Sock it to me, Shakers!
Recommended Reading:
Nicole: CNN Reporter Doesn't Know the Difference Between a Legitimate Question & Heckling, Defends McCain. Again.
Cara: This is How Much a Woman is Worth in America
Jessica: Appeals Court: The Word 'Rape' Can Be Banned from Rape Trials
Twisty: The Continuing Exploits of the Fetus-Lovers
Tom: Why Can't We Have a Civilized Debate About the Robot Menace? Or Zombies?
Weboy: ...Before It Kills Us All
Pam: Blend profile: NC Lieutenant Governor Candidate Dan Besse
GayAsXmas: Torch Trouble
And, please make a note, the Newshoggers have moved!
Leave your links in comments!
Monday Blogaround
Hillary Sexism Watch: Castrating Bitch Edition
Part Seventy-Six in an Ongoing Series. (Previous parts linked at end of post.)
Are you fucking kidding me, Josh Marshall? Because I quite honestly can't believe that a person who identifies as a progressive and has two brain cells still knocking together doesn't understand why it's problematic, to put it charitably, to frame Hillary Clinton pushing her male chief strategist from power as "gelding" him.
* * *
I find it difficult to believe that a man of your intelligence doesn't know that "to geld" means to castrate, and I find it similarly difficult to believe that a man of your experience doesn't know that powerful women are routinely cast as castrating bitches, and I further yet find it difficult to believe, in light of your constant reminders that you've spent a good part of your adult life defending the Clintons, that you are totally unaware of the existence of "hilarious" novelty items like the Hillary Clinton nutcracker. So where exactly is the disconnect, Josh, that allows you to use such disgusting language in reference to a sitting senator and presidential candidate? Or any woman, for that matter.
With "allies" like these...
[Hillary Sexism Watch: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five.]
McCain to be Condi's New Husb—?
As MB mentioned below, Condi is reportedly "actively courting the vice presidential nomination."
Now, on the one hand, I dread seeing this shit on the campaign trail:
…because McCain is embarrassing enough on his own without Condi standing guard with the Face of Judgment, reminding us all what a huge douche he is.
On the other hand, this possibility makes me want, more than I can possibly express, a joint Clinton-Obama (in alphabetical order; settle down!) ticket on the Democratic side, and a McCain-Rice ticket on the Republican side, just to watch Chris Matthews' head explode on live television as he tries to figure out for whom black women are going to vote, using the typically nuanced and carefully calculated voting theory he applies to everyone but straight white men (because we all know they vote on issues): "That one look like me! Me votey!"
Rice for Veep?
Republican strategist Dan Senor told ABC News that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the vote to be the vice presidential nominee with John McCain.
“There's this ritual in Washington: The Americans for Tax Reform, which is headed by Grover Norquist, he holds a weekly meeting of conservative leaders -- about 100, 150 people, sort of inside, chattering, class types,” Senor said. “They all typically get briefings from political conservative leaders. Ten days ago, they had an interesting visit -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- the first time a secretary of state has visited the Wednesday meeting.”Aside from the fact that Secretary Rice has been one of the most ineffectual occupants of the office in modern memory and her reputation as the worst national security adviser is unblemished ("No one could have predicted that people would fly airliners into buildings" when in fact a lot of people had), the only reason the Republicans would seriously consider her would be for purely the window dressing aspect of making them look like they're out-doing the Democrats when it comes to diversity. It reminds me of the old Certs commercial: "It's two, two, two tokens in one! A black and a woman!"
Senor explained that Rice’s history in public office would make her a prime candidate, especially in light of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain’s emphasis on experience throughout his campaign.
“What the McCain campaign has to consider is whether or not they want to pick a total outsider, a fresh face, someone a lot younger than him, a governor who people aren't that familiar with," Senor said. "The challenge they're realizing is that they'll have to have to spend 30 to 45 days, which they won't have at that point, educating the American public about who this person is.
