Shakesville

Cooking lessons

I did something last night that I'd never done before: I took a skinless, boneless chicken breast half and sliced it lengthwise, not quite all the way through, on the thin edge of the breast. Then I opened it like a paperback book.

I was very excited.

The recipe, "Pampered Chicken," came from The EatingWell Diabetes Cookbook. No, I'm not diabetic - and thanks for asking - but my father was and my brother is and so it's on my mind a lot, though perhaps not so much as it should be. Anyway, the recipe's approach is a pretty common one: you slice open the breast and insert something yummy (in this case, cheese). Fold the breast shut, dip it (egg white), coat it (dry breadcrumbs, chopped parsley, grated Parmesan, kosher salt, pepper), brown one side in a hot ovenproof skillet, turn it and move the skillet immediately to a hot oven for about twenty minutes. Oh, yes, friend. It was good. But not uncommon...outside of my own kitchen, that is.

Millions of cooks enjoy making stuffed chicken recipes, after all, and they think nothing of preparing them. I've always been reluctant to try it, though. I vaguely recall making a chicken Kiev dish once or twice ages ago, but have usually thought such dishes either too fancy or perhaps too daunting for my culinary skill set, which I consider awfully limited.

To tell the truth, I'm kind of a lumbering oaf in the kitchen. Messy, slow, not terribly organized. If you say "mise en place" to me, I'd probably say "Gesundheit" in response. More problematically, my grasp of cooking fundamentals - an understanding of the concepts that allow cooks to look at a pile of foodstuffs, recognize how they might come together, and so produce a meal without guidance - is not the strongest. As a result, I rely heavily on recipes and the saints who provide them. (My approach to blog design is much the same.)

On the positive side, I'm at least a well-intentioned oaf. That's my single best quality when it comes to cooking. That is, I can bring myself, fitfully, to try new things...assuming that they call within the outer ranges of my comfort zone.

Also: I actually like cooking (as opposed to simply liking food). This came as kind of a surprise to me.

This year, this brand new year, I hope to expand that comfort zone by developing new skills in the kitchen. It's an actual resolution (I'm among the credulous who still put stock in the New Year's ritual). I found myself encouraged by animated French mice, of all things; Ratatouille gave me a culinary charge I hadn't felt since the first time I saw Big Night. And though I pride myself on being resistant to most reality shows, I was glued to the television for the recent rebroadcasts of the Food Network's two lightly-scripted contests. Kinda silly, I know, but you take inspiration where you find it, yes?

Damn. I'm hungry now.

(Cross-posted.)

Romney: Watch Out For the Militant Gays!

According to Jim Talent, an adviser to Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor will "stop the influence of 'the militant gays.'" Via ThinkProgress:

He’s always had the same position as to regards to the gay agenda. Look, he wants to know people to know he values gay people as people, okay? But he doesn’t want the militant gays to be able to change the cultural institutions of the country.

I've got a bit of news for Mr. Talent: we don't have to change the cultural institutions of the country, because they're doing that all on their own.

And it's not like we send out our young and attractive men two by two knocking on doors and asking people if we can tell them all about all about the Radical Homosexual Agenda.

That's the Mormon shtick.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

On Allegedly Being Less Than, and Finding More with Feminism

Occasionally, I am struck with an opportunity to wonder at the extraordinary fact that any of we women manage to reach adulthood with a shred of self-esteem, that so few of us truly succumb to the anger inside us all. Even those of us who supposedly don't "care" or "pay attention," those who ostensibly think feminism is a crock, don't escape the unavoidable messages that tell us over and over and over that our bodies are filthy and shameful and less than, that our minds are simultaneously inferior and impenetrably complicated but naturally less than, that our ideas and talents and capabilities and humor and monolithic disposition are all inexorably, intractably less than. We are all, in all ways, less than.

Right down to, inevitably, what's between, or not between, our legs. I remember the first time I read Freud's theory of penis envy, and the hypothetical he laid out about two children playing "doctor." The little girl first sees the boy's penis, then looks at her own body and discovers "the horror of nothing to see." That description haunts me—the sense of women's bodies as missing something, as incomplete, as less than.

