well it should be—when social conservatives issue promises to protect tradition, our first response should be pointing out the tradition to which they refer is not worth protecting.
Proponents of “traditionalism” like to conjure images of the America that most Americans know from shows like Leave It to Beaver, but never experienced firsthand—it is a rare family indeed who never struggled for money, weathered a layoff, suffered an extended illness or loss, or fell out with each other, not to mention had no friends of color, gay friends (or members), or, ya know, daughters. The reality that most families aren’t a picture of Christian white perfection, and never were, doesn’t stop people from imagining the opposite, however. And that’s what makes “tradition” the ultimate dog whistle—it doesn’t just send a covert message, but makes people come running, panting and wagging their tales eagerly in search of a reward, a glorious something that never existed.
Of course, it the nonexistence of this perfect America, in spite of illusions to the contrary, that created the beloved “traditions” of racism, sexism, and homophobia in the first place. The dangling enticement of a happy family, supported by a single secure and well-paid job, in which no one is wracked with disillusionment, dispossession, or a lack of opportunity—an invitation to join for which most Americans are never given the chance to RSVP—creates the resentment and scapegoating that are the foundations of social conservative traditionalism. If I don’t have everything I want, it’s got to be somebody’s fault. And the GOP is always happy to point a finger in the direction of the already-marginalized.
They’re the ones—they’re the ones taking away what you deserve, the uppity niggers, the Jews, the illegals, the feminazis, the purveyors of the radical homosexual agenda. It’s them, but if you vote for us, we’ll protect you.
It’s the siren song that has hoodwinked generations of poor white Americans into voting for the GOP—and while the GOP keeps distracting them with promises to preserve tradition, they continue to redistribute wealth up the ladder away from them, doing precisely the thing they accuse the scapegoats of doing. But as long as there are scapegoats, the real culprit goes unnoticed by its victims.
That’s the tradition the GOP likes. And that’s the tradition they really want to protect.
Then there are the people who know the score, who get the game that’s being played, and don’t care—because they just liked things better when women and people of color and the LGBT community were to be unseen and unheard. They don’t like them. They don’t like the thought of working for a woman, or the thought of a black man marrying a nice white girl, or seeing two men holding hands on the street. And they call themselves “traditionalists” to mask their overt hatred of a changing world where their aesthetic only exists in podunk backwaters in which they’d never deign to live. It’s the height of insolence, in their view, that a metropolis like New York or Chicago has the temerity to be metropolitan—sophisticated, multicultural, progressive.
What a conundrum for a culture warrior like Bill O’Reilly who has to stoop to making his millions working in a cesspool like New York City; thank Christ for the suburbs. And even there, you see working women and nouveau riche tokens and two confirmed bachelors living in the same house—shit. But at least it’s better than living in a trailer park in Indiana where the air reeks of meth and hillbillies might make you vomit with their desperate ignorance of foie gras and four-syllable words.
The GOP is happy to cater to these people, too.
Which is why, though we hear that the GOP is just using sexism or racism or homophobia as a marketing tool—they don’t really hate those people; look at all the women and minorities and gays in their ranks!—they’re still out there selling protection of tradition, blowing that dog whistle like there’s no tomorrow…because even if they don’t hate the disenfranchised, their base does. And without that base, there really won’t be a tomorrow for the GOP.
Scrunch
It's a terribly onomatopoeic word, scrunch. Sounds awfully cute spoken aloud, but when produced by the collision of objects in space - automobiles, say - it loses its cuteness really fast. I heard it in such a context while driving yesterday. It was the product of a pickup suddenly attempting to become one with my car.
In response, I produced some sounds of my own. Something along the lines of "Fuckity fuck fuck fuck."
Not that I feel the need to stress here my non-culpability in the accident, but it's astonishing how things can happen to you out of the friggin' blue, even while you're taking every precaution you can think of. It's a metaphor for something or other.
I'm fine. The car is driveable, but damaged. So now I'm walking the okay-dokey trail of Auto Insurance Gulch, and am reminded of what a colleague once said her own agent told her years ago: "Insurance isn't pretty." So far, though, the insurance machine seems to be working just as it should, and everyone I've spoken with has been helpful and competent. Fingers crossed that things stay that way.
In the meantime, I'm a touch paranoid about other motorists. Probably not a bad way to be.
