I've always been amazed that Sandy Duncan could be simultaneously completely adorable and look like Martin Short in drag, which, on paper, wouldn't necessarily suggest complete adorability.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
I've always been amazed that Sandy Duncan could be simultaneously completely adorable and look like Martin Short in drag, which, on paper, wouldn't necessarily suggest complete adorability.
Blog in Solidarity: Congo Rape Epidemic
Inspired in large part by Lisa Jackson's film, The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo, which is airing this month on HBO, SheCodes at Black Women Vote (via Elle, Marcella, and Anxious Black Woman) exhorted other bloggers to participate in a blogswarm "to raise awareness by blogging about this issue on April 13th."
The prevalence of rape in the Congo has been described as the worst in the world:
The prevalence and intensity of sexual violence against women in eastern Congo are "almost unimaginable," the top U.N. humanitarian official said Saturday after visiting the country's most fragile region, where militia groups have preyed on the civilian population for years.Hundreds of thousands of women have reportedly been raped in the Congo, with sexual violence "so widespread that the medical aid charity, Médecins sans Frontières, [said in November] that 75% of all the rape cases it deals with worldwide are in eastern Congo."
John Holmes, who coordinates U.N. emergency relief operations, said 4,500 cases of sexual violence have been reported in just one eastern province since January, though the actual number is surely much higher. Rape has become "almost a cultural phenomenon," he said.
"Violence and rape at the hands of these armed groups has become all too common," said Holmes, who spent four days in eastern Congo. "The intensity and frequency is worse than anywhere else in the world."
One woman who sought treatment at the hospital tells how she hasn't dared sleep in her own home for months.I quite honestly don't know what I can say that I haven't already said a thousand times about the brutal, life-altering horror of rape or the catastrophic devastation to nations when rape is used as a weapon of war, forever changing entire populations of women and girls. I have no words; I beg you to listen to "this very moving and upsetting interview with Zawadi Mongane, a woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo who suffered appalling violence by the Interahamwe who killed her family, gang raped her, and forced her to kill her own baby" (and read the follow-up).
"Every woman in the village leaves at night to sleep in the bush because of the raping. They still loot but if they can't find us they can't rape us," she said.
..."People live in fear so they live in the bush. They expose themselves to diseases: malaria, gastro-enteritis. It's cold at night. All of this claims lives," [Augustin Augier, the MSF administrator at Rutshuru hospital] said.
I know it's horrible. I know it's the last fucking thing in the world you want to hear. And I beg you to listen, anyway, and expose yourself to that pain, and then go to CARE or Amnesty International and find a way, some way, any way, to try to make a difference. It might be small; it might just be putting your name on a petition. But if thousands of people took time today to put their names on petitions, if thousands of people donated just a dollar, or five, and if each of those thousands of people in turn begged people they know and love to do the same, and so on, it will matter.
Grab your teaspoon.
Quote of the Day
"Don't know what came over me: the dear boy did suddenly seem extremely sapphic, yet I think my intuitions must have been scrambled all the same, since what I was actually thinking was: 'Andrew really wants to have Barack Obama's fucking child'. Clearly some confusion of categories on my part."—Useless wally Christopher Hitchens explaining why he exasperatedly scolded Andrew Sullivan "don't be such a lesbian" last weekend.
What a sad life Hitchens leads that he has lived on two different continents, traveled all over the world, and has more money than he could drink in an entire lifetime, and yet still he has never had the opportunity to meet a lesbian mother. Boy howdy, wouldn't that be a zany category-confuser!
Not a Top Blog
John Aravosis says "every single top blog has had it with Hillary." I guess that means we're not a "top blog."
Huh.
The funny thing is that I suspect not having "had it with Hillary" automatically disqualifies any blog from being a "top blog" by definition, according to a lot of "top bloggers" like Aravosis.
Futher evidence it's generally foolish to expect anything besides circular thinking from a bunch of circle jerkz.
[H/T Mad Kane.]
KKFI interview with LaVena Johnson's father
On a program originally broadcast on August 3, 2007, Tom Klammer - host of Tell Somebody on Kansas City’s KKFI-FM - interviewed LaVena's father, John, on the effort to compel the Army to reopen its investigation of the death of Pfc. LaVena Johnson. Tom has graciously made the interview available for all interested. The interview has been spilt into two parts, each approximately 21 minutes long.
Part one of the interview:
Part two:
As mentioned earlier at Shakesville, the name gathering for the House and Senate Armed Services petition requesting a re-investigation of LaVena's death comes to a close on Friday, April 18. As always, everyone is invited to visit the official LaVena site.
It's Fundamental
Reading is Fundamental is an organization that's been around since the 60's and, according to its site, is: "the oldest and largest children's and family nonprofit literacy organization in the United States." RIF delivers books and literacy help to the children and families who need them most.
All RIF programs combine three essential elements to foster children's literacy: reading motivation, family and community involvement, and the excitement of choosing free books to keep.RIF is in trouble. In a move that is, by now, completely unsurprising, Bush has eliminated all funding for the program--funding that has been given by every administration since 1975--in the 2009 proposed budget.
RIF has created a way for you to contact your congressperson to make them aware of this and encourage them to take action to save the program. Please do so. The last thing this country needs is less literacy and literacy support.
It's Time to Get Obama-Skeptical
Shakers, I've had all I can stands and I can't stands no more. If I see one more person on the internet acting like Obama is some kind of progressive dream candidate, I'm gonna lose it.
Obama is not a fucking progressive.
Now, before you say it, Hillary is not a fucking progressive, either. Clearly. That's not my point, and it never has been when I've written in support of her. Today, I am not here to discuss Obama v. Hillary--I'm here to discuss Obama the myth v. Obama the man.
The man is not a fucking progressive.