“The other category is someone who people instantly say, the second they see that announcement, 'I get it, that person could be president tomorrow,'" Senor added. "Condi Rice is an option.”
You don't seriously think they're considered her for any other reason, do you?
(Cross-posted. Graphic by Liss.)
Penn Out
Clinton's chief strategiest (and, in many people's opinions, mine included, the campaign's chief asshole) Mark Penn has been forced to resign after meeting "with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as [CEO of public relations giant Burson-Marsteller] to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail."
Penn called it "an error in judgment that will not be repeated." Cheesus.
This goes to show you what an integrity-challenged douche Mark Penn really is; Clinton is publicly opposed to the trade deal, but his pocketbook is so important that he's either too stupid to see that working on the deal would deal a blow to her campaign, too arrogant and self-interested to care, and quite possibly both.
I would say he should have been pushed out a long time ago, except he never should have been a part of her campaign in the first place.
RIP Charlton Heston
As Jeff mentioned, Charlton Heston died last night. Heston was, of course, a total asshole. Which is something we had in common, as I am a total asshole, too. Or he would have thought I was, if he'd known of my existence, and, given that he was a gun-loving asshole, it's probably a good thing he didn't.
At the end of his life, Heston was as conservative as I am not conservative, and equally as vocal about it. And, so, despite having a profound dearth of respect for the opinions he held, I always had a begrudging respect for his willingness to publicly air them. He was a Great American, in the tradition of loud-mouthed political assholes who make generous use of our freedoms to say what the fuck we want, and I don't imagine it will come as a surprise to anyone who's spent any amount of time hanging around this juke joint that I found him pretty diggable for it, even as I daydreamed about kicking him in the junk.
Metaphorically, natch. I mean, the guy had lots of guns.
And Heston wasn't just an asshole; he was talented asshole. Sure, he chewed the scenery and turned "bulging neck tendons" into an emotional prop, but he was damn compelling. So compelling, in fact, that I could watch one of his films and forget altogether for two hours or so that there was very little I actually liked about the guy.
"Take your stinking paws off me, you damn, dirty ape!"
He was an epic film star with an epic personality, and I loved to hate him as much as I hated to love him. That might not sound like much of a compliment, but it is.
On This Date
April 5, 1908: Bette Davis was born.
She once said, "I'm the nicest goddamn dame that ever lived."
Update: Turner Classic Movies is having an all-day Bette-athon. "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night."
The Virtual Pub Is Open
Thank the heavens it's Friday, Shakesvillians!
Step into the ginmill and name the libation of your choice.
Happy 40th Birthday, Space Cowboy!!!
Technically, Space Cowboy's birthday isn't until tomorrow, but since it's a BIG ONE, I thought we'd celebrate this afternoon and evening, instead of on the weekend.
As has been documented by the man himself, Space Cowboy first found his way to Shakesville via a link at Crooks and Liars in September of 2006. He stuck around, became a regular commenter, and eventually became a contributor, whose regular documentation of Bush's economic supergeniosity and exhortations to Senator Jim Inhofe to piss off are now legendary. (At least in his own mind.)
But behind the scenes of this blogtacular blossoming has been the forging of one of the best friendships of my life, and, though I wouldn't presume to speak for Iain, I'm pretty sure he'd say the same. He doesn't just spend humongo amounts of time in the nerdery with just anyone, after all.
I could tell you in a thousand different ways what a great guy Space Cowboy really is, or list the reasons why I totally dig him, but instead I'll simply say this: He is a good person, through and through. I know lots of people who are funny as hell, or smart as a whip, or interesting as all get-out—and he is all of these things—but I know a whole lot fewer who are just as admirably, reliably decent as he is. I am lucky to know him—and Space Cowgirl, too, who is every bit as wonderful herself.
In February, Space Cowboy and Space Cowgirl came to visit at Shakes Manor, which was the first time we'd all met in person, and it was like we'd been friends our whole lives. I hope we are friends for the rest of them.
