Shakesville

The Contempt Showdown Resumes

Given the amount of time that has passed since Miers and Bolten were cited for contempt of Congress, I eventually came to the conclusion that it was probably for the best that the humiliatingly toothless citation faded from our collective memory.

Well, the game is back on. Now that the contempt resolution was passed by the house a couple of weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi is pointedly telling USAG Mukasey that if he tries to set up road blocks and play protect-the-prez, the House will simply shove him out of the way and throw down a law suit:

There is no authority by which persons may wholly ignore a subpoena and fail to appear as directed because a President unilaterally instructs them to do so. Even if a subpoenaed witness intends to assert a privilege in response to questions, the witness is not at liberty to disregard the subpoena and fail to appear at the required time and place. Surely, your Department would not tolerate that type of action if the witness were subpoenaed to a federal grand jury. Short of a formal assertion of executive privilege, which cannot be made in this case, there is no authority that permits a President to advise anyone to ignore a duly issued congressional subpoena for documents.

Your press spokesman has stated that you will “act promptly” to review this matter and reach a final decision. We will appreciate your acting with appropriate dispatch on this important matter. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and to ensure that our nation is operating under the rule of law and not at presidential whim. If, however, you intend to persist in preventing Mr. Taylor from carrying out his statutory obligation to present this matter to the grand jury in the District of Columbia, we respectfully request that you inform us of that decision within one week from today, so that the House may proceed with a civil enforcement suit in federal district court.

Considering how long it's taken to get just to this point, I don't hold much hope that a law suit, if deemed necessary, would even get started until later this year, if at all.

Still, it makes for interesting theatre. And, it's nice to see something get under the skin of Bush and his minions, especially when they thought it went away.

[H/T to TPMMuckraker]

I Write Letters

Dear English-Speaking World,

While I am aware that the word "female" can be both noun and adjective, I kindly request that you refrain from using it as a noun unless you are a farmer referring to livestock or the narrator on a nature special.

Acceptable: "The females encircle the young as the predator approaches."

Unacceptable: "Club Douché is filled with hot females on a Friday night."

Female humans are called girls or women. Please make a note.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Warmest Regards,
Liss

There's Something in Me I Don't Like, So I'm Getting Rid of It; I Just Need to Work Out How

by Sarah in Chicago

Hi, I'm Sarah and I'm biphobic.

I say such not to be proud of it, but rather to own up to it. We all have our own prejudices, so having or not having a prejudice is not what I am too concerned about here, but rather, if we are working to get rid of those we have, and particularly, how we do so.

I'm biphobic because I've been a part of lesbian communities for a long time, since I started to come out in my freshman year of university. Biphobia, as any bisexual woman will tell you (and any honest lesbian), is pretty endemic to the community, not inherent in it, mind you, but certainly endemic.

To a certain extent you can understand where it comes from. Being a sociologist I know that smaller communities tend to be more policing of the boundaries of a collective sense of identity, and the performances thereof. Further, oppressed minorities tend to be defensive of anything perceived as 'other' inside their group as someone that could be working to undermine efforts, that doesn't really share the same oppressions.

And a lot of lesbians take this position. They argue that if bisexuals want to be part of the lesbian community, they need to take the community as lesbian, and that a woman that loves men or a man needs to deal with such. They argue that there is privilege in being partnered in a heterosexual relationship, however, queer the woman therein may be, and that such privilege is antithetical to the community.

I actually know some lesbians that refuse to date bisexuals. One woman I know, upon having her heart broken after a very long term relationship, a marriage for all intents and purposes, was ended when her partner went back to men, swore she would never date another bisexual woman. And she hasn't, and is now partnered with another lesbian woman, happily in love, raising a child together.

I say these things not to defend such, or even to say they have any remote validity, but rather that I think it's important to investigate the narratives, the framing, of one's prejudices, as it's there that the prejudices enact themselves.

The thought for this post for me came out of a couple of things. The first was a posting to one of my fav lesbian media sites AfterEllen.com, about the atrocious representations of bisexuals on the show The L-Word. The article was completely correct mind you (of course, EVERYONE is atrociously portrayed on that show, but that's beside the point), but the interesting bit was the reaction in the comments section. It became a blow-out, like all bisexual-focused discussions on the site, with some outright expressions of fairly unapologetic biphobia.

