"I left the house today for some fresh air and to buy Season One of the Smurfs."—Petulant, via IM, who's on holiday this week and doing fuck-all. Except the aforementioned, natch.
by Shaker Sunburned Counsel
Prince Harry has spent the last 10 weeks serving in Helmand Province in Afghanistan, and the media was asked to maintain a blackout to protect both the prince and the other soldiers serving around him. Yet his deployment appeared Wednesday on the Drudge Report, and the international media subsequently reported it. It appears the info first appeared in the Australian women's magazine New Idea in January, but somehow broke onto the international stage with Drudge.
The BBC coverage is here and AP is here.
Drudge put many, many people in danger for no particular reason. No wrong was righted. No eternal truth was found. It feels like he violated some sort of pirates' code, and it is hard to see that he did it for anything other then his own increased internet hits.
I think there is something to this story about the way blogging as a medium can really change the media landscape, since the whole traditional media agreed to the black-out. Even the frickin' British tabloids. But one post from Drudge, and Prince Harry has to come back to Britain.
I normally see alternative media as a very powerfully positive force, but the egalitarianism here seems sad and hubristic, on a dangerous scale. Is it just that I have a soft spot for the Princes? That I think someone safely in front of their computer should maybe not endanger those who are in war zones? That I kind of just don't like Drudge? That I'm hypocritical and only support freedom of the press when it's critiquing the people I do not like? Is there a power differential at play here? Military and former military Shakers, any thoughts? Or is my initial response sufficient?—Drudge: poor form.
Today is the last day of the rest of Netscape's life. AOL, which bought the browser when it purchased Netscape Communications Corp. in 1998, is ending all support for it tomorrow. It will stop issuing updates and bug fixes and instead is pointing Netscape users to two newer browsers, Firefox and Flock.Fare thee well, my first browser of choice.
Irrespective of one's opinion of Hillary Clinton's new campaign ad, which can charitably be described as an appeal to fear, I really don't think it's going to work. The people on whom that sort of emotional imploration work already made up their minds long ago.
This week I learned that two friends, one in Brazil, one in the U.S., died in auto accidents. Both were under the influence of alcohol, and no one else was injured in their crashes.
One was my age, and someone I went all through school with and always counted as a friend. The other, cousin of my wife who was charming, charismatic and always spent time talking with me in his broken English when he saw me struggle to keep up with conversations in Portuguese. He was 27.
I think of my mom, battling for her life against leukemia (she's currently in the hospital again recovering from a non-lethal infection brought on by chemo) and I realize how amazingly fragile we are, and how life is worth fighting for every step of the way.
So I apologize for being preachy, and I know for the most part I'm preaching to the choir, but please don't drink and drive. When you realize it can take your life, or the life of others, you have to see it's just not worth it.
So please don't drink and drive. I don't want to lose any more friends.
Bill
Chapter 2: The Diagnosing
I took Maggie to the vet this morning, and he found the culprit: Weeping anal glands. Truly disgusting. So he stuck his finger up there and 'expressed' them all over his hand, which he then showed to me, saying "I'm going to smell like this all day." He explained that this happens to cats who are not good groomers, and that I can do it myself at home whenever I notice a smell. Could be about once a month. I think I may do that, because the animal hospital charges $27, and that'll add up. I mean, I change diapers all day. I'm not that squeamish. And it will allow me to make us of my extensive supply of latex gloves and Astroglide.
Thanks to all the Shakers who participated in an educational and stomach-turning discussion about cat stench and Girl Scout Cookies.
They're both sick fucktards who hate dogs:
Hoenig: Snacky dog is property. If I want to take Snacky’s head and smash it against a brick wall (I’d never do that to you) it’s my right to do it!This is just too good. While receiving kisses from his loveable Snacky Dog in this interview, Hoenig thinks he is 100% entitled to smash Snacky's head into a wall, without any fear of consequence. I guess he never heard of those pesky things we have in this country called animal cruelty laws. It is hard to keep up with this stuff if you're busy hanging out in parks with a magnifying glass and killing ants. But hey - by all means smash that dog's head, Hoenig, and be sure to tell the judge and your subsequent prison inmates about those rights you have.
It’s my right to do it….
After he left the presidential race, one could have forgiven John Edwards if he just wanted to go back home to enjoy a period of semi-retirement. Spend time with his wife and kids, kick back, relax after running for president for pretty much seven years straight.
Fortunately for the rest of us, that's not what John Edwards is doing:
A coalition announced Monday and called Iraq Campaign 2008 seeks to tie anxiety over the faltering economy to anxiety over the duration of the war. Part of its agenda is targeting what it calls "obstructionist" members of Congress—Democrats as well as Republicans—that don’t seek a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. The campaign has an attention-getting front-man: former presidential candidate John Edwards. The effort, however, is not without problems—not least of which is the conundrum of whether antiwar activism turns out to be counterproductive to ending a war.
"People don’t understand why we’re spending $500 billion and counting in Iraq," Edwards said in a Monday conference call, "when at the same time we’ve got 40-plus million Americans with no health care coverage, 37 million-plus living in poverty. It doesn’t make sense to them."
The effort is the brainchild of a group of liberal organizations: MoveOn.org, the Service Employees International Union, the VoteVets progressive veterans network, USAction and the Center for American Progress.
Whatcha got, Shakers?
Recommended Reading:
Pam: Saving Souls, One Frickin' F*cking Fornicating Chicken at a Time
Juan Cole: Fact Check on McCain and Political Progress in Iraq
Erica Barnett: The (Male) Voice of Authority
Katecontinued: Health at Every Size (HAES)
Creature: Just in Case You Weren't Paying Attention
Paul Kiel: White House Aide Plagiarizes in Newspaper Column
…to Steve at Per Aspera, celebrating two years of vocabulary-inflicting and fiasco-mongering.
...and to Phydeaux, celebrating one glorious year of pseaksing. ;-)
And a happy leap-blogiversary to Sean!
One of Shakesville's earliest Shakers, Darryl Pearce, died suddenly on February 19. Some of you might know him as the Fuming Mucker, which was the title of his blog, but he always commented here—and at Echidne and Eschaton—as Darryl Pearce.