Here's to at least another 40. I love ya, SC. Happy birthday.
Friday Cat Blogging
Orphan At The Family Picnic
Let me begin by saying: Yes, we've made progress.
When I was born (and until I was in my early 20s), I was, by virtue of being a big old dyke, "mentally ill", according to the DSM II.
When I was 14, I still had to wear a dress to school, because I had a vagina -- even though no one was supposed to know about the whole vagina thing, except Mrs. Stains (unfortunate name, that), my phys ed/health teacher who was, apparently, the only person in the entire world who was actually authorized to use the word "vagina" out loud.
By the time I was 28, Wisconsin had become the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
So, yes -- we've made progress.
However, as this campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has unfolded, in a time when I think I should be all up and shouting "Progress!" because we (finally) have a black man and a woman vying for the nomination -- two historic "firsts" -- and we might actually have a Democratic president for the first time in this millenium -- I've realized that lately, I feel a bit like the orphan at the family picnic.
In many ways, I've actually been grateful that the process has exposed the underlying race-hatred and misogyny that I believe is alive and well in our society -- I think that having these destructive forces rear their ugly heads and become more exposed is probably helpful in the long run, if painful in the short run.
The danger of excusing "underground" racism/sexism/homopobia/classism is something I've written about many times, and exposure is probably the only way a culture in denial is ever going to really deal with the fact that we remain a society shot-through with institutionalized racism, sexism, homo-/trans-phobia, and classism.
There have been many, many discussions on the internet about the various racist and sexist tactics used during this nomination process.
I'm glad. I want those discussions!
I've noticed, though, that there really isn't much talk about LGBT rights these days. Sure, all the Democratic candidates say that we shouldn't be beaten up, or harrassed -- 'cuz that would be . . . you know . . . wrong -- but of the original candidates in the Dem race, only two supported full marriage rights for LGBT couples -- Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.
You know -- the weird ones -- the camera-starer and the UFO chaser.
In the course of various "political" discussions I've had in the past few months, I've been told, literally (by "progressives" no less) that it's "too soon" for gay marriage, that I should be patient, that if I feel concern about a candidate associating with a known homophobe, that I'm being "overly-sensitive", that I need to suck it up and vote the Party ticket even if I feel disenfranchised, and pitch in to help to put a Democrat in the White House, because they are going to be my only hope of change, etc., etc., etc..
If I put on my Political-Savvy Brain Modifier, all of those things even make sense. In a way. Sometimes.
But if I put on my Institutional Memory Stimulator, and dig into my Current Lifetime Experience Archives, I seem to remember that most things didn't actually change because disenfranchised people politely folded their hands in their laps and did as they were told.
The DSM II was changed because people (like me) started coming out, and refusing to cooperate with the code of silence, and refused to wear the mantle of shame that had been standard operating procedure for "How to Be Queer" up until the mid to late sixties.
The dress code at my High School was changed because a bunch of girls just stopped wearing dresses. They refused. They were threatened with expulsion. But pretty soon, there were enough of them that expelling all the offenders would have resulted in a an all-boy prom . . . . . and we couldn't have that, now, could we?
The State of Wisconsin passed anti-discrimination laws because there were some pushy, insistent, persistent queers who just would not STFU (to be fair -- it is possible that the majority of the straight populace may have been so busy watching the Packers and eating cheese curds that they simply didn't notice that the queers had taken over).
So, being told to shut my trap, mellow out, lighten up (yes, someone told me to "lighten up" yesterday, about the queer stuff) sounds to me exactly like: "Lie back and think of England."
At times, I've felt loathe to bring up the whole queer thing, what with all the meaty discussions of racism and misogyny that I believe actually DO need thorough discussion -- but that's when I start noticing that I feel like an orphan at the family picnic.
You know. No one wants to throw you out -- after all, you look too much like them -- but no one really wants to claim you, either. Everybody knows that it sucks to be you, but they're not really sure what to do about that. So here, kid, have a buffalo wing and some potato salad. Just don't expect anyone to be whipping out the old adoption papers.
