…who catches Bush testing out some more new words and phrases. Howdy, Neighbor and Perspective. Click through just to look at the images, if for no other reason.
My Friend Joe says, “I can’t believe they let that guy talk in public.” Neither can I.
Two Good Ones from The Heretik
Jesus endorses Florida candidate via holy mouthpiece
Pat Robertson ain't got the market cornered on crazy. The Rev. O'Neal Dozier, pastor of the Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach, introduced Florida gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist yesterday by explaining that two years ago, the Lord came to him in a dream to tell him that Crist would be Florida's next governor.
The Rev. O'Neal Dozier said that before the dream he did not know Crist, nor had Crist made known his plans to run for governor.Crist responded to the heaven-sent endorsement by saying, "Well, as they say, the praise doesn't get any higher." Something—or someone—is high, anyway.
"The Lord Jesus spoke to me and he said 'There's something I want you to know,'" said Dozier... "'Charlie Crist will be the next governor of the state of Florida.' ...I introduce to you, as the Lord Jesus has said, the next governor of the state of Florida, Charlie Crist."
Current Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is apparently familiar with Dozier, having appointed him to a group that nominates judges in South Florida, called the conduit for Christ and endorser of Crist "very sincere" and " a good man." Who maybe needs a vacation.
(More evidence the Left is hostile to religion! someone cries. To which I can only respond, "Better to go with me on this one. If Crist doesn't win, then what? You really want the proof of God resting on the pronouncements of how an election will turn out in Florida?")
This of course launched yet another Religion-Off, with the Dem candidates trying to prove their godly credentials as well.
Democrats running for the seat Bush is leaving due to term limits - state Sen. Rod Smith and U.S. Rep. Jim Davis - did not attend, though Smith's son-in-law, the Rev. Graham Glover, spoke on his behalf.Yeah, sure—but has God endorsed him? I didn't think so.
… Smith's son-in-law acknowledged that Democrats haven't always been seen as strong advocates of faith, but said Smith is unquestionably a religious man.
"It is sad when we're told that our faith can't be brought to the table, that our values can't be front and center," said Glover, a Lutheran. "(Smith) is a man who loves his lord, he is a man who loves his family. As a Southern Baptist, he can probably quote scripture a whole lot better than I can."
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK; image via Dlisted.)
Blog Problem
For some reason, the posts from the last few days of every month aren’t appearing in archives. Does anyone else on Blogger have this problem? When I try to republish, it gets all the way to 99% and then fails, which suggests to me there’s some kind of little glitch or something that’s causing the problem; this has been going on for months. I’ve combed through the code to see if I could identify what’s causing it, but I can’t find a darn thing. Anyone with any programming expertise have any suggestions?
Veterans' info stolen; names, SSNs, DOBs, and more stolen and now missing
Fixer at Alternate Brain, a veteran himself, points to this alert warning veterans to "be extra vigilant and to carefully monitor bank statements, credit card statements and any statements relating to recent financial transactions" and report any unusual or suspicious activity to both the financial institution(s) involved and the Federal Trade Commission. Why? Because:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has recently learned that an employee, a data analyst, took home electronic data from the VA, which he was not authorized to do. This behavior was in violation of VA policies. This data contained identifying information including names, social security numbers, and dates of birth for up to 26.5 million veterans and some spouses, as well as some disability ratings. Importantly, the affected data did not include any of VA's electronic health records nor any financial information. The employee's home was burglarized and this data was stolen. The employee has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation.The Washington Post has more on the theft.
This is the "biggest unauthorized disclosure ever of Social Security data," and "affected veterans include anyone discharged after 1975 and some of their spouses, as well as some veterans discharged before then who submitted a claim for VA benefits." And in a now all-too familiar theme, concerns about the VA's "significant information security vulnerabilities" were raised last year by acting Inspector General Jon A. Wooditch, but, evidently, nothing—or not enough—was done.
(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
Is Gore planning to run?
No one's managed to pin down the Man Who Should Have President, including John Heilemann, whose profile of Gore piques Eric Alterman to muse a bit more on the purveyor of inconvenient truths. Says Alterman:
[Y]ou gotta imagine it's going to be hard for Al to resist—especially with Hillary looking so vulnerable in a general election and her position on Iraq growing murkier and murkier... In truth, I don't think Gore was planning to run, but now I think he's thinking about it. He's run what turns out to be a perfect non-campaign-campaign. And after all, he'd clearly like the job. He's prepared for it his entire life. And lots of people are telling him only he can save the country from the disaster of yet another Republican—possibly even another Bush—presidency. Raising money and fielding an organization would be not problem. And say what you will about Gore, the man's a patriot.I certainly don't disagree with any of that, except perhaps that it's clear he'd like the job. At one time that was true—a time when he would have inherited a budget surplus and eight years of peace and prosperity. Being the heir to a massive deficit, a lack of international goodwill, and a disastrous war is a different kettle of fish altogether. It's never an easy job to be president, but surely there are times when it's harder than others. Even if the temptation is hard for him to resist, and even if we need Al Gore, he must be wondering if he needs the headache.