He was a truly wonderful guy—clever as hell, funny, and insightful. He was so encouraging about the work being done at this blog, way before I deserved it, even as his comments helped lay the groundwork for this community.
I'm really so terribly sad to hear of his passing.
Here's Darryl, in the picture he sent for the Shaker Mosaic project.
Hey Shakers! It's me, Kenny Blogginz again (I'm kind of a big deal) and I'm slipping into my Writing Boots to dance out another golden egg for you. Semi-Pro came out today and it's got the whole blogosphere talking about America's not-favorite pastime, basketballz. I decided that it would be a good idea to go out in the streets and ask a few of my fellow teen heartthrobs what they thought about the sport.
I headed down to the local Christian Teen Basketball House to meet some athletes. The first youth I accosted was attempting an "Olley-Oop Triple Dunkover." He missed, though, so he didn't get any of the points.
KenBlog: Hey kid! Get the fuck over here!
WeirdKid: You talkin' to me?
KenBlog: Fuckin' DUH I'm talkin' to you. Get over here so I can talk to you about basketballz!
WeirdKid: Oh, in that case, you got it. No problem. I love to talk about basketball; what can I say?
KenBlog: I'm Kenny Blogginz, and I write for a cyber weblog on the internet called Shakethatass. I'm hot shit, as opposed to your cold diarrhea. So why don't you tell me your name and a little bit about yourself? In case I feel like pretending to care.
DunkOver: I don't know what the heck the internet is, but around here I'm the hot shit, and you're the cold diarrhea. I can tell you're a maverick with a fierce aura, however, so I'll let it slide. My Christian name is Bill Tipper, but around these parts, they call me Dunkington Layover. That's on account of how great I am at layovers and slam dunks.
KenBlog: Your attitude's a little bit spicy, but I'm going to swallow it, along with my pride, for my cyber-fans. There's a new national sensation that's called Semi-Pro starring Will Ferrell, and it's sweeping the internet like some kind of deadly combination of a hurricane and a wildfire. A hurrifire. Tell me; did you start playing basketballz when you saw Semi-Pro earlier today, in order to be more like Will Ferrell, star of Semi-Pro, rated PG-13?
DunkOver: I haven't seen Semi-Pro yet, and I started playing basketball when I was 13, because my parents made me. I hated it at first, until I got real good at it. Then I loved it.
KenBlog: What kind of awards have you won for your basketballz skill?
DunkOver: Well, I won the 1998 Southern Illinois Dunk'em'up Contest, the 2002 Triple Hoop Dip-off, and. of course, the coveted Christian Youth Dribble-Drabble.
KenBlog: I'm sure your parents are very proud of you.
DunkOver: They really are. [gong noise] Oh, that's the coach's gong, I'd better get going.
KenBlog: Bye!
Next, I visited the Cradle 2 tha Grave Christian Street Ballaz over at the YMCA. I talked to the founder, Pastor-Coach Doug Dean, Shining Knight of Dunk Slamming, who sidled up uncomfortably close to me for our interview.
KenBlog: Uh, hey buddy! I'm interviewing basketballz enthusiasts about their favorite sport, in light of the new film Semi-Pro.
DougDean: That sounds like a simple, relevant topic for an article.
KenBlog: Thank you, it truly is. So riddle me this, sir; has Semi-Pro reaffirmed your love for basketballz, or has it made you love it more?
DougDean: I haven't actually seen Semi-Pro yet. Is that the new sports movie with Will Ferrell?
KenBlog: Yes. And it's totally not like any of the other sports movies with Will Ferrell.
DougDean: I see.
KenBlog: Why don't you tell me a little bit about your team, coach?
DougDean: I'm the coach of the Dundee Mutant Badger Wolverbeasts. You might know my team by its previous controversial and embargoed-by-court-order mascots like Big Chief CasinoAlcoholic and KungFu Ricefucker, or our current mascot, TopHat Spatsley, the hilarious faux Briton. We've won 9,000 Regional Championships, and we've won the SuperBowl twice.
KenBlog: That's very impressive. How would you say Will Ferrell's new movie, Semi-Pro has improved your team?
DougDean: Well, I wouldn't say that it has at all...you said it just came out, right?
KenBlog: Yes, just today.
DougDean: Well, then I don't see how it could have possibly influenced my team...?
KenBlog: Go on.
DougDean: Please take your hand off of my leg.
Doug Dean was a terrible source of information. Shakers, that interview was like trying to squeeze blood from a stone, or some other such difficult task. My basketballz bush was still a-burnin', however, and there was only one man with the juices to quench it—Slam-Dunk Steve, of the Ohio FreedomHawks. I met up with him at his $900,000,000 estate on the moon.
KenBlog: Thank you so much for sitting down with me. I've been interviewing people all day about the ramifications that the new film Semi-Pro could have on the basketballz world.
SlamDunk: It's a pleasure to talk to you, Kenny; I'm a huge fan of your work. I often pleasure myself to your articles at night, here, in my house, which happens to be on the fucking moon. I actually saw Semi-Pro earlier today, and I thought it was a true Laugh RiotTM. I'm a little bit worried, however, that this film could make a mockery of basketball.
KenBlog: Please elaborate, sir.
SlamDunk: Well, I'm afraid that children will watch this movie, and think that they can be basketball stars when they grow up by working on their comedy routines instead of practicing The Fundamentals. This could potentially turn basketball into a nationwide Harlem Globetrotters association.
KenBlog: No offense, sir, but that sounds like heaven on earth.
SlamDunk: I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I couldn't bear to see my proud profession slip into lunacy because of Mr. Ferrell's knee-slapping romps. How would you like it if some upstart came along and started writing fake interviews with a bunch of colorful characters, and started making more money than you?
KenBlog: I would go to the store, buy the largest gun I could afford, and blow my fucking brains all over the ceiling.
SlamDunk: Well, now you know how I feel. Good day, sir!
KenBlog: Good day. Have fun in your fucking moon house.