And to my own disgust, I actually found myself wanting to post in agreement. I had to stop myself from posting something along the lines of "If you want bisexual representation, get your own fucking show, and leave us the fuck alone to have our one tiny niche. You find supposedly queer women fucking men all the time on network TV, what else do you want, to colonise our space too?!". It was this visceral reaction that scared the crap out of me.

In other words, I found myself almost repeating word for word the defences used by those transphobic bigoted women at the Michigan Women's Music Festival ... something I despise deeply and passionately. I was ashamed of myself.

The other moment was that this morning I found out that Kristianna Loken, one of the few openly out bisexual actresses whose bisexuality is not merely so much lip-service (so to speak), was engaged. To a man. And that wonderful biphobic voice of the lesbian community inside me spoke up and whispered "What a fucking surprise, not. Yet ANOTHER fucking bisexual woman runs back to fuck men. It seems that's all they fucking do; if I had a dime for every bisexual woman that is partnered to a man .... yadda yadda yadda". I clamped down on my thoughts immediately, but they were still there.

And so, as I rode the train in this morning, lightly flirting with this woman I bumped into that I knew from the community, I decided I needed to write this piece, and ask a question.

I date, and have dated bisexual women, as well as lesbian women. I don't really care. On an individual basis, I don't give a shit. And hell, being aware of my internalised biphobia (oh, and btw, this isn't about self-denial, I don't want to date men, nor am trying to cover up any secret desires for men; that kind of arm-chair pysch is pathetic), means I will speak up whenever I hear biphobic speech, because it's hateful. Period.

But, aside from speaking up against such speech, and validating the queer/gay identities of bisexual women, what else can I do? I have this prejudice in me that I detest, and I need to work on it to get rid of it.

So, my question is this; how have the others here worked on their own prejudices, there own biases? Not just biphobia, but how, after you gained awareness of internalised bigotries, how did you work to minimise such or get rid of them? What strategies did you use?

Because I'd really appreciate the help, and this is the right place to ask.

UPDATE: If anyone identifies as bisexual and wants to simply post about the biphobia they have experienced, I want them to consider this a safe space for them to do so. I know there are not enough spaces for bisexual people to able to do such.

Obama: Reproductive Rights and NAFTA

[Before accusing me of attacking Obama or being a shill for Hillary or having some kind of nefarious motivation, please bear in mind that Obama is now the frontrunner; we all have a vested interest in challenging the Democratic frontrunner on weak points, especially now, before the general election, when the GOP will start doing it—and going after him much harder than I ever will.]

Zuzu takes a look at some of Obama's more concerning comments on the issue of reproductive rights and tries to divine exactly what his real positions are—something she might not have to do if he, say, had a women's issues and/or reproductive rights section of his website. (Update: There is one here; it is, however, not part of the "Issues" section, but accessible through the "People" section, by clicking on "Women" and then "Learn" in the righthand column.) As long as legal abortion, emergency contraception, and comprehensive sex education continue to be issues in state legislatures, Congress, and the courts, every Democratic campaign should have a page dedicated to delineating her or his positions on these topics, which so intimately affect women. (Well, at least he's got one for "sportsmen.") Anyway, Zuzu pieces bits together from disparate sources, to try to paint a whole picture.

[T]o his credit, he does come out strongly [on the RH Issues Questionnaire] for comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education and calls abstinence-only out as the boondoggle it is; he also supports confidential access to contraception and reproductive health care for teenagers, as well as over-the-counter access to EC. He's even against the Hyde Amendment and wants to cut off federal funding to crisis pregnancy centers.

So I'm left wondering at the disconnect between his responses to the RH Issues Questionnaire and his responses to Mr. Innocent Sweet Babies. He (or, rather, his staff) responded to the questionnaire with simple, clear answers that gave due consideration to the concerns of parents, but which took a clearly pro-choice position. But to Mr. Innocent Sweet Babies, he hemmed and hawed and volunteered answers that sounded like right-wing talking points about responsibility and the degree to which women should be entitled to exercise control over their bodies and their sex lives.

So it's a mixed bag; there's a disconnect between his positions and his rhetoric, which is of course, not the first time. Once again, the end result appears to require that women trust him that he's on our side while he talks out the other side of his mouth to people who "believe that women should have some control over their bodies and themselves" and that the decision regarding abortion "generally is one that a woman should make."

