Shakesville

Be Safe!

Safe! magazine is a publication issued by the Suffolk police in Britain as part of a “safety campaign” to warn women about the dangers of too much drinking. "We need to raise their awareness of potential problems," says Chief Superintendent David McDonnell, because, "They become more vulnerable whilst under the influence of alcohol."

So what’s their hot advice? Wear nice panties and get a bikini wax!

[The] magazine shows pictures of young women slumped on the ground next to messages urging them: "If you've got it, don't flaunt it."

"If you fall over or pass out, remember your skirt or dress may ride up," the magazine says. "You could show off more than you intended -- for all our sakes, please make sure you're wearing nice pants and that you've recently had a wax."

Nice. The magazine also apparently advises women to “stick with friends, book a taxi home and watch the amount they drink.”

If nothing else, I admire the optimism of its designers who evidently believe that Paris Hilton wannabes are seeking guidance in reading material.

RIP Red Buttons

Red Buttons died today at 87. Good innings.

Quite an amazing career, but my favorite will always be The Poseidon Adventure. So sweet, he was.

Woof

Seriously, why the hell am I still writing for free when rubbish like this makes Esquire? I give up.

(Via Atrios.)

Plame Sues

The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Valerie Plame and her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador, accused Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby of revealing Plame's CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration's motives in Iraq.

Good luck.

(Hat tip to Shaker Diana.)

Roasting Giuliani

And not in a good way. The Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11 is a forthcoming book authored by Giuliani biographer and Village Voice contributor Wayne Barrett and senior producer for CBSNews.com Dan Collins—and they rip the mask right off of “America’s Mayor.”

Compared to the bewildered George W. Bush, Giuliani projected confidence, calm and leadership in the terrible hours after the Twin Towers fell. That was all to the good. However, Barrett and Collins assert, Giuliani's subsequent claims that he had expected and had been preparing for a terrorist attack since taking office do not match the facts, which the authors explore in abundant (and just this side of numbing) detail.

Incompetence: Giuliani located the headquarters of the Office of Emergency Management inside the World Trade Center in spite of its long having been identified as a prime terrorism target.

Partisanship: “The heads of various crisis-management-and-response units were political appointees, most in way above their heads.” Had Giuliani and his appointees not failed to coordinate communications among emergency agencies, “there's a good chance, the authors maintain, that the civilians who were told to stay in place inside the burning towers would have been evacuated, as the fire chiefs had ordered.”

Cronyism: “[T]he Giuliani City Hall seems to have been no stranger to sweetheart deals and patronage, so that the employee in charge of emergency broadband communications had a sister who worked as a lobbyist for the phone provider who just happened to win the lucrative contract. That employee later committed suicide.”

Good lord. I may have to interrupt my McCain Can Blow Me Campaign to sling a little mud in Giuliani’s direction when this tome hits bookstores. I never thought I’d see the day that another potential GOP nominee wound me up as much as McCain.

“Let me not to the marriage of true minds / Admit impediments…”

Someone Gets It

As politics go, we're surprised so many readers expect us or any publication to provide "balance," which reflects a belief in the fallacy that there are two equally valid sides to every story. You see this in the debate over global warming and evolution. Thousands of scientists stand on one side of the issue, recognizing that global warming is a problem and that evolution is firmly established, while only a few detractors stand on the other.

Vote McCaskill in Senate challenger support poll

Sen. Barbara Boxer's PAC for a Change is asking for your vote to help determine which Democratic Senate challenger will get financial support from the organization. Three days ago, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania had a huge lead in the poll, but Casey already has truckloads of cash. He doesn't need the help nearly as much as others on the list.

Claire McCaskill of Missouri is a different story. While running neck and neck with opponent Jim Talent, she still needs financial help to level the playing field in a race that has flown under the national radar. The 14,000 voters in the PAC for a Change poll have taken note: in just three days, McCaskill has surged from well behind (at 7%) on the list of Senate challengers to take the lead by one percent over Casey (17% to 16%). McCaskill needs your help to gain the support she needs to fight a tightly-contested race. The poll ends on July 21. Make sure to vote, and to spread the word to friends and family!

C'mon, folks! Missouri needs the help.

(This unabashed plea is cross-posted.)

Me Want Piggy in Belly!

A reminder (like we need it) that Bush’s mental age is most likely somewhere around three. An obnoxious, overindulged three.

He really wants that fucking pig…

I imagine he also repeatedly asked “are we there yet?” during the entire flight to Germany.

What up, Google?

Michael just emailed me to tell me that Google’s Gmail is serving ads linking to HeteroPride.

Tired of seeing homosexuals bragging about their sexual preference? Now you too can join the ranks of those who vocalize their sexual preference with our brand new local Heteropride® chapters.

