Shakesville

A girl can do what she wants to do and that's what I'm gonna do.

My oft-mentioned friend Andy the Londoner, who's been—despite his scowling misanthropy, unfathomably rude demeanor, and tendency to call me a scummy bastard—one of my closest friends for nearly a decade, just got home from following Alice Cooper on tour (don't waste your energy—you can't possibly say anything about the absurdity of being an Alice Cooper superfan that I haven't already said in the spirit of good-natured but poison-tipped harassment endemic to our friendship).

Alice was touring with Joan Jett, whom I've adored ever since I Love Rock N Roll was a fixture on the jukebox in my elementary school cafeteria, and whose Bad Reputation (one of my fave songs) has been suggested on more than one occasion would be an apt theme song for Shakesville. Andy, being the sort of awesome bit of stuff that he is, told her manager about me, and the blog, and my advocacy on behalf of women and the LGBTQ community, and Bill Donohue's shenanigans, and who knows what all else, including my love for Joan. He in turn told Joan, who then gave Andy this to give to me:

I swoon. And then I swoon some more.

Warcraft Just Got Cooler, Fool!

Maybe Mr. T hacked a game and created a mohawk class, bitchez!

Things I Don't Mind About the Bible

Well, it's Hump Day for National Bible Week, and I thought I'd clarify some things.

I don't hate the Bible. There are some things that I don't even mind about the Bible, such as:

Confusing and Contradictory Messages: God says "Thou shalt not kill", but then orders his chosen people to "slay both man and woman, infant and suckling".
False Prophecies: Mark said that Jesus would return before his followers' generation was dead. Still waiting.
Impossible Conundrums: Who did Adam's sons marry?
Passive/Agressive, Pissy, Mind-Fucky Deity:

Let's say Adam's sons (as it is sometimes argued) did marry their own sisters, but then, later, God declares that incest is a sin? If you argue that this was a necessity given the limited amount of DNA God had to work with a the beginning, then why does God set Noah's family up for yet another incest-fest by destroying most of the available human gene-pool?

There's a whole section of Exodus where Moses tries to talk God out of destroying the Israelites, and basically wins the day because he convinces the Almighty that it just wouldn't look good for Him.

And seriously -- from Day One? That whole Garden of Eden thing looks like a gigantic setup:

As whack-doodle as I think some of this is, I will repeat that I don't mind it. The Bible, in itself, does not drive me crazy every day. It's not like I sit around brooding about it all the time -- unlike my Xtian brother-in-law who once informed me that he prays every day that I will get "saved", and turn from my sinful "lifestyle".

The Bible doesn't bother me at all. It's what people DO with it that chaps my ass.

If my brother-in-law wants to think that I'm going to fry in an extra-hot section of Hell (most likely extra-hot because all the lesbians are there, doing their lesbian thang), that's his right.

If he wants to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, because that's the number you get when you add up the generations listed in the Bible, that's his right.

If he wants to get all fixated on the evil homos (who are only mentioned 4-5 times in the Bible, three of these vague references with debatable meanings), but somehow breeze past the adulterers (who are mentioned more than 40 times in the Bible), that's his right.

HOWEVER -- if he -- or any Xtian, for that matter --wants to take his "inerrant word of God" and use it to legally determine: Where I can live, and how, and with whom I can make love, and who I can marry, and what can be taught in public schools, and whether I can enjoy all the rights that are afforded to heterosexual citizens, and whether my uterus is my own possession, and whether people who believe in other books can live their lives free of harassment -- well, that's the shit that bugs me.

The day that this priest can finish his opening prayer in Congress uninterrupted,

I'll consider talking about National Bible Week readings being included in the Congressional Record.

I said I'd consider talking about it.
(cross-posted)

Hmm

If Hillary has no accomplishments of her own, does that mean Bill has no accomplishments of his own?

Or does that only work in one direction…?

Yum

[Via.]

Stem Cells Without the Politics

From the Washington Post:

The discovery that it is possible to create equivalents to embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos has the potential to reshape -- and perhaps defuse -- the acrimonious political debate that has raged ever since human embryonic stem cells were discovered in 1998.

