Now that I'm all about lip-dubs, here's another one that I thought was quite hilarious.
[H/T to Shaker Alex for the Vimeo tip]
Random Vimeory: I Am The Walrus
[H/T to Shaker Alex for the Vimeo tip]
Quote of the Day
"I asked Barack the other day, how are you doing this (campaigning)? You are tough. He said, 'I got my toughness from Toot....'"—Michelle Obama, who is campaigning in Barack Obama's stead while he visits with his ill grandmother, whom he calls "Toot."
Nice Store Ya Got Here...
... be a shame if anything happened to it.
Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state's largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.These people are nothing but a bunch of goddamned thugs.
ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8."Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."
Friday Cat Blogging
Olivia is queen of all she surveys:
Sophie is pretty sure that space was made just to accommodate her:
Alleged Attack on McCain Supporter Update
The 20-year-old McCain campaign volunteer who claimed a black man attacked her, robbed her, and carved a B into her face has confessed to inventing the story.
My original post on this story is here.
This thread will not be used for making disparaging remarks about the young woman, who is quite evidently extremely troubled and in need of help. Nor will it be used to try to cast her as emblematic of women, the rightwing, or young Republicans. That's not to say she did not do something very seriously wrong; it was criminal, and it was racist, and it was dangerous for a whole fuckload of reasons. Let's just be careful in our commenting that we bear in mind she is clearly in psychological distress and doesn't "prove" anything about any group.
As for the people who tried to use this story to score political points, whether it was the rightwingers who were howling about evil Obama supporters on the presumption it was true, leftwingers who were (and are) howling about McCain supporters on the presumption it was false, men who were (and are) howling about women on the presumption it was concocted, or women who were howling about physical attacks on women being the inevitable result of Obama's nomination on the presumption of its veracity—a shameful display all around, really.
The Absent Backlash
I was recently interviewed by The Guardian's Women's Editor Kira Cochrane, who was writing a piece on misogynist attacks on Sarah Palin—and why there isn't a bigger uproar about one of the world's highest-profile female politicians being subjected to appallingly ugly smears based on her sex. (Once again, the foreign press is doing a better job covering American politics than our own press is.)
The piece is now up here—and it's good. Very good. Go read.
And note the beautiful lack of "counterbalance" provided by some douche dishing up servings of that's not misogyny and feminists are hysterics. Amazing.
On a side note, I'm always leery of doing interviews (for reasons that have been well-documented in these pages), and I always read with trepidation any article in which I know I've been quoted. This was the first time I read something and thought, "Wow, this sounds exactly like what I said!" So megathanks to Kira Cochrane, who totally, totally roxxx.
I Don't Even Know What to Say Anymore
Brian Williams: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition?But not people who seek to campaign to murder people getting and performing totally legal medical procedures. Gotcha.
[The definition to which he is referring was in his comment immediately preceding the question, not in this clip: "Back to the notion of terrorists and terrorism, this word has come up in relation to Mr. Ayers—hanging out with terrorists—domestic terrorists. It is said that it gives it a vaguely post, uh, 9/11 hint, using that word, that we don't normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the '60's terrorists, under this definition?"—MM.]
Williams: Governor?
Sarah Palin: [sigh] There is no question that Bill Ayers, via his own admittance, was, um, one who sought to destroy our US Capitol and our Pentagon—that, that is a domestic terrorist. There's no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or, um, facilities, that, uh—it would be unacceptable— I don't know if you're gonna use the word terrorist there, but it's unacceptable and, uh, it would not, um, be condoned, of course, on our watch, but— I don't know if what you're asking is, is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist…? I don't regret characterizing him as that.
Brian Williams: I'm just asking what other categories you would put in there. Abortion clinic bombers, protesters in cities where fires were started, Molotov cocktails were thrown… People died.
Sarah Palin: I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to campaign to destroy our United States Capitol and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.
[H/T to Shaker JMonkey.]
Friday Blogaround
lol your gay blogaround
Recommended Reading:
Bil: Take Action on Prop 8 Google Ads
Ali: Andy Card: Palin 'Introduced Women To Participating' In The Political Process
Chello: Where's the Apology?
Vesper: Thine Body Politique
Blue Gal: I didn't think it was possible, but...
Peter: On Nov. 4, the Netroots Should Be More Than an Afterthought
Leave your links in comments...
OMGOMGOMG
Drool. Pant. Heart palpitations. Swoon. Shiver. Piddle. Drool. Pant. Heart palpitations. Swoon. Shiver. Piddle. Drool. Pant. Heart palpitations. Swoon. Shiver. Piddle.