Then again, say what you will. The man's a patriot.
(Hat tip Holly; crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)
QoTD: for the love of food
What meal, either homemade or from a restaurant, ranks right up there as your favorite?
This is a hard one for me but I have to say: a perfectly grilled (over charcoal, not gas!) NY strip steak accompanied by peak-of-season corn on the cob, and thick slices of a fresh homegrown tomato. And a crisp cider to go with, of course. Throw in a warm-but-not-hot summer evening and you have the makings of bliss. Ahhh.
Oh, Joy!
Have you heard the most excellent news? We're finally reaching a turning point in Iraq!
CHICAGO - President Bush on Monday embraced the new leadership in Iraq as a turning point in the war but claimed only gradual progress in years of fighting and acknowledged that Americans are uneasy about the outcome.Awww. Prezint Mushmouth learned a new word. They're so cute when they're learnin' stuff. Karl certainly earned his paycheck this week.
"I can understand why people are concerned about whether or not our strategy can succeed because our progress is incremental," Bush said in his first speech since the swearing in of a new government over the weekend. "Freedom is moving but it's in incremental steps, and the enemy's progress is almost instant on their TV screens."
The president acknowledged the American lives lost in Iraq, past mistakes and tough days to come. He repeatedly returned to the word "incremental" to describe progress there.
Thank goodness we're finally turning the corner.
Happy, happy. Joy, joy.
(Don't whiz on the electric cross-post.)
Oy, my ass hurts! Oh, and I met Senator Bayh.
That was the purpose of today’s little excursion across the lion’s share of my fine, flat state. (Meeting Evan Bayh, not the sore ass—that was just an unfortunate result of six hours in the car.) My senator is, as it’s well known, making all the moves that a person interested in running for president tends to make—setting up a PAC, going to Iowa, that sort of thing. And as part of his outreach to the blogging community, his staff set up a luncheon in Indy for Senator Bayh to meet some Indiana bloggers, so off I went.
In my typical half-assed fashion, I arrived in Indy after three hours with the windows down, singing along to Mozza (it is his birthday today, after all), with mad, disastrous hair, a half-sunbaked face, and sleep still in my eyes. (Credit Indiana’s continuing time zone catastrophe, which leaves Indy an hour ahead, for requiring me to get on the road an hour earlier than necessary if I lived in a normal state.) In any case, I vaguely pulled it together and met some of the other swell Hoosier bloggers who were also there, including three of the spectacular Bilerico team—Linda Perdue, Jerame Davis, and Bil Browning, who is even more lovely than I imagined.
Then it was time for the Senator to arrive. He came in and introduced himself to everyone individually, then was seated one chair away from me. He didn’t give a prepared statement; just opened it up for questions. Bil got things off to a roaring start by questioning the Senator about the Federal Marriage Amendment. Bayh said he had voted against it before, and would vote against it again. Then Bil followed up by asking about the amendment on Indiana’s state ballot, which is up for a vote next year. On this, the Senator struggled. It’s dangerous to punt with a statement like, “It’s a state issue” when your home state’s currently considering an anti-gay marriage measure and there are people from that state sitting in front of you asking you questions. I desperately hoped he’d plainly state his objections to a discriminatory amendment, but alas, he did not. He said he hadn’t read it and didn’t really have an answer. Not good.
What was good: Bayh is a very personable guy and a great speaker. He speaks with passion about education and healthcare and national security; he also spoke strongly on the need for checks and balances and the cynicism of wedge issue (“divide and conquer”) politics. He’s extremely polished—verging on too polished; he’s better when he lets the politician’s façade down a bit to speak about his kids, for instance. He’s quick with his answers and doesn’t stumble, and when he does prevaricate, he manages to sound to the casual listener like he isn’t, which is something at which Kerry was dreadful. If (ahem) Bayh does run for president, I believe he’ll play very well in the middle states. As I’ve said before, he was a very good Democratic governor in a very red state. He’s resolute in his determination to be a consensus-builder, and likes to refer to his “moderate, or conservative” positions—like a firm belief in fiscally sustainable policy.