(Always look both ways before cross-posting...)
Sacred BS
Shocking news. Republicans will send out the shock troops on gay marriage again. Bush uses all the buzz words. Activist. Institution. Sacred.
“Yesterday in New Jersey, we had another activist court issue a ruling that raises doubts about the institution of marriage,” Mr. Bush said at a luncheon at the Iowa State Fairgrounds that raised $400,000 for Mr. Lamberti.
The president drew applause when he reiterated his long-held stance that marriage was “a union between a man and a woman,” adding, “I believe it’s a sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended.”
Only two things can save a marriage: the two people who are married. The greatest threat to marriage remains married people who can't find a way to be themselves and be a couple at the same time. Nobody outside my home wrecked my marriage. I was responsible for at least half of that. The idea that The Party of Personal Responsibility thinks it needs to intrude on what it calls a sacred relationship profanes us all.
And don't forget: When everything else fails, re-focus on gay marriage. This is the greatest problem our society faces, usually when Republicans need some help in elections. Bad news?
The New Jersey court decision that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples was bad news for social conservatives -- the bad news they were hoping for.
Whether it will prove well and good when Bush goes to the well this time remains to be seen. Evangelicals have noticed Bush rallies them with no results.
More or less a hypocrite. Bush rips the court for agreeing with him.
The Heretik
Random Notes
You might want to watch Letterman tonight. Here's why: "Bill O’Reilly has taped an episode of CBS’s 'Late Show With David Letterman' set to air tonight. During the show, Letterman 'machine-guns him with insults,' prompting O’Reilly to say, 'It isn’t so black and white, Dave - it isn’t, ‘We’re a bad country. Bush is an evil liar.’ That’s not true.' Letterman responds, 'I didn’t say he was an evil liar. You’re putting words in my mouth, just the way you put artificial facts in your head!'"
And for those Sacha Baron Cohen fans who prefer Bruno to Borat, take heart: "Bruno, English comedian [Cohen]'s follow-up to next week's release Borat, triggered an intense bidding war in Hollywood on Thursday. By early evening, sources said leading contender Universal Pictures had offered more than $42 million for worldwide rights to the film."
Quote of the Day
"I could give a damn about Rush Limbaugh’s pity or anyone else’s pity. I’m not a victim."—Michael J. Fox
Blacklisted
NBC is refusing to air commercials for the Dixie Chicks’ new documentary Shut Up and Sing because the adverts are “disparaging of President Bush.”
"It's a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America," Harvey Weinstein said in a statement. "The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is profoundly un-American."Indeed. It makes one wonder how it is that Keith Olbermann has managed to stay on the air for as long as he has.
(Via.)
You Have GOT to be Kidding Me
Former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond has been appointed by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to "lead an influential study to develop policy solutions to America’s energy crisis."
Lee Raymond, who received "one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes," after Exxon made made the biggest profit of any company ever in 2005, $36 billion.
Lee Raymond, who said that he recognizes that high gasoline prices "have put a strain on Americans' household budgets" but nonetheless defended his companies huge profits.
Who made $6,000 an hour in 2004, yet said of high
gas prices during Congressional testimony, "We're
all in this together, everywhere in the world."
This fucking useless pig of a corporate welfare recipient, who shits money made at the gas pump and has oil pouring our his ears, has been appointed by the Bush administration to head up a study to find ways to solve our energy crisis. We are so far through the looking glass that I fear we’d need more fossil fuels than are left in the world to find our way back.
(Via.)
I’m being invoked in support of George Allen!
I find this at the National Review Online this morning, from Kathryn Jean Lopez (who last we saw defending Rush Limbaugh):
This comes from the Allen camp (which I've received secondhand from a few people because someone has been taken off the press list lest she see something she doesn't like):That’s it. No context or anything—so I’m wondering, “What the hell is this all about?”If you recall, a lot of lefty bloggers found a disturbing sexual scene in a book written by White House aid Scooter Libby, and raised a fuss about it. For instance, Shakespeare's Sister wrote: "What kind of mind comes up with this shit, dreams up scenarios where children are raped by animals to train them in prostitution? Oh, right. A conservative one. ... What I do see is a collection of perverts whose own sickness pours out of them given the slightest opportunity..."
