"The campaign press has become a joke, and McCain and Palin are laughing at it."

Boehlert:

Chris Matthews was steamed.

As John McCain's manufactured "lipstick on a pig" story was taking flight last week, Matthews, host of MSNBC's Hardball, kicked off the hour by teeing up the story. In a note to viewers that telegraphed his disdain for the lipstick controversy, he announced that during the show, he'd share his own thoughts "about how, with a troubled economy, crumbling bridges, rail and roads, a failing educational system, a war that is now going on for five years, and an uncertain American economic future, we're sitting here talking about lipstick."

Later, he complained the story was "an insult to the intelligence of our democracy."

...During the past week, virtually every major news outlet has produced welcomed, hard-edged fact-checking pieces about how the Republican ticket goes far beyond bending the truth and just plain snaps it out on the campaign trail.

...Instead of recoiling, the Republican ticket seems to have adopted a post-press approach to campaigning in which the candidates simply don't care what the press does or says about their honesty. More to the point, the candidates don't think it will matter on Election Day.

They may be right. And that's the media's fault. They've reported their way right into the margins. Submerged in trivia and tactics for the past 18 months, the press, I think, has damaged its ability -- its authority -- to referee the campaign.

Proof? Let's go back to the pissed-off Matthews for a perfect example. Raise your hand if, in the past six months, you've seen an entire episode of Hardball devoted to discussing our "troubled economy," the sad state of America's transportation infrastructure, the failings of our educational system, the never-ending war in Iraq, or the "uncertain American economic future."

Matthews claimed those are the key issues that face our country and, by implication, are what are important to this campaign. Yet Matthews hosts a cable news program that pretty much refuses to discuss those issues.
Read the whole thing. It's awesome. Depressing, but awesome.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Cosmos with Carl Sagan



For Shaker SKM.

Open Wide...

¿Que Pasó?

Did John McCain just diss the Prime Minister of Spain? Josh Marshall has the original interview here where Sen. McCain is interviewed by a reporter on a Spanish-language station here in Miami in English, and then gets translated into Spanish. Here's a summation:

In the interview, McCain is asked about Hugo Chavez, the situation in Bolivia and then about Raul Castro. He responds to each of these with expected answers about standing up to America's enemies, etc. Then the interviewer switches gears and asks about Zapatero, the Spanish Prime Minister. And McCain replies -- very loose translation -- that he'll establish close relations with our friends and stand up to those who want to do us harm. The interviewer has a double take and seems to think McCain might be confused. So she asks it again. But McCain sticks to the same evasive answer.
The folks at TPM have been following this story and have come to the conclusion that Mr. McCain does not know who the prime minister of Spain is or that Spain is in Europe, not Latin America.

The interview was conducted entirely in English (with Spanish translations inserted later), so there's no excuse that the question got lost in translation, and it's not like Spain is an insignificant little country, so he's probably heard of it before now. And it doesn't sound like a "gotcha" kind of question, either; after all, the program was conducted by a Spanish-language station here in Miami, which is the one of the few places in the country where Republicans have a strong affiliation in the Latino community.

If Mr. McCain doesn't know who the prime minister of Spain is or where Spain itself is, then el tiene un problema. Or, as I'm sure someone else noted, the reign in Spain falls mainly on McCain.

UPDATE: Here is the original interview as conducted in English.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Actual Headline

McCain Seen as Less Likely to Bring Change.



Ya think?

Open Wide...

Project Runway Open Thread



DON'T BORE NINA!!!

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What is your political philosophy, in a single sentence?

I don't guess there's anyone reading this blog who doesn't know mine, but just in case, it's: MREWYB.

(In practice here, as but one example of many.)

Open Wide...

Random YouTubery: Let Me Sleep

Open Wide...

Thanks, Brad

Talk is cheap, but Brad Pitt is not. From the Los Angeles Times via Steve Rothaus:

Brad Pitt announced Wednesday that he's donating $100,000 to fight California's Proposition 8, a November ballot initiative that would eliminate same-sex couples' right to marry.

"Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire if it doesn't harm another and because discrimination has no place in America, my vote will be for equality and against Proposition 8," the actor said in a statement.

Pitt's donation marks the largest thus far to the anti-Prop. 8 campaign by an A-list celebrity.
It's nice to know we're not in this fight alone.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"My dad is probably one of the handsomest guys ever. I was making a joke and I said, 'If I was a chick, I'd fuck you.' He was like, 'You can't say that! Shut your mouth!'"Josh Brolin, son of Mr. Barbra Streisand, aka James Brolin.