Women have but three options to manage a lifetime of being told they are less than: They can accept the pernicious myth, which usually entails hiding their resignation behind some conservative ideology that deviously attempts to make submission sound valorous, usually by disguising it at a way to honor men, children, and/or a god of some description. (Note: I'm not talking about all conservative/religious women or all stay-at-home moms or all women who prefer a division of marital labor along traditional gender lines; I'm talking about women who genuinely believe women are to submit to men and profess to be okay with that.) Intellectually, I can understand why this option appeals to some women. If you can convince yourself that you were put on the earth to get married, have lots of babies, and serve your family, to cook, clean, wash dishes, and scrub floors, and nothing else, if you can be happy being a second-class servant, then all the messages telling you you're less than won't bother you a whit, but instead confirm your identity. No struggles with the cognitive dissonance of being overtly told you're equal by society, while your equality and sense of self and personal autonomy and self-esteem are being constantly undermined by a steady drumbeat of negative messaging. No frustration at the lack of progress. None of the pain and humiliation of subjugation. Celebrate your oppression, and the world celebrates with you.

That's not really a viable choice for most women, however, which leads us to our other two choices. Try to ignore it all; try not to think about it; shove it down in your gut and pretend it doesn't matter. Or be an active feminist.

Active feminism can, in many ways, seem more upsetting, because you do have days of sheer despair. But ultimately it's healthier to have a method by which to process the stuff of sexism, because even though carrying it with you, addressed and understood and contextualized, is bloody hard, internalizing it is worse. That which tells us we are less than is corrosive, corruptive, toxic—and a lifetime of it left alone to fester can destroy a woman from the inside out, as she is slowly robbed of her self-esteem, her self-respect, her self-confidence, her sense of, trust in, and love for herself.

There are women who say they don't think about these things, and they may not, in the sense that an active feminist does, drawing connections between "the little things" and the big picture. But internalizing a lifetime of negative perceptions about your sex, your body, and inevitably yourself doesn't come without a cost. Women who don't think about these things nonetheless feel them. It's a mistake to believe that the "post-feminist" fun-loving gals at work or the local bar or populating the sorority house across the street, who claim ignorance at what all the feminist fuss is about or express hostility at the mere mention of the no-fun stridency of women's equality advocates, don't feel the mordant pangs in their guts when they are smacked in the face with the reality of less than. They do. And pity them truly that the fear of being seen as humorless trumps their desire to find a way to experience themselves as whole.

Feminists, one must realize, come to feminism because they feel these things and simply choose not to ignore them; it's not that that they experience something other women do not. Feminists find feminism as they search for a way to cope, to process, to deal.

Feminism is not, as is asserted by its critics, something women use to find issues of sexism, plucking them from thin air, but something women use to address issues of sexism, which already permeate the ether. The charges of "hypersensitivity" regularly levied at feminists often contain overt or covert reference to the notion that it is only because of feminism that women react negatively to sexist t-shirts, inequality in the workplace, "mankind," and all manner of offense and discrimination—as if no woman would ever take issue with these things were it not for the nefarious agenda of feminism to turn women into affront-spying machines, reacting with indignation as often as possible.

(Never mind the obvious logical query of whence, then, did feminism come.)

To a woman awash in a culture steeped in misogyny, the notion that we must endeavor to search out offenses is laughable. Meandering through a day untouched by misogyny except as I (inexplicably) seek and engage it does not describe my reality; it describes a transcendently utopian fantasyland. And it informs why feminism remains relevant and necessary.

Feminism is a framework and the adhesive of a community on which women can depend to support our intrinsic feelings of equality and its denial. Feminism is a gift which allows us to define who we are on our own terms, tells us we don't have to conform to anyone's expectations but our own, frees each of us of the obligation to be anything other than what we want to be and are. Feminism is hope, its history providing a reminder that progress is possible, progress is happening now, and so it will continue with our vigilance.

And feminism is, more than anything, a valve that lets escape the pressure of less than, lest we implode from the crush of its weight.

* * *

[Parts of this post originally published in March 2007. I had occasion to revisit some of these thoughts after a lovely late-night chat with Arkades.]

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Whiz Kids

Project Runway Open Thread

When last we left the Runway, Jack's face was exploding, and it was a tearful goodbye as he left for medical treatment.

But don't cry for him, Argentina. He's now healthy again and happily dating Dale Fauxhawk from Top Chef! Yay!

All's well that ends well.

Question of the Day

Inspired by Bill's post about his surpassing respect and appreciation for his lovely wife, today's question is: What's the dumbest thing you've ever said to a partner or spouse?

