Nicked from Chris: What restaurant chain do you despise?
I always, always, prefer to go to an independent restaurant when possible, and there are still some decent ones in our area, but some of the Chicago suburbs are ridiculous—nothing but chains, from McDonald's (low end chain) to Maggiano's (high end chain). I always find the mid-range chains to be the absolute worst, though. At least with McD's, you know what you're getting (shit), and it's priced accordingly. I'd rather eat there than pay to eat at a mid-ranger like TGI Friday's, where the food is only marginally better, but it costs 5x as much.
And the king of all craptacular mid-rangers is Texas Corral. Folksy peanut shells on the floor and soda out of jam jars are not selling points, btw. Sweep up and give me a decent cup!
Question of the Day
Glenn Beck and Wolf Discuss Willard
Who knew Glenn Beck is a Mormon convert. You learn something new every day.
[Video via Petulant, natch. Sorry, no transcript yet.]
One thing that drives me berserk about these conversations is the deliberate unwillingness to talk about what really underlies concerns raised by people who have issues with "faithful" candidates. It's not about whether someone is religious, or what religion they are; it's about whether they plan to legislate particular religious beliefs, or, more accurately, legislate bigotry and use religion as a justification for it. "God says so" isn't a viable political argument in America, but the GOP candidates in particular (though the Dems are not exempt) seem to think it is. And that's the problem.
Another Moment of Pride
From Reuters:
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed an energy bill that would boost vehicle fuel economy requirements by 40 percent by 2020, raise ethanol use by five-fold by 2022 and impose $13 billion in new taxes on big energy companies.Great. So, the new bill takes 13 years to make us almost as fuel efficient as Europe is now. And if that doesn't get you all excited, Mr. "We're too dependent on oil" will threaten to veto this bill.
The centerpiece of the 1,055-page Energy Independence and Security Act is an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards to 35 miles per gallon (15 km per liter) by 2020, the first congressional boost in fuel rules since 1975.
WTG!
Huckabee is Jesus
No. He's God. No. God wants him to be Jesus. No, wait. God wants him to be president. Hang on. Maybe it's Jesus who wants him to be president. I don't know. Whatever. It's a miracle, bitchez.
Transcript: Kid asks to what he attributes his recent surge in the polls. Huckabee replies: "There's only one explanation for it, and it's not a human one. It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people. And that's the only way that our campaign could be doing what it's doing. And I'm not being facetious, nor am I trying to be trite. There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that a little will become much. And it has. And it defies all explanation. It has confounded the pundits, and I'm enjoying every minute of their trying to figure it out, and until they look at it from a, just, experience beyond human, they'll never figure it out. And that's probably just as well. That's honestly why it's happening. Thank you."
[H/T to Sully.]
Constabulary Notes
A couple of juxtaposed headlines from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:
Man Accused of Swiping Blow-Up DollsSounds like he and Frosty were planning quite a party...
42-Foot-Tall Inflatable Snowman Stolen
NLIE
Earlier this week, President Sammy Stammerson opened up a big ol' can of worms when he lied to everyone's faces about when he got the news about Iran and when he built his World War III bunker.
The White House has had a couple of days to deal with the fallout of Bush's worst attempt at lying since avoiding the draft. Heck, they even tried a strategy of admitting that he indeed lied. And that brings us to today, where Dana Perino looks at her watch before her press conference and mutters to herself: "This is really gonna suck big time." Still, she towed the line and put the firewall firmly, albeit laughably, in place:
QUESTION: But the president said, quote, He didn’t tell me what the information was. But you’re now saying he was told that Iran may have halted its nuclear weapons program and also that there may be a new assessment, right?It would be one thing if she just said that and we all just roll our eyes and call bullshit. It would be another thing entirely if Ed Henry recalled that Seymour Hersh learned of Bush briefing Prime Minister Olmert on this very NIE report in Annapolis, MD.
PERINO: Right, but he doesn’t — he didn’t get any of the details of what — what the information was, in terms of what the actual raw intelligence was.
QUESTION: But he didn’t say details. he just said, He didn’t tell me what the…
PERINO: OK, look. I can see where you could see that the president could have been more precise in that language. But the president was being truthful.
QUESTION: Did he brief Prime Minister Olmert? And how could he brief Olmert on Monday about a report that he found out about on Wednesday? Can you…Game. Set. Match.
PERINO: I don’t — I will check. I mean, it’s possible that he knew that there was information coming; the intelligence community was checking it out…
Lying sacks of shit.