I like how he clarified that he was "making a joke." Uh, thanks. I still want to plunge dull butter knives into every orifice in my face, though.

Open Wide...

lol your comment

Sometimes people randomly leave comments on old posts, where the original comments threads have disappeared since we replaced Haloscan with Disqus. Mostly, I don't notice them, but occasionally I happen to spot them in the "Recent Comments" widget in the sidebar.

In July of 2006, I posted a graphic I'd created featuring the lyrics to Imperfection, by The Tears:


That was the whole post, except for a note about what had inspired it—a post I'd written about being an "odd piece," one of many posts in the sort of outsider oeuvre that have graced Shakesville over the years, about existing on the margins or being shy or different or somehow flawed.

Earlier today, someone left the following comment on the "Imperfection" post:

hey your gay!!

Priceless.

Naturally, this is to be incorporated into the Shakes Lexicon, effective immediately.

Open Wide...

The Fundamentals are Strong

No wonder Asshat One abandoned yesterday's planned speech on the "sound" economy. Now the FDIC needs help:

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., whose insurance fund has slipped below the minimum target level set by Congress, could be forced to tap tax dollars through a Treasury Department loan if Washington Mutual Inc., the nation's largest thrift, or another struggling rival fails, economists and industry analysts said Tuesday. [...]

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair has not ruled out the possibility of going to the Treasury for a short-term loan at some point. But she has said she does not expect the FDIC to take the more drastic action of using a separate $30 billion credit line with Treasury — something that has never been done.

The FDIC's fund is currently below the minimum set by Congress in a 2006 law. The failure of IndyMac Bank in July cost $8.9 billion.

Next month, Bair plans to propose increasing the premiums paid by banks and thrifts to replenish the fund.
If banks would have to pay a higher premium to help out the FDIC, you can bet your bippy those higher premiums will be passed directly to the account holders (i.e. us). Guess we can call that one a taxpayer bailout as well.

And throughout all this, poor Dana Perino has to actually get up on a podium and tell everyone that the economy is a "mixed picture." Ah, the art of nuance. Praise FSM that we have so many words in our language to choose from for the sake of softening the blow.

Open Wide...

Mid-Week Catitude

Every Mighty Empress needs a throne



You may take your leave. Now.

Open Wide...

Clinton Ain't Nobody's Monkey

This is totally making my day:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has canceled an appearance at a New York rally next week after organizers blindsided her by inviting Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, aides to the senator said Tuesday.

…That would have set up a closely scrutinized and potentially explosive pairing in the midst of a presidential campaign, one in which the New York senator is campaigning for Democratic nominee Barack Obama while Palin actively courts disappointed Clinton supporters.

Clinton aides were furious. They first learned of the plan to have both Clinton and Palin appear when informed by reporters.

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Sen. Clinton will therefore not be attending."
Oh, snap!

I just totally love that Clinton doesn't give a rat's ass what people think about her bailing (as well she shouldn't); all she knows is that she isn't going to make an appearance with Sarah Palin and give the media even the merest hint of the catfight they've been slavering for. Brill.

Open Wide...

News from Shakes Manor

Last night, before bed…

Iain: That's a cute rear ye've got there.

Liss: Rear? Ha ha ha! Rear?

Iain: [laughing] What's wrong wif rear?

Liss: Nothing's wrong with it—it's just funny because it's kind of old-fashioned and proper. It's like using…BM or something.

Iain: BM? What the fook is BM?

Liss: Bowel movement…? Don't you use that in Scotland?

Iain: Noo. We say, "I've gotta take a shite, mate."

Liss: [laughing] But what if you had to say it in a proper way? Like maybe to a doctor or something?

Iain: Dinnay. Probably…I'm having problems wif my constitutionals.

Liss: Well, here we say BM, so get with the program, buddy.

Iain: You Americans and yer fookin' acronyms. [puts on an American accent] FYI, I've got tae have a BM ASAP. Got any TP? BRB! [back to fading Scottish accent] Honestly, the lot of ya!

Liss: That's because we're the USA! [chants] USA! USA! USA!

Iain: Oh-Emm-Gee.

Open Wide...

Patriotic Image of the Day

Open Wide...