Meanwhile, Susie Madrak points to a report that "a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources. The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value."

A spokesperson for the Obama campaign originally "said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made." Now Campaign Obama says the report is "inaccurate" and they "are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy."

From Obama spokesperson Bill Burton: "The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama's consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy."

I'm not sure that sufficiently contradicts the report that sotto voce reassurances were given to the ambassador; I'd prefer something that left no doubt the leading Democratic candidate wasn't planning to hoodwink Democratic voters. That he conspired with a foreign government official to do so is a pretty serious charge. "The report is inaccurate" seems a bit flaccid in response. I hope something stronger is forthcoming.

UPDATE: Canadian Embassy denies anyone from Obama's campaign (or any other) contacted them.

As I said in comments, Obama should begin to talk about this story like a constructed smear job. Given that the story plays perfectly into the Right's two anti-Obama memes—"Scary Foreigner" and "He's Unpatriotic"—he should address that head-on and treat the story like a plant.

Trudeau

In the comments thread to Melissa's QoD yesterday, I suggested The Essential Trudeau as a pretty good place to start if you want to understand liberal thinking. It struck me later, of course, that I'd recommended a Canadian book that most Americans probably would not have come across.

The Trudeau of the title is Pierre Trudeau, who was Prime Minister of Canada from 1968 through 1984 (with a brief interval in 1979). He was not only one of the great Canadian prime ministers, but was also a political writer of merit. Shortly before his death in 2000, Ron Graham edited a slim volume of excerpts from Trudeau's writings -- The Essential Trudeau -- to give a sense of his thinking.

I don't offer this as canonical, but I think that a few excerpts from the excerpts give a good sense of what Trudeau and Canadian liberalism have been about. Please note that Trudeau tends to use "he" and "man" to refer to people in general, as was the usual practice at the time he wrote most of this (also, some of it is translated from French).

The liberal is an optimist at heart, who trusts people. He does not see man as an essentially perverse creature, incapable of moral progress and happiness. Nor does he see him as totally or automatically good. He prizes man's inclinations to good, but knows they must be cultivated and supported.

A liberal can seldom be a partisan of the status quo. He tends to be a reformer -- attempting to move society, to modify its institutions, to liberate its citizens. At the same time, the liberal is not an anarchist because he does not believe that a free man can live as a total individual outside society. Nor is the liberal a revolutionary who believes that society must perpetually be scrubbed clean of the tracings of the past, must always begin again from an antiseptic tabula rasa. I like to say that a liberal is on the left, but no farther.

The point of human society is that people living together, by mutual help, co-operation, and the division of labour, can fulfil themselves better than if they lived apart. If men and women could not direct their collective effort to that end, they might as well go off and live all alone in the woods and on the hills.

The purpose of living in society is that every person may fulfil himself or herself as far as possible. Authority has no justification except to allow the establishment and development of a system that encourages such fulfilment in every human being.

The liberal's concern with freedom of the individual must also be a concern for the milieus in which individuals develop towards their full potential.

Neither authority nor obedience ought to be taken for granted. If my father, my priest, or my king wants to exert authority over me, if he wants to give me orders, he has to be able to explain, in a way that satisfies my reason, on what grounds he must command and I must obey.

The value of a government derives not from the promises it makes, from what it claims to be, or from what it alleges it is defending, but from what it achieves in practice. And it is for each citizen to judge that.

Security, even absolute security, is not an end in itself. It is only the setting that permits us to pursue our real ends: economic well-being, cultural attainment, the fulfilment of the human personality. But those ends are all incompatible with a world of neighbours armed to the teeth.

What we face now is not deprivation, but the challenge of sharing. We need not do without, but we must be good stewards of what we have. To ensure nature's continued bounty, we are not asked to suffer, but we are asked to be reasonable.

When the day came that neither the individual nor private enterprise could provide the bridges and roads needed for travel; organize the police and fire brigades required for public safety, or devise the water and sewage systems necessary for hygiene, the community simply decided to solve these problems communally, though the state. And nobody dreamt of crying "Communism!"

We should start, then, by banishing from our political mores the whole concept that a prime minister gives bridges, roads, schools to his province. These are works that society needs, that it gives to itself and pays for through taxes. A prime minister gives nothing at all (unless it is his superfluous services); quite simply, he works in the service of the state as an instrument through which society gives to itself.