I flew back to earth in a daze. Slam-Dunk had really opened my eyes to the dangers of the basketballz world. He really reminded me of just how delicate life is. If your Pep-pep is still alive, I urge you to find him and give him a large hug, or a firm handshake. Or maybe just a nod and a wink. Or a high five. If you have a secret handshake, then do that too.
If you ask me, this is long overdue. Finally, some mathematically-minded, industrious folks (see them all at flickr) have taken some of pop music's most beloved gems and broken them down into simple, easy-to-comprehend charts to help us better understand and appreciate the art.
Case in point: the measurement of irony levels in Alanis Morrissette's "Ironic" (which actually seems to chart a series of events that are mostly just bummers, not examples of irony - how exactly is a black fly in one's chardonnay ironic? And for that matter, what other color do flies usually come in?).
I just don't have the words to do this justice, so I'll let the site speak for itself:
Food Fight is an abridged history of war, from World War II to present day, told through the foods of the countries in conflict. Watch as traditional comestibles slug it out for world domination in this chronologically re-enacted smorgasbord of aggression.
After my recent diatribe against Caffeine Free Diet Pepsi - the worst thing every produced by humans - I felt the need to show that I am not just a bitter reviewer of crappy carbonated crap. No, I am so much more than that. There are, in fact, certain things I like. One thing in particular comes to mind:
The Chocodile.
The best way to describe the delight you get from a Chocodile is if the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ busted a sacred nut right in your mouth. That's how good they are, they're as good as the creamy holy, blessed splooge that shoots out of Christ cock. That's what I'm saying (The New Testament has several sections outlying the choclaty, cakey, creamy taste of Christ's semen, but they were all mistranslated in later versions. The "wine and fish" parable? The wasn't wine they were guzzling, folks).
I imagine that one day, the big shots at Hostess were sitting around, all fat and happy with the ungodly profits they were reaping from Ding-Dongs and Twinkies, when Josh Hostess, owner and CEO, demanded a new idea. The room was silent. After all, they had Ding-Dongs and Twinkies. From all appearances, they'd hit their zenith.
But then young Bob Chocodile stepped up and nervously said, "um, Mr. Hostess, we could cover the Twinkies in Chocolate. It wouldn't even be that hard, we could just reconfigure the Ding-Dong machines so we can fit Twinkies in there."
Silence filled the room until Mr. Hostess leaped from his chair with a bellow "Bob, you are a genius. I'm making you a vice-president, starting right now. Harriet Ho-Ho, back to the mailroom for you.
And thus a legend was born, and since that day, Chocodiles have been making the world a better place.
So while it can be discouraging that so many American companies are producing such god-awful products, just take a moment to remember the Chocodile - pure Twinkie goodness covered in chocolate. It is truly the defining achievement of this country in the past 100 years, far surpassing the personal computer and Tivo.
Seriously, if you've never tried a Chocodile, run out and buy one now (or get three for $.99). Just one bite and you'll agree - it's like Jesus Christ himself rose from the dead for the singular purpose of shooting his delicious wad down your throat.
So to Josh Hostess and Bob Chocodile, my hat is of to you. Your product is proof that Americans can do anything, provided they have an ample supply of Twinkies and a machine to cover them with chocolate.
--WKW
Posted without comment, save that I'd like to see an open letter to American feminists sometime soon. I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBTAmericans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system. The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives. We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBTAmericans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary. Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.
Via Sully
If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, what happens if that friend is your enemy? Does that make him your frienemy?
I don't know, but I guess I'm going to find out, because right wing nutjob Bill Donohue, who is both the Catholic League's president and entire membership, has denounced John McCain for being supported by an anti-Catholic bigot.
The bigot in question is John Hagee. Mustang Bobby noted his foul stench below, but now even inveterate wingnut and Republican apologist Donohue is upset.
I know, I know, it's making my head hurt too, but I swear it's true:
The president of the Catholic League today blasted Sen. John McCain for accepting the endorsement of Texas evangelicalist John Hagee, calling the controversial pastor a bigot who has "waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church."Now, granted, this is just a guy that John McCain invited to come on stage at an event in San Antonio and endorse him. It's not like he's a just-hired, mid-level staffer who never met the candidate. So I'm sure our nation's media can't be bothered to pay attention to Billy D and his outrage-a-tron. But still, they might want to give him a call, and ask him what he thinks about McCain's campaign actively courting the crazies.
Hagee, who is known for his crusading support of Israel, backed McCain's presidential bid Wednesday, standing next to the senator at a hotel in San Antonio and calling McCain "a man of principle."
But Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement today that Hagee has written extensively in negative ways about the Catholic Church, "calling it 'The Great Whore,' an 'apostate church,' the 'anti-Christ,' and a 'false cult system.'"
"Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee," Donohue said.
McCain has also campaigned with an anti-gay "Patriot" pastor who has declared among other things, that hate-crimes legislation is a “deceptive ploy of [the] liberal, homosexual agenda"; that we should prosecute adulters as criminals; that Planned Parenthood is comparable to the Nazis; and who addressed a "War on Christians" conference with the admonition: “I came to incite a riot! Man your battle stations! Ready your weapons! Lock and load!”Will McCain repudiate Hagee? Will he reject him? Denounce him? Of course not! Hagee's a good Christian hater, and he's white. That's totally different than Louis Farrakhan, who is both African American and Muslim. You see how completely different it is? Plus, John McCain is a Republican! So this is all totally okay.
What was the first movie you ever saw in the cinema?
The first film I remember seeing was Condorman, starring Michael Crawford. I was six years old and mightily impressed by the jaw-dropping special effects and nail-biting action sequences, not to mention the acting, which would put Olivier to shame, as I'm sure you'll agree after viewing the below clip.
Hmmm. I'm beginning to suspect that the GOP is doing a better job reading liberal blogs than the DEMs are.
This week, John McCain immediately disavowed inflammatory comments by Bill Cunningham made during a campaign appearance introduction, both McCain and Karl Rove have counseled fellow Repubs to stop throwing Obama's middle name around, and the RNC has apparently issued a stern warning to the Tennessee GOP for a press release in which Obama's middle name was used:
"The RNC has notified the Tennessee GOP that they do not support or agree with their approach," said this source, requesting anonymity to discuss the private conversation between a staffer in the national committee's political department and a top aide at the state party. "If they don't refrain from doing so again, they will be publicly repudiated by the Republican National Committee."McCain's campaign publicly repudiated it too, in strong terms:
McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker noted that her candidate condemned the press release and apologized to Obama. It was the second time he had to do so in as many days.Huh.