I got up this morning and immediately started writing this post, which has been percolating for a while, and when I checked my Google reader on a break, I discovered that Jeralyn at Talk Left apparently woke up with much the same idea. So I'll let her start this off:Obama seems to tell us over and over that he'll talk the talk but we shouldn't expect him to walk the walk because It may not be worth the political capital. How does that differ from politics as usual? How is that change?
Exactly. Too many times, when asked about progressive issues, he's said he just doesn't think that's the best place to put his energies--and even more gallingly, that the activists working tirelessly on these issues are going about it all wrong.
Take what he said yesterday about anti-choice Democrats supporting him:"It may be that those who have opposed abortion get a sense that I'm listening to them and respect their position even though where we finally come down may be different," he told reporters at a news conference.
Hey, guess what, dude. Progressives? Do not respect the anti-choice position.
"The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," he said.
"Most Americans recognize that what we want to do is avoid, or help people avoid, having to make this difficult choice. That nobody is pro-abortion, abortion is never a good thing."
This isn't a "Hey, we just see things differently!" thing. This is a "Hey, we believe in a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and they don't" thing. Also? Pro-choice "forces" have consistently acknowledged the "wrenching moral issues" that any individual woman with an unplanned pregnancy might face, but we don't acknowledge the question of whether that should be her choice as a wrenching moral issue, because it's not. It's a fucking no-brainer. And finally, those anti-choice voters you're reaching out to? They do not want to help women "avoid having to make this difficult choice." If they did, they'd support comprehensive sex ed, accessible birth control, and emergency contraception wholeheartedly.
Oh come on, Kate! You're nit-picking! The important thing is that he's pro-choice and he'll stand firm on that!
Yeah. Except in 2005, Obama was planning to vote to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice, because he "expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect" and said that "if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds." His chief of staff, Pete Rouse, had to point out to him that voting for Roberts might just come back to bite him in the ass if he ran for president."Pete's very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them," Obama said an interview when asked about that discussion. "He's been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can."
Yeah, wow, that Rouse really has some amazing political insight! I mean, who else could have figured out that voting to confirm Roberts might be a bad idea for an ostensibly liberal, pro-choice Democrat with presidential aspirations? It's not like Obama had a crystal ball, people!
You want to know what upsets me most about that article? I mean besides him not wanting to oppose judicial nominees on "ideological grounds"? What bothers me most is that you don't have to go digging to find it; it's on his own fucking website. (Though I found it via The Ghost of Dr. Violet Socks.) The man does not even have the good sense to be embarrassed by the first four paragraphs of that article; by his own admission that without outside help, he couldn't recognize the pitfalls of voting to confirm Roberts; or by the strong implication that he only voted no so it wouldn't haunt him in a presidential run, not because he actually opposed Roberts.
Why on earth should I believe that this man is going to stand up for his supposed pro-choice beliefs in any way that will actually be meaningful to me as an American woman? He's courting the votes of anti-choice people--what happens when they put pressure on him? If both pro-choice and anti-choice voters help him get elected, whom does he tell to piss off when it comes down to it? And it will come down to it in the form of Supreme Court nominees for the next president--why the hell should any pro-choice person vote for a man who couldn't figure out all on his own that Roberts should not be Chief Justice?
Obama is not a fucking progressive.
And I'm only getting warmed up. Let's talk about that Advocate interview.
Portly Dyke already brilliantly handled the "He wasn't proselytizing all the time" line, but that was hardly the only thing that bothered me about the interview. Take, for instance, this bit (which Jeralyn also noticed):I'm the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn't mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward.
Okay, first, there were actually anti-miscegenation laws on the books in
That's a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That's not a decision for me to make.18 21 (and this is why I shouldn't quibble) states when Obama was born, but that's a quibble. The important thing there is the part I bolded--which I actually missed the first time I read the article. He's not talking about what he would have done as an adviser to Kennedy or Johnson, the presidents in office between his birth and Loving v. Virginia. He's saying he would not have advised a civil rights leader to lead with interracial marriage, "because it just might not have been the best strategy."
Yeah, problem is, it's not the '60s, and you're not advising Dr. King. It's the 21st century, and gay Americans and their allies have already made it clear that marriage equality is important to us. That horse is out of the freakin' barn, and yet, when a gay publication asks you, "[I]sn't that what you're asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage -- to wait their turn?" your answer is, No, I'm not asking same-sex couples to wait their turn, I'm just saying gay marriage isn't the issue they should be focused on.
Hey, thanks for the tip, pal.
And wait, it gets better.Advocate: Is it fair for the LGBT community to ask for leadership? In 1963, President Kennedy made civil rights a moral issue for the country.
No. He got shot a few months later. Instead, the Supreme Court overturned it in the remaining 16 states 4 years later, 3 years after the Civil Rights Act Kennedy introduced was passed. But I'm sure political leadership had jack shit to do with that. It had nothing to do with Kennedy saying:
Obama: But he didn’t overturn antimiscegenation. Right?We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.
When Obama is ready to make a similar speech with regard to gay Americans, to call on all citizens to examine their consciences about our treatment of gay Americans, to make homophobia a moral issue for the country, then maybe I'll give him a pass on thinking marriage rights can be back-burnered for a bit. In the meantime, he can fuck right off with that answer, seriously. But he didn't push through marriage equality laws! Why should I have to?
The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated.
Are you kidding me?
And that's without even getting into McClurkin and Meeks.
Jeff, I swear I expected to find a post by Melissa when my search on McClurkin returned the title "In Which Barack Obama Loses My Vote for Good," so I'm sorry to do this to you, but as it happens, you put it very well back in October:Barack, I can understand the sort of brutal political calculation that leads a staffer to suggest that throwing gays under the bus may help you win more votes. And sadly, in some places, maybe it will. But the Republican party was dead wrong to throw blacks under the bus in the 1970s, and they're beginning to reap what they sowed now. We cannot, we must not abandon our full and vocal support for the right of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transmen and transwomen to be full and equal participants in our society. That's a bigger issue than any campaign, and a more important fundamental calling than any single race. In short, a candidate for the Democratic endorsement should be willing to lose before they abandon a commitment to equality.
