By now, every Lefty blog in the universe has linked to the supremely idiotic report of Dr. James Dobson’s attack on SpongeBob SquarePants as a tool of the radical homosexual agenda that has the nation’s children in its dastardly grips. (Special props to the ever-clever James Wolcott for anointing the purveyor of this madness SpongeDob Stickypants.) We collectively laugh, and we sigh, shaking our heads in disbelief that anyone could be so manifestly stupid, so needlessly bigoted. We note in our sardonic way, how strangely preoccupied with homosexuals men like Dr. Dobson seem to be; the good doctor, we suggest, perhaps doth protest too much.
And yet it seems that maybe, just maybe, we on the Left aren’t fully prepared to address this prejudice as seriously as we should; maybe we are a little too flippant, a bit too amusedly dismissive. Were this about gender, or race, I don’t believe we’d see quite as many jokes, quite so little outrage. But not so with gay rights. When it comes to gay rights, we titter and hem and haw and wonder if our timid support lost us the election.
Other Liberal causes are defended without reducing the defense to one-liners, and when we can’t control the discussion, we bemoan our lack of ability to do so. In the furtherance of gay rights, however, and in defense of gays and lesbians against vitriol spewed incessantly by the likes of Dr. Dobson and his ilk, we seem unwilling to exert the same amount of righteous ire. The tenor of the discussion remains ridiculous, which is perhaps what makes it easy to be so unserious in our response, but as the anti-gay movement steadily increases the intensity of its endeavor, we must engage its architects with the gravity it requires.
I’ve written before about my consternation with the framing of gay rights advocacy, that we tend to talk about who someone fucks as opposed to who they love, which are, as anyone who’s survived their 20s knows, two very different things. I find the Left’s unwilling ness to insist upon separating the two notions extremely frustrating. Allowing the discussion to stay firmly rooted in the assumptions of the Right’s court, letting them make this discussion solely about sex, leaves the door wide for the continual reduction of the debate to pedestrian and hateful comparisons of homosexuality to deviant sexual acts, like bestiality and pederasty.
A wise start to reframing this argument is to leave behind the repeated invocations of the standard and tiresome fare, “It’s not a choice.” If Liberals are to be true to their words that my rights end where yours begin, then we must acknowledge that whether homosexuality is a choice or not has no bearing on whether we defend the rights of gays and lesbians. The whole point of a free country is allowing people the freedom to make decisions for themselves as they best see fit, including whether to choose a partner of the same sex. A same-sex relationship does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights, so whether it’s by design or choice shouldn’t make a dime’s worth of difference to any Liberal intent on protecting the freedom and rights of all Americans.
Discomfort with the notion of choosing a partner of the same sex is simply not a viable option for straight Liberals. If the only way we can get right with defending gays and lesbians is to tell ourselves that’s the way they were made, then we are poor advocates for their rights. I acknowledge that many gays and lesbians feel that it is not a choice, but I also know people who feel that the choice was theirs (and the either/or scenario tends to exclude bisexuals and transgendered people from the discussion altogether). The point is that is doesn’t matter either way, and we need to leave that language behind us.
Full acceptance of all members of the GLBT community, and unqualified respect for their rights and choices, renders any further discussion about sex acts simplistic, and thereby moot. If we can move beyond the automatic associations of homosexuality with sex, as opposed to sexuality (a characteristic inherent in each of us, regardless of preference), perhaps we can leave the giggles behind and engage this issue with the seriousness it deserves.
Reframing Gay Rights
Propaganda Schmopaganda
Eponymous reports on an Editor & Publisher story that reveals the talking points that have become a part of the military’s “Media Training.”
[G]o read Smedley Butler's "I Was A Gangster for Capitalism" or study the Marine activities in the Philippine Insurrection (1899-1902), the Boxer Rebellion in China (1900), in Cuba (1906-09), in Nicaragua (1912), in Veracruz, Mexico, (1914), in Haiti (1915-34), the Dominican Republic (1916-24) and tell me that they were always fighting for the "Will of the People." Tell me and bring some facts, because to me (and historians), most of those interventions are cleary [sic] for the good not of the people but of those with money or investments in those locations who use the Marines like their personal thugs. It pains me to say it, because in my life I have never met a Marine I would not want out there fighting for me…
Check it out. Interesting stuff.
No Crisis, Continued
For today’s daily installment of There Is No Crisis, our featured guest is former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.