The problem he’ll have is with progressive political junkies (yeah, I’m talking to you, Shakers), who really listen. Fiscal responsibility isn’t really a conservative position anymore; what Clinton started by aligning Dems with fiscal responsibility, Bush has certainly finished—the GOP has no claim to be more responsible with our tax dollars these days. We will (as we’re meant to) shrug off these so-called conservative credentials, but we’ll also find that there may be some genuine non-progressive positions that we don’t like. I noticed that although healthcare, education, and the environment made it into his answers even though no questions were directly asked about them, there was (to my ears) a ringing silence on issue of reproductive rights and there was the stumble on the issue of LGBT equality. These will remain important issues to lots of people, and they’ll be looking for someone who cares about them and doesn’t punt.
As for me, I tried to think of a question that the Shakers would like to see answered, and what I came up with was asking the Senator whether he supported Nancy Pelosi’s decision to take impeachment off the table in the House, even though thorough investigations of the administration haven’t been done and polls show that Americans increasingly support impeachment. Bayh said (paraphrasing), “Remember when the Republicans were going nuts in pursuit on Clinton…?” And because I apparently cannot control my smart-assitude even when sitting two feet away from a Senator, I said, “No, I don’t remember that at all. When was that?” Okay, the other bloggers laughed, but Bayh didn’t seem to find it all that funny. Sorry, Senator. He went on to say that the American people didn’t like it when the Republican Congress went after Clinton when they should have been paying attention to jobs and the economy and shit, and there was a backlash, and the Dems won seats during midterms—and if the Dems tried to impeach Bush, the same thing would happen, because it would be viewed as motivated by a vendetta.
I didn’t point out that the so-called “backlash” that is always invoked by Dems came to a screeching halt at the end of Clinton’s presidency and has faded in the shadow of a 5-year-and-counting ascendancy of the conservative movement, nor did I note that, as one of those “American people,” I’d prefer it if, for once, a politician could consider the possibility that we’re smart enough to discern the difference between impeachment for perjury about a blowjob and impeachment for the wholesale shredding of our Constitution, nor did I mention that my question wasn’t really about whether the Dems should impeach Bush, but whether it was foolish to take it off the table when voter support for the idea is increasing and all the evidence of administration wrongdoing isn’t in by a long shot. Instead I just nodded, because I realized I’d gotten my answer.
In the end, though, props to Senator Bayh for meeting with his blogging constituents and leaving himself open to criticism (some of which I've now delivered). I imagine he left each of us with some things to think about, and I truly hope we did the same for him.
Like pulp fiction
Is there a Louisiana-based novelist who is the equivalent of, say, Florida's Carl Hiaasen? Let's hope so, because the undoing of Democratic Representative William Jefferson - nailed by the Feds in a bribery investigation - has the soul of a Hiaasen book: petty greed, graft, official malfeasance, all dusted with unintended humor and a generous sprinkling of incompetence. This is the stuff of paperback fiction.
At one meeting captured on audiotape, Jefferson chuckles about writing in code to keep secret what the government contends was his corrupt role in getting his children a cut of a communications company's deal for work in Africa.As Jefferson and the informant passed notes about what percentage the lawmaker's family might receive, the congressman "began laughing and said, 'All these damn notes we're writing to each other as if we're talking, as if the FBI is watching,'" he told the businesswoman, who was wearing an FBI recording device.
Oh, and it gets better:
As for the $100,000...all but $10,000 was recovered on Aug. 3 when the FBI searched Jefferson's home in Washington. The money was stuffed in his freezer, wrapped in $10,000 packs and concealed in food containers and aluminum foil.
Louisiana writers, you'd better get busy! Otherwise, Hiaasen may just cross state lines and eat your lunch on this story.
(This entry sent parcel cross-post...)Be nice to America...
...or we'll bring democracy to you. Old-school.
The president said he worries about Venezuela and Bolivia. Bolivia nationalized its natural gas industry and its president, Evo Morales, has been cementing a bond with Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chavez.Bush said he would remind Western Hemisphere nations such as those that "respect for property rights and human rights is essential," that "meddling in other elections ... to achieve a short-term objective is not in the interests of the neighborhood," and that the United States expects other nations to stand against corruption and for transparent governance.
"Let me just put it bluntly: I'm concerned about the erosion of democracy in" Venezuela and Bolivia, he said.