Sing it with me, kids: Obama is not a fucking progressive.
Progressives do not praise Reagan and Bush, or argue that religious politicians can't be expected to leave their beliefs at the door just because of that whole separation of church and state thing. Progressives do not believe Bush hasn't quite met the standard of "grave, intentional breaches to presidential authority." Progressives don't talk about solving the "Social Security crisis"--prior to his kidnapping, even Josh Marshall believed that. And hell, prior to that statement, Obama believed that.) Progressives do not praise gay men who do them the kindness of not "proselytizing." Progressives do not ally themselves with vicious homophobes. Progressives do not support an immigration plan sponsored by John McCain, which does not include benefits or amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Progressives do not make it a high priority to demonstrate respect for people who do not believe in women's bodily autonomy. Progressives do not brag about their ability to attract Republican voters. Progressives do not baldly state that they are unwilling to spend political capital on progressive issues.
Are we clear on this now? Obama is not a fucking progressive.
So what, Kate? There is no progressive candidate, and he's better than Hillary!
You're right about the first part, and we can agree to disagree about the second. But here's so what.
A lack of progressivism is not the only pattern in everything I've described above. There is also a pattern of unbelievable fucking tone-deafness from a man who's constantly praised for his oratory. He is either deliberately using right wing framing when he talks about gay marriage, abortion, and Social Security, or he doesn't realize he's doing it, and either way, it should be a huge red flag. His "typical white person" comment didn't bother me on its face--he's not wrong--but it bothered the hell out of me that he could be so careless with his words. That's one thing on the looooong list of shit that will be used against him in the general election. See also, yesterday's comments about small-town Pennsylvania voters:So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Sure, that's likely to soon blow over for now. But if he gets the nomination, that's going to be played over and over and over, until every working class white voter in America has it burned into their brain. Ditto everything Jeremiah Wright has ever said and every word Obama's ever said in praise of him. Right now, everybody's having fun talking about how Bill Clinton keeps saying dumbassed things that are torpedoing Hillary's campaign, but that's right now. When it comes to the general, I guarantee you we are all going to get sick to fucking death of hearing Michelle Obama say this is the first time she's ever been proud to be an American. Et fucking cetera. He and his surrogates have stepped in it a gazillion times--and that's without even getting into gaffes like his accidentally calling ethnic cleansing a positive thing--but they've almost never been rigorously called to account for it, because right now, the focus is on getting him the nomination. Once he's got it? All bets are fucking off.
Once again, pre-kidnapping Josh Marshall nailed it, back in January:One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn't very good at defending himself. And that's hard for me to ignore when thinking of him as a general election candidate.
Emphasis mine. At this point, I can't even say "most of these cases," but in several of these cases, I don't necessarily think the intentions behind Obama's words were objectionable. Yet the words were.
In most of these cases -- such as the Reagan issue -- I think Obama's remarks have been unobjectionable but ambiguous and certainly susceptible to both misunderstanding and intentional misrepresentation. And if you're going to talk like that -- nuance, as we used to say -- be able to defend it when people play with your words. And I don't see it.
His tone-deafness and his failure to defend himself well when attacked don't necessarily mean he's unelectable, but they mean he's got a major uphill battle coming up, and I am fucking stunned that so many of his supporters can't see this. Do people really think the media treatment he's getting now is going to remain when it's just him vs. Jesus McCain? Or are they truly blind to the multiple vulnerabilities of his own making, and how the media's been politely skirting them so far? Do they really believe the Republicans aren't knee-deep in oppo research they're just waiting to unleash as soon as there's a nominee?
Wait, what am I saying? People haven't even noticed that the man is not a fucking progressive. Why should they notice that he's about to go into battle short half a suit of armor?
But they must.
Listen up, blindly twitterpated Obama supporters (and here, I must insert a big, fat, blinking neon IF THE SHOE DOESN'T FIT, DON'T WEAR IT warning), I'm not even asking you to vote for Hillary if you've still got the chance. It's not my place to tell you what to do with your vote. But as a fellow Democrat--and hell, I'll even go so far as to say for the good of the party--here's what I'm asking you to do: WAKE THE FUCK UP.
You have almost succeeded in crowning Obama the nominee. Way to go. But that is just the beginning. And as far as building him up for the general goes, fawning over him and freaking when he's criticized is not helpful. You need to recognize that he is not the fucking messiah, that the media does not love him more than they love McCain, that you have not seen the tip of the goddamned iceberg when it comes to opponents trying to take him down--and neither has he. You need to recognize that he has a bad habit of saying things that come off badly to a whole lot of people, and you need to figure out some more effective counterattacks than, "But Hillary's got cooties!" You need to stop exhaling when some gaffe of his "blows over" and understand that nothing has blown over yet, because the GOP hate machine has not even fucking bothered with him yet.
And P.S., you might want to think about apologizing to the millions of people who voted for Hillary, whom you've ridiculed, insulted, and attacked time and again, as if the Democratic nomination automatically equals the presidency, and there would never come a time when you need our support. You also might want to tell your candidate to ask for our fucking votes instead of smugly assuming he's got them.
I can't speak for all of those voters, but I can tell you that one of the main reasons I voted for Clinton is that she has proven herself fantastically adept at fending off GOP hits for the past 15 years. Also, she can think on her feet, win debates, and speak extemporaneously without hemming and hawing or saying something asinine. She can't possibly have any skeletons left in her closet at this point, and even if they just make shit up, as they are wont to do, she knows how to defend herself. Obama hasn't had to learn, since defeating Alan Keyes only required "wrapping up the earthling vote," as someone memorably said back then (just not so memorably that I remember who it was), and right now, he's got the likes of Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, the entire mainstream media and 90% of the liberal blogosphere pulling for him, which might be enough to get the nomination but is not enough to win the general.