That’s right. According to Bloomberg (link via Talking Points Memo):
Even Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House of Representatives and a supporter of private accounts, says, ``The combination of higher birth rates and more immigration makes the United States the healthiest of developed nations. This is not a crisis.''Zowie! Exactly how far to the right does one have to get before they make Newt Gingrich sound like a voice of friggin’ reason?
But don’t just take Newt’s word for it. If you’re interested in another reason for not reforming Social Security, check out today’s post from the Rude Pundit, which features the testimonials of those whose lives would not have been the same without the survivor benefits provided them by our old and trusted pal, Social Security.
There is no crisis.
A President's Legacy
Okay, now that I'm done having fun with inauguration photos in my snide little way, I want to post something a little more meaningful.
Casey Owens, a wounded marine, salutes during the Inaugural speech by U.S. President George W. Bush on Capitol Hill in Washington, January 20, 2005.
I don't know what this soldier was thinking when his picture was taken. I don't know his politics. I don't know at whom or what he was saluting. All I know is that he stands as an image of this President's legacy thus far. To those who support Mr. Bush and the war, Casey Owens is a symbol of America's power and determination to spread democracy to a country that (we claimed) was a threat to us. To those who do not, Casey Owens is a painful reminder of the sacrifice of life and limb to a pointless and avoidable cause.
It's funny how we can look at the same man and see such different things.
Scenes from Inaugurathon 2005
First Lady Laura Bush seems to be enjoying her husband's balls.
The President flashes the sign of the devil...
...and then so does NotJenna...
...prompting the entrance of the Devil himself, Hot Karl Rove.
Defeated opponent John Kerry demonstrates for the crowd hot much he hates Bush...
...for pretending to play soldier with a man who won't be the last to die for his mistake.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell waves to the crowd and gleefully shouts, "I am so outta here."
Mr. President, I Do Believe Your Pants Are On Fire
John Aravosis rules.
"I was up till midnight in 20 degree weather doing this last night. Who new [sic] protest art looked so easy and was actually kind of hard? Enjoy. And oh, my balcony overlooks pretty much 2/3 of the city, and all the official helicopters from the White House and DOD fly overhead all day long. I think they'll notice. And, I almost forget, my view overlooks the "Hinckley" Hilton where one of the inaugural balls is tonight. He he he."
Awesome.
War Notes
River, the author of Baghdad Burning, started her blog in August of 2003 with the affecting introduction, “I'm female, Iraqi and 24. I survived the war. That's all you need to know. It's all that matters these days anyway.” With hindsight, what stands out is not the implicit sigh of resignation, but a strange hopefulness: survived the war. Past tense, as if the war were over. Of course, it was merely the shock and awe that were done; the war had only just begun.
River survives still, dispatching from her home in Iraq, when sporadic electricity, internet access, and safety allow. If you have not read Baghdad Burning, I urgently recommend you do so. Whatever you think you know of this war, and whatever you think you know of Iraqis and life in Iraq—before the war and now—I assure you that River will inform your perspective, and likely change your mind.
And when you wonder what Iraqis think about something like, for example, a report saying no WMDs were found, that the entire rationale for the mayhem with which they’ve been living going on two years now was bogus, River is there to offer her reaction. It’s not pretty, but I think it’s important to understand just what a huge fucking mess we’ve actually made.
Speaking of which, her recent post on the upcoming elections confirms what any reasonable person with a scrap of sense already suspects; the Iraqi elections and well and truly fucked. But the scope and variety of the fucked-upness is actually astounding:
Holy shit. I mean, holy flippin’ shit, right? Iranians buying Iraqi ballots? (Why are ballots being issued so early, anyway?!) Women’s voting rights easily snagged away from them? You know, before the war, women’s rights were pretty okay in Iraq. Now even non-religious women are wearing headscarves to avoid being shot by religious militants. And, to boot, many of them now won’t be able to vote. I’m sure they’re so glad we’ve brought “democracy” to Iraq.There are several problems. The first is the fact that, technically, we don't know the candidates. We know the principal heads of the lists but we don't know who exactly will be running. It really is confusing. They aren't making the lists public because they are afraid the candidates will be assassinated.
Another problem is the selling of ballots. We're getting our ballots through the people who give out the food rations in the varying areas. The whole family is registered with this person(s) and the ages of the varying family members are known. Many, many, many people are not going to vote. Some of those people are selling their voting cards for up to $400. The word on the street is that these ballots are being bought by people coming in from Iran. They will purchase the ballots, make false IDs (which is ridiculously easy these days) and vote for SCIRI or Daawa candidates. Sunnis are receiving their ballots although they don't intend to vote, just so that they won't be sold.