Now, I could almost (I said, almost) understand this in the General Election. It's pretty easy for the Republicans to break out the old "Oh noees! S/He's friendly with teh Homoeees!" (Which they are probably going to do in any case, come the GE) -- but this nomination race is a race between DEMOCRATS! -- you know -- the people who are supposed to be all about Teh Freedom and Teh Equality?
The fact that most of the candidates (with the two quirky exceptions) haven't really made many strong statements about LGBTQ rights (except under direct questioning or as ass-covereage) during the run for the nomination troubles me . . . . a lot. [Update: As I was writing this, Hillary Clinton's interview with the Philadelphia Gay News was brought to my attention -- and yes, I consider that a strong statement in support of LGBTQ rights.]
As someone pointed out in a comment thread about candidates who are connected with known homophobes: "to make excuses for our candidates when they turn their backs on genuinely progressive issues---just because we've been flogged and fatigued into a place of fear and desperation---is to accept the ultimate Republican framing."
I think that maybe that's what troubles me. I seem to remember a time when truly progressive candidates were more unapologetically and vocally supportive of LGBTQ rights -- in fact, some of them actually pointed to this as one of the ways that they stood out from the crowd -- but it seems to me that the past 15 years of extreme right-wing Christianist pushback has put the fear of the fundies into our so-called progressive candidates (I believe that both the front runners are, essentially, moderates -- maybe even leaning-to-the-right moderates in some areas).
And that troubles me, too. The "political realities" for these two historic candidates almost mandate that they appear publicly moderate -- the old "fold your hands in your lap and wait your turn" thing being brought to bear -- but if I'm honest with myself, I think that, even politically, it's a mistake.
I think we need to be starting at our broadest, highest ideals, not starting from some luke-warm middle place in the hopes of acceptance. Because in the shell-game that is politics, it's very likely that there will be compromise from that broadest, highest vision -- so why start with something so diluted that it is sometimes virtually indistinguishable from conservative thought?
I often wonder: How can Hillary Clinton, a woman who's had to fight every step of the way to get to the place she is, and Barack Obama, a person of color who's had to fight every step of the way to get to the place he is -- (I believe that they both probably had to deal with a lot of shit to get where they each are, regardless of any current advantages they may have in terms of power and wealth) -- how could either of these people not understand that change comes only when oppressed people stand firm, talk back, and refuse to cooperate with the systems that are oppressing them. How can they not know this? Did they forget their own journeys?
It's at about this point in my ponderings that I often find that I just have to slap myself awake again. I mean, it's not as if I sit around everyday, all day, chanting "I'm queer, I'm queer, I'm queer." Most of the time, I don't even think about it -- I just go on living my life -- until I run into some reminder of homophobia, or I notice that teeny, tiny tick mark being made in my brain when I hear a speech that says something about "all people, regardless of race, creed, color, or class" . . . . but there's nothing about sexual or gender orientation.
For me, the entire situation brings up various spiritual dilemmas -- as a person who adheres to the concept that everything I manifest in my life is perfect -- even the stuff that may not look perfect at the moment -- I bring myself again and again back to a state of equilibrium when I get all wrought up about things political and social.
It is at these moments that I train my focus on the larger scope of things, and the smaller scope of things, attempting to remember that the political drama of one country on one planet looks much different from the stars that are shining outside my window, and from the viewpoints of the insects that are just beginning to hum lazily in the yard. I remind myself that politics is, in many ways, a form of Junior High Drama -- what is hot and bothersome today will be all but forgotten by next week, and that someday, as my friend John says: "This will all be history."
I'm really not sure where I'm going with this post. It's just that I noticed that orphan-y feeling coming up now and again, and I wanted to get it out of my head. I don't want to deny that part of me that sometimes feels as if it's standing outside in the cold, peering in through the window at the happy family gathering around Christmas dinner. I suspect that there is something informative and useful for me in that yearning.