You want to keep telling me the primary is already over and Obama's got it in the bag? Great. Then get to thinking about the much more important fight ahead already. And here's a hint: the question is not just "How do we defeat McCain?" The question is also, "How do we sell Obama?" Quit getting so fucking butthurt every time a fellow Democrat suggests your candidate isn't perfect, and start asking yourself why they're saying that and how to argue against their points using Obama's actual merits instead of just hatred for his opponent.
If you hear nothing else I've said, listen the hell up right now: Not enough people hate McCain. Highlighting the many, many reasons to hate him is useful to a point, but the fact is, we have learned time and again that not enough people will come out to vote against an asshole Republican. And on top of that, not enough people understand that McCain is just as bad as Bush. The media has given and will continue to give them reasons to think McCain is a charming, heroic moderate. We can damage that image, but we're not gonna destroy it. The voters who aren't moved by Obama's airy promises of hope, unity, and change are gonna need actual, substantial reasons to vote for him, not just against McCain.
I am not asking anyone to give up their faith in Obama or their hope that he means what he says about change. Hell, I sincerely hope he means it and that he has the, ahem, political capital to actually make some changes. I am only asking that people who have been blindly cheering him on recognize the fight ahead and become, as Zuzu brilliantly put it, "Obama-skeptical." That's all I am--despite my obvious frustration, I am by no means anti-Obama. I am pro-Clinton and Obama-skeptical. (I am also, for the record, Clinton-skeptical. If you're not skeptical of the candidate you support, you're not doing your job as a citizen, as far as I'm concerned. Hence this post.)
Obama has feet of clay, just like every other politician in history. Quit trying to pretend he doesn't and start figuring out how to help reinforce them. Be realistic about who this candidate is, to whom he's beholden, and how much he can reasonably accomplish, so you don't end up under your bed sucking your thumb when the shit starts to fly.
Here, let me get you started on that journey toward reality: he's not a fucking progressive. Discuss.
Listen to a story about a glaze named Jed
Several weeks ago saw me movin’ and groovin’ through the aisles of your basic supermarket, man in a hurry, no time to dawdle. I hate shopping. It does me no credit to admit this, but the usual hunter-gatherer retail experience brings out the worst in me. The shortness of temper, the exasperated sighs and dramatic eyerolls, the lack of patience with idlers, dawdlers, slackers, and other human obstacles - all that and more is revealed.
Sufficient to say, then, that I’m usually in a get-it-and-get-out mood while grocery shopping. That mood was broken in surprising fashion, however, as I bustled along the condiment aisle. I glanced at the offerings in the sauces and glazes section while passing and then did a double-take at what looked for all the world like Jed Clampett.
Turned out it wasn’t just Jed - it was Jed and Granny.
And Elly May. And Jethro.
Well. That got my attention.
The iconic characters of the classic 1960s CBS sitcom - this has been a Filmways pre-sen-tation! - now used to hawk sauces and glazes for Fischer & Wieser Specialty Foods. (And yes, Fischer & Wieser has appropriated the domain name “jelly.com.” I guess that somebody had to, sooner or later.)
It should be noted that Jethro himself - that is, actor Max Baer, Jr. - has “partnered up” with Fischer & Wieser to create this poignant marketing opportunity.The new Beverly Hillbillies line of specialty sauces is an exciting new project for Fischer & Wieser Specialty Foods. “We are thrilled to be working with Max; he is an American icon,” Case D. Fischer, CEO and President of the company states. “The Beverly Hillbillies is a brand everyone can connect to. When you see the faces of the characters on the bottles, you start humming ‘The Ballad of Jed Clampett’ in your head.” Max Baer, Jr. agrees, “Americans love brands. They feel comfortable with well-known products.”
You’d be foolish to deny it. Of course, everyone from Paul Henning to CBS to Paramount to Fox to Eclipse Comics (and a certain insurance company) has made money off the marketing of the television show and its characters, so why shouldn’t Baer and Fischer & Wieser?
I note that there’s no indication that Donna Douglas, the only other surviving cast member of the show, is sharing in any of this marketing largesse.
Rather than issue a judgment, I merely offer this cultural note for your consideration - that, along with this:
Come and listen to a story about a sauce from Jed,Sigh.
Best you’ve ever tasted, all the kinfolks said.
Then each day he’d be grillin’ up some food.
And pour’n on his sauce, even Granny said, It’s goooooood!
Well the next thing you know, even Elly May can cook.
Maybe them boys will give ‘er another look.
Buy yourself a bottle and give yourself a see and have a heapin’ helping of our hospitality!
(Cross-posted.)
Welcome to the Gynocracy
So earlier today, I wrote a post for Broadsheet (sorry, Katherine) about the same asinine Marc Rudov bullshit Chet posted about earlier.
Now, I know Broadsheet trolls are the specialest trolls in the world--there's apparently an entire arm of the MRA movement devoted to posting letters there--so I wasn't expecting anything different, but just in case anyone is still confused about whether misogyny is real? Like, say, Keith Olbermann, who made Elton John one of the Worst Persons in the World last night for acknowledging that misogyny exists and might just be affecting the first viable female presidential candidate in, you know, ever? You just need to take a look at the letters section there. Is all I'm saying.
P.S. Psst, Keith, if the shoe doesn't fit, DON'T WEAR IT, for fuck's sake. And if you insist on wearing it, just might be that it fits.