I wants it NOW!!!
[Spoiler warnings if, for some unmaudely reason, you haven't seen the kickass finale of Season 4 yet.]
Shorter John McCain
"I know you are, but what am I?"
In a statement responding to reports that nearly 500,000 more Americans claimed unemployment benefits this week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) tried to link Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) to President Bush’s failed economic policies.: “Barack Obama’s only answer is to double-down on the Bush Administration’s legacy of out-of-control spending.”
Note on the Alleged Attack on McCain Supporter
I'm starting to get emails about the reports that a 20-year-old woman was mugged at an ATM in Pittsburgh and then marked with a "B" by her attacker after he spotted a McCain bumpersticker on her car.
At this point, I'm hesitant to say anything substantive about the case until I learn more information for a couple of reasons, none of which have anything to do with her being a McCain supporter. And I don't want anyone to think I'm ignoring it for that reason.
Briefly, the main thing is that the B on her face is neat and superficial and backwards. That does not mean it wasn't done to her; a B could appear backwards if done by someone hovering above her, facing the opposite direction, for example. And she may have briefly passed out without realizing it, providing an opportunity to her attacker to mark her cleanly while she was not struggling.
But backwards letters, and easily legible letters, and letters formed by superficial wounds of a consistent depth, are all associated with self-mutilation as part of staged attacks. Carving messages into the body during an attack is also an extremely rare event, outside of pop culture. Again, that doesn't mean that written messages being left on a victim never happens, just that it is very infrequent.
Additionally, there is now a report that the woman's "statements about the attack conflict with evidence from the Citizens Bank ATM where she claims the incident occurred," according to police. That, however, is not terribly unusual for the victim of a violent attack.
All told, I just feel like there's reason to be cautious with this story, and so I am going to thus be.
No matter how this happened, or who did it, I hope this young woman heals quickly.
FYI: Passive Electioneering in IL
I'm seeing a lot of talk about "passive electioneering" rules -- i.e., the possibility that you could be turned away from voting if you show up at the polls wearing a T-shirt or button supporting a candidate. Snopes says it depends on the state and offers a handy article that breaks down the state laws. Trouble is, upon skimming, I didn't see anything in there about an Illinois law prohibiting voters from wearing campaign stuff, but I did see people get in trouble for it when I went to vote.
The good news is, no one was turned away. I saw one woman asked to remove an Obama button from her purse, and I stood in line behind a man wearing his T-shirt inside out. At first I didn't get what that was about (fashion trend I'm not up on? bad eyes?), but then I overheard this conversation between him and the volunteer who set him up to vote:
Him: They made me turn my shirt inside out.
Volunteer: I know. It's a nice shirt, sir. It's a very nice shirt. But we can't let you wear it in here.
When he turned around, I saw a vague, backwards outline of Obama's face on his chest. A very nice shirt, indeed. Heh.
The bad news (in this context) is, I live in a ridiculously Democratic-leaning neighborhood. As in, the kind where an election volunteer can blatantly say, "It's a very nice shirt" without fear of anything but a "Fuck yeah, it is!" from anyone who overheard. So if the polling station in my neighborhood was enforcing "passive electioneering" rules, you can bet it's also happening other places -- and in those places, the response may or may not be as simple as, "Go turn your shirt inside out."
It might be that no one gives a rat's ass in your neighborhood. It might be that "Turn it inside out" is the statewide policy, which will be enforced fairly and evenly. But still, if you haven't gone to vote yet, I'd recommend not wearing anything that promotes a candidate. It's just not worth the potential pain in the ass.
Update from reader JR about Virginia: The law for Virginia has been updated and clarified since that article was written. I’m working at the polls this year, and we were explicitly told what is and is not acceptable inside the polling area.
No hats, buttons, stickers, bags, shirts, etc. that explicitly promote one candidate, party, or cause (ex. funding for schools, property tax change, etc.). The poll workers will ask you to remove these items or turn a shirt inside out. I know some polls will have baggy shirts (no idea how big) for people to wear as cover ups if they do not feel like inverting a shirt.
Please do not give pollworkers in Virginia and other states with similar laws a hard time about this. We are all putting in 15+ hour days on November 4 to make sure everyone can vote.
I know the ACLU was looking into challenging the law in Virginia, but I think they are going to wait until after the election to do anything. The law might change for the next election, but don’t do anything to prevent you from voting in this one.
ZOMG
Wheeeeeeeee!