Beautifying Violence
Day Twelve.
On Tuesday, Brownfemipower wrote a piece about the controversial Miss Landmine Beauty Pageant, in which the participants are Angolan women who have lost limbs in landmine explosions. One of her concerns was "beautifying the violence done to female bodies," and it is a concern I share. I absolutely believe that "imperfect" bodies are beautiful, but there was something about the idea of the pageant—the name, that it's a pageant in which, like all pageants, women's bodies are put on display for consumption and beauty is linked to external approbation, that it's an excuse to sell stuff—that struck me as not broadening definitions of beauty but fetishizing female bodies that have been rendered "different" by violence.
It's a nice thought that this pageant is just about helping women feel beautiful, but—cue broken record—nothing happens in a void. And there exists already, inevitably, an entire subculture dedicated to the fetishization of injured women.
Like the difference between a "chubby chaser," who specifically seeks out fat women because he associates (with good cause, unfortunately) fatness with low self-esteem, and men who merely have a specific aesthetic appreciation for fat bodies or consider them one of many types to which they're attracted, one must draw a difference between men who are favorably disposed or neutral toward "imperfect" bodies and men who seek out "imperfect" bodies expressly because they associate them with weakness, vulnerability, desperation, etc.
Coincidentally, Boing Boing just today covered the Japanese fetish-fashion kegadoru ("injured idol"), in which women (who haven't been injured) wrap their bodies in bandages (as though they have been injured)—but, naturally, it has to be "sexy," with the bandages approximating a bikini + head wound.[T]he trend is meant to appeal to the kind of man who wants an "injured doll" -- and says that the white bandages denote virginal grace, while the black ones mean wickedness.
So here we have the fetishization of violence against women, without any actual violence, just playing to the idea that women who have been injured in some way are weak and vulnerable. The ultimate in fragility, which is summarily translated into the ultimate in femininity.
It's a weird kind of backlash against women's equality and increasingly accessible images and examples of strong women. Years ago, as the internet was just beginning to explode, I remember my best friend's brother showing me some of the "weird porn" he'd found—and one of them was a fetish site serving men who are attracted to women in casts, slings, and bandages. There were pictures of women in traction, pictures of women in toe-to-hip casts for broken legs, women in neck braces. The site was not frequented by egalitarian feminist men, but violent misogynists who clearly hated any show of female strength. One of the comments was: "I like the bandages where you can see a little blood poking through from underneath."
And now being turned on by female injury has become a discernable fashion trend (if not a mainstream one), with the accoutrements of its execution being openly sold, in at least two major cities (Tokyo and London). Um, yuck.
Which brings me back to the pageant. I don't know if a pageant can possibly reconcile promoting "imperfect" bodies as beautiful, when those bodies were made thus by violence, without in some way, as Brownfemipower says, "beautifying the violence done to female bodies." Especially when there preexists a subculture already fetishizing it.
And it strikes me that women of color are disproportionately associated with the beautification of violence done to female bodies—which complicates the issue yet further.
Anyway…discuss.
Overheard at Safeway
Yesterday, I was walking past the Starbuck's that is inside my local ginormous multi-national-corporation-owned grocery store (Starbuck's is in there because, apparently, it has been scientifically proven that if you are ever more than three blocks from a Starbuck's you will die. Horribly.)
Anyway, as I was wending my way through this Matryoshka of corporate enfoldments, my ear was caught by the following conversation between a mother and her barely-verbal child (maybe 18 months old, if that):
Mommy: "No, that's the little girl bear. See her pink pajamas?"
Baby: "Bahy Bear."
Mommy: "No, that's the girl bear. See, she has a pink bow!"
Baby: "Bahy Bear!"
Mommy: "Honey, that's a girl bear. Look! Isn't she pretty?"
Baby: "Grr Bear."
Mommy: "That's right! Good!"
Poor kid. She was probably just trying to say "Bye Bear!" as she attempted to express her radical Indigo-Child rage at the appalling love-spawn of corporate-whoredom and conspicuous-consumerism that is "The Bearista".
Then, when mommy proceeded with a full-on gender indoctrination mind-control program, Progressive Baby[tm] finally responded with the appropriately savage: "Grrrrrr!!! Bear!" -- her tiny lip curling in disgust above perfect, pearly, milk-teeth.
Well, that's how it went down in my head, anyway.