Then I find via at Crooks and Liars that Drudge is running something about some novel George Allen’s opponent Jim Webb wrote (and McCain endorsed, ha) which, according to Drudge, “includes graphic underage sex scenes.” And evidently someone, somewhere, vaguely attached to the Allen camp, has invoked my criticism of Scooter Libby’s novel—as part of a larger post on how the sexual repression endorsed (and legislated, when possible) by conservatives breeds hypocrisy at best and true perversion at worst—to suggest Webb’s book would be objectionable even to liberals.
Of course, in Libby’s novel, “underage sex” was hardly the most objectionable material. It was more the part about children being raped by animals to train them in prostitution. Ahem.
Meanwhile, the funniest part about this is that Webb was still a Republican when he wrote the stinking book.
Stop hitting yourself
So, just watched a bit of the Michael J. Fox interview on the CBS News. It’s worth noting that the Grand Old Party, having well-sated themselves at the trough of megalomaniac villainy with their invasions of privacy, forged wars, constant influx of dirty monies and contempt for the common man so grotesque even Machiavelli would take a step back, have now decided to up the ante by partaking in some well-worn classics of grade school.
To wit: they’re picking on the handicapped kids.
Seriously, what the fuck is this shit? At this point in most novels, a reader would start rolling his or her eyes at the astonishing absurdities in play. It’s not enough that they’re responsible for thousands of deaths, not enough that they’ve eroded our civil liberties to the point where I feel I should ask for permission every time I use the toilet in my own apartment- they’re now so enthralled in their own pitiless mechanisms that they actually think accusing a sufferer of a major illness of “faking” is a well-considered, do-able strategy. What's next, driving by cemeteries and screaming "POSERS!!!" at the graves?
It’s inevitable, really. Too much power, too much ego, the cracks show up sooner or later. But I was amazed, watching Fox speaking clearly and eloquently as every part of his body shook, at how fundamental a mistake Limbaugh has made. No idea if it’ll bear much fruit, but the only way the Republicans could’ve come off worse is if footage surfaced of Dick Cheney’s baby ranch. (C’mon, we all know he’s got one. Crates stacked in endless rows, the constant low cries of the infants, the smart ones holding their breath and hoping, in some dim way they can’t entirely formulate, that the bald bastard with the sharp teeth will pass them by on his next feeding. Too bad for them, he eats the smart ones first.)
I really don’t have anything clever here to say. I guess I’m just still dumb enough to be shocked by some of this crap...
Question of the Day
First of all, forgive me for not doing the Daily Highlights today. Aside from the fact that there aren’t that many posts, I just can’t be arsed wrestling with Blogger any more. Every post has taken me hours to publish; I’m out of my mind with frustration at the moment. (Here is some explanation from Blogger; thanks SpaceCowboy.)
Now…onto the Question of the Day. Today’s inspiration is Scott Adams. Quite a remarkable and wonderful story.
What was the happiest day of your life?
Jesus Endorses Gay Rights
At least, that’s what I’m thinking, since Florida gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist is allegedly gay. That’s the same Charlie Crist whom Jesus endorsed when he came to the Reverend O’Neal Dozier in a dream, telling the good reverend: “There's something I want you to know. Charlie Crist will be the next governor of the state of Florida.” Amen.
Read-Ems
d r i f t g l a s s: To the One out of Ten
Ezra: Where's The Shame?
Alas, a Blog: Racist Pee Wee Football Fans Taunt Black Children
PZ: Context matters
Blue Girl: If You Want To Sing Out, Sing Out
(As always, please feel free to use as a blogwhoring thread.)
“Limbaugh's words are just sounds carrying an emotion”
Excellent post from Mannion on Limbaugh’s latest bit of wankery.
He’s spot-on when he says that Limbaugh “probably doesn't give people with disabilities a thought when he's not using them to stir up the pot on his show.” In fact, I doubt there’s any “probably” about it. I’m quite certain he doesn’t. And I’d be willing to bet that, when forced by virtue of proximity to consider a person with a disability, on a one-to-one basis, Limbaugh would treat him or her with the same respect that most of us would. Were he the kind of guy to ride the subway, I don’t think he’d use the ass cyst that got him out of Vietnam to justify keeping a seat on a crowded car from a disabled person.