A robust Heteropride® Chapter will have at least ten active Heterosexuals, but you can get started with as few as two. Even with just one or two Heterosexuals you can initiate simple activities. Use simple actions and social events to cultivate a larger cohort of active Heterosexuals. Once you have assembled a group of five to ten committed Heterosexuals, you have enough people to start preparing for bigger public actions.

Yeesh. This site is so idiotic, I swear it’s like an Onion satire.

“Pride” is a reaction to shame. Until someone tries to shame you for your sexuality, gender, skin color, religious beliefs, etc., you don’t need to start a pride movement, k?

With friends like these…

Sometimes I can’t believe the swill I read in Slate. Today’s offering of Shit That Pisses Me Off in Slate is a treatise on the possibility that some opponents of gay marriage are really just motivated by sexism—and, hey, feminists and progressive men are really the problem, anyway.

[W]hat if these gay-marriage bans were not animated by anti-gay bigotry? What if they represent a deeper-seated anxiety about gender and gender roles? What if popular aversion to gay marriage has less to do with hating same-sex couples than with a deep psychological attachment to a powerful symbol of sex difference: the tulle-covered bride and the top-hat-and-tails groom?

What if. Yes, what if anti-gay crusaders were motivated by their desire to protect traditional gender roles that favor the subjugation of women? Gee, no one’s ever thought of the correlation between sexism and homophobia before! It’s probably just a crazy coincidence that straight feminist bloggers tend to be the strongest LGBT ally in the blogosphere, rather than any insight into an association between the attacks on gay rights and women’s rights predicated by a desire among a certain segment of straight men to retain their undeserved dominion.

After San Francisco's same-sex marriage experiment, one observer in a red county nearby complained: "God made marriage for Adam and Eve; not Adam and Steve." It's telling that this objection to same-sex marriage doesn't rely on moral condemnation of same-sex couples but instead on the most primordial account of natural sex difference.

Finding anything “telling” about the old “Adam and Steve” chestnut ought to disqualify anyone from writing about the issues of gender and sexuality right from the starting blocks.

A lot of the resistance is less about sexual orientation than about sex difference. In other words, it's not about the difference between gay and straight; it's about the difference between male and female. By this logic, conventional marriage doesn't exclude gay couples from a special status reserved for straights; it excludes women from a special status reserved for men—that of husband—and excludes men from a status reserved for women—that of wife.

Uh, okay. The whole “some people don’t like the idea of two people of the same sex making a couple” thing is a pretty good explanation of one of the key features of homophobia. This is a perfect example of why this article is complete shit. In trying to prove that opponents aren’t motivated exclusively by homophobia, but instead by an immutable preference for traditional gender roles, the author simply pulls homophobia apart from one of its roots and then claims they’re two different things.

Essentially, the entire piece is an exercise in attempting to unearth legitimacy for those who claim, “I don’t hate gays; whatever they do in the privacy of their homes is their business.” The unspoken notion that follows is that any expression of homosexuality in the public sphere, whether a display of affection or a marriage, is discomfiting and ergo should be denied. Repackaging it as simply favoring traditional gender roles is disingenuous at best and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the sources of homophobia.

It's no secret that traditional sex roles are in crisis. They've been battered by feminism's attacks on male privilege and feminine mystique. Macho women have mocked female virtues (consider the gun-toting Thelma and Louise, the oversexed Samantha Jones of Sex and the City, or the wooden-stake- and holy-water-wielding Buffy). And house husbands, Mr. Moms, and "metrosexuals" have similary [sic] rejected or lampooned traditional masculinity.

Not redefined masculinity in a way that suits them. Just rejected or lampooned traditional masculinity. See, now that’s telling.

And as far as I'm concerned, the state has no business propping up distinctive sex roles in any context—that's a job for Wonderbras and Viagra.

Oy. Just oy.

But a hunger for distinctive sex roles is just not the same thing as anti-gay bigotry.

No, it’s not the same thing, but it’s not a separate thing, either. The two are inextricably linked to one another, which is why there are rarely pro-choice anti-gay crusaders or pro-life gay rights advocates. Even the Bush-cult bloggers who invoke pretenses of libertarianism to try to distance themselves from the most heinous expressions of conservatism stipulate that they are both pro-choice and in favor of gay marriage. There’s a reason the two go inevitably hand-in-hand, and it’s because an acceptance of increased freedoms for women and an acceptance of full equality for the LGBT community (or their opposites) are spawned of the same seed: Approval or rejection of traditional sex roles.

And if, despite all this, marriage remains at the top of the gay-rights agenda, proponents should try to respond to the inchoate fears and legitimate concerns of a large and potentially movable nonbigoted opposition, rather than attacking them as hateful bigots.