I had just come from my office, where I had read Melissa's post about the critical importance of gender-appropriate microscopic color in scientific research conducted by children, so I was glad to see the incoming generation fighting the good fight by resisting these stereotypes.
Now, if only the caffeine in Mommy's triple-shot would wake her up.
It's well-documented that this type of programming begins from the very beginning of a child's life.
I raised two boys, and have had many discussions with other parents about whether there really is an inherent difference between male and female children-- but I believe that gender programming begins so early, and is stressed so strongly in our culture that I don't think we can ever know the real answer to that question.
I would even go so far as to say that gender expectations, roles, and programming begin long before the child arrives -- witness one of the most frequent questions a pregnant woman gets asked: "Do you know if it's a boy or a girl? What are you hoping for?" -- and the common response: "We're hoping for a boy/girl, but . . . ."
A friend of mine who desperately wanted to bear a child of her own said to me (after her third miscarriage) that this kind of talk really pissed her off -- she said: "I'm just hoping for a child. What difference does the gender make?"
Indeed -- what difference does the gender make?
In a culture that clings to the notion that men and women are innately different, which stubbornly insists that certain activities, color-schemes, careers, etc. are the "natural" province of one gender, and which actively steers children into "gender-appropriate" arenas or outright restricts their access to "gender-inappropriate" arenas, gender makes a lot of difference.
The very fact that we can say that we "hope for" a boy or a girl indicates to me that attachment to gender roles, and active programming to convince us that males "are" this way and females "are" that way, runs very, very deep -- and that most people are rarely even aware of it. I honestly don't think the Mommy at Starbucks had any consciousness at all of what she was doing -- I believe that she probably thought it was "natural".
However, the authentic resistance of Progressive Baby[tm] reminded me that gender roles in our society are not some innate, universal human reality that arise from "how men/women ARE" -- they have to be constantly enforced and reinforced -- and even an 18-month old can see the absolutely arbitrary nature of the color-code that is being shoved down her throat -- she can see quite easily that the bears are identical in every respect -- only their outfits genderize them.
You may say: "Well what's the danger in pink microscopes and sewing machines for little girls, and blue microscopes and footballs for little boys? Where's the harm?"
No harm, I guess -- to offer various toys to kids -- except that I believe that when these items are specifically separated as being "for girls" and "for boys" -- they are telling kids: "This is your role."
I find it interesting that the gender separation at the Discovery Channel toy-site goes like this: No genderization at all from Infant to Age 4, then, gender-based categories for ages 5-7 and 8-12, then just "Teens and Adults". (I suspect that this is because they figure by age 12, the programming is either complete, or will never take.)
Imagine for a moment if we saw a website that had separate shopping areas "White boys - Age 8 to 12" and "Hispanic boys - Age 8 to 12" which did not contain the same toys. Let's say the white section had things like ATM machines and electronic 20 questions games, while the hispanic section had things like the "landscaping design kit" and miniature lawn-mowers, with a few cross-over items like the "Cube World Set", which touted:
We would not hesitate for a moment to say: "Wait a minute. The hispanic kids' toys are grooming them for a servant role." The offensiveness of racist icons such as Aunt Jemima and the Lawn Jockey is precisely this -- their message: "This is your role."
You may have a butt-clenchy moment there, as I compare gender-entrainment to racism. However, I believe that the connection is apt.
Effective Master/Servant oppression requires entrainment of both the prospective master and the prospective servant. It also creates an amazing tension, as the Master class recognizes, at some deep level, that it needs the Servant class, and goes to great length to convince the Servant class that this "need" is reciprocal (which is why the notion of an independent woman is so threatening to those who remain invested in Patriarchy).
I'd posit that, because of this, there are subtle differences between Master/Servant oppression (eg. racism/misogyny/classism) and Eradication oppression (eg. homophobia/antisemitism). The primary message of Master/Servant structures is "Know your place", while the primary message of Eradication structures is "Don't be that."
In either these structures, if you don't obey the prime directive, the result is usually the same: 1) Intimidation/Suppression, and when that doesn't work, 2) Violence, and when that doesn't work, 3) Expulsion and/or Extermination (so, if you resist, you end up at Eradication anyway. Joy).
I digress -- those last two paragraphs are another post entirely.
Back to Starbucks in Safeway -- that "dweam wifin a dweam": As I considered Mommy's mounting insistence, and Baby's mounting resistance (and then seeming acquiescence) I wondered: "Why the fuck does it matter so much that this tiny child get the roles right?"