We Write Letters
We've been discussing among ourselves how best to address the fissure happening in the feminist blogosphere right now between some prominent white feminists and feminists/womanists of color, which has resulted, in part, in Brownfemipower having shuttered her extremely valuable blog, La Chola. There are two parts to the mess—one related to Seal Press' response to women of color bloggers and one related to charges that Amanda Marcotte did not honor the work of Brownfemipower, who has led the way in the blogosphere on identifying, explaining, and packaging immigration as a feminist issue. (For further background, we recommend Holly's post at Feministe and Sylvia/M's post at Problem Chylde.)
We wanted to think very carefully about our response, not because there was any doubt where all of us come down on the aforementioned issue(s), but because picking apart specifics seemed from every angle unhelpful. At best, we might seem self-congratulatory, standing in judgment by detailing what we would have done differently in the first place or how we would have responded to the concerns raised; at worst, we might appear to suggest that we are above criticism ourselves, that we have no need to remain vigilant about continually, actively forging bonds of solidarity with feminist/womanist women of color bloggers.
So we will leave a dissection of the particulars to other very capable bloggers who don't need our help explaining what went wrong and where. (Kevin has a good round-up.) Instead, we're going to take this opportunity to look forward and make a few resolutions.
We will write about, discuss, advocate, and recognize as integral to the central tenets of feminism/womanism issues our sisters of color bring to our attention.
We will link to our sisters of color—in the blogroll, in the blogarounds, and in posts—and will welcome them as commenters, guest posters, and contributors at Shakesville.
We will not appropriate their work, but amplify their work and integrate their ideas with attribution.
We will endeavor always to be aware of our privilege, and, in moments of failure, will remain open to criticisms and suggestions, resolve to think twice before responding defensively, and apologize when we fuck up.
We resolve to listen to you.
In her post, Holly said something that we feel is extremely important, something that we will all bear in mind with regard to our responsibility and making the best use of the platform Shakes gives us:
What I care about is that when white feminists undertake to write about the issues of women of color—such as immigration, which is clearly a massively race-infused issue—they should do so in solidarity with women of color. In ways that give political voice to women of color, to immigrants, to those whose voice is generally not heard as loudly.Irrespective of our sex or race, we hear the message. We resolve to use our teaspoons to turn that tide.
When any of us have a soapbox, an opportunity to get up and talk, we must continue to stand by those who aren't called on. If you want to consider yourself an anti-racist or a white ally to people of color—if you want anyone else to consider you those things—then it behooves you to swim against the current. If everyone did, perhaps the tides would turn, even if it was just in our corner of the blogosphere. And sometimes all you have to do is simply call out the hard work of another woman who went before you, who has paved the path that you're walking down with research and ideas and words and strong feelings. All you have to do is cover your bases, pay your respects, and make sure you can't be read as trying to take sole credit.
Signed:
Melissa McEwan
Kate Harding
Iain McEwan
Jeff Fecke
Deeky
Space Cowboy
Misty
Mustang Bobby
William K. Wolfrum
Phil Barron
Portly Dyke
Shark Fu
Petulant
Nightshift
Paul the Spud
Tart
Quixote
Chet Scoville
Kenny Blogginz
Arkades
[Not every contributor has yet read the letter as of this posting. Names will be added as requested, so if you're wondering why someone isn't there, please don't assume it's anything other than my having not heard back from them yet. No contributors have declined to be included.]
Pope Snubs Dope
Well, this is rich:
The White House has scheduled a dinner next week in honor of Pope Benedict XVI's first visit to the United States, but one guest will be conspicuously absent from the proceedings: the pope himself.You know, I can't say I'm surprised that the WH is at a complete loss as to what could possibly be behind the Pope not wanting to share a meal. Guess I'll have to help them out.
There are no competing events listed on the pope's schedule, and the White House was unable to explain Benedict's absence from the dinner.
Maybe... Just maybe, this administration doesn't exactly honor the teachings of the deity it claims to follow, which coincidentally happens to be the Pope's deity.
Take torture, for example.
This Isn't Really a Post About Lost
Normally on Friday afternoons, I post an open Lost thread, so the Losties among us can immerse ourselves in the latest twists and turns in the best fooking shoo in the histoory oof shoos. But of course, due to the writers' strike, Lost has gone on hiatus, and it will be another two weeks before we've got a new episode to deconstruct and utterly consume us.
In the void of a constant influx of new ZOMG whatthefuckery to obsess about, the next best thing I can do is recruit new junkies to obsess with. So recently, I gave Mama Shakes season one on DVD. Because, aside from being a retired English teacher, she is a voracious pleasure reader, I knew she would adore Lost, which, with its rich and layered character development and slow, tantalizing unveiling of the story, is the perfect show for book-lovers. But I had no idea I was about to unleash the World's Greatest Lostie.
Immediately, the emails started to arrive. They were so hilarious, I started reading them to Paul the Spud—another great Lostie who has also had the pleasure of meeting Mama Shakes while tucking into the world's most fuckable chili. Spudsy, on the other end of the phone, wept with laughter. "You've got to blog this!" he exclaimed. I secured Mama Shakes' permission, with the caveat: "Just make sure you capture my totally blasé attitude about the whole show appropriately because, you know, it's just okay." Important note, Shakers: She is not an addict.
(Some season one spoilers follow.)
Several days after leaving season one with her, I received the following communiqué from Parental Manor:
I just wanted to tell you that you were totally wrong about me becoming hooked on Lost. Every day I watch one or two episodes, just to prove over and over that I'm not hooked.Eight minutes later:
I really don't care about any of the characters, except Jack, and maybe Kate, Charlie, Claire, Locke, Sayid, Hurley, the Korean couple. Oh, and maybe Michael and his son, the brother and sister. I mean, see? I hardly know anything about the show.
And, despite what anyone may tell you, I did NOT gasp out loud or yell, "Climb a tree!! Climb a TREE!!!!" when a boar was chasing Charlie. That was not me.