Even before the research was officially published yesterday, White House officials began making the case that the studies vindicated the president's unwavering six-year opposition to funding for embryo-cell research and his long-standing position that scientific progress is possible without offending the morality of millions of Americans.

"The science has overtaken the politics," Karl Zinsmeister, the chief domestic policy adviser to President Bush, said in an interview yesterday. "If you set reasonable parameters and offer a lot of encouragement and public funding, science will solve this dilemma, and you don't have to have a culture war about this."

Others involved in the stem cell debate cautioned that much work remains to be done to prove the value of the new cells. No one yet knows, for example, whether the new cells will be as effective as conventional embryonic stem cells may prove to be against certain diseases, or whether the new cells will even prove safe for use in people.

For those reasons, several said, it would be wrong to halt efforts to loosen the president's controversial restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research, which prevent federal dollars from going to research on cells from embryos destroyed after Aug. 9, 2001.

It would be great if the skin cells could do what embryonic cells could do; getting the politics and the religious nuts out of the scientific area would be as much of a breakthrough as the science itself. But until it's proven that this new method is just as effective as the embryonic, they should continue to research both, and Congress should fund it.

It is, however, beyond the ability of science to measure the sheer chutzpah of this particular president lecturing other people about offending the morality of millions.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Conservapedia: Font of Info on Teh Gay

Jon Ponder at Pensito Review: "The statistics for Conservapedia's 'most viewed pages,' as of Nov. 20, 2007, are truly shocking."

Why, yes. They certainaly are:

Gay Bowel Syndrome?

Quote of the Day

"Can I honestly tell you I spend not a nanosecond listening to what each of them are saying sniping toward each other, so I have no idea what you're talking about."—John Edwards, on Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. [Via.]

Pentagon: D'oh!

As an update to yesterday's post, the Pentagon has admitted to making a mistake in sending a letter to a wounded soldier, Jordan Fox, asking for a pro-rated refund of his signing bonus. After local CBS affiliate KDKA broke the story, they took the fight right to the Pentagon's doorstep:

KDKA contacted the Pentagon. Investigators there took a look. A military spokesman told KDKA's Marty Griffin the bill sent to Fox was a mistake.

Griffin asked Army Spokesperson Major Nathan Banks if the government was taking on Fox's case.

Banks said via phone, "We are. We are ... definitely working it out. We have seen where the problems have been made, the system, and we're just making - you know, give us the opportunity to make a wrong a right."

Major Banks says Fox will not have to pay back his bonus. Fox says "fine," but he wants more.

"Hopefully this will turn into change for not only me but many other soldiers that have lost limbs, you know, become permanently deaf," he said. "I hope to see a change for everybody."

Amen, Jordan.

At least the Pentagon knew to do the right thing when confronted with an obvious flaw in their system. Given that they won't comment on other similar cases, however, it's pretty clear that there's still plenty of work to do to "support the troops" that still need it.

Williams Responds to Complaints About Marriage Commentary

After noting in his newscast that marriage is "under attack," Brian Williams has issued a statement of clarification on his blog:

I was the recipient today of several emails from well-intentioned people, telling me I was being attacked in parts of the blogosphere for something I wrote and said on the air in last night's broadcast. It was a closing piece about Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip celebrating their 60th anniversary. I noted this accomplishment, especially in this era when, as I put it, marriage seems "under attack" as an institution. My meaning? Our national divorce rate, which is currently somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Others took it upon themselves to decide that I was somehow attacking gay marriage. The simple fact is that nothing could have been further from my mind, as many others easily understood. In fact, one comment shared with me today came from a respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, who said, "It seemed to me he was talking about the sky-high heterosexual divorce rates. Marriage IS under attack -- by straight people. It had nothing to do with the gay marriage movement."

First of all, Williams did not say that marriage seems under attack. He said it is under attack. When a news anchor states something as fact, as opposed to a common impression, it's not a semantic difference—and it's incredibly disingenuous of Williams to pretend otherwise. I find it highly ironic that even as Williams sniffs derisively at "parts of the blogosphere" who had the temerity to question a Real News Man, he simultaneously shrugs off the responsibility of the unassailable status to which he implicitly lays claim.