Ah! Wait! Now I've got it! (I just knew that if I flopped around in my own language long enough, I'd get to the point.)
I don't want to wait anymore. It's a simple as that.
I don't want to scrape away at the mountains of ignorance with my needle. I want radical transformation. I don't want to be "reasonable" and "realistic", because I think the way most people in the status quo are living is not really well-reasoned, and the reality that is created by just accepting the same old shit isn't a reality I want to live in.
I want basic human rights and respectful treatment for everyone. Right now.
Because it's the only reasonable reality -- the only thing that makes sense for humans.
The only way that we all get to come in from the cold, and sit down to dinner.[cross-posted ]
The Night Dr. King Died
You would probably have to be over the age of fifty to remember Martin Luther King, Jr. when he was alive, but age doesn't matter in order to understand why he was -- and still is -- an important person in our nation's history.
Growing up on the outskirts of a city with a large black population, I was aware of Dr. King's work as a part of the daily news coverage in the 1960's as we watched the march on Selma, the water hoses, the riots in Watts, Detroit, Newark, and Toledo, and heard the pleas for justice, equality, tolerance, and brotherhood during the March on Washington in 1963 and in every city where Dr. King spoke. And I knew that he was an inspiration to a lot of people outside of the black community; anyone who faced injustice based on their skin color or their sexual orientation or any other reason knew what he was talking about. In 1968 I was fifteen years old and wondering whether my attraction to other boys was just me or were there others who faced bullying and discrimination for the same reason. In some small way I knew that Dr. King was speaking to me, too.
I remember very well the night of April 4, 1968, when Dr. King was murdered. I was a freshman at boarding school, just back from spring break, when the dorm master, who was also the school chaplain, called us into the common room and announced with both sadness and anger that "They've killed Martin Luther King." He didn't explain who the "they" were, but we knew what he meant, and two months later, on the day that Bobby Kennedy was buried at Arlington, James Earl Ray was arrested. Ray plead guilty and went to his grave claiming he was part of a conspiracy, but no one else was ever arrested or came forward to back up his claim. But when the chaplain said "they," he was talking not just about accessories to a crime but to the attitude of a lot of people in America then -- as now -- who still believe that Dr. King was a communist, an agitator, a rabble-rouser, and a threat to their way of life. And when Dr. King died, there were a lot of people who thought that at long last those uppity agitators would know what they were in for if they kept up their nonsense.
But of course the dream did not die, and in spite of the tumult and anger that came with the loss there came a sense of purpose borne from the realization that if Dr. King had to die for his cause, it must be a powerful cause that touches more than just the lives of black citizens. What we take for granted today in terms of equality and voting rights is still under threat; human nature does not change that quickly in forty or fifty or a hundred years. Dr. King, like the men who wrote the Constitution, knew that they were starting something that would outlive them and their generations; all they had to do was give it a good start.
If you don't remember Dr. King when he was alive, you are certainly aware of his life and his legacy, and I don't just mean because you might get the day off on his birthday in January. Regardless of your race, your religion, your sex, or your occupation, Dr. King's work has changed it, either during your lifetime or setting the stage for it now. And no matter what history may record of his life as a man, a preacher, a father, a husband, or a scholar, it is hard to imagine what this country -- and indeed the world -- would be like had he not been with us for all too brief a time.
(Cross-posted.)
You Don't Look a Day Over 300!
Today is the 500th anniversary of the publication of Scotland's oldest printed book, The Complaint of the Black Knight by John Lydgate.
Helen Vincent, of the National Library of Scotland, shows
off the country’s first book in honor of its 500th anniversary.
[The book], published on April 4, 1508, will be on show from 10am to 5pm at the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh. Cate Newton, director of collections development at the library, said: "This is perhaps the single most significant item in our collections."Very cool. And so very, very Scottish. You can't be a good Scotsman—or Scotswoman—without three things: Beer, a fire, and a book.