So, your little plot to get me interested in Lost has failed horribly. Sorry.
Mama Shakes
P.S. I should be ready for Season 2 in a few more days.
I forgot to mention Sawyer, of course, that little devil.I replied that his name is John Terry and that she recognized him from Of Mice and Men, in which he played Slim. She taught the book for years, and always showed the movie to her classes; I knew instantly that would be from where she recalled him. She thanked me; of course that's from where she knew him! A bonus for Lost—it featured beloved Slim.
Hey, what is the name of the actor who plays Jack's dad? I can't remember it, and I didn't see any names in the "guest star" list that sounded familiar.
Shortly thereafter came the first installment of the obsession emails, which were so much better than for what I ever could have hoped, when I first endeavored to push my own mother onto the junk:
So, who is your obsession? Is there any one character? Seriously, I'd be hard pressed to choose a favorite at this point. I adore Jack, but who doesn't adore Jack? Same for Kate. Same for Clair. I could look at them and listen to them forever. Charlie is too cute to be believed. When he asked Locke for the heroin the third time and then threw it in the fire, I got all teary even though I thought that he would do that. Sayid's eyes make me weak. When Hurley built the golf course , I just loved it. When Charlie asks him about peanuts (for Claire) and then skirts all around the issue of Hurley's weight and Hurley says, "It'll be a long time before you want to give me a piggy back ride," I laughed out loud. They're all just great.This provided much fodder for excellent obsessive conversation when I saw her the next day.
With the help of IMDb I finally figured out what I know Harold Perrineau from. I really liked his character in "I'll Fly Away," the TV show that starred Sam Waterston before L&O. He has such a distinctive mouth (It kind of reminds me of a parrot fish, and I'm not saying that as a criticism.) And speaking of distinctive, does anyone have better dimples than Sawyer?
I just watched the episode last night in which "Ethan Who/Whatever-the-hell-he-is" kidnaps Claire, leaves Charlie hanging (literally), and Locke and Boone find the metal hatch (?). I'm glad I'm watching it this way. I can't imagine having to wait a week between some of these episodes.
Love, love, love,
Mama Shakes
Several days later, I found in my inbox an email titled: "I Hate Shannon."
Just in case you were wondering: I hate Shannon. I just saw the episode in which she tricked Boone into "saving" her once again and then went to bed with him. I was upset when I thought she was dead, but since she's not…I hate her. And she'd better not screw with Sayid.A day or two later, still just watching to prove her abject disinterest, natch:
I also hate Susan, Michael's ex-wife, and her stupid second husband Brian. The only good thing she did was save Michael's letters to Walt. And Brian is worse than a worthless turd for thinking that Walt's specialness is bad and for not having the balls to at least come and say goodbye to him.
The scene with Charlie trying not to read Claire's diary was the most adorable thing evah.
The scene with Hurley trying to talk Jin into peeing on his foot was a riot.
Now, some questions:
1. What the hell was Sawyer doing at the police station when Boone was there trying to report Shannon's "abusive" boyfriend?
2. Did the Spanish comic book that obviously explains everything really burn up? No, who pulled it out of the fire?
See? I'm still not hooked on it.
Mama Shakes
Yesterday I watched the episode in which all the "hunters" go after Ethan and then Charlie shoots him. Crikey!!Two days later, definitely on the verge of proving that she does not like the show in the slightest, came the following, under title "Sniff."
The scenes with Charlie at the copier meeting were so excruciating I almost wanted to fast forward them as I did with the torture of Sawyer.
I saw Sawyer's story, too, and the killing of the one he thought was behind his mother's death. Ohhhhh. Seriously, he has a murderous look that defines the word "murderous."
The scene at the funeral for the person who was killed by Ethan in which Hurley does the "eulogy" was so sweet. He cracks me up.
Luvya
Mama Shakes
Claire's baby was just born; Boone died. I couldn't remember if I had seen that he was on for just one season, but I figured he would die since the baby was being born.I told her to let me know when she was ready for the finale, and I'd come over and watch it with her. On Wednesday, I was feeling shitty and couldn't believe the luck that she was ready for the last two episodes of season one; "I'm going to watch Lost with my mommy!" is perhaps the most equally childish and soothing thing I have ever said as an adult. We settled in with a box of tissues between us, and emerged hours later, tear-streaked and blubbed out. When Iain and my dad retired after dinner to watch a Cubs game, Mama Shakes and I sat at the dining room table and poured over every detail we could collectively conjure, from Sun's spectacularly beautiful hands to Hurley's weight loss (or lack thereof).
A transfusion with a sea urchin spine?!
Kevin Tighe, the actor who played John Locke's father in what may be one of the most reprehensible roles ever, was a hero on the old TV series "Emergency!"
I gave her season two. I told her to call me when she's ready for the finale, and we'd do it again.
The next morning, I got an email. Subject: "Okay, now it's officially scary."
Hey, Toots,Either way, the Island has got us.
I woke up in the middle of the night thinking, "Hurley hasn't lost weight because the Island doesn't want him to lose weight for some reason."
The Island doesn't want him to lose. I guarantee it. Well, maybe. …
And what great fun we're having. If only Mama Shakes liked the show...