To say that Limbaugh probably isn’t, in real life, the monster he plays on the radio isn’t a particularly nice thing to say about him, though it may seem so. In reality, it’s rather the opposite. I firmly believe he has the capacity to be a decent person (most people do); that he chooses to shed that decency as soon as a microphone is put in front of him speaks to the depth of his lack of character. It’s one thing to be the kind of person who truly hates the disabled by virtue of ignorance or masked fear or plain, old-fashioned intolerance; it’s quite another to affect that hatred in spite of knowing better to make money from the devotion of people who really do, by inflaming their repugnant beliefs.
Limbaugh is just one of many loathsome characters who have made names for themselves by treating politics as a game, a fun and profitable little pastime that has no real-world consequences—and the richer he gets, the more real a lack of consequences becomes for him. The luxury of staggering wealth means never having to worry about Social Security, or healthcare, or how much gas costs. It’s a game. Who cares.
And in that game, people like Michael J. Fox aren’t real people. They’re images on a screen, they’re pawns to be played. Stem cell research isn’t a real thing. It’s a political football. Safely nestled away from the real world in a radio studio, Limbaugh doesn’t want or need to think about the people he mocks, the people he uses to score a goal. And he doesn’t want or need to think about the people he addresses, either, or what it means that they might very well refuse to give up a seat on the subway, and that he provides their justification, fuels their ire. He’s just too busy having fun playing his game to be hampered by anything that matters, anything that might suggest the game he’s playing is a very dangerous one indeed.
The Magical, Mysterious, Mighty Power of Uncovered Meatdom
Mike forwarded me this article, asking what I made of it, about a Muslim cleric in Australia who blamed women for being raped.
"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... without cover, and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's?"The cleric, Sheik Taj Aldin al Hilali, is being (rightly) lambasted for his statements, and has said he doesn’t condone rape. (Gee, thanks.) But the surprising thing about this incident, as far as I’m concerned, is not that it was said; it’s that people are so outraged about it, nearly unanimously, when things like this are said—and reinforced, via action and attitude—about women all the time, to little response. It’s one thing to treat women like pieces of meat, but actually calling them meat, all bluntly and shit—now that just crosses the line!
"The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."
The idea that a woman who dresses “a certain way” is either asking to be raped, or shouldn’t be surprised when she is, is still a fully functional—and largely acceptable—idea in Western society. It still plays out in courtrooms (and media) all over America, as rape victims’ appearance, along with their sexual histories, social habits, and all other manner of irrelevant nonsense when it comes to answering the basic question “Did she say no?” are introduced as evidence, speaking not to overt consent, but implied consent. The notion of implied consent is still widely regarded as defensible by many Westerners—even those who see no hypocrisy in denouncing a Muslim cleric for stating more plainly the very same principle. What’s the difference between saying an uncovered head is the problem, and saying uncovered legs or cleavage are the problem? Nothing—the arguments just draw the line about women’s modesty at different places.
Also wrapped within al Hilali’s “uncovered meat” analogy is the implication that women have a supernatural and inescapable power over men, wielded primarily through their bodies. It’s a concept we have seen advanced not just in defense of rape, but in everything from 15th-century witch hunts, when only witches would dare to have “wide hips, prominent breasts, conspicuous buttocks, long hair,” to a modern-day justification of dress codes, as girls’ bodies are charged with distracting boys from their work. We’re all Eve, tempting every Adam by holding out ripe, delicious, forbidden fruit—and when he cannot resist, it is the fault of the woman who led him astray.
What curious irony that women, with the magical, mysterious, mighty power of uncovered meatdom, somehow have managed to nonetheless find themselves subjugated through most of human history. The same men who claim helplessness, defenselessness, lack of control in the presence of uncovered hair or a shapely calf have yet managed somehow to hold the upper hand in virtually every culture since the beginning of recorded history. You’d think if all it took to render a man mortally vulnerable were the throwing off of the hijabs and hoes that bind us, we might have done so long ago (and taken over the world—mwah ha ha ha!), but it hasn’t quite worked out that way.
Could it be, do you think, that perhaps uncovered meatdom doesn’t really hold any intrinsic control over men? That men who rape and blame women for it, or blame women for bewitching them, or distracting them, aren’t really out of control? Could it be instead that the objectification of women, and inevitable rape and blame and all the rest, are in fact the means of control?
Surely not. That would mean that men who assert a collapse in virtue at the hypnotizing force of uncovered meat were lying, that maybe the fault lies with the cat.