Btw, in case you were wondering what the Black Knight's complaint was, it was "Brootha McCain be a right pain in me tartaned arse!"
Question of the Day
We've done this one twice before, the last time over a year ago already (my, how time flies!), but it's always fun, so I'm recycling it again: If you were asked to describe yourself using only one word, what word would you choose?
I'd go with irrepressible, which can be both complimentary and critical, depending on context, and each are certainly applicable when the context is me.
Oprah and the Pregnant Man
Thomas Beatie, the pregnant transgender man to whom David Letterman so cruelly referred as an "androgynous freak show," was a guest on Oprah Winfrey's show today. He's positively charming and fascinating as all get-out, and his story is rather different from many people's; instead of experiencing gender identity as binary, the "wrong body" phenomenon among trans people or the "right body" phenomenon among cisgendered people, he seems to experience his gender identity as slightly more fluid, or maybe more complex. In any case, he's hardly someone I would describe as a freak—except, perhaps, as a compliment.
Below is Part One; you can watch the rest of the show here.
Clinton 
Teh Gayz
In an interview with the Philadelphia Gay News, Hillary Clinton made a pretty awesomely blunt promise to the gay community to be their ally if she becomes their president, adopting the argument I've repeatedly said the Dems should make regarding federal law—as long as the states are beginning to guarantee full equality, the federal government is obliged to do it, too. Clinton specifically addressed inequities in the tax code and immigration laws (a particular bailiwick of Iain's and mine, given our history), noting she would also "look at everything that is discriminatory in the tax code or in any other aspect of federal law."
Even states that have civil unions, domestic partnerships or even marriage laws are running into roadblocks with the federal government when it comes to federal benefits and privileges. …And we will try to eliminate all of that discrimination. I think we will have a good argument, ironically, because I think we can say, look, the states are making determinations about extending rights to same-sex couples in various forms and the federal government should recognize that and should extend the same access to federal benefits across the board. I will very much work to achieve that.Clinton also spoke about "how much more intense the mistreatment of LGBT kids" is and why "we need to do everything we can to try to protect our kids and give them a chance to have a productive and safe childhood and adolescence," and noted, in regard to the anti-gay marriage bill currently before the Pennsylvania legislature, that she would be "be very distressed if Pennsylvania were to adopt that kind of mean-spirited referendum and I hope it won't happen." Additionally, she promised to make global gay rights an active "part of American foreign policy."
There are a number of gross human-rights abuses that countries engage in with whom we have relations and we have to be really vigilant and outspoken in our total repudiation of those kinds of actions and do everything we can, including using our leverage on matters such as aid, to change the behavior so we can try to prevent such atrocities from happening.I know Clinton isn't perfect on gay rights, but damn if that isn't the most amazing shit I've ever heard on the subject from a leading presidential candidate.
At the end of the interview, PGN asked her if she would still speak with them if she becomes the Democratic nominee. Hillary replied: "Absolutely and I’ll speak to you as president." Which totally made me blub.
Barack Obama and John McCain declined to be interviewed.
11-Year-Old Asks Smithsonian: "What Up With That?"
Fifth-grader Kenton Stufflebeam is the first person to notice an error at the Tower of Time exhibit, which opened in 1981. Apparently, the exhibit mistakenly identifies the Precambrian as an era:
Last week, the boy received a letter from the museum acknowledging that his observation was "spot on."While this may seem very interesting and all, the only reason for posting this was to give me the opportunity to type "Kenton Stufflebeam."
"The Precambrian is a dimensionless unit of time, which embraces all the time between the origin of Earth and the beginning of the Cambrian Period of geologic time," the letter says.
The solution to the problem would not involve advanced science but rather simply painting over the word "era," the note says.
While no previous visitors to the museum had brought up the error, it has long rankled the paleobiology department's staff, who noticed it even before the Tower of Time was erected 27 years ago, said Lorraine Ramsdell, educational technician for the museum.