I'm having trouble thinking of my own answer to this one, since I am, of course, the World's Best Girlfriend. As for accidentally admiring celebrities in the presence of one's partner, Al and I had this conversation (which I'm lifting from my personal journal) right after we got together -- so long ago that Al was still identified on my blog as "Crush Boy.":

Me: If you could leave me for any celebrity, who would it be?
CB: I don’t fucking know. Do you actually have an answer to that?
Me: George Clooney.
CB: Oh, man. That’s such a cliche!
Me: But there’s a reason for that. He’s not just hot, he’s smart-hot.
CB: Yeah, but you’ll taste spinal fluid when you kiss him.
Me: All right, fine… Peter Sarsgaard.
CB: Really?
Me: Yeah, why not?
CB: He… okay.
Me: Or possibly Philip Seymour Hoffman. Jon Favreau. Paul Giamatti.
CB: Wow. I can actually almost see where I fit into that list. I mean, what you’re saying is, you don’t like attractive men.
Me: That is not remotely what I’m saying!
CB: I mean, I could kind of look like Philip Seymour Hoffman. If I worked out.

I might have snorted at that comparison, which wasn't terribly polite of me, but let's just say there's little risk of me offending him by drooling over a hot celebrity.

Other than that, the dumbest things I can recall having said to partners would be stuff like, "You know, I kind of like doing the dishes; I find it meditative," or "I don't really want anything for my birthday." But I know I'll eventually think of something better than that -- and in the meantime, I know Shakers have stories! So 'fess up. Tell us about a time when you said something to a partner or spouse and then immediately wished for a cosmic rewind button.

Best Ratings System Evah

I'm not going to ruin the joke. Just go see Steve Benen immediately, who has invented the most awesome ratings system of all time to discuss Barack Obama and his "conservative frames."

I'd love to know, btw, how Steve rates Obama's social security gaffe, which seems to me to have given real momentum to the "conservative frames" meme. Also: the McClurkin clusterfuck, justifications for which were pulled right out of the GOP playbook.

I rate them both a 5 on his scale.

Paulnuts

Via Arlen, who says: "Instead of actually doing something worthwhile with their time (such as, I dunno, canvassing or phonebanking or some other type of GOTV activity), his supporters just huddle in front of his headquarters chanting his name over and over again as if the Iowa caucus is some sort of shouting match where the candidate with the loudest supporters wins. They're not even passing out literature to passersby, they're just shouting his name (and occasionally getting arrested for blocking rival candidates from walking down the sidewalk). If I was an actual Paul staffer inside doing actual work, I'd be pretty pissed at those jackasses."

Yes. Be sure to check out the first commenter over at Arlen's place, who helpfully explains that "Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are the only proven politicians who won't suck up to feminists."

That's precisely the problem with American politics—too many politicians sucking up to feminists.

All Aboard the Straight Talk Express

McCain's got a new sales pitch: I'm old, I suck, no one really likes me, I know it, you know it, let's not kid ourselves, but give me four friggin' years, people!

Republican John McCain seemed to suggest Wednesday that if he wins the White House he may only serve one term.

According to the Boston Globe, the 71 year-old candidate was asked whether he will have the ability to serve a full eight years as president, while campaigning in New Hampshire.

"If I said I was running for eight years, I'm not sure that would be a vote getter," McCain responded.

Indeed. Some people might even suggest that "running for eight years," ignoring the election in there during which the will of the people is supposed to decide on that second four years, smacks of, um, a sense of entitlement. (Maureen Dowd would not be one of those people, though.)

McCain later clarified his statements by saying "the decision as to whether to run for re-election has to do with the circumstances at the time," like, presumably, whether the entire country realizes that you're not only 75 years old, but also John McCain.

The job description...

Cross posted from AngryBlackBitch.com.

Shall we?

Before considering supporting a candidate for any elected office this bitch likes to remind myself what my role is as a voter. That role is of interviewer and investigator (dare I say decider (wink)) of any and all candidates for the elected office they seek.

Come November of this year, a bitch and my fellow Americans will be asked to extend a job offer to candidates for everything from President of the United States to Governor to local city official. That's why this bitch takes careful note of the various job descriptions...who has fuck up the job and who has done the job justice...before I decide a damn thing or settle on a single candidate.

First up, the job of President of the United States of America!