But the familiar invocation of haughty, duty-free entitlements of the media is the least of his problems.

It's incredibly careless to say that marriage is under attack, without specifying one's meaning, and presume that everyone will intuitively understand that to mean "divorce," particularly given that it isn't the prevention of divorce about which a constitutional amendment has been repeatedly introduced. It isn't divorcees who have been routinely, publicly accused of undermining the sanctity of marriage. Banning divorce hasn't been put on the ballot in more than a dozen states in the past two elections.

"Marriage is under attack" is such a recognizable dog whistle to opponents of same-sex marriage that it's practically synonymous with "the radical gay agenda." Is Brian Williams, anchor of the NBC Nightly News (and regular Rush Limbaugh listener), seriously trying to tell me that he doesn't know that? If so, he's manifestly unfit for his job, because that's a truly stunning lack of awareness about one of the most important news stories in American politics and culture in the last decade.

That he seems to be equally ignorant about the divorce rate doesn't bode well for him, either: As of 2005, the US divorce rate is at its lowest point since 1970. Americans are getting married at a lower rate, but also getting divorced at a lower rate, suggesting those who do get married are forming better unions. If the institution of marriage is taking a hit in sheer numbers, it's to the benefit of the people who get married.

Now, I obviously have no idea who the "respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association" is whose commentary Williams reports via the grapevine, but s/he's right that "Marriage IS under attack—by straight people," and wrong to attribute it to their "sky-high heterosexual divorce rates." The straight people attacking marriage are the ones who want to limit it, who construe its definition so rigidly that it must be restricted to mixed-sex couples lest their own government-recognized, 1,138 rights-conferring, very, very mega-awesome oh-so-precious super-special relationships lose the shimmering, golden glow that only denying equality to same-sex couples conveys upon their gloriously gilded unions. It's a Very Special Right, and they don't want anyone to take it away from them—especially those dastardly queers and their constant crusade for special rights.

But a straight-faced suggestion that people who get divorced are attacking marriage is, well, bullshit. (To be fair, I would guess the NLGJA member was probably being rather facetious with that line, so this commentary is directed more at Williams, who is using it seriously in his own defense.) Divorce isn't a problem. It is, in fact, often the only solution to problems that really do undermine marriage—unhappiness, incompatibility, lovelessness, loneliness, betrayal, abuse, violence, and the million other reasons people get divorced.

My ex and I got married young—right out of college—and, after a couple years, we called it quits, because we were both miserable. It was about the most amicable divorce possible; we used the same divorce attorney, split everything right down the middle, and still lived in the same flat as roommates for months afterward. When he met Mr. Shakes, his comment was: "He's a good guy—and he loves you in way I never could." I hear he's now happily living with a woman to whom he's well-suited, and no doubt loves him in a way I never could. What would the point have been of our slogging through a lifetime in a crap marriage, even if we could have?

There would have been even less point if our marriage had been plagued by domestic violence, serial philandering, lies and other betrayals of trust. And that doesn't even begin to touch horrendous family situations like spousal rape or the sexual assault or physical/emotional abuse of children, in which cases only an absolute sadist would recommend against divorce.

A marriage simply isn't worth protecting if it's protected at the expense of the people within. Ditto for marriage as "an institution." The idea that divorce is an attack on marriage only makes sense if one assumes either there are happily married people being forced to divorce, or that unhappily married people should have no option but to stay that way for the sake of an institution that is better served by the quality of its participants than the quantity, anyway.

If Williams is so concerned about marriages being undermined, then he could start by looking at our culture's obscene fascination with marriage in general, so droolingly obsessive and wantonly consumptive as to render marriage all but meaningless—public courtships, reality show matchmaking, elaborate weddings, the slobbering desperation for unwed couples (cough Brangelina cough) to walk down the aisle, scenes from inside celebrity marriages, etc. etc. etc.—but, given that his original piece was honoring the 60th anniversary of a royal couple whose family's courtships, (arranged and often loveless) marriages, public affairs, divorces, and various sexual scandals continue to preoccupy America despite their rule in another country entirely, I sincerely doubt that he genuinely cares much about the so-called sanctity of marriage, anyway.