Yet another issue is the fact that on all the voting cards, the gender of the voter, regardless of sex, is labeled "male". Now, call me insane, but I found this slightly disturbing. Why was that done? Was it some sort of a mistake? Why is the sex on the card anyway? What difference does it make? There are some theories about this. Some are saying that many of the more religiously inclined families won't want their womenfolk voting so it might be permissible for the head of the family to take the women's ID and her ballot and do the voting for her. Another theory is that this 'mistake' will make things easier for people making fake IDs to vote in place of females.
All of this has given the coming elections a sort of sinister cloak. There is too much mystery involved and too little transparency. It is more than a little bit worrisome.
American politicians seem to be very confident that Iraq is going to come out of these elections with a secular government. How is that going to happen when many Shia Iraqis are being driven to vote with various fatwas from Sistani and gang? Sistani and some others of Iranian inclination came out with fatwas claiming that non-voters will burn in the hottest fires of the underworld for an eternity if they don't vote (I'm wondering- was this a fatwa borrowed from right-wing Bushies during the American elections?). So someone fuelled with a scorching fatwa like that one- how will they vote? Secular? Yeah, right.
And this is none too encouraging, either:
It feels like just about everyone who can is going to leave the country before the elections. They say the borders between Syria and Jordan might be closed a week before elections so people are rushing to get packed and get out. Many families are simply waiting for their school-age children to finish mid-year finals or college exams so they can leave.These are the realities of the Iraq War. Not rose petals and candies, but a corrupt, discriminatory voting system and a country so riddled with turmoil that people want to leave their homes. I know it’s tempting to make comparative jokes (why should they have it any better than we do?!), but there’s nothing funny about it when you consider that they suffer these injustices against a backdrop of death, destruction, and indiscriminate torture…perpetrated by us.
Today we rewarded the architect of the entire plot with another four years to scheme. And here’s the bitter irony: he was re-elected because he was seen by a majority as the man who could best keep us safe. But what he has done to undermine our security in the last four years will take generations to undo—if that’s even a possibility.
Too Little, Too Late
It seems to me that instead of some throw-away piece that seemed like it was scribbled on a barroom napkin, the NY Times might have addressed the issue of crippling our critical store of Arabic translators out of wanton homophobia might have been a pertinent topic for a major exposé before the election—you know, perhaps when all those anti-gay ballot initiatives were being considered, and before Public Homophobe #1 got sworn in for a second time.
Don't ask, don't tell - just scream in frustration: it turns out that 20 of the Arabic speakers so vitally needed by the nation have been thrown out of the military since 1998 because they were found to be gay. It is hard to imagine a more wrongheaded rebuff of national priorities. The focus must be on the search for Osama bin Laden and his terrorist legions, not the closet door. The Pentagon's snooping after potential gays trumps what every investigative agency in the war on terror has admitted is a crucial shortage of effective Arabic translators.It’ll take you about 30 seconds to read the three measly additional paragraphs devoted to the issue. Too little, to be sure, and definitely too late.
So how' s that homophobia working out for ya, Red State America? Do you feel safe from terrorists, knowing their chatter goes untranslated so your asinine claims that gay rights threaten your "values" can be indulged? Sleep well tonight, bigots.
Argh
Blogger is all bollocksed up again. It’s either posting nothing at all, or the same post 5 times. I won’t complain too vigorously, though, since I’ve read some other Blogger bloggers’ desperate howling about how shitty it can be, and although it certainly drives me nuts often enough, I seem to have fewer problems than lots of other users. Anyhow, sorry for the madness. We’ll see what we can do with it this afternoon, if anything.
The Nightmare Continues: It's Only Halftime
Wev:
George W. Bush swore the oath of office for a second term as president of the United States on Thursday, pledging to seek "freedom in all the world" as the surest path to peace in an era of terrorism across the globe.More on this travesty later.
Bush raised one hand and placed the other on a family Bible as he vowed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution in a 35-word pledge as old as the Republic.
"In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty," the nation's 43rd president said in his inaugural address.
[…]
"Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon," said the president, who led the nation to war in Iraq in a first term marked by terrorist attacks on the United States.
In a speech delivered before a vast throng of fellow Americans spilling away from the steps of the Capitol, Bush said he would place the nation on the side of the world's oppressed people. "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty. We will stand with you."