Will anyone think I am preaching statism? On the contrary, I am preaching the doctrine of the servant state. For if I say today that the state should do more in the name of the community it is only after repeatedly saying that no political authority has an unconditional right to exist. I want the state to do more, but only after we have stopped thinking of it as an absolute master. In fact, if we were to extend the powers of the state without having multiplied our means of controlling its policy and limiting its methods of acting, we would tend to increase our enslavement. That is why I am wary of those who preach indiscriminate nationalization without setting themselves first to undermine the undue majesty of political power.

What holds us to democracy is not that it is faultless but that it is less faulty than any other system.

A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate.

To me liberalism is not a doctrine. Liberalism is a way of thinking, a way of approaching problems to make sure that the individual gets the maximum amount of respect and hopefully as great an amount of equality of opportunity in Canada, and in the world, as possible.

Of Course They Will

John McCain and his campaign can repudiate and disassociate themselves from the likes of Bill Cunningham all they like, but if you think that's going to put an end to it, Josh Marshall has some news for you.

Don't insult your intelligence or mine by pretending that John McCain's plan for this race doesn't rely on hundreds of Cunninghams -- large and small -- across the country, and the RNC and all the GOP third party groups, to be peddling this stuff nonstop for the next eight months because it's the only way John McCain have [sic] a real shot at contesting this race.

The last thing the Republicans want to talk about are the real issues facing the country, like the economy, education, health care, equality for all citizens, because they lose on every one of them. So they will resort to stuff that people like Bill Cunningham and Rush Limbaugh will use; hustler, hack, Muslim, funny name, oh, and of course they'll remind you that he's black without actually saying it, but they have a pocket full of dog-whistles to do that. Oh, and he has an uppity wife, too.

One of the other tactics they will use is to find some outrageous comment by some radical that Barack Obama once shook hands with and demand, as Tim Russert did in the debate on Tuesday night, that he denounce and repudiate the statements, and stomp on his birthday cake for good measure. Any failure to do so is a tacit endorsement of the radical. Well, it works both ways; as Will Bunch notes at Attytood, when will Tim Russert denounce and repudiate Don Imus?

This kind of crap can go on forever, and if the Republicans have any hope of winning in November, it will. Just remember; you have been warned.

Update: John McCain has been endorsed by Pastor John Hagee who believes, among other things, that there is no such thing as a good Muslim, that Hurricane Katrina was God's retribution for a gay pride parade in New Orleans, and that it is the duty of the President to hasten Armageddon in order to further the Second Coming. As Glenn Greenwald notes, not only does Sen. McCain not "denounce" and "reject" this support from this hate-monger, he is "very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."

I'll have a double standard with a twist, please.

(Cross-posted.)

Local High School to Have "80's Day"

The Spirit Week Committee at Thomas Jefferson High School in Athens, Alabama has decided to conclude this year's Spirit Week with an event known as "80's Day." Senior Katie Kziurckey came up with the idea while she and some of her friends were watching Vh1's popular series I Love the 80's—3D!

"One joke in particular, when Hal Sparks held up a pair of leg-warmers and said 'What the heck are these, sweaters for snakes!?' set us to laughing so hard, we just knew we had to work that zany 80's culture into our Spirit Week!" said Katie, Vice President of the Spirit Week Committee, which is tasked with rousing the school spirit and patriotism of their classmates by assigning a fun yet school-appropriate theme to each day of the week.

Katie knew that this year's "Large Hat Day," "Mismatched Socks Day," and "Sunglasses Day" would be tough acts to follow, so when she and her friends stumbled upon the rerun of I Love the 80's, many chalked it up to Divine Intervention.

"When I heard Hal Sparks make that joke about those leg warmers, my eyes just kind of teared up, and I looked at my friends and mouthed, this is it. My friends and I are all devout Christians, so to have our faith confirmed in such an obvious, straightforward way made us feel like Sodomites for ever doubting His Mercy," said Katie.

Finally receiving their inspiration would prove to be the easy part, however. Upon hearing about their daughters' plans for the important finale of Spirit Week—a week long event that is usually held at the beginning of the school year, but was delayed at Thomas Jefferson High due to budget crises and a very public incident involving a School Board Official publicly coming out of the closet—some of the girls' parents began to get worried about the implications these plans could have concerning the school's dress code.