Sarah Palin Sexism Watch, #15

by Shaker Anna. My blog is Trouble Is A State Of Mind, and I'm a Canadian who is a full-time feminist, full-time student, and full-time night-shift worker. I am not a full-time sleeper. :)

Michael Seitzman would like you to know that he's the expert on sexism, and anyone who argues with him has no sense of humour.

In his September 11 column, Seitzman was ripping apart anyone who thought the Palin interview was good, but not before he wanted us all to know how incredibly heterosexual he is.

And, three, she really is kinda hot. Basically, I want to have sex with her on my Barack Obama sheets while my wife reads aloud from the Constitution. (My wife is cool with this if I promise to "first wipe off Palin's tranny makeup." I married well.)
Apparently, when mocking a woman's intelligence (or lack thereof), it's very important to point out how fuckable you find her. But! Mr Seitzman tells us: That's not sexist! It's funny! It's satire! It's irony! It's not sexist, and anyone who tells you otherwise shouldn't be listened to. (It certainly isn't transphobic! If it were, I'm sure Mr Seitzman would tell us so.)

Seitzman goes on to explain why he's the expert in sexism (and people like us here at Shakes totally aren't):

• His dictionary-definition of sexism means that bringing up a woman's fuckability and her make up isn't discriminating against her based on her gender;

• He totally deserves a break anyway because he never wrote about Senator Clinton's gender during the primaries. Obviously since he is such a reliable narrator I shall take his word on this. I know no other people in the blogosphere bashed Senator Clinton for being a woman, just ask them;

• He wrote a movie on sexual harassment! He's studied it. Who are you gonna trust—women who react to discussions of another woman's fuckability and appearance, or a totally-neutral-on-the-subject man who has written a movie?

Then he randomly compares her to a contestant on The Bachelor.
Would we be sexist if we commented on her looks? Of course not. Sorry if you don't like it, but in my mind, there's not much that separates Sarah Palin from the attractive yet vapid winner of a reality show. As far as I'm concerned, she IS the attractive yet vapid winner of a reality show.
Mr Seitzman, it is so easy to criticize Sarah Palin while focusing on the issues. One can write about her seeming unprepared for the realities of the job of Vice President, let alone President. One can look into the allegations around Trooper-gate. One can exam her support (or lack thereof) to funding "special needs" classrooms. One can examine her record and come away with the decision that this isn't the person you want as Assistant Leader Of The Free World.

Commenting on her appearance and how much you find her attractive? ISN'T RELEVANT. That's what makes it sexist, Mr Seitzman. Her fuckability, or lack thereof, should never be part of the political discourse.

But, of course, no fauxgressive rant against the silly wimminz and their weird desire to not have female politicians brought down based on appearance is complete without:
And one of those things is a padlock on your uterus. Now let's talk about sexism.
Roe! ROE!!!

I don't know about y'all, but I'm going for a drink.

[Sarah Palin Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen. We defend Sarah Palin against misogynist smears not because we endorse her or her politics, but because that's how feminism works.]

Open Wide...

Obama's Untraditional Campaign Advert



[Transcript below.]

This campaign spot [via] will begin running nationally today, especially in battleground states. It's untraditional in the sense that it's simply two minutes of Barack Obama talking to the viewer about the economy—no graphics, no music, no flashiness of any kind. It's just straightforward, and—dare I say it?—a political ad for adults.

I love it. I love the tone of it, I love the content (aside from the "outworn ideas of the Left" bit, which still sets my teeth on edge), and I love that it's actual evidence of that change we've been promised. This isn't campaigning as usual. This is better. And, particularly compared to the outrageous, mendacious dogwank John McCain's been putting out the past couple of weeks, this is like a breath of fresh air in what has been a truly hideous election.

I don't know if it will work—but I respect the hell out of Obama for giving it a chance, for assuming the best in voters for a change, instead of the worst.

And, personally, I've never considered nor found the high road to be a bad strategy.

In the past few weeks, Wall Street's been rocked as banks closed and markets tumbled. But for many of you -- the people I've met in town halls, backyards and diners across America -- our troubled economy isn't news. 600,000 Americans have lost their jobs since January. Paychecks are flat and home values are falling. It's hard to pay for gas and groceries and if you put it on a credit card they've probably raised your rates. You're paying more than ever for health insurance that covers less and less.

This isn't just a string of bad luck. The truth is that while you've been living up to your responsibilities Washington has not. That's why we need change. Real change.