Time for the Glue Factory
From one of our generous corporate sponsors of Inaugurathon 2005:
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) predicted yesterday that partisan warfare over Social Security will quickly render President Bush's plan "a dead horse" and called on Congress to undertake a broader review of the problems of an aging nation.Is this guy for real? Social Security itself would not be a partisan issue if the Liberal and Conservative ideologies behind their support of/disdain for the program weren’t so vastly divergent. One would think that the notion of providing a modest stipend to the nation’s retirees, which they paid for through their own labor on behalf of their nation, wouldn’t be such a controversial notion as to provoke the commencement of a misinformation campaign to hasten its demise.
[…]
"The problem with Social Security, narrowly, is that it becomes more of a partisan issue than you would like."
The defense of Social Security, and all it stands for, should well be the objective of anyone who believes in the right of every American to maintain a sufficient level of health and well-being after they are beyond working age, as all of us, fates willing, will be in that position someday. And is it indeed the ambition of Liberals to see the program sustained. Conservatives, on the other hand, take the opposing view, rooted in their disdain for the working American—including many of the fools who cast their votes for this assemblage of miscreants that now seek to undermine their very futures.
The matter is partisan not because of anything inherently dysfunctional about Social Security itself, but because of what it represents. For Mr. Thomas and his idiot compatriots to reduce the squabble to a mere “partisan issue,” disregarding both their avaricious motivations and their devious machinations is disingenuous at best.
Perhaps most provocatively, Thomas said lawmakers should debate whether Social Security benefits should differ for men and women, because women live longer. "We never have debated gender-adjusting Social Security," he said.What the discreet WaPo calls provocative, I call piggish sexism. Tomato, tomahto. Although, maybe Mr. Thomas is on to something. We could adjust for race, while we’re at it. And hey—don’t married people live longer? That’s a good idea; it adds another level of bigotry against gays, lesbians, and hedonistic singles of all stripes in one fell swoop. In fact, let’s allow the actuaries to regulate Social Security; we can tie it into life insurance. If you’re too sick to get a good policy, you’re probably too sick to need Social Security, anyway. Especially once your healthcare drops you—a dead man walking hardly needs a government handout. Really what we should be doing is making sure that we get as much money as possible into the hands of people who will be around long enough to use it. Straight, white, healthy married men who attend church and already have lots of cash and good healthcare coverage are probably our best bets for Social Security. Maybe we should go ahead and dismantle the program after all and just change the rules so that those guys can simply tax shelter as much as their money as possible.
Wow. It’s easy to think like a Conservative when you’re being an ass for dramatic purposes.
Thomas's comments, which took the White House by surprise, reflected some Republicans' view that the White House has mishandled the plan's rollout and that a fresh start is needed to allow a chance for getting Democratic support.No plan, no matter how fresh, no matter how cunningly packaged with an Orwellian name and a red, white, and blue bow, no plan that includes reforming the basic tenets of Social Security should ever warrant the Democrats’ support. Every Dem in Congress needs to stand firm on the issue and not budge a single, solitary centimeter.
Nothing would make me happier than see a feisty donkey kick this horse until it has exhaled its last pathetic breath.
What's in a Name?
More than a few times recently, I've been asked if the title of the blog (and my moniker) references the shitty band of the same name. No.
Shakespeare's Sister is the title of a Virginia Woolf essay examining women's history; Tennessee Williams also uses it in The Glass Menagerie. The phrase was later borrowed by Morrissey, when still with The Smiths, for a song of the same title. (My passion for politics is only slightly less than that of my fervor for The Smiths.) It is after this song that the blog is specifically named, although my reverence for the Bard himself played no small part.
Liberal Media, My Ass
The Washington Post is donating $100,000 to Bush’s inauguration:
Patrick Butler, vice president of The Washington Post Co., said the company, which is the parent of this newspaper, agreed to donate to be sure that it has enough tickets to the Inaugural Ball to cover its major corporate advertisers, which The Post fetes at the event every four years. (From Not Your Father's America via PSoTD.)I wonder if there will be any tickets made available to Grace Christian Church.
Harrumph.
Two Can be as Bad as One…
Looking at the Stars’ Linnet on Dem votes at Condi’s confirmation hearing:
Meanwhile, Barbara Boxer cheerily welcomes Kerry into the cold, dank, smelly Gutsy Democrats clubhouse. "Took you long enough," she says. "Now what do we have to do to get Dianne and Teddy in here?"Sigh.
A Move D-Qwon Himself Would Admire
OMFG, this is one of the funniest things I have ever fucking seen.