Athens native and long-time president of the Athens PTA, JoAnne Pickle, was especially vocal in her opposition to Katie & co.'s plans.

"80's Day is just another excuse to have our daughters running around the school with their shameful, disgusting unmentionables hanging out all over," said Pickle. "It all started with Halloween, all these young girls going around at night, dressed up like sexual witches and nurses, begging for candy from old homosexual men. Don't think for one second that I don't know what goes on out there."

Pickle continued: "Then it spread to St. Patrick's Day, turning a celebration of one of our Lord's most revered saints into a drunken naked hullabaloo in the streets of Chicago and other such centers of moral depravity. From there, not unlike deadly cancer, it spread to the very heart of the Christian family—Christmas. Mrs. Clause was transformed by the liberal media from a benevolent, matronly lady into a young, large breasted sex factory. Don't even get me started on the 'sexy' elf costumes I see in Christmas stores. It's appalling. "

Pickle created a petition to keep 80's Day out of the school, but was not able to get enough signatures in time to make a difference. "It's all the same to me if they rot in Hell for eternity, writhing in a lake of burning oil, their flesh cooking into slabs of black charcoal and falling off their bones, only to grow back the next day, images of their loved ones being run over by steamrollers projected onto the cavernous walls. They can all just eat shit in Hell," said Pickle.

"I don't see what the big deal is," said Katie when asked about JoAnne Pickle's zealous attempts to have her big day cancelled. "I'm as good a Christian as anybody, and I don't remember ever reading a passage in the Bible that said that I can't satirize the hilarious fashion trends of the 1980's. Now wearing pants—that's another issue entirely."

For My Friend Sam, On His Birthday

One of the signs of passing youth is the birth of a sense of fellowship with other human beings as we take our place among them.—Virginia Woolf

I'm fortunate and glad our places in the fellowship have intersected, Sam. Rarely does stumbling coincidence provide such a lasting gift.

Happy Birthday (from Virginia and me).

[And I still, still have no idea how old Sam actually is.]

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Goober and the Ghost Chasers

It's Like Déjà Vu All Over Again

Dateline: America, 2001. I read over at Jill's place that American flight schools have granted FAA certifications to thousands of foreign student pilots who have not been given the requisite background check by the TSA and do not have the specific type of visa required to enroll and obtain pilot licenses. Muses Jill, cynically: "It's almost enough to make you think they want another terrorist attack to take place, like maybe…right before the election?"

Heh heh, thought I. All we need now is a sequel to the Summer of the Shark to really lull us back into the false sense of security paradoxically created by remote and hyperbolic terrors.

Then I saw this on Yahoo's front page:

Summer of the Shark II: Toothy's Revenge

Project Runway Open Thread

DON'T BORE NINA!!!

Question of the Day

Yesterday, Isopluvial asked in comments: "Suppose a conservative had a change of heart, and wanted to understand just what 'liberal' means, beyond a laundry list of programs that the new administration will implement. Is/are there book(s), blog(s), or site(s) that people here would feel would accurately and fairly represent current liberal philosophy?"

So: What do you recommend, Shakers?

I'd say pick up auto/biographies, memoirs, and/or diaries of people as different from you as you can find. I have always been a voracious reader of such books, since I was a kid, and I can say with absolute sincerity that a genuine appreciation for other people's experiences leads one quite naturally to an understanding of the basic tenets of liberalism. Ditto blogs. Make an effort to read people Not Like You.

Fill your head with thoughts you've never had before, and would never have on your own. It's exhilarating.

"Maybe in the next world…"

Sorry for the dearth of posts this afternoon. I'm working on another Feminism 101 piece, which I thought I'd get done, but haven't, so it will hold for tomorrow morning…

In the meantime, please enjoy this rendition of Mozza singing The Smiths' "Death of a Disco Dancer" last October in Waukegan, Illinois (which holds the dubious distinction of being where Mr. Shakes and I got hitched at the courthouse).

Love, peace and harmony
Love, peace and harmony
Oh, very nice, very nice, very nice,
But maybe in the next world
Maybe in the next world…"

Random YouTubery: How to Drive on Ice

FYI

For Shaker Car. Another one for your door.
Extra fun: Pete Burns and Mozza on the cover of Smash Hits ("The Very Odd Couple"). Pete Burns and George Galloway in leotards on Celebrity Big Brother. Yow.