Confessional - a bitch is always amazed that this job gets so many applicants since it's thankless and full of stress and drama, but...well, this bitch's nightmare is another person's dream come true.

Wince.

Anyhoo...

The Constitution of the United States of America lists the following job description for President.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Okay, got that shit.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

No raises or side deals or speaker fees.

Ouch.

But fuck it, they don't have to pay rent or for meals and travel or shit like that.

Alrighty, then...continue!

Before he (or she) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Oh my! Now that is interesting. Why oh why do some folks running for office think it is more important to protect the masses than uphold the rule of law and govern based on the Constitution? Mayhap they are running for some other office...kind of feels like some of them are applying for President with the hopes of changing the job into Ruler of the Known Universe?

Cough.

Now, I know in these times of war it is frightening to some to imagine holding the Constitution above the protection of the masses, but the greatest threat to our national security is the willful disregard of the law of the land...and you can bet your ass the founders knew that shit and considered it when they signed off on the Constitution.

And the rest of it?

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Got that.

And?

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

And last but not least?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Whew!

That's some job description but that's the job we the people should be interviewing the candidates for.

Funny thing is this doesn't read like the job most of them are running for.

Blink.

We Can Be Heroes - Just for One Day

Now I can finally express what my inner hero really looks like, all thanks to the Hero Machine!

[H/T to PortlyDyke]

Willard's Promise

Presidential hopeful and all-around doucheface Willard Romney promises not to embarrass the country, not like the last president. Not like the last Democratic president. And like all good Repubs, he's doing it for the children.

"I think kids watch the White House and there have been failures in the past in the White House — if you go back to the Clinton years and recognize that..."

Of course, he was "not referring to anybody" when he spoke about whoever happened to be president during "the Clinton years." So, you know, it wasn't really a jab at the Democrats, per se.

And the Patriarchy Rages On…

Father of the Year (although, I grant, it is only two days in):

A suburban Chicago man is accused of setting an apartment fire -- killing his pregnant daughter, her husband and their young child -- because the son-in-law didn't ask permission for the marriage, prosecutors said.

…Prosecutors allege [Subhash Chander, 57, of Oak Forest, Illinois] used gasoline to start the fire late Saturday. The India native told police he disliked his son-in-law because he belonged to a lower caste and had married his daughter without his consent, said Cook County First Assistant State's Attorney Robert Milan.

…Milan identified the victims as 22-year-old Monika Rani, her 36-year-old husband, Rajesh Kumar, and their 3-year-old son, Vansh. Rani was five months pregnant, Milan said.

I suspect the failure to seek approval for the marriage was itself not the precipitating event of the murder; just one contributing factor to a dangerously dysfunctional relationship. It's telling, though, that Chander is invoking it in his defense nonetheless, as it suggests he has reason to believe there yet remain quarters in which he will find sympathy for a man who commits murder over the ownership of his daughter.

And, of course, he does.

Shut Up, Maureen Dowd

Part wev in an Ongoing Series by Tart and me, named elegantly and succinctly by Tart, about the World's Most Obnoxious Feminist Concern Troll^TM.

Echidne pointed me to the latest steaming turd pile dropped on the pages of the Times by Maureen Dowd in place of an actual piece of journalism. In today's plopper, she wonders "Deign or Reign?" and cobbles together a jumbled mélange of folksy anecdote, selective quoting, and indiscriminate smears, held together with her usual adhesive of smug judgment and crazy, to arrive at the gobsmackingly insipid rhetorical: "Will Queen Hillary reign? Will Prince Barack deign? And who is owed more?"

That last bit—who is owed more?—references her actual premise, buried beneath the searingly clever "Deign or Reign" rubric, which is that Clinton and Obama are uppity. But, as I'm sure you've heard, Maureen Dowd is, like, all liberal and shit, and totally not just some highly-paid tool of a white patriarchal elite persistently enforcing its narratives against would-be interlopers, so it's not like she's the intellectual equivalent of a bodyguard keeping geeks and fatties out of Club Gofuckyourself—heavens, no! She just doesn't like the attitude—happenstancially shared by the one woman and one black man in the race—that they are owed the presidency.