From Corey Anderson on The American Street:
Napoleon Dynamite’s brother Kip tapped to become next deputy secretary of state
President Bush on Friday tapped U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, known to Gen-Yers as Kip, the chat room-obsessed brother of hapless high schooler Napoleon Dynamite, to become the next deputy secretary of state under Condolleezza Rice. First order of business was changing Secretary Rice’s Secret Service code name to LaFawnduh.
(Excuse me, but we Gen X-ers are still pretty hip, too.)
Rice Queen
Of course, old Snarl Puss was just confirmed. The vote was 16-2 with Democratic asslicker Joseph Biden claiming he voted for her "reluctantly."
The only 2 with any balls? Barabara Boxer and John Kerry, of course. Much respect to them. They can at least dream that they're part of an opposition party, can't they? We should do what we can to support them, but push for the overthrowing of Diane Feinstein, who seems like she would be more at home with the GOP. Come out of the closet, traitor.
There Is No Crisis
Via The Alternate Brain (among other places, but I saw it there first): ThereIsNoCrisis.com. BlogPAC.org has created the site in an effort to debunk the administration’s assertions that Social Security must be immediately reformed to prevent an imminent crisis. They need bloggers to get on board and get out the message. (Sign up to get email updates with new information.)
If you scroll down to the bottom of my sidebar at the right of the page, you’ll see an icon that can be easily added to indicate your participation in ThereIsNoCrisis.com. (Code can be found at their site.) It links to their homepage, which is rife with citations contradicting the notion of a crisis.
This is a battle we need to win and can win; we just need to fight.
More on Helmet-Head
John at Blogenlust posts a reminder that in October of 2003, Condi was charged with managing the post-war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, 15 months ago, after expressing dissatisfaction with the progress in Iraq, Bush appoints Rice to oversee, among other things, counterterrorism and political affairs in Iraq so that he can have more control over, and be more accountable for, events there. Mission Accomplished, indeed! (Note to Democrats: This would have been a nice thing to mention during the election.)This adds a particularly interesting context to an exchange she had with Senator Joe Biden during her confirmation hearing (keenly spotted by Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast):
Biden: Do you think we had adequate forces?Okay, well, here’s the problem, Condi. You’re the National Security Adviser, soon to be the Secretary of State. In either cabinet position, your primary job responsibility is to serve as an advisor to the President, particularly this president, who has repeatedly noted that he surrounds himself with people on whose advice he depends almost exclusively.
Rice: I wouldn't presume to give the President advice.
How can someone be fit to hold a position the requirements of which she either doesn’t understand or is unwilling to acknowledge under oath?
This woman makes me sick. Aside from her irrelevant expertise on the former Soviet Republic, what, exactly, are her qualifications? Nuzzling?
She has been an abject failure as a National Security Advisor. That her confirmation was all but a done deal before the hearing even began makes me feel ill. And unsafe. I mean, if another PDB came along warning of a potential attack, how can we be assured that Condi would be willing to take appropriate action? After all, she wouldn’t presume to give the President advice.
Yeesh
David Corn has the goods on the shocking ass-licking the normally admirable Diane Feinstein gave to Condi yesterday:
Feinstein told the committee all about Rice's brilliant childhood. Rice played piano at the age of three. She read by the time she was five years old. Her father called her "Little Star." She attended Stanford University, Feinstein's alma mater. Feinstein cited Papa Bush's appraisal of Rice: "she knows what she is talking about." Rice, she noted, was the first woman and first African-American to be named provost of Stanford. She was good with students. And once as a child, she stood outside the White House and supposedly told her father, "I'm barred out of there now because of the color my skin. But one day, I'll be in that house."Go read the rest. Good stuff.
This was all nonsense. Should people care about the personal story of a woman who has enabled Bush to bamboozle a nation?
Maybe, Maybe Not
As we know, Senator Barbara Boxer was the only one with balls enough to hand Cuntaleeza her ass, but I regained a little respect for Kerry when I read this:
Rice seemed headed for easy confirmation by the Senate as President Bush's
choice to be the country's top diplomat. She did have a tense exchange with Sen.
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. — Rice repeatedly asked the senator not to question her
truthfulness — but former presidential nominee John Kerry D-Mass., was the only
member of the Foreign Relations Committee who told her she might not win his
vote.
But still - she "might not" win his vote? I'm sure she's real worried. Why is it too much to ask Democrats to do something revolutionary and NOT confirm the bitch?