[FYI 1; FYI 2; FYI 3; FYI 4; FYI 5; FYI 6; FYI 7; FYI 8; FYI 9; FYI 10. Hint: They're better if you click 'em!]

Pondering a post-bullshit America...

Crossposted from AngryBlackBitch.com.

We are not living in a post-racial political era.

We are not living in a post-gender era.

We sure as shit are not living in a post-bullshit equality for all, let freedom ring and the masses have our bread and eat it too era.

What we are living in…and some of us are suffering through…is the mess that results from decades of avoiding the issues of race, class and gender by embracing the school of tolerance rather than engaging in the hard work of social justice.

I am not a fan of the school of tolerance. It gives birth to the delusion that any one political candidate experiencing public support as she or he runs for president of the United States is somehow an indicator that American society has transcended a damn thing.

That interpretation of the 2008 race to the Democratic nomination has been debunked by the very election cycle currently being hailed as transcendent. How the hell can any pundit fix their face to ponder a post-racial America when Democrats beat Republicans in the rush to bait based on race?

How can anyone seriously discuss a post–gender America when I’ve yet to witness a political analysis of Senator Clinton’s campaign by the mainstream media that doesn’t trip over the fact that she is a woman?

Let’s keep this shit real Jeff Foxworthy style (wink).

If anyone running for public office needs to swiftly debunk claims that she or he is a Muslim…we are not post-racial.

When pundits gleefully wallow in the stankification of sexism to the extent that an on-air public apology is required…we are not post-gender.

When President Bush’s challenge to the nation to stop casually tossing out lynching threats and engaging in noose humor doesn’t even hold for a week before a moron with a microphone gets his lynch threat on in reference to the wife of a serving United States Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President (Lawd, have mercy) and no one thinks for one second he’ll lose his pulpit, apologize or even grasp what he just said and how bloody inappropriate not to mention dangerous it was to say ...oh hell no, we are not living in a post-racial era.

And when political pundits verbally fumble like novices getting past first base and spend more time analyzing that ‘emotional moment’ in New Hampshire than what the heck differentiates one candidate from the other beyond their gender and race…well, we’ve come a long way baby but we still have a long way to go.

What is lost in the mix is that fact that we also have a precious opportunity to confront these issues.

Parents and teachers have the opportunity to discuss gender and sexism with some pretty good examples of how that shit is used. Put this mess out in the open and in context so that our youth can learn from it rather than continue to repeat it.

Family and friends have the opportunity to discuss race and the need to respect religious diversity. Get real about that and discuss why a picture can incite fear which will feed a bigotry that holds all of us back. Get real about why some conservatives are discussing the issues while others are speaking about Obama on the radio in some strange version of black talk (ooooh, how original…not) and drooling over the opportunity to fully give in to their insecurity-based hatred.

When we the people get post-bullshit and debate the issues facing us all, free of the corruption of bigotry and the inhibitions of fear, then we can investigate whether America is post-ig'nant.

Enlightenment isn’t something we can speak into reality anymore than bigotry is something we can simply declare to be history.

Quote of the Day

"If McCain wants to mock Obama, perhaps he should pick a topic in which a) Obama is mistaken; and b) McCain knows what he’s talking about."—Steve Benen, on the two candidates' tit-for-tat on al-Qaeda and Iraq.

And you thought I was kidding when I suggested the possibility there could be no swing states in November because "maybe McCain (as he is wont to do) will have thrown an enormous tantrum during one of the debates, calling Obama 'a curse word associated with chickens' and yelling into the camera 'I am Thor the god of thunder!' while ripping open his shirt to reveal a prominent tattoo of Thor's Oak, prompting his approval ratings to plummet into the single digits." He really is prone to some unimaginable idiocy.

William Buckley is Dead

"William F. Buckley Jr., the erudite Ivy Leaguer and conservative herald who showered huge and scornful words on liberalism as he observed, abetted and cheered on the right's post-World War II rise from the fringes to the White House, died Wednesday. He was 82."

My mother taught me when you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Oh…! I did like it when Norman Mailer described him as a "second-rate intellect incapable of entertaining two serious thoughts in a row."

My Vote. Mine.