This is no ordinary time and it shouldn't be an ordinary election. But much of this campaign has been consumed by petty attacks and distractions that have nothing to do with you or how we get America back on track.

Here's what I believe we need to do. Reform our tax system to give a $1,000 tax break to the middle class instead of showering more on oil companies and corporations that outsource our jobs. End the "anything goes" culture on Wall Street with real regulation that protects your investments and pensions. Fast track a plan for energy 'made-in-America' that will free us from our dependence on mid-east oil in 10 years and put millions of Americans to work. Crack down on lobbyists -- once and for all -- so their back-room deal-making no longer drowns out the voices of the middle class and undermines our common interests as Americans. And yes, bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq so we stop spending billions each month rebuilding their country when we should be rebuilding ours.

Doing these things won't be easy. But we're Americans. We've met tough challenges before. And we can again.

I'm Barack Obama. I hope you'll read my economic plan. I approved this message because bitter, partisan fights and outworn ideas of the Left and the Right won't solve the problems we face today. But a new spirit of unity and shared responsibility will.

Open Wide...

OMG Look! It's a Brand New Baby News Agency!

CNN has just given birth to a news report that actually does some fact checking on McCain! Wheee!



(Transcript below the fold)

Who knew that one day the MSM could actually be like this? I know, I know. Wait till it grows up.

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Call it what you will, mistruths, half-truths, stretching the truth, telling the truth. Whatever it is, it has both Democrats and Republicans questioning what's going on inside the McCain campaign. Their opponents have gone so far as to say that John McCain and Sarah Palin are lying their way into the White House, claims the campaign brushes off.

TUCKER BOUNDS, MCCAIN CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN: I think that those who say John McCain and Governor Palin are lying about anything in this campaign need to pay closer attention to our advertisements and the record of the candidate we're running against.

KAYE (on camera): Make no mistake. The Obama campaign has also been accused of mistruths along the way, like telling voters McCain wanted to spend 100 years in Iraq. McCain actually said, troops should stay in non-combat roles for as long as it take, not that he wanted 100 years of war.

(voice-over): But, today, Obama turned up the heat on McCain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, OBAMA CAMPAIGN AD)

NARRATOR: He's running the sleaziest ads ever, truly vile, dishonest smears.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: McCain stands by his ads, he told the ladies from "The View."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE VIEW")

JOY BEHAR, "THE VIEW": We know that those twos ads are untrue, they're lies. And, yet, you, at the end of it, say, I approve these messages.

Do you really approve them?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: Actually, they're not lies. And...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: Well, are they or aren't they?

"Keeping Them Honest..."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, MCCAIN CAMPAIGN AD)

NARRATOR: Learning about sex before learning to read?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: Did Obama want to teach sex education to kindergartners? Not really. The programming question was intended to teach kids how to avoid sexual predators, says the nonpartisan group FactCheck.org.

VIVECA NOVAK, FACTCHECK.ORG: What he wanted to do was increase the range of some -- some sort of sex education, K-12. But the kind of thing he was interested in having kids at a young age learn about was inappropriate sexual advances that might be made against them. KAYE: The campaign's response?

BOUNDS: Our ads are based on honesty and truth and a true reflection of Barack Obama's records.

KAYE: But what about Sarah Palin's records? On the campaign trail, she keeps hammering home one point: "I told Congress, thanks, but no thanks, to that infamous bridge to nowhere."

But that's not true. Congress has already killed that project.

NOVAK: She never said, "No thanks, Congress."

KAYE (on camera): Opposing the bridge plays into a bigger theme of the McCain campaign, that Sarah Palin is the perfect crusader to help McCain rid Washington of its addiction to earmarks and wasteful pork barrel spending.

(voice-over): This is what McCain said on "The View."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE VIEW")

MCCAIN: First of all, earmark spending, which she vetoed a half- a-billion dollars worth in the state of Alaska.

(CROSSTALK)

BARBARA WALTERS, CO-HOST: She also took some earmark spending.

(CROSSTALK)

MCCAIN: No, not as governor, she didn't. She vetoed...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: The truth? Governor Palin cut Alaska's earmark requests in half. But, this year alone, the state asked for $197 million.

NOVAK: She says that she vetoed a lot of legislation that would have called for earmarks, but that doesn't get rid of the fact that she actually did ask for earmarks for the state of Alaska.

KAYE: On energy policy, Palin said, Alaska provides 20 percent of the energy produced in the U.S. Is that true? Nope. The U.S. Energy Information Administration says, it's 3.5 percent.