"There will be times in this campaign where people do and say stupid things," Hazelbaker said. "It's a fact and it's beyond our control."
"We will continue to condemn [such comments] in the strongest language possible and reitterate our commitment to running a positive campaign based on the issues."
Also see: Circular Firing Squad.
This oft-wielded cudgel to silence feminists who cry foul at sexism expressed by political allies is wrong for the following reason, which I cannot state any more succinctly than this: When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility.
It is, simply, not the duty of any person who is repeatedly subjected to alienating language, images, behaviors, and/or legislation to nonetheless never complain and pledge fealty from the margins. If women, men of color, gay/bi/ trans men, et. al. are valued, then they should not be demeaned—and if they are demeaned, they should not be expected to pretend it does not matter.
Pretty straightforward stuff. There are some related ideas I want to address, though, which complicate the issue, especially from the perspective of those who earnestly cannot understand why feminists don't see the "perfect logic" of:
• Candidate A is sexist, and at worst will not make things any worse for women.
• Candidate B is sexist, and at best will not make things any worse for women.
• Therefore, feminists should vote for Candidate A.
I get why that appears to make sense—and for some feminists it does, particularly Democratic partisans, which is totally legitimate—but then there's that whole my vote is mine thing, and this subject is really bigger than for whom anyone will or will not vote, because the (typically) unspoken corollary to "Therefore, feminists should vote for Candidate A" is "…and they should not do anything to undermine him like point out that he is a sexist."
The reasoning behind the "perfectly logical" calculation above—and the related compulsion to cajole alignment with that strategy and/or silence feminist criticism—is predicated on a couple of commonly-held (and oft-cited) assumptions:
1. Voting for/Supporting the more liberal of two mainstream party candidates is always and necessarily the most consistent with feminist principles.
2. Voting for/Supporting the more democratic of two mainstream party candidates is axiomatically the most feminist choice.
3. Feminism is an "issue" or a "cause" akin to other political issues or causes like protecting social security or fair elections.
4. The best possible America for a straight, white, able-bodied, wealthy man is the best possible America for everyone.
5. More rights for "everyone" means more rights for women.
All of these are wrong—or, at minimum, not always correct. Let's take them one at a time.
1. Voting for/Supporting the more liberal of two mainstream party candidates is always and necessarily the most consistent with basic feminist principles.
Occasionally, supporting the more liberal candidate (i.e. the Democrat) is entirely consistent with basic feminist principles. The vast majority of the time, the candidate represents a platform which has some inconsistencies with those principles, often by sheer omission of basic tenets of equality, e.g. a commitment to eradicating the pay gap, active recruitment of female Congressional candidates, support for the ERA, etc. In the current campaign, the current Democratic frontrunner has used sexist dog whistles and language that precipitated some concerns about his commitment to women's issues, as have candidates before him.
Clearly, that strategy is incompatible with feminism—which is why the exhortation "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is as inaccurate as it is condescending. A sexist candidate with an incomplete or incompatible platform is not "good," even though, by any feminist reckoning s/he is better than the major party alternative. Feminists are well within their right by virtue of their basic tenets to take exception with the expectation that they recognize a sexist candidate as "good," which is by no means a synonym for "not as bad."
All of which means that voting for/supporting a third-party candidate, depending on the candidate and platform, may well be the choice most consistent with basic feminist principles. Reminders that Democrats are more inclined to make court appointments favorable to feminists are accurate, but ultimately irrelevant to determining which vote is most intrinsically feminist—third-party candidates would do the same.
The important point here is that while voting for the Democrat over the Republican may indeed have a pragmatic rationale from a feminist standpoint, it is wrong to conflate "pragmatic rationale" with "consistent with feminist principles." Feminists must often, in fact, vote counter to their principles to be pragmatic voters. That is not a small thing, and it should not be treated as though it is.
2. Voting for/Supporting the more democratic of two mainstream party candidates is axiomatically the most feminist choice.
This idea is closely related to the previous one, but turns on the presumption that democracy is inherently more feminist than other forms of government, represented in comments that exhort feminists to recognize the imperative of keeping the nation's leadership out of the hands of those who have effectively tried to approximate a rightwing dictatorship.
It's treated as axiomatic that preventing America from becoming a dictatorship is somehow simultaneously a fight for women's rights, but that's not necessarily true. Women's equality is wound up in national politics, certainly, but it is also largely independent of them, too. It is a misunderstanding of what women experience to suggest that protecting our democracy is the same as championing feminism.
Forward movement for women can happen even in dictatorships, and can be reversed even in democracies—because women's equality is inextricably linked to so many other cultural variables, like religiosity. To presume that greater democracy will de facto mean increased equality for women is to tacitly buy into Bush's line about freedom magically emanating from any country deemed a functional democracy. It just doesn't work that way. A democratically-elected American theocracy would, for example, be anathema to feminism.
I have many good and important and personal reasons for not wanting America to become any less democratic than it is now—not least of which is because those agitating for increased authoritarian control of government are simultaneously agitating for increased control of women's bodies. I also have many good and important and personal reasons for fighting for my equality. Some of those good and important and personal reasons overlap. Some of them don't.
The important point here is that, while most American feminists are undoubtedly interested in voting for the most democratic candidate, it is wrong to reflexively conflate "more democratic" with "more feminist" (even though that's historically a safe bet). Feminists may, in fact, for reasons outlines above, have to vote counter to feminist principles to vote for the most democratic candidate of the two major parties. That is not a small thing, and it should not be treated as though it is.
3. Feminism is an "issue" or a "cause" akin to other political issues or causes like protecting social security or fair elections.
Feminism, especially for women, is not mere political advocacy, but a philosophy centered around advocating for personal equality. When feminists are inveigled to vote for/support the Democratic candidate (and refrain from questioning his commitment to women's issues lest his candidacy be undermined), because This Issue is so important, the implicit calculation is that This Issue is priority over women's equality, reproductive rights, etc.