For the record: It is the firm belief of your blogmistress that every person's vote is her or his own, to do with as she or he will.

Voting for a candidate in one of the two major parties is a legitimate choice. Voting against a candidate in one of the two major parties is a legitimate choice. Strategically voting for a third party candidate in a decidedly blue or red state is a legitimate choice. Voting for a third party candidate in a swing state is a legitimate choice. Not voting is a legitimate choice.

Some of these choices are ones I can imagine making; some of them are not. That does not mean they are not legitimate choices for individual voters to make with their votes. Period.

Shakers are welcome to discuss what their voting choices are, and why, should they be so inclined. Shakers are not welcome to condemn, insult, ridicule, dismiss, or in any way attempt to marginalize or censure other commenters who do not share those choices, nor are they welcome to accuse anyone of being "the reason" that previous candidates have lost or that future candidates will lose.

Shakers who consider engaging in this behavior would do well to remember that some of us are Democratic partisans keen to see Democrats elected, and some of us are movement progressives interested in facilitating a larger progressive movement, and sometimes those goals are mutually exclusive and sometimes they aren't, but they are equally and always legitimate interests.

Shakers who consider engaging in this behavior would also do well to remember that there are contributors and commenters who, by virtue of our sex or the color of our skin, have not been guaranteed the right to vote since this nation's inception. Some of us have mothers and grandmothers who were born without the legal right to vote. Some of us have parents or grandparents who stood on a line in the south facing cops and dogs and firehoses to fight for full enfranchisement. Some of us have friends or relatives who were disenfranchised during the last election. And maybe that (unfinished) history makes it a wee bit harder for some of us to cast a vote for someone who trades on sexism or racism.

Your blogmistress, had she been born only 54 years earlier, would have been born without the legal right to vote. That history, that fight, is in every vote I cast. My vote. Mine.

I don't tell you what to do with yours. Don't tell me what to do with mine.

And kindly don't make me say this again.

Carry on.

Ric's Legacy

You've probably never heard of Ric Weiland. That seems to be the way he wanted it. But he was one of the men who was there at the beginning of Microsoft, and his legacy through philanthropy to the gay rights movement is making itself heard.

Weiland [pictured left with Bill Gates in 1976] has left $65 million to the Pride Foundation in Seattle and 10 nonprofit organizations, believed to be the largest estate gift ever given to the gay and lesbian community in the U.S.

His generosity didn't stop there.

Weiland left $160 million, the majority of his estate, to charity. That includes a gift to Stanford University estimated to be worth $60 million, which the university said is the largest bequest it has ever received. Weiland also gave significant amounts toward environmental protection and scientific research.

Weiland, one of the first five Microsoft employees, committed suicide in 2006 at age 53.

It has taken more than a year to sort out his estate, and the full scope of Weiland's giving is now starting to emerge. The first disbursements began last summer and will be completed sometime this year.

For the Pride Foundation, which has an annual budget of $2.5 million and endowment of $3 million, Weiland's gift of more than $19 million will significantly expand its efforts throughout the Northwest.

The money will support anti-discrimination campaigns and programs to help youths, develop future leaders and provide scholarships.

[...]

Weiland was hardly a typical Microsoft millionaire.

He shunned the spotlight, refusing to be singled out on donor-recognition lists. Friends say he wrestled with the burden of wealth that came almost by accident, and thought deeply about how to give his life meaning.

Weiland, who suffered from chronic depression, found great solace in his philanthropic projects.

"I've never met someone with such a thoughtful personal agenda that was at the same time not about himself," said Thatcher Bailey, a high-school classmate and friend. "It was about how he can be a good citizen."

News of Weiland's bequest brought a sense of hope to people still coping with the tragedy of his death. His suicide shocked even his closest friends, who didn't realize how ill Weiland had become. That was the nature of his private personality, Haberman said.

"People knew him for years and years, but upon his death didn't really know him very well," she said.

[...]

Ultimately, Weiland hoped his acts would inspire more people to give, even though the visibility of these last donations would have made him uneasy, Bailey said.

"Each time he became more visible around his giving, I could tell he knew he was sacrificing something by doing that — the low profile that was so important to him," he said.

But, Bailey added, "In his absence, he's standing up one more time and showing people the way."

Thank you, Ric.

(Cross-posted.)