And so concludes Slate’s apologia for homophobes and sexists. Those who favor traditional gender roles—to the point that they reject gay marriage because of it—are not bigots, nor sexists. The End.

Not considered anywhere in the article: The straight couples found throughout America—even in my small Indiana town—who operate “traditionally,” with a stay-at-home mom and working dad, strictly out of personal preference, but also support gay marriage. The truth is, traditional gender roles isn’t the issue. It’s, as noted in the introduction, the “anxiety about gender and gender roles.” Nothing about gay marriage precludes straight couples from aligning themselves along traditional gender lines. It’s the people who can’t get past their own assumptions that a changing society will hurt them who have this problem—and that’s precisely what bigotry is.

You'll be Swell... You'll be Great...

Hello, folks. With Shakes' kind permission, I'm doing a little show whoring post here, and letting you all know about my upcoming performance. I'm hopping on the next airship to the Big Apple; if you're in the NYC area, and are so inclined, feel free to come check us out.

I'm in a sketch comedy group called Project Mayhem (warning, website hasn't been updated in a good long while), and we're doing an "audition" show of sorts at The Pit in NYC. We're basically doing a shorter version of our show to see if they want to invite us as a regular act. Here's the nitty gritty:

TUE JULY 18th 7PM
Please arrive by 6:30pm.

ADMISSION $8

The PIT - People's Improv Theater
154 W 29th St (6th-7th Ave, closer to 7th)
TRAINS: 1 to 28th St.

For Reservations
Call 212.563.7488 or visit The Pit Website.

Feel free to drop me an email or pipe up in comments if you have any questions. It would be great to have some comedy loving Shakers there! We're trying out a few new sketches in this show; I get to play a Bond-Esque villain in one, which makes me very happy.

As I'll have little to no internet access while I'm gone, Shakes has kindly offered to keep things running over in Spudville, so if you're a reader over there, it won't be empty for a week.

See you all soon!

Gore Wins AlterNet Straw Poll

Of course he did.

Gore … received 35 percent of the vote, followed by Senator Russ Feingold at 20 percent and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards at 11 percent. Wesley Clark received 4 percent, and John Kerry and Mark Warner 2 percent.

The big surprise in the survey is that Senator Hillary Clinton, whom many in the corporate media suggest is the front runner for the nomination, only received 7 percent of the vote. This is particularly surprising since 53 percent of the survey respondents were women. One possible reason for Senator Clinton's poor showing and Gore's popularity is that 24 percent of our survey participants chose the war in Iraq as their top priority issue. Hillary Clinton has not shown any leadership on the issue or been among those pushing for an end to the bloodshed.

The straw poll had 13,000 respondents, and they also selected their priority issue, Most Valuable Progressive, Best Opinion Writer, Most Effective Charity, and other stuff, which you can find at the link.

As an aside, I am increasingly annoyed by the expressions of shock that women don’t automatically pull the lever for Hillary. Why is that so surprising? If you can suggest in the next sentence a possible reason for why women aren’t going for Hillary, there oughtn’t be a need to express surprise that they’re not. It’s like a compulsion to acknowledge the time-honored conventional wisdom that having a vagina makes one incapable of rational thought.

Javert says "Non!" to new Wal-Mart theft policy

In an hastily-scheduled news conference yesterday, Inspector Javert of the French police protested Wal-Mart's recently announced relaxation of its stance toward shoplifters. The retailer has decided that it will decline to prosecute first-time thieves unless they fall between the ages of 18 and 65 and steal items worth over $25.

"The world is inside out, the world is upside down!" Javert exclaimed before a crowd of startled reporters. "What is le loi if it is to punish one thief only to overlook the crimes of another?" To the notion that the corporation had made the change in order to spend its resources on prosecuting professional shoplifters and its own employees, the detective retorted, "What is the difference between stealing a baguette and a copy of E.R. — The Complete Fifth Season? There is none! Il n'y a aucune différence!"

When one reporter suggested that the company had chosen to err on the side of mercy, the police inspector bristled. "What is mercy?" Javert scoffed. "Society is built not upon mercy, but upon the law. And so it must be, and so it is written, at the doorways of paradise, that those who falter and those who fall, must pay the price."

"This Wal-Mart, this McMarchand, with its indulgence of those who flaunt the law, becomes no better than a criminal itself," Javert sniffed. "It is better if people shop at Carrefour."

An anonymous observer - a long-time watcher of police activity and a student of French literature - professed puzzlement over Javert's emotional reaction to the new Wal-Mart policy. "This is quite unlike him," he said of the inspector. "Javert is normally quite controlled - cool, calm, grave, his gray hair perfectly smooth upon his temples, methodical with malefactors, rigid with the buttons of his coat. But this Wal-Mart thing seems to have freaked him out."