I think that it matters so much because, of all the oppression structures that exist, Patriarchal Misogyny is the one with a global near-equity in terms of population ratios of Master-to-Servant, and it is an oppression structure that resides in the heart of the most intimate and pivotal place of individual life -- the home. So if she isn't groomed for her role, or if she doesn't adopt that role, the Master would feel it -- keenly, at the center of his life -- and the Patriarchy would, indeed, crumble.
Good.
Keep on keeping on, Progressive Baby.
Romney Willard's Faith-Based Snoozefest
by Petulant
Melissa has a great analysis of ONE paragraph of his speech. That is all you need to know as all the others are equally BORING and full of generalities about faith. He is a politician. Always keep it vague!
My favorite part of Willard's speech was the CNN coverage. When Willard started talking (not really) about his Mormon Faith, CNN popped-up a handy-dandy Mormon Church History Box beside Willard. Ahhh… Joseph Smith blessed CNN with the courage to inform the masses with basic information about his creation:
~ Founded in early 1830s by Joseph Smith in New York
~ Smith published writings in The Book of Mormon.
~ Joseph Smith was killed by a MOB in 1844.
~ Mormon believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
~ Accept the Bible as scripture, but not as final authority.
~ Official name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
~ About 3 million Mormons worldwide; about 6 million in U.S.
~ Brigham Young led Mormons to western U.S.
~ Mormons established headquarters in Salt Lake City.
~ Smith claimed God told him Mormons should have more than one wife.
~ Mormon Church banned polygamy in 1890s.
~ For years, Mormon Church didn’t admit blacks to priesthood.
~ The ban against blacks sparked protests and boycotts
~ The ban on blacks was lifted in 1978.
WOW! I learned so much! What about the magic underwear though? sigh…
Here's Willard - Mitt - Romney saying little about his faith because it does not affect his decision-making.
Transcript: I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
[Transcript from here.]
Cafferty to WH: WTF?!
The watchdog group known as CREW has revised their earlier estimate of the number of missing e-mails from the White House e-mail servers. Initially, they said 5 million, and now it's up to 10 million. Jack Cafferty caught wind of this and tore the administration a new asshole in the following clip (transcript below the fold thanks to C&L):
I'm especially glad that Jack remembered to point out (again) that these e-mail deletions are 100% illegal, not open to debate.
In response to the allegation, the White House tried to shrug CREW's attack off as some stupid ramblings from a "liberal group" while not showing any evidence that these missing e-mails exist somewhere, even if only on their backups. In true CREW fashion, they laid the smack down back on the White House, which can be found here.
[H/T to MoxieGrrrl]
Cafferty: A government watchdog group now says more than 10 million White House emails are missing. Citizens for the Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) described this massive hole in White House email records last April. At that time they thought the number was 5 million - Now they say it is more than 10 million emails. In one of the great understatements of this here Christmas season, the group says that this revised estimate - quote - highlights that this is a very serious and systematic problem at the White House - unquote. Both CREW and another private group called the National Security archive are suing the Bush administration to try to get information about all these missing emails. The White House email problems first came to light during special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity.
It’s worth noting what a critical time period these missing emails represent. Why it’s from March of 2003 to October 2005. That would include the start of the Iraq War right up through the aftermath of Katrina. As the director of one of these groups put it: It doesn’t get more historically valuable than that. Given the way the White House handled both the war and Katrina, it’s also quite convenient that suddenly this mountain of stuff is missing. By the way it’s against the law that these emails be destroyed or lost. They are supposed to be saved. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 mandates White House communications be preserved. Another law broken — Another example of nobody doing a damn thing about it.
I Can't Stop Laughing at This
"I couldn’t be unhappier. Of all the Democrats to raise money for, she's the worst."
So says Texan Ted Gambordella, whose son he cut off financially for not being a Republican, prompting son Teddy to raise money for college by setting up a website to promote liberal causes—and he's promised to give half of everything he raises to Hillary.
Bradley's got the whole story.
War Is Heck
From Glenn Greenwald:
The College Republicans at the University of Massachusetts are hosting an event called "All I am Saying is Give War a Chance." It is devoted to the "costs, necessities, consequences, and benefits of war." The speaker is grizzled warrior Jonah Goldberg. Is there anything more outright ludicrous than a bunch of combat-avoiding, prime-fighting-age College Republicans and Jonah Goldberg sitting around in Amherst chatting with each other about the Glories and "benefits of war"?This should be Exhibit A in favor of reinstating the draft, and instead of the lottery system, the first to go will be those who spoke up the loudest in favor of going to war in the first place.