After calling Clinton, in a single paragraph, stubborn and imperious and secretive and vindictive and entitled and off-putting and self-sabotaging and dysfunctional and careless, the evidence for which is, apparently, presumed to be self-evident, Dowd then complains:

The underlying rationale for her campaign is that she is owed. Owed for moving to Arkansas and giving up the name Rodham, owed for pretending to care about place settings and menus when she held the unappetizing title of first lady, owed for enduring one humiliation after another at the hands of her husband.

It's no secret that I am not fond of Clinton the candidate but am fond of Clinton the person, which gives me a rather interesting (and fairly objective) perspective on her campaign—and I daresay I pay more attention, like all political junkies, to individual primary campaigns than the vast majority of Americans. And I've seen absolutely no evidence of this outsized sense of entitlement that Dowd proclaims the "underlying rationale" of Clinton's entire candidacy.

Every candidate for the office of the presidency evinces some demonstrable hubris, merely by virtue of their belief they are fit to run a global superpower. That's chutzpah. In no way, however, has Clinton impertinently claimed, overtly or otherwise, an unassailable right to the presidency. She has, after all, long been the frontrunner, a fundraising juggernaut anointed by the press as the presumed nominee, the person to beat. Surely that makes vanity candidates like Joe Biden, who has a snowman's chance in the Mojave summer of winning the nomination, more deserving of opprobrium for pomposity than Clinton—and, even then, it would be tough to make a convincing case that he appears to believe he's owed the presidency.

Dowd's asinine premise might be vaguely convincing if we didn't know what someone who feels he's owed the presidency looks like, but we do.

In 1996, Bob Dole was running against incumbent Bill Clinton, having finally won his party's nomination after several previous failed attempts, starting in 1980. To secure that nomination, he had battled his way through a vicious Republican primary with nearly a dozen candidates, during which he lost the New Hampshire primary to Pat Buchanan, and, by the '96 election, Dole was 73 years old. He was lampooned by every political comic and sketch show as having ruthlessly blustered his way to the top of his party's ticket by repeatedly asserting "It's my turn!" to be president. There was, as always, truth in those jokes. Dole positively emanated a sense of being owed not just his party's nomination, but the presidency itself, despite running against a popular incumbent, and his oppressive desperation could not be hidden beneath the death-mask grin and reflexive thumbs-up offered to soften his sense of entitlement.

It's the same repulsive vainglory exhibited by McCain, whose desperation for the presidency is so palpable that he verily reeks of My-Turnism. Part of McCain's enormous fury at losing the 2000 nomination to Bush, beyond the Bush team's dirty tactics, was that Dubya was a contemptible upstart who didn't deserve the nomination. Not like McCain did—especially according to the Old School GOP nominating tradition, which did indeed favor rewarding the man whose time had come as opposed to the best man for the times to come. And part of what now informs his maniacally merciless campaign this time around, driving him to levels of pandering and disingenuousness that would probably make his younger self blush, is the sense that he deserves the nomination that much more since having to cede it to an undeserving whippersnapper wastrel eight years ago, whom he has literally embraced with gritted teeth to secure his place in line.

Hillary Clinton does not look anything like those men. And neither does Barack Obama, despite Dowd's claim to the contrary:

Oddly, Barack and Michelle Obama also radiate a sense that they are owed. Not for a lifetime of sublimation and humiliation, but for this onerous campaign, for offering themselves up to save and uplift the nation, even though it disrupted their comfortable lives.

Michelle told Vanity Fair that Americans would have only one chance to anoint her husband, vowing "it's now or never" and explaining "there's an inconvenience factor there" and a "really, really hard" pressure and stress on the family that can only be justified if her husband can win the presidency and "change the world."

She told a group gathered at a nursing home in Grinnell on Monday that "Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics."

Interesting calculation. Obama's wife states the obvious, that running for the presidency is a massive clusterfuck to family life and has the nerve to suggest it's something their family may not want to repeat ad infinitum, and she believes—and has the shocking audacity to state—that her husband is extremely smart, and Dowd asserts this is evidence that not only Michelle, but Barack as well, believe he is owed the presidency. Again, I would note this looks like nothing like the former and current candidates who quite genuinely convey a sense of entitlement—and professional political columnist Maureen Dowd should know that.

In fact, I will assert she does know that, but has chosen to ignore it in order to make "Deign or Reign?" work. Not just the pithy title, but the entire churlish concept, wrapped around the idea that Clinton and Obama believe they are owed something they are not. Dowd has delivered the talking point for every "progressive" bigot who doesn't like the idea of some uppity bitch and uppity negro thinking they're fit to run the country. It's not their failure to be white men that leaves the bad taste in the mouth; it's just their sense of entitlement, you see.