We've already seen what happens when Bush gets all "concerned." Fathers, lock up your oil fields.
(Cross-posted in advance of the liberation of Venezuela...)
Mmmmm... Sacrelicious.
Albright critical of Bush's religious absolutism
LONDON (Reuters) - President Bush has alienated Muslims around the world by using absolutist Christian rhetoric to discuss foreign policy issues, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says.
"I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy," she said, referring to Jimmy Carter and
Bill Clinton, both Democrats and Christians.
"President Bush's certitude about what he believes in, and the division between good and evil, is, I think, different," said Albright, who has just published a book on religion and world affairs. "The absolute truth is what makes Bush so worrying to some of us."
[...]
She quotes from his speech to his party convention of 2004, when he told Republicans: "We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom."
"Some of his language is really quite over the top," Albright told Reuters on Sunday during a trip to London to promote her book. "When he says 'God is on our side', it's very different from (former U.S. President Abraham) Lincoln saying 'We have to be on God's side'."
"From beyond the stars." Good lord. Someone really needs to keep a close eye on Prezint Second Coming; he's listening to The Great Gazoo.
This is exactly what freaks me out about Bush's religious fervor. He doesn't just use it as a means of enhancing his life or a moral compass... he's not even simply using it as a tool anymore. The guy thinks he talks to God, for chrissakes. It's bad enough when he's flinging his beliefs around to alter policy in this country; Albright is right, all this Jesus talk is making the rest of the world very nervous. And that makes me nervous. No wonder I haven't had a good night's sleep in almost two weeks.
Be ready for the inevitable right-wing smear; I'm sure they'll be using this quote quite a bit:
Asked about her own beliefs, Albright said she had "a very confused religious background."
Out of context, that's gold, baby!
These days, she describes herself as "an Episcopalian (U.S. Anglican) with a Catholic background," recalling how she used to pray to the Virgin Mary as a child and still does.
"I know I believe in God but I have doubts, and doubt is part of faith," she said.
Damn right it is. But Bush and the Religious Right have changed the meaning of faith to "absolute, unquestioning obedience." No wonder they want everyone to think of Bush as the second coming.
(Here's the cross-post, here's the steeple...)
Yet Another Brain Trust Makes Things Worse
You've got to hand it to the Republicans: at least when they're involved in major bribery schemes, they're not this stupid about it. And their damage control is second to none. Thanks for the additional damage to the party, pal. (Bolds mine)
Congressman Caught on Tape, Documents Say
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Allegedly scamming a Virginia businesswoman could prove to be a major mistake for a Democratic congressman from New Orleans.D'oh!!
The FBI revealed Sunday that Rep. William Jefferson, under investigation for bribery, was videotaped accepting $100,000 in $100 bills from an FBI informant whose conversations with the lawmaker also were recorded. Agents later found the cash hidden in his freezer, according to a court document released Sunday.
At one meeting captured on audiotape, Jefferson chuckles about writing in code to keep secret what the government contends was his corrupt role in getting his children a cut of a communications company's deal for work in Africa.
As Jefferson and the informant passed notes about what percentage the lawmaker's family might receive, the congressman "began laughing and said, 'All these damn notes we're writing to each other as if we're talking, as if the FBI is watching,'" he told the businesswoman, who was wearing an FBI recording device.
As for the $100,000, the government says Jefferson got the money in a leather briefcase last July 30 at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington. The plan was for the lawmaker to use the cash to bribe a high-ranking Nigerian official — the name is blacked out in the court document — to ensure the success of a business deal in that country, the affidavit said.
All but $10,000 was recovered on Aug. 3 when the FBI searched Jefferson's home in Washington. The money was stuffed in his freezer, wrapped in $10,000 packs and concealed in food containers and aluminum foil.
Two of Jefferson's associates have pleaded guilty to bribery-related charges in federal court in Alexandria. One, businessman Vernon Jackson of Louisville, Ky., admitted paying more than $400,000 in bribes to the lawmaker in exchange for his help securing business deals for Jackson's telecommunications company in Nigeria and other African countries.
Additional details are in the article... but here's the part that really annoys me:
The Jefferson investigation has provided some cover for Republicans who have suffered black eyes in the investigations of current and former GOP lawmakers, including Tom DeLay of Texas, the former majority leader.So, in other words, this little scandal is equivalent to the DeLay money orgy. *sigh*
Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California, a Vietnam-era jetfighter ace, was sentenced in March to more than eight years in prison for accepting bribes on a scale unparalleled in the history of Congress.