Willard's Big Day
Today is Willard "Mitt" Romney's big day—the day he's giving his much-anticipated "Faith in America" speech zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz…
Oh, sorry. I fell asleep just thinking about it.
Anyway, to give you some idea of what we can expect, here's just one snippet from the extended excerpts he released this morning:
It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.How much can be wrong with one stinking paragraph?!
No, Willard—all the churches in America don't share a common creed of moral convictions. Some churches extend the sacrament of marriage to couple of the same sex and recognize women and men as equals with equal ownership of and autonomy over their own bodies. Most churches don't. Also, some churches?—are called synagogues, and some are called mosques. Just FYI.
Or were you not talking about them…? I notice you seem to have ignored that most agnostics and atheists have "great moral principles," too. Well, all of us non-Christians will forgive you for forgetting us, Willard. We're not going to vote for you, anyway.
It's not based on a "religious test," though—it's based on the fact that you're a dunderhead. See, although you're right that religious people were influential in the causes of abolition and civil rights, they were the kind of religious people you now don't like (progressives), being fought every step of the way by religious conservatives, quoting Bible verses they claimed justified slavery and segregation, just like your base does now to justify inequality on the basis of sexual orientation, sex, and gender.
You don't get to claim ownership of social and civil progress. That was achieved by an alliance between religious and non-religious progressives. It's not your history. It's not even your present.
"This is what you wear, Jeffrey. You don't wear dresses. The dresses are for the girls. Girls wear dresses."
Apropos of Jeff's post yesterday about boys playing with toy kitchens, and Space Cowboy's post on Monday about The View's Sherri Shepherd being an ignorant idiot), here's said idiot going apeshit about how her son won't be allowed to wear a dress in her house, after a discussion of the news re: boys and kitchens turns into a discussion of boys wearing girls' clothes.
Here's an approximate transcript of the relevant bits: "Not in my house! Not in my house! Not in my house! My son isn't putting on dresses! Girls wear dresses! When he's 18, he can do what he wants, but not in my house!"
Everyone who believes Sherri Shepherd won't care what her son does when he's 18, raise your hand.
No hands? Shocking.
Btw, I'm officially calling a moratorium on people invoking Scottish kilts during a discussion on transgenderism. First of all, it's truly not relevant. Kilts aren't "skirts." They are gender-specific, and they are menswear. To use them as example of men who dress "like women" is a misrepresentation, and it just confuses the argument about what being transgender really is. It's approximately like suggesting that a woman who wears a woman's business suit is cross-dressing.
And secondly, Scottish men don't run around in kilts anymore. On special occasions, you'll see a guy in a kilt. Or maybe if he's in a band that specializes in Scottish folk music. Or if he's had all his trousers stolen.
But on the average day, they wear pants. They've got electricity now, too.
TBogg on the Move!
TBogg has moved his trailer to the shores of FireDogLake. His Somewhat Popular Highness of the Delicious Snarkitude can now be found here. Update your blogrolls!
This is your teen on bad policy...
Melissa's post on the Tale of Two Stories got me thinking and searching the internets (wink).
Teen births are up 3% (5% among black teens) and in my home city of St. Louis Missouri we are in the midst of a youth std epidemic. So, how fucking hard is it to connect the rise in teen pregnancies and the rise in teen std infection rates with a reduction in safer sex practices among teens?
Pretty fucking hard if you ask Stephanie Ventura of the CDC, who seems to be a wee bit lost. "I don't know if the use of contraception among teens has changed. We just don't know what's happened."
Blink.
Fucked up policy happened, Stephanie!
Shit, the blessed CDC needs a comprehensive sex education intervention...again.
Question of the Day
Okay, enough of the bah-humbug of the worst Christmas movies ever. Let's flip it:
What's the Best Christmas Movie Ever?Mine's the original (1947) Miracle on 34th Street. Edmund Gwenn kicks ass -- literally -- as Kris Kringle.
Mindless Drones
Erstwhile Bush fellater advisor Dan Bartlett on the White House's use of rightwing bloggers: "I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It's a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we've cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."
This is one area in which the Democrats will never be able to compete. They're stuck with supporters who have integrity, critical thinking skills, and a healthy need to question authority. So we're, in turn, left with a political party that can't effectively stage a coup if they manage to occupy at least two branches of government.
You're welcome, America.