Unintentional Sexist Irony of the Week
by Shaker Katherine
I appreciated very much the message from Joan Walsh's blog earlier this week. Ms. Walsh, Editor-in-Chief of Salon, wrote a post entitled "My last word (for now) on sexism." It began:
I never intended to spend so much time on this blog arguing that Hillary Clinton has faced sexism in her historic presidential run because it's so self-evident. It doesn't mean that without it, she'd be defeating Barack Obama; it doesn't mean she is without flaws; it doesn't mean Obama doesn't face racism; it doesn't mean she deserves to be either the Democratic nominee or the president. It just means sexism is one of the unfair disadvantages Clinton has had to deal with. It's just a fact.The post just before also decried sexism in news coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign, concluding:
If you disagree, and you'd like to argue on behalf of calling female politicians "fucking whores," please marshal your best arguments in my comments section. But also, if you feel that way, please feel free to stop reading Salon. I passionately want to grow our audience, and I'm proud to have tripled it in the three years I've been editor in chief. But truly, some readers we can live without. There must be someplace where people who want to call female leaders "fucking whores" will feel welcomed and at home, but this isn't it.Nice. I appreciate it. As a woman, as a feminist, as a Salon reader, and as a human being, I appreciate a media executive willing to put principle over ratings, so to speak. I appreciated it so much that after I read the posts, I decided to spend a little more time on Salon's site, soaking in the principled journalism it produces.
Imagine my surprise when I clicked to Salon's home page to find a headline about Hillary Clinton's hiring of only "girly men." (Apologies for not saving the screenshot.) Seriously. Same day.
Ah, Camille Paglia. Pretending to legitimately answer letters from readers, but really just setting up vehicles for her favorite rants. The title of Camille's column? "Hillary's slick willies." Some highlights from the letter she answered (emphasis mine):
The men you always see under [Clinton] are to a person passive-aggressive, sadistic, mean, little, petty beta-male pieces of work who would not naturally succeed in a common male-type hierarchy. By that I mean an environment that values straightforward achievement rather than the darker political arts.Ms. Paglia's answer just throws logs on the sexist fire:
That statement is in no way meant to exclude women. In fact, I work with many women who succeed just as well in this environment. It is just a shorthand for an environment that values achievement and straight talk. Hillary's persona is simply not compatible with another strong will, male or female -- but definitely male, and that itself is a big red flag.
I agree that the male staff who Hillary attracts are slick, geeky weasels or rancid, asexual cream puffs. (One of the latter, the insufferable Mark Penn, just got the heave-ho after he played Hillary for a patsy with the Colombian government.) If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Hillary is reconstituting the toxic hierarchy of her childhood household, with her on top instead of her drill-sergeant father. All those seething beta males (as you so aptly describe them) are versions of her sad-sack brothers, who got the short end of the Rodham DNA stick.Perhaps I should be thankful that Ms. Paglia deigns to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton's double X chromosomes aren't entirely worthless. But so much for getting principled journalism from Salon.com. Thanks for your leadership, Ms. Walsh. I won't be checking in again any time soon.
Friday Blogaround
What's the frequency, Shakers?
Recommended Reading:
CNN: Clinton Campaign Office Destroyed By Fire
The Lizard Queen: Wearing One's Penchant for Raping on One's Sleeve
Creature: A Principled Man, My Ass
Melanin Manson: Can You Afford Insurance?
Pizza Diavola: Feminism 101: Hillary Rodham Clinton Is Not Bill Clinton
Chris: Science Tattoos
Coup by a Thousand Cuts
Part Wev in an ongoing series with too many parts to recount.
Bush administration officials as high as the vice president micromanaged a torture policy at "a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved" after the Justice Department endorsed their legality, as requested:
The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.I wish I could say I were surprised, but the only thing that really surprises me in the whole article is Senator Ted Kennedy's response to this revelation: "Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Um, I dunno—anyone paying attention? I sincerely doubt the Democrats are that fucking stupid, which means they're playing stupid to excuse their pathetic, unjustifiable inaction against this criminal administration. The fact that deliberately appearing to be cataclysmically ignorant and tragically naïve is their best strategy tells you everything you need to know about the integrity and efficacy of Congressional Dems at the moment.
…The former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA's interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.
At times, CIA officers would demonstrate some of the tactics, or at least detail how they worked, to make sure the small group of "principals" fully understood what the al-Qaida detainees would undergo.
Pam—who wonders "Are any of these people going to end up in the clink for this?"—has more on ABC News' coverage of the story.
Honor Women Bloggers: Last Day to Vote
Today is your last chance to vote for your favorite female blogger of the Top 10 nominees at Women's Voices Women's Votes' contest in recognition of Women's History Month. It's a nice way to honor women bloggers generally, so I hope you'll vote for someone there, even if it's not me.
And, once again, many thanks to the people who nominated me in the first place and to those who have voted for me. It makes me feel like maybe I'm doing all right by the tradition of which I consider myself a part—and that is no small thing to me. Thank you.
What Did We Do?
Kenneth Quinnell has a good piece up at the Florida Progressive Coalition explaining why the proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage in Florida is a bad idea. His reasons are cogent, well-thought-out, and persuasive, and for that I say thanks for speaking up for those of us in the gay community who have yet to articulate our own thoughts as to why adding what Kenneth calls the Hate Amendment to the Florida constitution is not the right thing to do.
As for me, I'd like to ask the proponents of this amendment a rather simple question: Why? What has the gay community ever done to deserve such a drastic and far-reaching measure as to merit the wholesale denigration to the status of second-class citizenship? How is it that we are such outlaws? What is it about our lives, our work ethic, our role in the community as taxpaying citizens or as individuals who occupy every segment of society -- rich and poor, old and young, man and woman, black, white, native, Hispanic, left-handed, right-handed, tall, short, thin, fat -- that sets us apart, other than the fact that we have been programmed by nature to be attracted to people of our own gender? Is that the only reason?
Or is there something more? Is it because being gay is not "normal" to some straight people who have been carefully taught that normality fits within a very narrow grid of what they define as normal? But then, to me, being straight isn't "normal" because it doesn't fit into what comes naturally to me. So who's to say that the straight normal is better than the gay normal? Surely it can't be because there are more straight people than gays and lesbians. Sheer numbers are meaningless -- after all, there are more people of Asian descent in the world than there are of Northern European, which we commonly think of as white. Does that make the Asians more "normal" and should we all conform to their racial or social norms? Of course not. No, I think there's something more going on here than just defining what's normal...and what's right.