I'm not saying that what Jefferson did was right; if he's guilty (and at least from this article it sounds like he is), he should be punished. It's the equivalency that's bothering me. Democrats, the moment you're caught with your fingers in some dirty pies, the Republican party will be all over you like a bad suit. The Republican talking heads will be crowing about your wrongdoing and making sure to keep your name in the public mind. It doesn't really matter who you are or what you did, it's more important that people know that a Democrat is dirty.
Yes, the Republican party is innundated with crooks and liars. (sorry) Yes, their elected leaders, Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rummy, etc. are so incredibly horrible that it seems absurd that any American would ever trust the Republican party again. But the upcoming elections are not a slam dunk. If the Democrats seem as dirty as they are, they can easily snatch your landslide away from you using good 'ol Fear Of Brown People or pictures of two men kissing.
Get with the fucking program. They know the only way they're going to stay in power is by making you look as dirty as they are. Stop giving them ammo.
(There's always something there to cross-post me...)
Gone Fishin’
I’m going to be out today; I’m traveling downstate to Indy and it will take up most of the day. Hopefully, I’ll have some stories to share upon my return that will be of interest to the Shakes crowd, though (ooh, mysterious), and I’m sure the rest of the Tormentors will keep things moving in fine form in my absence.
Be back soon!
America 2.0
Gonzo Law:
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.Perhaps I’d have a modicum of sympathy for this position (but likely not) if there had been any incident where a news story had clearly and demonstrably undermined our national security. The closest the administration has come to that is suggesting that revelation of the NSA spy program tipped off “the terrorists” to the possibility that their phones might be tapped. Now, as when they first starting floating that ludicrous assertion, I remain firmly convinced that most terrorists are wise enough to consider the possibility that they will be tracked using every possible means made available by modern technology. There is, however, plenty of evidence to suggest that the administration is doing lots of things to which many Americans would object if the media reported on them. So color me suspicious that “national security” is the reason for this maneuver, as opposed to “job security.”
The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.
Fainting Couch Alert!
Bush Is Losing Hispanics' Support, Polls Show—Great Caesar’s Ghost! I’m shocked; shocked! You mean, Hispanic people don’t like being treated like a political football? I never would have guessed! My mind is officially blown.
Hispanic voters, many of whom responded favorably to President Bush's campaign appeals emphasizing patriotism, family and religious values in Spanish-language media in 2004, are turning away from the administration on immigration and a host of other issues, according to a new survey.Oh my word. Does this mean that Bush’s hastily stitched together base built on appealing to a hatred of boys kissing is finally beginning to realize that they sometimes have diametrically opposing and fundamentally irreconcilable interests? Heavens to Mergatroid! Can someone get me a mint julip and a fan before I faint dead away?
At the same time, separate polls show that conservative white Republicans are the voting group most hostile to the administration's support for policies that would move toward the legalization of many undocumented immigrants.
Endless Love in Iraq
I don’t know why, but I just find this story totally amusing and strangely charming: Lionel Richie is huge in Iraq.
I have been to Iraq nine times since the American invasion three years ago, for a total of about 10 solid months. (My wife is counting.) During that time, I have seen bombs and blood, I have seen rebuilding and restructuring, and I have seen death and democracy. So what have I heard? That's easy: Lionel Richie.I bet Hasselhoff is fuming.
Grown Iraqi men get misty-eyed by the mere mention of his name. "I love Lionel Richie," they say. Iraqis who do not understand a word of English can sing an entire Lionel Richie song.
…I asked Richie if he knows just how big he is here. He said, "The answer is, I'm huge, huge in the Arab world. The answer as to why is, I don't have the slightest idea."
Unpopular and Unlikable
Last Monday, Karl Rove said that the president's dwindling popularity was due to decreasing support of the Iraq war--not to a dislike of the president himself. "People like this president," he asserted. "They're just sour right now on the war."
Eh, not so much.
It's not just the way he's doing his job. Americans apparently don't like President Bush personally much anymore, either.Tough break. Couldn't happen to a more deserving fella.
A drop in his personal popularity, as measured by several public polls, has shadowed the decline in Bush's job-approval ratings and weakened his political armor when he and his party need it most.
(Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)
Happy Birthday, Mr. Furious!
On this day and always, my dear friend, I love you—and I don’t know what I’d do without you. Thank you for being a most excellent compatriot, for always making me laugh, and for making my life immeasurably better just because you are in it. Thanks for all the fun times we’ve had, and all that we will.
Mr. Furious and Shakes, 1993
Happy Birthday.