Sure, good liberals like Dowd support equality. Just as long as no one actually wants to use it or anything.

Huckabee Goes Fishing

Mike Huckabee has a new ad that prominently displays the Jesus Fish.

For the second time in the past two weeks, presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee has aired a commercial in which a Christian symbol appears in the background.

In the campaign ad, Huckabee is addressing members of the Iowa Christian Alliance, an organization whose symbol is the ichthys which appears on a banner that is shown prominently at the open and close of the 30 second spot. The ICA is an influential social conservative organization in Iowa, and Huckabee can be seen speaking about his opposition to abortion before the group.

The ichthys, which resembles a fish, is well-known in evangelical circles as the symbol used by early Christians to secretly identify one another without attracting persecution.

The Huckabee campaign unveiled this ad as well as another on its campaign Web site Monday afternoon, hours after the former Arkansas governor reversed course and decided against airing a negative campaign commercial targeting rival Mitt Romney.“Our Values” is currently airing in Iowa, while "Tax Cuts Matter" is airing in New Hampshire, according to a campaign spokeswoman.

I don't know why the Huckabee people are being so coy about dog-whistling to the fundamentalists. It's not like it's a big secret that the former Arkansas governor was a Baptist preacher before he took office, and it's not like his campaign people don't know what they're doing with these little "secret" symbols like the cross-in-the-bookshelf and so on. They knew exactly what was going on, and I'm sure that they knew that they would get the reaction they did. They were counting on it.

It plays right into their pathology. The Christian fundamentalists have raised the culture of victimhood to a high art, and yet no other group has managed to take over the base of a political party, dominate the debate on reproductive choice, dictate the science curriculum in public schools, impose their will on federal funding of scientific research, and persecute another minority -- the gay community -- with impunity like they have. And yet they claim they are persecuted themselves at the hands of the secular humanists and the godless liberals, and the reaction to the Huckabee Christmas commercial proved it. (Ironically, the most vitriolic reaction came from the mainline GOP pundits who see Huckabee as an uninvited hillbilly cousin to their nice little garden party of "respectable" candidates like, uh... Mitt? Rudy? Fred?) So now the Huckabee campaign can play the victim and say that everybody's ganging up on Mr. Huckabee because he's not ashamed to talk about his faith. His not-so-secret signals to his fundamentalist followers are just one more way of reinforcing his claim of being picked on by the big bad meanies in the establishment who look down their noses at honest people of faith. Awww...

Frankly, I don't care whether or not Mike Huckabee is a Baptist or not or whether he was once a preacher. As far as I can see, he's on the wrong side of a lot of issues that I and a lot of other people care about -- reproductive choice and gay rights to name just a couple -- and he doesn't know beans about foreign policy (except the fact that he proved on Meet the Press on Sunday that he can memorize names). How he arrived at those positions, whether it's faith-based or whatever, doesn't matter as much as what he does when he acts on them, and to quote him, it's how you behave that matters. I have no doubt whatsoever that should someone like Mr. Huckabee be elected, he will continue to behave in exactly the same way he's shown in the campaign so far, fish symbols and dog whistles or not, and that's reason enough to vote for someone else.

Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Kucinich: Back Obama

If I hadn't already lost every last trace of any respect I ever had for Dennis Kucinich when he said he'd consider sharing a ticket with Ron Paul, telling his Iowa supporters to "select Senator Barack Obama as their second choice at the caucuses on Thursday if his support is not strong enough to be viable" would have put the final nail in that particular coffin, anyway.

In 2004, he urged his supporters to support John Edwards, but this time around, he's going with Obama. His reason? "Senator Obama and I have one thing in common: Change."

A dubious claim, given Obama's unwillingness to overtly challenge flagrant and unchecked corporate avarice head-on the way Edwards is (see here and here, for a start), even though it presents a grave threat to our democracy, economy, and ability to provide the best social safety net for all Americans. And considering that Kucinich has been talking about impeachment for years, and even introduced a resolution of impeachment against Vice-President Cheney, it's a bit odd that he'd view Obama as an agent of change since he opposes impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney and accuses people who support it of playing politics.