The arguments that come up most frequently against giving equal rights to gay people are usually based on fear and ignorance, and they cite fables and superstition as support for their claim. The arguments run something like this: same-sex marriage will destroy the traditional form of marriage, it is a bad way to raise children, it condones a behavior that is contrary to the bible, and it will cost the taxpayers more money because same-sex couples will now be entitled to the deductions and entitlements that they wouldn't get if they weren't married. Okay, that said, "traditional" marriage as it exists today is nothing like the marriages that have been around since time out of mind, and that includes the fact that the radical concept of marriage as an equal partnership between a man and woman who are in love and committed to each other for reasons other than financial, procreative, or political reasons has been around for about two hundred years or so, and in some cultures arranged marriages are still the norm. Marriage between a man and a woman of different races has only been legal in all fifty states for a little more than fifty years, and it took a ruling by the Supreme Court to make it so. As for being bad for children, there is no reliable evidence, either empirical any other kind, that proves that point. Children have been raised by single parents, step-parents and extended families throughout history and our civilization has survived and even thrived. (After all, Jesus Christ was raised in a home with an absentee father.)
The religious zealots have always fought changes in social norms, and they invariably cite the teachings of their faith as the reason for their opposition. This is a convenient out for them, cloaking their human bigotry in the mantle of the supernatural and warning of dire consequences defying a higher power. It's a way of blaming God for their own infirmity, which, whether or not you believe in God, is a lousy way to treat the creator of the universe.
One of the objections to the concept of same-sex marriage is the word "marriage" itself. It is, after all, a religious rite, but it has been blended into civil law over the centuries and acquired a legal standing that no other sacrament has obtained. That is undeniably one of the sticking points, and no faith should be forced by civil or secular law to perform a rite that runs counter to their teachings, no matter how odious or medieval they are. So the compromise has been to call them "civil unions" or something else equally as dry. I frankly don't have a problem calling it something else as long as all the rights and responsibilities come with it. As the immortal Bard noted, "what's in a name?" and it's a distraction to get wrapped up in the nomenclature when there are more important things at stake. Besides, there are plenty of religious denominations who recognize same-sex marriages and will happily perform them. If gay couples want a religious ceremony and their church or temple won't do it, they should check out out the local Quaker meeting or UU church, or write their own service and call it whatever they want. Arguing over the ceremony and the name is truly the tail wagging the dog.
As for the biblical admonitions against same-sex sex, there are the thundering citations of the Book of Leviticus which we all know so well to the point that we can, by rote, list the other prohibitions listed in the book, including wearing cotton and polyester blends and eating shellfish. Yet the part about sex stays in while a night at Red Lobster is now permissible. Besides, not everyone believes that the Old Testament is anything more than just a collection of myths and fables. Certainly there are inspirational tales and lessons for life in the bible, but to grant them any more weight than any of the other hundreds of histories and parables that each civilization produces turns them into a grotesque idol.
No, what I really think lies at the bottom of this anti-gay amendment has nothing to do with tradition, children, or religion. It is about sex. The proponents of the amendment have a revulsion to the idea of people of the same sex having some form of intimate contact, which they have conjured up as something, for lack of a better word, that is icky, and they can't get beyond this adolescent fixation with it. It truly is a sign of arrested development on their part; they cannot comprehend the idea that people can make a connection with someone else and choose to live with them in a union that doesn't include their own fixation on sex. Oh, they clean it up by saying that same-sex unions can't produce children, but this ignores the fact that a lot of straight marriages, by choice or by nature, are childless, and this assumes that the only reason anyone gets married is to have children...by having sex. They really need to get over it and realize that people can have a happy, healthy, and loving relationship without wondering what it is they do in the bedroom.
So what we in the gay community did to raise this alarm and bring about this attempt to change the foundation of the law in Florida -- where gay marriage is already illegal (as is gay adoption) -- is have the nerve to say to the rest of the people in the state that we too are entitled to every right they have and nothing more. We do not want "special rights" and no one I know is demanding them. But we must also recognize the fact that rights are binary: you either have them or you don't, and when you deny someone one right for no valid reason or without due process of law, you might as well deny them all. And in doing so, you endanger the rights of us all.
(Cross-posted.)
McNasty
The Financial Times weighs in on McCain and his infamously foul temper, which has been a problem since childhood, when he was nicknamed "McNasty" and "Punk" by classmates. Even people in his own party think the guy's ever-simmering-on-the-verge-of-a-boil rage makes him a loose cannon:
In January, Thad Cochran, a Republican senator for Mississippi, said the thought of Mr McCain as president sent a "cold chill down my spine", describing him as "hotheaded" and "erratic". James Dobson, the influential evangelical leader, said he could not support Mr McCain, in part because he "has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language".Ouch. The article also recounts that McCain has noted his temper is a "personal concern" which causes him to "wake up daily and tell myself, ‘You must do everything possible to stay cool, calm and collected today’." Yeah, that's normal.
On Capitol Hill, his outbursts are part of congressional folklore. One of the most recent came last year when, according to witnesses, he shouted, "Fuck you!" at John Cornyn, a Republican senator for Texas, during a heated exchange over immigration reform. A similar tirade in 1999 cost him the support of Pete Domenici, a New Mexico senator, in the 2000 presidential election.
"I decided I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger," said Mr Domenici.
Once the Democratic nomination has been decided, priority one has to be briefing HRC or BO on how best to get under McNasty's skin during a debate. Watching him blow his top on live television would just be spectacular—not to mention it would totally tank his campaign. The press loves him, but they love a glorious meltdown even more.
[Thanks to Pizza Diavola for passing that along.]