Because feminists have increasingly resisted taking a backseat to issues like social security when their very value as human beings is up for debate, those using this rhetorical strategy have learned that nothing is quite so effective as using Roe v. Wade as This Issue, thusly reframing the argument from "Vote for the Democrat to get what you want" to "Vote for the Democrat to not lose what you've got."
It's a nasty little bit of blackmail, which fails utterly to take into consideration that the veiled threat of losing legal abortion because of one's uncompromising belief in one's own equality and autonomy is so bitterly ironic that it would be laughable if it were not so profoundly sad. Instead of demonstrations of commitment to protecting Roe as one among many commitments to the basic feminist principle of women's equality, we are meant instead to be motivated by menace and intimidation. We're supposed to gleefully hop on board with people who ominously warn that failure to do so will evoke tragedy by our own hands—and, if we succumb, we find that even asking for basic respect, for sexist words and images and behaviors to not be used, is considered too much, an impertinence.
All we are offered is the protection of what we've already got, and nothing more.
Which makes one wonder why we'd ever be given anything more, since the risk of losing one thing is greatest when there is only one thing to lose.
The compromise of everything else to protect this one thing is particularly problematic for feminists because being a woman is not a cause. If women's issues are ignored, we cannot simply change our skin like a losing lobbyist changes strategies. Always will we be women, and when we are asked to put our "issues" on the back burner for the good of "the larger cause," we are being asked to wait longer yet to have our equality fully realized. That is not an easy burden to indefinitely bear for thin promises.
4. The best possible America for a straight, white, able-bodied, wealthy man is the best possible America for everyone.
America being the best place it can possibly be for straight, white, able-bodied, wealthy men does not de facto mean it's also the best place it can possibly be for a poor, black, disabled lesbian. That seems like it ought to be obvious, but every time women or men of color or gay/bi/ trans men are told "just hold your concerns and focus on winning this election for now and then we can get to your issues," it's clear that there are people who don't understand how fighting for control of the White House/Congress and fighting for one's own equality are not the same thing for everyone all the time.
Sometimes those fights overlap; sometimes they are mutually exclusive; and sometimes they are in conflict.
It makes no personal difference to a man who is not the target of misogyny if a president is elected on its back—but it does make a difference to women (even those who don't care), because not only has misogyny not been repudiated, but has in fact been reinforced as a winning strategy.
For active feminists who are on the frontlines of fighting sexism every day, bringing themselves to cast a vote for a candidate who has used misogyny is a tacit approval of the strategy. Even if there are good reasons to vote for that candidate, it is still a self-defeating vote in some measure. It's not just holding one's nose and voting for an imperfect candidate; it's swallowing one's principles and pride and casting a vote that unavoidably consents to misogyny as a campaign tool.
It might not make any difference to the soul or the future of a man casting the same vote. It will make a practical difference to women.
Likewise, the presumption that who is the best candidate, what is the best campaign strategy, and which are the best policies for "the nation" from the perspective of privilege does not take into account that best is subjective—and "the nation" rarely gives all its members equal consideration.
5. More rights for "everyone" means more rights for women.
Like "the nation," when we hear that something will be good for "everyone," it generally means it's going to be good for straight, white, able-bodied, wealthy men—and hopefully lots of other people, too! The problem with this paradigm is that it's usually espoused by the people with the most existing freedom and opportunity, who are looking to procure more for themselves, or restore something they've lost, as with this election, in which progressives hope to restore Constitutional liberties eroded by the Bush administration.
Who wouldn't be on board with that, right?
Well, feminists are on board with that idea, but what's happening is that the pressure to support, at all costs, the candidate most likely to realize that goal has the capacity to force feminists to compromise what they think is right as feminists to support what they think is right as Americans. If restoring lost liberties means tacitly supporting sexist rhetoric and pandering to rightwingers who don't respect women's right of bodily autonomy, that's not a net gain for women—even though it is a net gain for men.
That's why holding a firm line against misogyny is so important: Progress depends on people being progressive, which necessarily precludes the mockery, belittlement, and/or exclusion of historically marginalized groups. Otherwise, we end up with a new political situation that may benefit the already-privileged without compromise, but is just the Same Old Shit for everyone else. And once maximum privilege has been restored, there is little incentive to yield any to lift up the rest of the boats, despite years of promises to the contrary.
There are too many progressives who view social change like conservatives view economics: Make everything as splendid as possible for those at the top and the benefits will "trickle down" to everyone below.
Well, it's bullshit when we're talking about tax cuts, and it's bullshit when we're talking about equality and opportunity.
Feminists know that—and if we're beginning to feel resistant to being played like suckers every election, if we're increasingly unwilling to play the equivalent role of the disaffected evangelicals who keep voting Republican as though the leadership will give a rat's ass about them someday, can you really blame us?
We make fun of those people.
Shaker CE said in comments yesterday, "Knowing that the alternative is worse actually makes it harder for me; it just reinforces that sense I often get from some Dems, including Sen. Obama in this cycle, that they think they can do whatever the fuck they like to me, because I don't have any other option. The worst part? They're right."
They are right, unless we go somewhere else. This isn't a treatise to convince anyone to do so—but it's an explanation for why a feminist might, why it's a legitimate choice, and why, if that means the Left isn't a picture of harmony, it's not our fault.
The reason the Left is discordant isn't because of our standards; it's because there are so many bigots with no benchmark for success but winning—even at our expense.
Given the amount of time that has passed since Miers and Bolten were cited for contempt of Congress, I eventually came to the conclusion that it was probably for the best that the humiliatingly toothless citation faded from our collective memory.
Well, the game is back on. Now that the contempt resolution was passed by the house a couple of weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi is pointedly telling USAG Mukasey that if he tries to set up road blocks and play protect-the-prez, the House will simply shove him out of the way and throw down a law suit:
There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a President to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.Considering how long it's taken to get just to this point, I don't hold much hope that a law suit, if deemed necessary, would even get started until later this year, if at all.