NOVAK: It's big deal because Sarah Palin and John McCain have been claiming that Palin is an expert on energy in the United States, because Alaska has a good bit of oil. But the figures she's citing are simply wrong.

KAYE: And what about Palin's international credentials, the extent of her travels abroad?

BOUNDS: The Alaska National Guard has confirmed, just like we had confirmed at the campaign, that she has traveled abroad. She went to Kuwait. She entered Iraq. She underwent and presided over a -- over a ceremony. So, here we are, trying to bat down something that was completely true, 100 percent accurate.

KAYE: Apparently not. We checked with the Army National Guard. And they told us they are 100 percent sure Palin never made it past the Iraq-Kuwait checkpoint, that she never entered Iraq.

And her trip to Ireland, originally billed by the campaign as a visit to a foreign country, campaign spokeswoman Maria Comella says, it was a refueling stop.

Some Republicans are uneasy. Bush White House strategist Karl Rove, on "FOX News Sunday" criticized both the McCain and Obama campaigns.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "FOX NEWS SUNDAY")

KARL ROVE, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BUSH: McCain has gone, in -- in some of his ads, similarly gone one step too far in sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond -- beyond -- beyond the 100 percent truth test. Both campaigns ought to be careful about -- they ought...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: Still, political expert Larry Sabato says, mistruths can work well with the party base, which is conditioned to believe the campaign.

LARRY SABATO, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA CENTER FOR POLITICS: A smear campaign can succeed. If it's completely outrageous, and it's completely contrary to the facts, then, probably the truth will catch up with it before the end of the campaign. But, if the unfairnesses or the mischaracterizations are subtle enough, then the campaign will probably succeed.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KAYE: Now, our expert, Larry Sabato, telling us tonight that, if the McCain campaign can't win pretty, it will try and win ugly.

And, Anderson, you know it's getting pretty ugly on both sides.

[H/T to C&L]

Open Wide...

Wednesday Blogaround

What's the frequency, Shakers?

Recommended Reading:

Jack: Congratulations, Mr. Sulu!

Sweet Machine: McCain's Health Care Plan: Throw Fat People to the Wolves

Louise: Palin Cut AK Special Olympics Funds Before She Promised to be a Special Needs Family Advocate

The Rotund: "Real" Women

Andy: Obama's LA Fundraiser

Dorothy Snarker: Easy, Breezy, Lesbian...

Leave your links in comments...

Open Wide...

Honor Your (Radical) Ancestors

(Rant Ahead.)

Recently, I read a couple of blog-posts that were very difficult for me. One indicted my entire generation (baby-boomer) as the root of all evil, and another was about a writer who claimed (and reiterated in comments) that second-wave radical feminism really had very little impact on feminism.

*sigh*

When I was coming out as queer in the early-to-mid-70s, and later, when I was blossoming into my feminist identity in the late 70s (yes, I was a radical queer before I was a radical feminist), I remember that I deconstructed my own "radical ancestors" (the flaming drag-queens of Stonewall, the clearly demarked butch/femme couples of the 50s and 60s lesbian scene, and the bra-burning 30- and 40-something erstwhile housewives who were attempting to cast off the chains of the patriarchy).

I talked with other young radical queers and radical feminists about how identifying strictly as butch/femme might hold too many seeds of culturally-defined and stultifying gender and sex roles, how the emulation of very traditional glamor imagery by drag-queens might be counter-revolutionary or even fully anti-feminist, and how my straight feminist sisters might be "sleeping with the enemy".

I discussed this stuff, and plumbed the pros and cons of revolutionary and conscious separatism vs. revolutionary and conscious assimilation.

As with most young people, I had complaints about how my "social ancestors" had performed.

Many complaints.

Sometimes they had not been radical enough for my feisty, fresh-faced self.

Sometimes they had been too radical.

Sometimes I wanted to (and did) blame those who I supposed had handed me this pile of crap they called a society (as if they themselves really had such a different level of choice than I did in the raw materials they were working with) -- a society where most people either outright hated me for being queer, or at best, would "tolerate" me if I kept a low profile and didn't make waves. A society that saw me first as female, and thought nothing of dictating an entirely different set of standards and requirements for me as a result.

During my first year of High School (1970), mini-skirts were still popular (well, mini-skirts or long hippy dresses -- depended on which social group you belonged to). But in any case -- dresses were not optional for school wear.