Big Girl Update
The thread which has been the subject of debate here and elsewhere in the blogosphere has been moved again and can now be read here. By way of follow-up, what appears to be John Aravosis’ final word on the matter is as follows:
Guys, anybody who isn't happy, please leave this blog and don't come back. I'm serious. Get out.I find it extremely disappointing that one of the leaders of the progressive movement in the blogosphere has chosen to be so willfully shut off from a legitimate discussion about the use of a phrase that is offensive to many of his readers—and that, once again, addressing sexism in progressive blogging is being viewed as an either-or proposition. Either we can talk about Pat Roberts’ opinion of our civil liberties, or we can talk about sexism, but not both.
Our Constitution is on life support and you freaks have spent over 24 hours worrying about two words in a title, and you're still obsessed over it. None of us have the time to deal with your weekly fit of hysterics, whether it's over Katherine Harris' photo, Cynthia McKinney being a wackjob, commenter Miles being upset that I "made a big deal" about a hate crime that almost killed a gay couple, you being upset that I criticized Howard Dean for his insensitivity to gay issues (which I was proved right on a week later), and on and on and on.
It took me a while to realize it, but there are a minority of my readers who are never going to be happy. Rather than fight our common enemy, you'd rather sit here and beat me up because somehow you get off on that. That's fine. You're no longer welcome. Please leave. And spare me the emails about how you used to love the blog. The blog is the same it's always been. You however have become increasingly nasty and shrill.
I choose to spend my time fighting the enemy. You choose to spend your time fighting friends. Well, you do that. On someone else's blog. You're no longer welcome here, so get out.
The irony about this position is that it mirrors one of the complaints many of us have about the mainstream media, of which blogs such as AMERICAblog seek to be a useful critic, if not an alternative—that the MSM fails to maintain coverage of multiple issues at once. Stories, sometimes big ones, are lost to the ether as a new story comes along. We moan that there’s no need for 24-7 coverage of the latest missing white girl, to the exclusion of stories like the Downing Street Memo. And yet here we are being told that engaging complaints about an important issue—sexism—cannot be done while we also fight the encroachment of our rights. This is a sad state of affairs indeed.
In comments, I was asked why the use of the term “big girl” to denigrate a man bothers me so much. Why does it upset me; why can’t I just let it roll away like so much water off a duck’s back? I will repost my response here, in the hope that those who would reduce this latest conflagration to an example of PC-ism run amok, in the hope that someone who doesn’t understand why some of us react the way we do, might.
The word that's coming to my mind as I try to explain is history. And I don't mean history in an academic sense, as in the history of the feminist movement, but as in my own history—a thousand threads of experience that come together to weave the fabric that I regard as my life. That history contains lots of wonderful and not wonderful things, related and unrelated things. And when I read someone using a term like "big girl" in a derogatory way, irrespective of motive, it pricks at a particular thread as though it's a guitar string, but instead of producing sound, it produces memory. The memory of gym teachers who nastily said to the boys, "Come on ladies, hustle!" The memory of boys at recess excluding me with the explanation, "You're just a girl." The memory of men asking my father if he was disappointed to have had two daughters and no sons. The memory of being told that girls don't behave this way or that way, when I was only being myself. The memory of finding out a male coworker with less experience made more money than me. The memory of every right-wing nut who has tried to steal my bodily autonomy...
I don't carry these things with me because I want to. I carry them with me because they have left indelible prints upon me, affected my understanding of who I am to other people.
I don't want to be bothered when I read things like the post in question. I don't want to feel hurt by them. But it doesn't matter what I want. To protect myself against this reaction is to deny my experience, to deny part of myself.
I am a girl who has been affected by sexism. And I feel weak admitting I've been hurt by it, but, in reality, it's much easier to admit anger. I have to dig much deeper to confess the pain it has caused me.
No Civil Liberties If You’re Dead
Oddjob pointed to this post at Talking Points Memo, which reports that Senator Pat “Big Girl” Roberts said during Michael Hayden’s confirmation hearing, “I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties, but you have no civil liberties if you are dead."
I guess I’m just not going ape about what a huge story this is because I remembered that he’s said the exact same thing before. February 3: “You really don't have any civil liberties if you're dead.” It’s sort of his catch phrase. His “Shut your stinking trap!” if he were Skank. (Shout-out to fans of the old Ben Stiller show.)
Yeah, it’s alarming and stupid and all that, but I honestly don't have the energy to go apeshit every time Roberts shows a total disregard for our rights with the same stupid comment. File this under: SNAFU.