Huh. Seems like a pretty harsh condemnation of Kucinich, quite frankly—and his specific attempts to provoke change.

Must look different from whatever planet Dennis is living on.

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

The Streets of San Francisco

Happy New Year!

First of all, I just want to say thank you for a great 2007, Shakers. It was a pretty rough-and-tumble year for Shakesville, between hacks and attacks and Bill freakin' Donohue, but we're still standing—and I can't tell you all how grateful I am to you for sticking it out through the fits and starts and various pains in the arse.

We have a lot of work ahead of us this year, with its being an election year—and not just any election year, but the year we finally get rid of that wankstain currently occupying the White House! Wheeeeeeeeee! Undoubtedly, it will be a struggle to make sure he isn't replaced with someone just as bad, and I'm quite certain the Democrats will continue to frustrate and annoy and demand our attention as we fire off missives and make phone calls to try to get them to do their blessed jobs, so it's full steam ahead.

And that's not even considering all the work we have to do promulgating the Radical Gay Agenda and recruiting new members to the Cult of the Feminazi Cooter! Retrofuck bigots aren't going to make fun of themselves, people.

It's gonna be a busy year—and, with a little luck, another great one. Onward, Shakers...

The New Year's Eve Virtual Pub Is Open

Thanks for a great year, Shakers.

Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
and never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot,
And days o' auld lang syne

For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

And surely ye'll be your pint-stoup!
And surely I'll be mine!
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes,
and pou'd the gowans fine;
But we've wander'd mony a weary fit,
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl'd in the burn,
frae morning sun till dine;
But seas between us braid hae roar'd
Sin' auld lang syne.

And there's a hand, my trusty fiere!
And gies a hand o' thine!
And we'll tak a right gude-willie-waught,
for auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
for auld lang syne,
we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet,
for auld lang syne.

To Arms! To Arms!

Ready the Battledroids! Warm up the Underground Tunneling Death Tanks! Release the hounds! Arm the methane balloon strike force! And for goodness sake, send out the trolls! Omega Force Ron Paul is under attack yet again!

The Ron Paul forces are really amazing. It's incredible how many excuses they can create for their candidate when yet another tidbit of offal is found that tarnishes him. Of course, when the information is a little bit difficult to argue, like Ron taking money from white supremacists, it all boils down to smokescreen; taxes, property ownership, freemarketfreemarketfreemarket, keep your goddamn hands off my money, etc, etc.

I was a little gobsmacked after reading Melissa's post linked above, commenting:

And apparently, even the appearance of integrity and dignity isn't all that important to the Paul campaign. OMG, shoez. OMG, donations. Five hundred bucks? What will that buy, a box of bumper stickers?

Perhaps the reason this thread has not yet been flooded with the Ron Paul Bludgeon Bearers is because even they are a little ashamed about this? One can only hope. One isn't living in fantasyland, but one can hope.

Of course, I'm a foolish, foolish person. The thread was swiftly filled with Ronbots, shame be damned, who refused to even consider the implications behind their candidate happily accepting money from a white supremacist, swallowing the ridiculous "we're using this to spread freedom" excuse hook, line, and stinker.

Well my friends, time heals all wounds. Time also tends to expose more Ron Paul slime. Taken from a 1992 article in "The Ron Paul Policial Report:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Nice, eh? Apparently, racism is a "sensible political opinion." And I find Ron Paul's apparent puzzlement over African American voters supporting welfare and affirmative action to be, frankly, hilarious.

Of course, I'm sure there will be Ronbots that will insist that he never actually wrote these words, blaming it on some staff writer, knowing deep down in their Ron Paul lovin' hearts that it somehow slipped by their candidate, and he never, never would actually call almost all African American men criminal.

Cue another kick in the goolies by time:

Well, don't say we didn't warn you about Ron Paul's friends.

Here's American National Socialist Workers Party leader Bill White, coming out big for Paul on the far-right Vanguard News Network site on December 20:

Comrades:

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous -- and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party

Far be it from me to take the word of Bill White(!) as gospel truth (A correction in the New York Times states that good 'ol Jesse Benton says Ron has never "knowingly" met Bill White.), but I would hope there are some Ron Paul supporters out there that would consider the piling-up crap and start asking some serious questions of their candidate.

Well, unless they're racists, of course.

And as for other corrections:

Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul.

Still. Kept. The. Money.