Not only did girls have to wear dresses to school, regardless of Kansas blizzards and sub-zero temperatures (DorothyC and Broce spoke recently in a comment thread about an experience I remember well -- wearing pants under my skirt to the bus-stop where we stood in the freezing cold until the bus came, and then having to take them off before I could board the drafty, unheated school-bus), but in my freshman year, the principal decided it was time to crack down on all us slutty girls who were wearing our skirts too short.

This crack-down resulted in a new morning routine at the school entry -- as the boys skimmed past us (the principal giving them only a cursory glance to make sure that their hair wasn't "on the collar"), all the girls in my school lined up on the stairs, the queue inching upward slowly, as, one by one, we knelt in front of His Majesty Assholyness at the top of the stairs, to assure that our hems touched the floor. (Of course, we would roll our skirt-tops up later, but only if Mr. Badass was not prowling the halls.)

At the time, I didn't really understand what I was feeling -- I didn't know that the crumbling, compressed sense of tinyness that I experienced at the beginning of every school-day that year was. . . . . humiliation. Humiliation that I had somehow earned -- because I was female.

I also did not understand that this ritual was meant to enforce that humiliation -- to burn upon my consciousness the fact that I would be obedient and compliant and kneel and face the crotch of my overlord every day as if it were the most usual thing in the world -- because it was a most reasonable request, after all -- because it was done for my own safety, so that my slutty short skirt didn't get me into "trouble".

My intellect didn't understand all of the nasty nooks and crannies of this ritual, but my psyche sensed it.

At that time, the thought of rebellion -- of refusing to cooperate in my own humiliation was, literally, unthinkable to me -- even the tiny rebellion of rolling my skirt up after felt incredibly transgressive.

Four years later, by the time I graduated High School, I was wearing tattered and patched overalls to school every day. A move to a larger town and school was part of this, but even in my old hometown, the dresses- and skirts-only requirement had been dropped at my previous school by the time I graduated.

I believe that radical feminists made that possible.

When I was a freshman in High School, I had known I was queer for two years, ever since I saw the definition in a health-department sex-ed brochure for teens (believe me, the definition wasn't favorable, but, however much I didn't want to identify with it, I knew that --"a sexual perversion in which a person is attracted to another member of their own sex" -- described me, even at age 12, because I was madly in love with my best friend, and wanted nothing more than to kiss her on the mouth).

By the time I was a senior in HS (many unrequited loves later), and my friends and I were perusing a copy of "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask", which Karen had stolen from her parent's bedroom, I still knew enough to "ewww" along with everyone else when we got to the icky homo parts.

But less than two years after this, I was quite happily, if nervously, coming out to a gay man in my theater department, and finding -- not repulsion (even though he had never met a lesbian before -- or so he thought) -- but a welcoming -- into a community of closeted gay men who adopted me as their token lesbian mascot . . . . . or something . . . . (still not entirely clear about all that).

Two years more, and I was coming out to my parents and marching in Gay Pride parades.

I believe that radical queers made that possible.

Sure -- later, more "mainstream" activists made headway as well, but without those pushy bra-burning feminists, and those flamboyant screaming queens, there would have been no pocket of acceptability for those moderate activists to inhabit.

I believe that with my whole. entire. brain.

Later in my life, when the late 80s stirred up the Fundie Right and they began organizing state ballot initiatives to curtail hard-won rights that queer and feminist activist had carved out of an oppressive landscape, there were new radicals: Act Up! was full of fresh, young, angry faces, and I stood by in horror as more assimilated, mainstream queer organizers attempted to marginalize the Act Up! groups, asking them to refrain from attending certain rallies, asking them to curtail their activities and edit their press releases because "we" didn't want to "scare off" straight "allies" who found certain types of queers acceptable, but who could not stomach the "radical element".

It was amazing to me, really, that gay men and lesbians whose success and freedom could be traced back to some outrageous fucking queens in 60s New York would even consider asking Bi queers to shut up (because it screwed with the "I was born that way" meme), asking trans-people to shut up (because it just "wasn't time yet"), asking leathermen and women to disappear from gatherings (because it hurts our "we're just like you" political slogans), and asking Act Up!ers (who were only responding to the outrageous discrimination that was killing thousands of their friends and lovers with predictable anger) to "stop sounding so strident".