Any day my robot boyfriend is in the news is a good day, but a day that he finally takes the big robotic dump on his former programmers, aka Bush Inc., that we all know he has longed to take, is a GREAT day. Now he is free, and my robot boyfriend will come to me and I will start downloading progressive ideas into his chubby wee adorable robot head, Matrix-style, until he is the C-3PO-esque robot hero I know he can be.
Question of the Day
Inspired by the direction the conversation has taken here: What about sex surprised you once you started having it? What have you found delightful? What have you found aggravating?
It probably could go without saying, but I'll say it, anyway: "Sex" means whatever it means to you—vaginal, anal, oral, same-sex, opposite-sex, single partner, multiple partners, with toys, without toys, S&M, missionary position, swinging from the chandelier, whatever you fancy, as long as you're having it with a consenting partner (because, if you're not, it's not sex; it's something else altogether).
Per Shaker Llencelyn's request: TMI welcome and encouraged.
[My apologies to the virgins among us for the exclusion. I recommend considering this thread validation of your decision to remain celibate, or fair warning if you've only just not had a chance to dive in yet, heh.]
Seriously, Learn to Equality
In an uncanny timeliness, given today's discussion thread, I got an email earlier from Shaker PatC, who provided last night's QotD. Quoted with permission:
Thank you so much for using that as the QOTD! I'm so excited to have been quoted as "her"! I'm working on a paper on 18thC sexuality right now and so gender bending is topical for me (full disclosure, I am biologically and identify as a man). Regardless, thanks for using my idea. Shakesville kicks ass.I had no reason at all to assume PatC was a woman, and I'm frankly not sure why I did; I've had female and male friends called Pat, and my email correspondents collectively skew slightly more male. So big wev to me: lol my gender assumptions.
Cheers,
PatC
What was more interesting to me was my reaction to PatC's email: I was surprised, relieved, and grateful that he wasn't insulted by having been presumed a woman.
And it was sad to me that I found it notable when his response wasn't aggrieved.
I can understand people who aren't playing with or challenging gender getting distressed at or annoyed by being mistaken for the opposite sex in public, to their faces; if one isn't consciously bucking convention, to be wrongly identified might feel like a negative commentary on one's general appearance, being called ugly—and that can be a separate issue from being offended at being perceived as the opposite sex. (Though certainly they are intertwined.)
It's the affronted objections I've seen men raise when someone refers to them as "she" or "her" online that never cease to really amaze and dismay me—because there is no offense to take at all, unless one perceives women negatively.
And that's something I've seen happen so often that I was actually surprised when it didn't.
I don't know if men can fully appreciate what it means that so many of them regard being mistaken for a woman as a slight, what it does to a woman to read such indignant protestations—"I am not a woman!"—and feel the slithering creep of memory up the back of her neck, as the first time she ever heard a childhood male companion cry out with disgust, "Eww, I don't want to be a girl!" rings in her ears, recalling that first instance when she began to suspect there was something wrong with her by virtue of what was (and what wasn't) between her legs.
It's a total mindfuck. And it never goes away.
I have played video games with men who refused to play female avatars; I have been with a man who was miffed that I classified his predisposition to copiously pre-cum as being "like a woman"; I have been talking about some female bodily function to a male friend or lover only to have him make a face and inform me he's so glad he's a man; I have heard male coworkers grousing about how "being a woman sucks," because of another male coworker with a groping proclivity; I have been exhorted to "not be such a girl" about things; I have known men who refuse to wear pink; I have been told by men who consider themselves feminists that they won't be raising their daughters "to be girls" but instead raising them "to be people"; I have been told flatly that women are inferior in intellect by virtue of our biology; I have been "complimented" by being told how very much like a man I am in my humor, or rationality, or some other quality; I have listened to men express directly to my face in every way imaginable that they would never want to be a woman.
And most of them have been surprised when I had a problem with that—because, you see, we're all supposed to take it as read that no one would want to be a woman, given the choice, since we all know they're the inferior model.
It's just another indication of how far away from real equality we actually are, that one of the sexes is still largely considered anathema to the other.
Thank you for the glimpse of what could be, PatC.
Duh of the Day
Action Item
Free Esha Momeni.
Matt's got all the background and contact info at his place. Teaspoons ahoy!
Quote of the Day
"I always wanted a son named Zamboni."—Governor Sarah Palin, in a new interview with People magazine. I'm going to go ahead and assume she was kidding, because my brain can't actually acknowledge the possibility that she wasn't.
Her husband, btw, replied: "I don't think that would have flied."
[H/T to Pet and Shaker Kim.]