Your press spokesman has stated that you will “act promptly” to review this matter and reach a final decision. We will appreciate your acting with appropriate dispatch on this important matter. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim. If, however, you intend to persist in preventing Mr. Taylor from carrying out his statutory obligation to present this matter to the grand jury in the District of Columbia, we respectfully request that you inform us of that decision within one week from today, so that the House may proceed with a civil enforcement suit in federal district court.
Dear English-Speaking World,
While I am aware that the word "female" can be both noun and adjective, I kindly request that you refrain from using it as a noun unless you are a farmer referring to livestock or the narrator on a nature special.
Acceptable: "The females encircle the young as the predator approaches."
Unacceptable: "Club Douché is filled with hot females on a Friday night."
Female humans are called girls or women. Please make a note.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Warmest Regards,
Liss
by Sarah in Chicago
Hi, I'm Sarah and I'm biphobic.
I say such not to be proud of it, but rather to own up to it. We all have our own prejudices, so having or not having a prejudice is not what I am too concerned about here, but rather, if we are working to get rid of those we have, and particularly, how we do so.
I'm biphobic because I've been a part of lesbian communities for a long time, since I started to come out in my freshman year of university. Biphobia, as any bisexual woman will tell you (and any honest lesbian), is pretty endemic to the community, not inherent in it, mind you, but certainly endemic.
To a certain extent you can understand where it comes from. Being a sociologist I know that smaller communities tend to be more policing of the boundaries of a collective sense of identity, and the performances thereof. Further, oppressed minorities tend to be defensive of anything perceived as 'other' inside their group as someone that could be working to undermine efforts, that doesn't really share the same oppressions.
And a lot of lesbians take this position. They argue that if bisexuals want to be part of the lesbian community, they need to take the community as lesbian, and that a woman that loves men or a man needs to deal with such. They argue that there is privilege in being partnered in a heterosexual relationship, however, queer the woman therein may be, and that such privilege is antithetical to the community.
I actually know some lesbians that refuse to date bisexuals. One woman I know, upon having her heart broken after a very long term relationship, a marriage for all intents and purposes, was ended when her partner went back to men, swore she would never date another bisexual woman. And she hasn't, and is now partnered with another lesbian woman, happily in love, raising a child together.
I say these things not to defend such, or even to say they have any remote validity, but rather that I think it's important to investigate the narratives, the framing, of one's prejudices, as it's there that the prejudices enact themselves.
The thought for this post for me came out of a couple of things. The first was a posting to one of my fav lesbian media sites AfterEllen.com, about the atrocious representations of bisexuals on the show The L-Word. The article was completely correct mind you (of course, EVERYONE is atrociously portrayed on that show, but that's beside the point), but the interesting bit was the reaction in the comments section. It became a blow-out, like all bisexual-focused discussions on the site, with some outright expressions of fairly unapologetic biphobia.
And to my own disgust, I actually found myself wanting to post in agreement. I had to stop myself from posting something along the lines of "If you want bisexual representation, get your own fucking show, and leave us the fuck alone to have our one tiny niche. You find supposedly queer women fucking men all the time on network TV, what else do you want, to colonise our space too?!". It was this visceral reaction that scared the crap out of me.
In other words, I found myself almost repeating word for word the defences used by those transphobic bigoted women at the Michigan Women's Music Festival ... something I despise deeply and passionately. I was ashamed of myself.
The other moment was that this morning I found out that Kristianna Loken, one of the few openly out bisexual actresses whose bisexuality is not merely so much lip-service (so to speak), was engaged. To a man. And that wonderful biphobic voice of the lesbian community inside me spoke up and whispered "What a fucking surprise, not. Yet ANOTHER fucking bisexual woman runs back to fuck men. It seems that's all they fucking do; if I had a dime for every bisexual woman that is partnered to a man .... yadda yadda yadda". I clamped down on my thoughts immediately, but they were still there.
And so, as I rode the train in this morning, lightly flirting with this woman I bumped into that I knew from the community, I decided I needed to write this piece, and ask a question.
I date, and have dated bisexual women, as well as lesbian women. I don't really care. On an individual basis, I don't give a shit. And hell, being aware of my internalised biphobia (oh, and btw, this isn't about self-denial, I don't want to date men, nor am trying to cover up any secret desires for men; that kind of arm-chair pysch is pathetic), means I will speak up whenever I hear biphobic speech, because it's hateful. Period.
But, aside from speaking up against such speech, and validating the queer/gay identities of bisexual women, what else can I do? I have this prejudice in me that I detest, and I need to work on it to get rid of it.
So, my question is this; how have the others here worked on their own prejudices, there own biases? Not just biphobia, but how, after you gained awareness of internalised bigotries, how did you work to minimise such or get rid of them? What strategies did you use?
Because I'd really appreciate the help, and this is the right place to ask.
UPDATE: If anyone identifies as bisexual and wants to simply post about the biphobia they have experienced, I want them to consider this a safe space for them to do so. I know there are not enough spaces for bisexual people to able to do such.
[Before accusing me of attacking Obama or being a shill for Hillary or having some kind of nefarious motivation, please bear in mind that Obama is now the frontrunner; we all have a vested interest in challenging the Democratic frontrunner on weak points, especially now, before the general election, when the GOP will start doing it—and going after him much harder than I ever will.]
Zuzu takes a look at some of Obama's more concerning comments on the issue of reproductive rights and tries to divine exactly what his real positions are—something she might not have to do if he, say, had a women's issues and/or reproductive rights section of his website. (Update: There is one here; it is, however, not part of the "Issues" section, but accessible through the "People" section, by clicking on "Women" and then "Learn" in the righthand column.) As long as legal abortion, emergency contraception, and comprehensive sex education continue to be issues in state legislatures, Congress, and the courts, every Democratic campaign should have a page dedicated to delineating her or his positions on these topics, which so intimately affect women. (Well, at least he's got one for "sportsmen.") Anyway, Zuzu pieces bits together from disparate sources, to try to paint a whole picture.[T]o his credit, he does come out strongly [on the RH Issues Questionnaire] for comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education and calls abstinence-only out as the boondoggle it is; he also supports confidential access to contraception and reproductive health care for teenagers, as well as over-the-counter access to EC. He's even against the Hyde Amendment and wants to cut off federal funding to crisis pregnancy centers.