It was amazing to me that I was asked to refrain from singing a song about lesbians having sex at a night-time Dyke-Pride event because it wasn't "family friendly". Actually, I wasn't even asked not to sing a specific song, but rather, not to sing "that song".

I countered with: "Well, whether you believe it or not, the real objection that the Right Wingers have with us is that we . . . you know . . . have SEX with each other -- I mean, isn't that what makes me a lesbian?"

The organizers replied with: "Yes, WE know that, but we don't want to upset 'them'."

Joy.

It was at that moment that I truly began to appreciate my radical ancestors.

Now, I've done some difficult things in my life:

After Measure 8 passed in 1988 in Oregon (an event which "re-radicalized" me after a lazy hiatus in assimilationville circa 1982-88), I swore that I would never take another job where I couldn't be completely out of the closet (this, after ten years of being a social worker who was partially-mostly closeted). In an interview for the job that I both wanted and needed, I told the panel of ten interviewers (all over 65 -- it was a job with an Area Agency on Aging): "I need to let you know that I'm an out lesbian, and if that's going to be any kind of a problem for you, you should not hire me." (I got the job, btw, and all ten of the interviewers gave me private words of encouragement after the interview.)

I've stood in a parking lot collecting signatures for a petition for equal rights for queers, while a huge man screamed: "Pervert! Queer! Faggot! You should be killed! God hates you!" from less than 12 inches away. Close enough for his spit to hit my face, and for me to pray his fists wouldn't follow.

I've walked out of the funeral of a friend who died of AIDS where the preacher (authorized by my friend's parents) gave a 20 minute homily which basically boiled down to "he deserved it".

I've come out to my all-straight-all-the-time midwestern family-of-origin and mustered up the courage to invite my fundamentalist sister and brother-in-law to my "wedding" (such as it was -- and they attended).

I've marched in protests and participated in actions where I stood a chance of being arrested or tear-gassed, but I was fleet (and lucky).

I've tended the bruises and lacerations of friends who were queer-bashed, and stood up to three men who wanted to queer-bash me and my girlfriend outside a dyke bar.

I've intervened on the street between a man who was nearly two feet taller than I was, and the girlfriend he was threatening to hit.

I've volunteered in domestic violence shelters, and stood at the window while someone's ex screamed from the street, while wondering if he was organized enough to plan to a) bomb the place or b) burn it down, or just drunk and enraged at his sudden opportunity to feel what it is to not be the one in power.

I've had the conversation with my parents where I revealed the abuse that I experienced as a child at the hands of their trusted friend.

These things were difficult for me.

But the truth is, I would have done none of them if my radical ancestors had not done things that were much, much more difficult.

And to those who think those radicals were nothing more than a flash in the pan -- to those who think that such radicalism has nothing to do with them, I want to say:

There was a time when being "out" at all (much less considering legal marriage) was not really a choice for any queer -- but some radicals made that choice anyway. They chose to be out, even when this might, and probably would, mean complete ostracization by society, severance from their families, and beatings on the street. Or worse.

There was a time when shaving your legs or not shaving your legs, wearing a bra or not wearing a bra, wearing pants or not wearing pants, leaving your abusive spouse or not leaving your abusive spouse -- was not really a choice for any woman -- but some radicals made that choice anyway. They chose to do things that they knew might, and probably would, mean they would be judged and criticized and fired and expelled and divorced and disowned and beaten. Or worse.

Perhaps those radicals weren't thinking about you when they did these things -- maybe they were only thinking about themselves and what they could stand in that moment -- what they felt they must do for themselves in order to make life bearable (actually, in a way, I hope they were) -- but I know -- I absolutely know -- that I walked into a future where I was more free to choose because of what they chose.

They were my bridge to a more liberated future. They stretched the boundaries so that I had a larger place to live in.

Because of them, I had choices that they could barely conceive of -- without them, I would not live as I do.

So --

Honor your fucking radical ancestors, already.

=============
(note: This rant could apply to any number of movements to stop oppression, and the radical ancestors in them. I wrote about queers and feminism because these are things I have first-hand knowledge of. This rant will also probably apply to you someday -- if you just keep breathing in and out, and pushing the envelope on oppression -- you too can become an old fart who greatly benefited future generations -- who will come to think of you as irrelevant -- until they reach their own old fartedness -- when they will wish they had thanked you more when they had the chance. Not that this describes me in any way. ;) )

[cross-posted at Teh Portly Dyke]

Open Wide...