There are some who are concerned over Javert's state of mind in the wake of the new policy. When he was reminded that there are no Wal-Marts in France, the inspector turned away, muttering, "I am reaching but I fall - and the stars are black and cold. As I stare into the void of a world that can not hold...There is no where I can turn, there is no way to go on."

Present at the news conference was longtime Javert nemesis, liberated convict Jean Valjean. When asked for a reaction to his enemy's statements, Valjean smirked. "Nannee nannee huent la huée," he replied.

(Cross-post, aisle five...)

More War, Part 2

The way it’s looking, this may become an ongoing series…

Israel has bombed Beirut’s airport and blocked Lebanon’s ports and Hezbollah has launched rockets from Lebanon into northern Israel.

Like Maha says, in a great post, “I don’t write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict much for several reasons. One, I have no unique insight into the conflict; there are plenty of other people who do, and I defer to them. Two, what insight I do have tells me everybody involved is wrong a large part of the time.” I don’t think anyone involved is right all the time or wrong all the time, and often I find myself agreeing and/or disagreeing with both sides at the same time.

In any case, I direct you to Juan Cole, who does know what the hell he’s talking about.

Question of the Day

We've had a few opportunities to talk about hope and despair in the comments threads today. (I guess we do every day, but today seemed particuarly focused on our visions for the immediate future.) So the QotD is: Do you tend to be more optimistic or pessimistic?

I tend to be a worrier, but I'm also optimistic. That might sound contradictory, but it's not, really, as much as it is pointless. I worry, even though I remain fairly certain everything will turn out all right in the end.

Quote of the Day

“Do we treat the British any differently because of the Stamp Act? If we’re going to do that, then let’s go back to the Indians and say they butchered Custer.” — Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) going completely apeshit in trying to assert that the Voting Rights Act unfairly targets the South because of its past.

Superwow.

Caption This Photo

Innocuous?

The Senate is set to vote on three stem cell bills next week, which are all likely to pass, though the one that would lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research will prompt Bush’s first veto. Bush is instead throwing his support behind the other two, one of which would ban “‘fetal farming,’ or the creation of embryos for the purpose of harvesting their tissue for research,” and one of which, sponsored by the odious Rick Santorum, which would “promot[e] stem-cell research that doesn’t harm embryos.”

Many senators — including Frist — plan to vote for all three bills, saying they are not contradictory. Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), lead sponsor of the bill lifting the limits on embryonic stem-cell research, also is a sponsor of the Santorum bill. Some critics of the Santorum bill, including Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), think it’s “innocuous” but will vote for it anyway.

Is it really innocuous? One of the primary issues surrounding embryonic stem cell research is whether embryos harvested for in-vitro fertilization, which the parents then decline to use, can be donated for research instead of simply being destroyed. A bill that seeks to promote research that doesn’t harm embryos has the two-fold effect of making the attainment of embryo donation rights (reproductive choice) that much more difficult and (and as a result of) suggesting, even abstractly, that the status of personhood should be conferred upon embryos.

In a very real way, Santorum’s bill is the epitome of the anti-choice movement, using the subterfuge of a seemingly “innocuous” bit of legislation to inch just that tiniest bit closer to recognizing fetal personhood and thusly fetal rights. What is the purpose of promoting research that doesn’t harm embryos, no less the motivation, if not a tacit regard for the embryo as a rights-bearing subject? There’s a reason we don’t have any Senators advocating the same rules for donating cadavers to medical schools.

More War

Reading about what’s going on in Lebanon at the moment, I’ve been trying to figure out what to say. I feel hopelessly frustrated by it, and the only thing that’s coming to mind is to muse that I believe it was Einstein who defined insanity by doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

The Leader is Always Right

In the comments thread to this earlier post about head of the Justice Department’s office of legal counsel Steven Bradbury’s assertion that “The president is always right,” Carp said:

Anyone ever see this propaganda poster from Germany in the thirties? It simply says, in big bold letters: "Der Führer hat immer recht."

It means, "The Leader is always right."

I'll look for a photo link—I saw it at a holocaust exhibit in a German museum several years ago. It's considered one of the basic principles of the political philosophy of the Third Reich.

Indeed this is true. Below is an image from the official papers of a union worker under the Nazi regime, detailing the bearer's duties. And, as you’ll note, it ends with the reminder "Der Führer hat immer recht!"

Now, before anyone gets their panties in a twist, I’m not suggesting that Bradbury, or Bush, or anyone else is a Nazi. But no other authoritarian regimes have been Nazis, either. Authoritarianism comes disguised in many different cloaks, sometimes even democracy, and one is not necessarily accusing a regime of being the same as the Nazis by pointing out that they share unsettling traits.