Zzzzzzzzzz

Another ginormous megachurch led by a moralizing Dominionist; another sex scandal.

Wake me when one of these fine ambassadors of Moral Values isn't a pervert, closet case, embezzler, or otherwise serial douchehound.

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Frankenstein Jr. and The Impossibles

For Shaker "Fair and Balanced" Dave.

Question of the Day

Who will play you in Shakesville: The Movie?

Looks-wise, the obvious choice is Dawn French, to whom I am nearly identical in height and weight, and probably not dissimilar in temperament. She's 17 years older than I, but I won't complain if she won't.

My friend, J, with whom I most often play the "cast your life" game, swears that he wouldn't cast anyone as me except Debra Winger, but would accept Bonnie Hunt as a back-up. I look like neither of them, but I get what he's going for; the spirit makes sense. Mr. Shakes would, very specifically, cast Natalie Portman's character from the film Garden State as me, ha.

Mr. Shakes would be played by Colin Firth, without question. They don't look much alike, aside from both being tall and broad-shouldered with curly hair, but the whole "aloof and vaguely impenetrable veneer masking the shy, awkward doofus with a heartbreaking romantic streak" makes the comparison inescapable.

Software Advice for Quicken 2008

If you have Quicken 2008 Deluxe and the program asks you if you want to update it, say no. The update has several bugs, including one that disables the One-Step Update feature. I'm using Windows Vista, but I'm guessing that it applies to other Windows programs as well.

I just spent over an hour on the phone with a very helpful and patient customer service rep in India who helped me uninstall my Quicken 2008 and re-install the un-updated version.

This has been a public service of your friends at Shakesville. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.

All Bible, All The Time

Today's National Bible Week lesson is about poor people. I'm late in posting because I've been busy doing a bit to help with something that is striking very close to home (just a mile or two from my house, in fact).

With Thanksgiving just a couple of days away, as we enter the ~~War Against~~ Christmas Season, and it being NWB and all, you'd think we wouldn't be dealing with old people being evicted for being poor.

I mean, if the Bible hasn't managed to get through to people on this issue, you'd think endless re-runs of "Scrooge" and "It's a Wonderful Life" over the years might have had some impact . . . . . but apparently, no.

So today's verse is Luke 14:12

"den Jebus waz liek "ok guyz, also wen u haz a feest, invitez de poor lolcats stuck in printerz n stuff, not de rich catz."

Eleven elders in my community face eviction because they have become inconvenient to a corporation's bottom line.

So it is that in this time of giving thanks for all our bounty, a corporation practices the real sin of Sodom:

Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

This situation saddens me to the extent that I can't even be arsed to find an lolcats translation for that.

If you'd like to help , or find out more, check out the Stop Victoria Eviction! blog.

But I really really like him!

I'm right there with Shayera in questioning why people would vote for someone based on the sole criteria of wanting to share a beer.

Clearly, the only reason to vote for someone is based on whether or not they like to party all the time.

Baby's First Blog

[Space Cowboy discovered this post earlier, and we've been laughing our asses off about it all afternoon, so I decided to repost it, since I've got brain cramps and hence nuttin' else in the hopper. Originally posted August 24, 2006. "Today was a good day..." I swear if we'd had that nuclear holocaust I was always hearing about back then, my journal entry would have been "Today was a good day, even though my face melted off."]

Recently, Mama Shakes has, in cleaning out various parts of Parental Manor, unearthed some rather amusing stuff from my childhood, like, as I mentioned in comments, a first- (or second-) grade essay called "My Mom is Sexey," featuring the memorable couplet: [Mama Shakes] is her name / And loving is her game. Apparently, I was suffering under the misapprehension that my mother was a prostitute.

She also found an old diary that had been a Christmas present from her and my dad, which I began on January 1, 1984. The last entry is March 19, and it had gotten pretty sporadic around February 5, but the solid month of sharing my thoughts at age 9 provided me with no small amount of amusement when I just re-read it at age 32. The funniest thing was seeing my adult personality already taking shape. Here are some of my favorite entries, in their entirety, with the original spelling and punctuation. See if you can find where I might reference "a case of the vapors" or the need for a fainting couch, if only my vocabulary had been a bit more sophisticated!