So it's a mixed bag; there's a disconnect between his positions and his rhetoric, which is of course, not the first time. Once again, the end result appears to require that women trust him that he's on our side while he talks out the other side of his mouth to people who "believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves" and that the decision regarding abortion "generally is one that a woman should make."
So I'm left wondering at the disconnect between his responses to the RH Issues Questionnaire and his responses to Mr. Innocent Sweet Babies. He (or, rather, his staff) responded to the questionnaire with simple, clear answers that gave due consideration to the concerns of parents, but which took a clearly pro-choice position. But to Mr. Innocent Sweet Babies, he hemmed and hawed and volunteered answers that sounded like right-wing talking points about responsibility and the degree to which women should be entitled to exercise control over their bodies and their sex lives.
Meanwhile, Susie Madrak points to a report that "a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources. The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value."
A spokesperson for the Obama campaign originally "said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made." Now Campaign Obama says the report is "inaccurate" and they "are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy."From Obama spokesperson Bill Burton: "The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama's consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy."
I'm not sure that sufficiently contradicts the report that sotto voce reassurances were given to the ambassador; I'd prefer something that left no doubt the leading Democratic candidate wasn't planning to hoodwink Democratic voters. That he conspired with a foreign government official to do so is a pretty serious charge. "The report is inaccurate" seems a bit flaccid in response. I hope something stronger is forthcoming.
UPDATE: Canadian Embassy denies anyone from Obama's campaign (or any other) contacted them.
As I said in comments, Obama should begin to talk about this story like a constructed smear job. Given that the story plays perfectly into the Right's two anti-Obama memes—"Scary Foreigner" and "He's Unpatriotic"—he should address that head-on and treat the story like a plant.
In the comments thread to Melissa's QoD yesterday, I suggested The Essential Trudeau as a pretty good place to start if you want to understand liberal thinking. It struck me later, of course, that I'd recommended a Canadian book that most Americans probably would not have come across.
The Trudeau of the title is Pierre Trudeau, who was Prime Minister of Canada from 1968 through 1984 (with a brief interval in 1979). He was not only one of the great Canadian prime ministers, but was also a political writer of merit. Shortly before his death in 2000, Ron Graham edited a slim volume of excerpts from Trudeau's writings -- The Essential Trudeau -- to give a sense of his thinking.
I don't offer this as canonical, but I think that a few excerpts from the excerpts give a good sense of what Trudeau and Canadian liberalism have been about. Please note that Trudeau tends to use "he" and "man" to refer to people in general, as was the usual practice at the time he wrote most of this (also, some of it is translated from French).The liberal is an optimist at heart, who trusts people. He does not see man as an essentially perverse creature, incapable of moral progress and happiness. Nor does he see him as totally or automatically good. He prizes man's inclinations to good, but knows they must be cultivated and supported.
A liberal can seldom be a partisan of the status quo. He tends to be a reformer -- attempting to move society, to modify its institutions, to liberate its citizens. At the same time, the liberal is not an anarchist because he does not believe that a free man can live as a total individual outside society. Nor is the liberal a revolutionary who believes that society must perpetually be scrubbed clean of the tracings of the past, must always begin again from an antiseptic tabula rasa. I like to say that a liberal is on the left, but no farther.
The point of human society is that people living together, by mutual help, co-operation, and the division of labour, can fulfil themselves better than if they lived apart. If men and women could not direct their collective effort to that end, they might as well go off and live all alone in the woods and on the hills.
The purpose of living in society is that every person may fulfil himself or herself as far as possible. Authority has no justification except to allow the establishment and development of a system that encourages such fulfilment in every human being.
The liberal's concern with freedom of the individual must also be a concern for the milieus in which individuals develop towards their full potential.
Neither authority nor obedience ought to be taken for granted. If my father, my priest, or my king wants to exert authority over me, if he wants to give me orders, he has to be able to explain, in a way that satisfies my reason, on what grounds he must command and I must obey.
The value of a government derives not from the promises it makes, from what it claims to be, or from what it alleges it is defending, but from what it achieves in practice. And it is for each citizen to judge that.
Security, even absolute security, is not an end in itself. It is only the setting that permits us to pursue our real ends: economic well-being, cultural attainment, the fulfilment of the human personality. But those ends are all incompatible with a world of neighbours armed to the teeth.
What we face now is not deprivation, but the challenge of sharing. We need not do without, but we must be good stewards of what we have. To ensure nature's continued bounty, we are not asked to suffer, but we are asked to be reasonable.
When the day came that neither the individual nor private enterprise could provide the bridges and roads needed for travel; organize the police and fire brigades required for public safety, or devise the water and sewage systems necessary for hygiene, the community simply decided to solve these problems communally, though the state. And nobody dreamt of crying "Communism!"
We should start, then, by banishing from our political mores the whole concept that a prime minister gives bridges, roads, schools to his province. These are works that society needs, that it gives to itself and pays for through taxes. A prime minister gives nothing at all (unless it is his superfluous services); quite simply, he works in the service of the state as an instrument through which society gives to itself.
Will anyone think I am preaching statism? On the contrary, I am preaching the doctrine of the servant state. For if I say today that the state should do more in the name of the community it is only after repeatedly saying that no political authority has an unconditional right to exist. I want the state to do more, but only after we have stopped thinking of it as an absolute master. In fact, if we were to extend the powers of the state without having multiplied our means of controlling its policy and limiting its methods of acting, we would tend to increase our enslavement. That is why I am wary of those who preach indiscriminate nationalization without setting themselves first to undermine the undue majesty of political power.
What holds us to democracy is not that it is faultless but that it is less faulty than any other system.
A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate.
To me liberalism is not a doctrine. Liberalism is a way of thinking, a way of approaching problems to make sure that the individual gets the maximum amount of respect and hopefully as great an amount of equality of opportunity in Canada, and in the world, as possible.
John McCain and his campaign can repudiate and disassociate themselves from the likes of Bill Cunningham all they like, but if you think that's going to put an end to it, Josh Marshall has some news for you.
Don't insult your intelligence or mine by pretending that John McCain's plan for this race doesn't rely on hundreds of Cunninghams -- large and small -- across the country, and the RNC and all the GOP third party groups, to be peddling this stuff nonstop for the next eight months because it's the only way John McCain have [sic] a real shot at contesting this race.The last thing the Republicans want to talk about are the real issues facing the country, like the economy, education, health care, equality for all citizens, because they lose on every one of them. So they will resort to stuff that people like Bill Cunningham and Rush Limbaugh will use; hustler, hack, Muslim, funny name, oh, and of course they'll remind you that he's black without actually saying it, but they have a pocket full of dog-whistles to do that. Oh, and he has an uppity wife, too.
...to Evil Bender, celebrating two years of (naturally) evil bending!
...and to our own Litbrit, also celebrating two years of awesome litbrittery!
Dateline: America, 2001. I read over at Jill's place that American flight schools have granted FAA certifications to thousands of foreign student pilots who have not been given the requisite background check by the TSA and do not have the specific type of visa required to enroll and obtain pilot licenses. Muses Jill, cynically: "It's almost enough to make you think they want another terrorist attack to take place, like maybe…right before the election?"
Heh heh, thought I. All we need now is a sequel to the Summer of the Shark to really lull us back into the false sense of security paradoxically created by remote and hyperbolic terrors.
Then I saw this on Yahoo's front page:
Gosh, but this news disappoints me:
Independent New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg ruled out a run for the presidency on Thursday, ending media speculation that he would enter the race.Bloomberg's candidacy caught the imagination of literally ones of people, 95% of them in the media. His withdrawal from the race will leave not so much a void, but a sort of a smallish place that will soon be filled with rampant speculation about Joe Lieberman, and whether he will jump in to save the nation from the horrible partisanship of crazy ideologues John "He Ain't Conservative" McCain and Barack "I Ain't Liberal" Obama. Dare to dream, Unity08 denziens, dare to dream.
In an opinion piece published in the New York Times, Bloomberg closed the door on a run, saying, "I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not and will not be a candidate for president."While Bloomberg ruled out a candidacy, he said he still believed in the need for independent voices.
Don't look at me...I'm disgusting.Yesterday, Isopluvial asked in comments: "Suppose a conservative had a change of heart, and wanted to understand just what 'liberal' means, beyond a laundry list of programs that the new administration will implement. Is/are there book(s), blog(s), or site(s) that people here would feel would accurately and fairly represent current liberal philosophy?"
So: What do you recommend, Shakers?
I'd say pick up auto/biographies, memoirs, and/or diaries of people as different from you as you can find. I have always been a voracious reader of such books, since I was a kid, and I can say with absolute sincerity that a genuine appreciation for other people's experiences leads one quite naturally to an understanding of the basic tenets of liberalism. Ditto blogs. Make an effort to read people Not Like You.
Fill your head with thoughts you've never had before, and would never have on your own. It's exhilarating.
Sorry for the dearth of posts this afternoon. I'm working on another Feminism 101 piece, which I thought I'd get done, but haven't, so it will hold for tomorrow morning…
In the meantime, please enjoy this rendition of Mozza singing The Smiths' "Death of a Disco Dancer" last October in Waukegan, Illinois (which holds the dubious distinction of being where Mr. Shakes and I got hitched at the courthouse).
Crossposted from AngryBlackBitch.com.
We are not living in a post-racial political era.
We are not living in a post-gender era.
We sure as shit are not living in a post-bullshit equality for all, let freedom ring and the masses have our bread and eat it too era.
What we are living in…and some of us are suffering through…is the mess that results from decades of avoiding the issues of race, class and gender by embracing the school of tolerance rather than engaging in the hard work of social justice.
I am not a fan of the school of tolerance. It gives birth to the delusion that any one political candidate experiencing public support as she or he runs for president of the United States is somehow an indicator that American society has transcended a damn thing.
That interpretation of the 2008 race to the Democratic nomination has been debunked by the very election cycle currently being hailed as transcendent. How the hell can any pundit fix their face to ponder a post-racial America when Democrats beat Republicans in the rush to bait based on race?
How can anyone seriously discuss a post–gender America when I’ve yet to witness a political analysis of Senator Clinton’s campaign by the mainstream media that doesn’t trip over the fact that she is a woman?
Let’s keep this shit real Jeff Foxworthy style (wink).
If anyone running for public office needs to swiftly debunk claims that she or he is a Muslim…we are not post-racial.
When pundits gleefully wallow in the stankification of sexism to the extent that an on-air public apology is required…we are not post-gender.
When President Bush’s challenge to the nation to stop casually tossing out lynching threats and engaging in noose humor doesn’t even hold for a week before a moron with a microphone gets his lynch threat on in reference to the wife of a serving United States Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President (Lawd, have mercy) and no one thinks for one second he’ll lose his pulpit, apologize or even grasp what he just said and how bloody inappropriate not to mention dangerous it was to say ...oh hell no, we are not living in a post-racial era.
And when political pundits verbally fumble like novices getting past first base and spend more time analyzing that ‘emotional moment’ in New Hampshire than what the heck differentiates one candidate from the other beyond their gender and race…well, we’ve come a long way baby but we still have a long way to go.
What is lost in the mix is that fact that we also have a precious opportunity to confront these issues.
Parents and teachers have the opportunity to discuss gender and sexism with some pretty good examples of how that shit is used. Put this mess out in the open and in context so that our youth can learn from it rather than continue to repeat it.
Family and friends have the opportunity to discuss race and the need to respect religious diversity. Get real about that and discuss why a picture can incite fear which will feed a bigotry that holds all of us back. Get real about why some conservatives are discussing the issues while others are speaking about Obama on the radio in some strange version of black talk (ooooh, how original…not) and drooling over the opportunity to fully give in to their insecurity-based hatred.
When we the people get post-bullshit and debate the issues facing us all, free of the corruption of bigotry and the inhibitions of fear, then we can investigate whether America is post-ig'nant.
Enlightenment isn’t something we can speak into reality anymore than bigotry is something we can simply declare to be history.