January 3, 1984: It's 7:15pm. Today was a good day. It was back to school day though. And I haven't done my homework! Oh boy. Gotta go. Get back to ya later. PS. My homework assignment was Math, p. 130.

January 11, 1984: Today was fun. Before bed we watched a show about monkeys. It was good.

January 15, 1984: Today was a good day. I found out Webster is really 12 years old. I can't believe it! He's only 40 inches tall! His older brother was 40 in. tall until he got in the middle of 9th grade! I also watched Knight Rider tonight. It was stupid, and about people getting killed (what else), and sex (between Michael & Lorin), and jewelry. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb! See ya tomorrow.

January 17, 1984: Today was a good day. As I—oops, I forgot to tell you, I quit Girl Scouts. Well anyway, David, he gets hurt every single day in school. I just about fainted when I heard the news today. HE DIDN'T GET HURT! I couldn't believe it. I think I'll talk to ya later. See ya. P.S. [My little sister Bug's] first front tooth came out today.

January 18, 1984: Today was nice. Like yesterday, though, a miracle happened. Ha! A miracle at Central School. I never! Whoo. Well anyway, here's the other miracle. Me, Amy, Sarah, Jennie, all of us were ready. Usually (see Jan. 5) Jennie is late or both Sarah and Jennie are late. Neither of us, Amy and I, are ever late! Well, maybe once in a blue moon! But otherwise, never! I couldn't believe it today! After school, it was the talk of the day.

January 20, 1984: Today after school was fun trading stickers with Mrs. Martinsen. I got some good stickers and gave her some good ones. Today I also wrote a story so stupid, I threw it away. So as you can tell, a day is never quite perfect. In PE today, I went against Marci in Steal the Bacon. We were number 8. I smeared her. Our team won of course. Marci was a brat in gym to Jennifer today. When I find out where she lives, I'll smear her face in!

January 25, 1984: Today was a good day. I played "Star Wars." It's the darkside and the, I guess, lightside. You know, stormtroopers and Luke Skywalker's side. I was on the Darkside. I think tomorrow I might play on the Lightside.

Total Geek.

FYI

[Previous FYI. Hint: They're better if you click 'em!]

Support The Troops! (Yank their pay)

Here comes another glowing example of how "supporting the troops" only counts for the troops that are actually "over there." Once they're injured, they're damaged goods and the military expects a refund:

[Jordan] Fox was seriously injured when a roadside bomb blew up his vehicle. He was knocked unconscious. His back was injured and lost all vision in his right eye.

A few months later Fox was sent home. His injuries prohibited him from fulfilling three months of his commitment. A few days ago, he received a letter from the military demanding nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus back.

"I tried to do my best and serve my country. I was unfortunately hurt in the process. Now they're telling me they want their money back," he explained.

Pretty damn disgusting if you ask me. But I guess that is what you can expect from a society that sees everything like a football game. Win at any expense. "Supporting the troops" has become this inane phrase that amounts to nothing more than rooting for the team while they're on the field. If a player gets injured during play, he or she might get some applause during the haul to the ambulance. After that, it's back to victory at all costs. And FSM help the player that states the game wasn't really fun or necessary in the first place. Then, all of the people who were rabid fans yesterday, will heartily lynch today.

Here, you have a solider who was proud to serve his country and would do it again. It pains me to the point of nausea that I actually have to point out that getting blasted by a roadside bomb wasn't his fault. Hence, he deserves all of the fucking money he got when he joined. If the Pentagon wants $3,000 back, then they should give him his spine and eye back.

Update: Last month, Congressman Jason Altmire (D-PA) introduced legislation to address this very issue.

[H/T to ThinkProgress]

Caption This Photo

What did the lame duck say to the turkey?
Pardon you!
U.S. President George W. Bush (L) looks at "May" as he pardons the National Thanksgiving Turkey in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, November 20, 2007. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES)