I've got a new piece up at The Guardian's Comment is free America, "The long kiss goodbye," about the Lame Duck's idiotic interview with Charlie Gibson:
In the first of a series of exit interviews scheduled over the coming weeks, outgoing President George Bush sat down with ABC's Charlie Gibson to take a stroll down memory lane and reflect on his eight years of ruining the country. And some other countries.
As evidenced by the video, Bush was his usual charming self, having a good old laugh about the First Lady yelling at him for being a boorish rube who treats the White House furniture like it came from Rent-a-Center. Heh heh. Smirk. Heh heh. But, as always, it's when Bush talks about the hard work of presidenting that he really shines.
On holding fast to his principles and making tough decisionings: "The thing that's important for me is to get home and look in that mirror and say, 'I did not compromise my principles.' And I didn't. I made tough calls. And some presidencies have got a lot of tough decisions to make." That's right. Some presidencies do have tough decisions to make. And some presidencies don't, like the presidency of Millard Fillmore, 1850-1853, often known as the "Striped or Polka Dot Pantaloons Presidency".
I've no idea the context here, I found this years ago while sitting in a laundromat waiting for my socks to dry. I don't know what it means. I don't want to know.
"We won because the American people mobilized for change," Obama says in the interview that he gave to Ebony on Nov. 13, his first interview following election.
The issue will be on sale at newsstands on Dec. 9.
"Obese women may have the double whammy of being female and having higher body mass index."—University of Alabama at Birmingham researcher Rosalyn Weller, Ph.D., principal investigator of a study which found that "obese women display significantly weaker impulse control than normal-weight women." I guess our impulse control is crushed under the weight of the "double whammy" of being both fat and female.
The aforementioned study, by the way, was reported at Science Daily accompanied by a totally scientific and totally appropriate photo:
And people wonder why I do things like post pictures of my fat gut. It is because, as so excruciatingly evidenced by this photo, it remains a radical act to be fat and happy in America, especially if you're a woman (for whom "jolly" fatness isn't an option). If you're fat, you're not only meant to be unhappy, but deeply ashamed of yourself, projecting at all times an apologetic nature, indicative of your everlasting remorse for having wrought your monstrous self upon the world. You are certainly not meant to be bold, or assertive, or confident—and should you manage to overcome the constant drumbeat of messages that you are ugly and unsexy and have earned equally society's disdain and your own self-hatred, should you forget your place and walk into the world one day with your head held high, you are to be reminded by the cow-calls and contemptuous looks of perfect strangers that you are not supposed to have self-esteem; you don't deserve it. Being publicly fat and happy is hard; being publicly, shamelessly, unshakably fat and happy is an act of both will and bravery.
Rare indeed is the fat chick who manages to find contentment in her own skin, because everything around her is designed so that she will not. Thusly, the idea of a culture that maintains a rational attitude about a spectrum of natural (and acceptable) shapes and sizes is almost impossible to imagine—and yet important enough to imagine and set as goal nevertheless, because the girl who is healthy but fat is not being served by our scorn, and the girl who is unhealthy but thin is not being served by our approbation. And that is to say nothing of the boy who suffers under this grand delusion as well, of whom I know less, since he has never been in my mirror.
Alex de Campi, the director of the Amanda Palmer video that was the centerpiece of the most recent entry in the "Impossibly Beautiful" series, stopped by this morning and left a note in comments about the best way to support Amanda:
If you are new to Amanda's music and you wish to listen/buy some of it, please do not punish her financially for her label's sins by stealing it off the internet. Buying her music from her website will ensure that the largest % of profit goes to her.
As Shaker Smadin astutely noted in comments yesterday, buying the album "may not be the best way to tell [the label] to go to hell," but not buying it isn't the best way to support Amanda, so buying it directly through Amanda's site is a good compromise.
Tour dates are here if you'd like to show some belly solidarity on the road.
My big Buddha belly, stretch marks and all, helps me give my gayestfattest look to Roadrunner.
David Gregory has reportedly been tapped to take over Meet the Press. Wev. Call me when it's Gwen Ifill.
Or anyone else who isn't just another straight white guy.
Nothing against straight white guys (I happen to be madly in love with one), and David Gregory is certainly competent and experienced enough to do the job, but it's just tiresome to see a flagship assignment go to another straight white guy. The excuse used to be, one recalls, that there weren't enough qualified people who weren't straight white guys, aw shucks—we'd really hire someone else if we could, but that's patently and observably not true anymore...yet still it's another straight white guy.
What a coincidence.
Meanwhile, MSNBC gives Rachel Maddow her own show, only to glamor her up and constantly subject her to "balance" provided by the likes of Pat Buchanan, because the appropriate counter to a progressive lesbian woman is a retrofuck gay-hating misogybag. CNN hires DL Hughley to be a bigotry-spewing circus clown instead of, say, giving Bob Herbert or Eugene Robinson an hour of serious news, and relegates both Christiane Amanpour and Fareed Zakaria to their international channel. And Fox is, well, Fox.
And no one seems particularly concerned about the message these decisions collectively send to the public in whose service news organizations ostensibly work.
This is nothing new, of course. Sometimes I just need to say it again.
Shaker CLD sent me the link to this stunning op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer in which its author, Tom Adkins (who's identified as "the publisher of CommonConservative.com," a site which appears to be both less sophisticated and less dynamic than a garden slug), defiantly declares: "The Era of White Guilt is over."
The piece is so absurd, so resoundingly devoid of anything resembling a fact or a complex thought, so unapologetically racist (and sexist—if black men succeed, what could possibly be left to achieve for black people?), so wildly inappropriate on every conceivable level (except, perhaps, as satire, which it unfortunately is not), that I can't quite wrap my head around how it got published anywhere outside the Free Republic.
The election of Barack Obama destroys the validation of liberal white guilt. The dragon is hereby slain.
So today, I'm feeling a little "uppity," if you will. From this day forward, my tolerance level for having my skin color hustled is exactly ZERO. No more Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "God Damn America," Al Sharpton's Church of Perpetual Victimization, or Jesse Jackson's rainbow racism. Cornel West? You're a fraud. All those "black studies" programs must now teach kids to thank Whitey. And I want that on the final.
The saddest part about this execrable tract is that its ideas aren't even new. Racist superfuck Pat Buchanan was exhorting black Americans to express gratitude to whites in his "A Brief for Whitey" (actual title) back in March, and I'm sure he wasn't the first, either. Adkins isn't just a deluded, belligerent, resentful, self-pitying, ignorant racist loser; he's a derivative deluded, belligerent, resentful, self-pitying, ignorant racist loser. He would be pitiable were he not so profoundly loathsome.
Adkins ends his tirade—oh, pardon me: I mean his cry of freedom from the chains of white guilt—by explaining that liberals can't complain about racism anymore now that Obama's been elected.
Obama's ascension also creates another gargantuan irony. How can liberals sell American racism, class envy and unfairness when our new black president and his wife went to Ivy League schools, got high-paying jobs, became millionaires, bought a mansion, and are now moving to the White House? How unfair is that? Now, like a delicious O. Henry tale, Obama's spread-the-wealth campaign rendered itself moot by its own victory! America is officially a meritocracy. Obama's election has validated American conservatism.
It's an interesting calculation, that. Obama's personal ascendancy to the Oval Office, during which he overcame adversity like bigotry, poverty, an absentee father, the untimely deaths of his parents, somehow renders moot Obama's promises to other Americans to alleviate the barriers through which he had to break. Truly, that is the conservative way—no female, gay, and/or brown-skinned conservative ever made the road easier for those to follow, instead basking in their exceptional, anointed specialness and crowing about their bootstraps while rebuilding whatever barriers they broke. But that's not the way liberals work, and, while I'm not remotely sure that Obama's a liberal, I don't think that's the way he works, either. So Adkins' equation just doesn't work.
In fairness, though, Adkins never claimed to be good at math. Which is, I suppose, why he also looks at this:
—and sees not 43 > 1, but 43 = 1. Everything's equal now. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
No more quotas. No more handouts. No more complaining that "the man" is keeping you down. "The man" is now black.
Uh-huh. Like magic, now that the president is black, a black applicant will never be denied a job on the basis of her/his race again by a white CEO, and a black driver will never be unfairly targeted by a white cop, and no black child will ever be given less attention than is fair by a white teacher, because all instances of institutional racism disappeared in a puff of smoke on Nov. 4.
Adkins knows the truth, of course. But that's not the point. The point is that he just doesn't want to have to feel obliged to care anymore. And Obama's as good as excuse as any, and better than most.
Wev.
Congrats on your new continued freedom from a social conscience, Mr. Adkins. The shackles of privilege still bind you.
From the Letters to the Editor in the Miami Herald:
Leonard Pitts' comparing blacks' struggle to that of gays is unbelievable (Some blacks forgot sting of discrimination, Nov. 12). I don't remember seeing signs that read ''No gays allowed.'' Gays have not been sent to the back of the bus or blatantly denied jobs or housing.
Gays are protected by our equal-protection laws. America was founded on Judeo/Christian values, which do not include gay marriage.
JAMES HARRISON, Miami
Dear Mr. Harrison:
Just because you "don't remember" seeing discrimination against gays doesn't mean it didn't happen and doesn't continue to this day. Let me cite you some examples.
1. The United States military specifically states that gays are not allowed to serve openly in uniform and they will be discharged if they are outed. That pretty much says "No gays allowed."
2. Many private schools, including those not affiliated with a religion, refuse to hire gay teachers because they believe that children aren't safe around us, perpetuating the stereotype that all gay people are pedophiles. (Note: most of the teachers arrested for inappropriate contact with students are straight.) The same goes for some nationally-recognized summer camps.
3. In 1993 my partner and I tried to book a vacation at a couples-only resort in the tropics. We contacted the resort's booking office and were told that they only allowed straight couples at their facilities, including those located in the United States. If we really wanted to come, we could book separately and stay in separate rooms and be charged the full rate per person instead of the double-occupancy rate given to couples. By the way, straight couples at these resorts didn't have to prove that they were married to each other.
4. The state of Florida specifically bans gays and lesbians from adopting children. Perhaps you missed the recent court cases that are fighting -- and winning -- for the right to do so, but the state is promising to appeal the ruling. That right there is a clear-cut case of denying equal protection. And of course there's Amendment 2 that passed in November. Again, a denial of equal protection in that while straight people can marry the person of their choosing, gay people cannot based solely on their sexual orientation. Same-sex couples are not entitled to the same inheritance or hospital visitation rights that straight couples have, nor are they allowed to receive the Social Security benefits that a widowed mate would be entitled to. That is not equal protection.
5. In 1988 I had to explain to my skeptical landlord in Longmont, Colorado, that my partner and I would be sleeping in separate bedrooms before he took my deposit check. Fair housing laws in many states and municipalities cover discrimination against tenants or homeowners based on race, color, creed, or national origin, but they are still allowed to refuse to rent to gay couples, and a lot of landlords refuse to do so based on their so-called "Judeo/Christian" values.
Mr. Harrison, it's not so much the fact that you're ignorant of the facts right in front of your nose and the discrimination that your fellow citizens face every day. It's the fact that you try to hide your bigotry behind the excuse that "America was founded on Judeo/Christian values, which do not include gay marriage." (That sounds noble, but as Robert Wuhl noted, America was actually founded by a bunch of rich white landowners who didn't want to pay taxes.) One of the principle Judeo/Christian values is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So either I get to decide whether or not the marriage of a man and a woman is subject to a vote, or I am entitled to all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship that everyone else is entitled to. Rights, after all, are binary; you either have them or you don't, and if you are going to deny one group of people a right based solely on an innate quality such as race, gender, or sexual orientation, you might as well deny them all. Fortunately for you, I believe that all people, regardless of who they are or who they love, are entitled to all the rights under the law.
So, Mr. Harrison, I say with all sincerity, own up to your bigotry. Stop hiding behind the curtain of religious dogma and come right out and say it: you don't like gay people. You've already taken the first step by writing your letter to the editor. Your next step is to tell me or any other member of the LGBT community to our face exactly what it is that we have done to you to make you hate us so much that you would deny us the same rights you apparently take so much for granted.
What are your favorite and least favorite fast food restaurants?
Generally, the question is about the food, but please feel free, especially if you don't eat fast food (and if not, what the hell kind of American are you?!), to use some other criteria, like advertising or sheer ubiquity.
I don't know if it's technically fast food (there is some specific criteria to warrant that designation, but I don't remember what it is), but I love me some Panera Bread. Worst has got to be Hardee's; its food sucks andits advertising sucks. Blech.
In order to appoint the best possible candidate to replace Senator Clinton, I am consulting with a wide variety of individuals from all across New York State. I expect to announce Senator Clinton's replacement when the position becomes officially vacant.
A lot of names floating around, including some familiar ones like Cuomo (as in Andrew) and Kennedy (as in Caroline). Who do you think should fill Clinton's senate seat?
And while we're on the subject, who should fill Obama's? I suspect Blago will pick Jesse Jackson, Jr., unless Obama's got other plans for him, although I'd prefer to see someone else, for what I'm guessing are obvious reasons.
This weekend, I found in a secondhand bookstore a 1911 novel by Robert W. Chambers called The Gay Rebellion, a bosom-heaver about the Suffragettes, the opening paragraph of which is:
The year had been, as everybody knows, a momentous and sinister year for the masculine sex; marriages and births in the United States alone had fallen off nearly eighty per cent.; the establishment of Suffragette Unions in every city, town, and village of the country, their obedience to the dictation of the Central National Female Franchise Federation; the financial distress of the florists, caterers, milliners and modistes incident to the almost total suspension of social functions throughout the great cities of the land, threatened eventually to paralyse the nation's business.
Flipping through the book, I also noticed this passage on page 191:
"[The law you're proposing] is reactionary—a miserable subterfuge—a treacherous attempt to return to the old order of things! A conspiracy to re-shackle, re-enslave American womanhood with the sordid chains of domestic cares! To drive her back into the kitchen, the laundry, the nursery—back into the dark ages of dependence and acquiescence and non-resistance—back into the degraded epochs of sentimental relations with the tyrant man!"
She leaned forward in her excitement and her sable boa slid back as she made a gesture with her expensive muff.
And this, from page 218:
Thousands and thousands of marriageable young men were hiding in their clubs or in the shrubbery of Central Park, waiting for a chance to make their escape to the country and remain incognito in hay lofts until the eugenic revolution had ended itself in a dazzling display of divorce.
Obviously, I had to have it.
I'd also like to note that when I found and purchased it, I was wearing my very favorite shirt of all time, which says, simply, across the chest: "REBEL." I find this shirt hugely amusing not only because of the sheer absurdity of labeling oneself a rebel with an emblazoned, mass-produced t-shirt, but also because anytime some total douche sees me wearing the shirt and goes, "You think you're some kind of rebel, huh?" I like to reply, "No, it's not a statement; it's an exhortation. Rebel, dude!" and then watch his glaikit face droop with confusion. But I digress.
"I'd like to be a President (known) as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace; that focused on individuals rather than process; that rallied people to serve their neighbor; that led an effort to help relieve HIV/AIDS and malaria on places like the continent of Africa; that helped elderly people get prescription drugs and Medicare as a part of the basic package; that came to Washington, D.C., with a set of political statements and worked as hard as I possibly could to do what I told the American people I would do."—Outgoing President Bush, on what he would like his legacy to be.
"I think it was a repudiation of Republicans. And I'm sure some people voted for Barack Obama because of me."—Outgoing President Bush, on why the incoming president is Barack Obama and not John McCain.
Incredibly cool and beautiful singer Amanda Palmer (of Dresden Dolls fame) has been forced to search for a new record label after Roadrunner refused to promote her latest single, video and album. Why? Because she refused to let them remove shots of her "fat" belly from the video for Leeds United (see above), and is therefore "uncommercial". … Amanda's fans are quiet rightly outraged by this shoddy, sexist behaviour and have begun a Rebellyon, posting pictures of their own bellies on fan forum Shadowbox and sending them to Roadrunner in protest:
This issue is not just about Amanda Palmer's belly. This issue is about all the bellies of the world: big, small, hairy, stretch-marked, scarred, pregnant; every single belly. The aim is to reclaim the belly, to promote a healthy body image for everyone (not just females) and to protest against the "barbie dolling" of artists by record companies and the media.
Hell yes.
Seconded. (With a curmudgeonly desire that "women and girls" had been used in place of "females," since it does no good to argue in favor of human variation while using dehumanizing language. But I digress.)
I can guarantee that someone, somewhere, is making the argument that Palmer's "fat" belly should be censored if for no other reason than because Teh ChildrenTM might watch her video and take away the message that being "fat" is a good thing and ZOMG HEALTH!!!11!! because FAT KILLZ!!!11!! (Please see: All of Shapely Prose and every blog on its blogroll.) And what I find amazing about that is how a poochy belly so wee it's practically indiscernible on that video must be instantly demonized and linked to the encouragement of obesity, instead of being praised as an example of a healthy body exhibited by a confident woman and linked to the discouragement of eating disorders.
I've said previously that, all things considered, all the pros and the cons, I'm happy about this selection, and I don't have much else to say about it this morning that I haven't said previously, though I'll promote from comments my note re: why Clinton may have gone for the position:
It's easy to forget (because she doesn't look it) that she's 61. She might want to retire in the not-too-distant future. It takes a long time to work your way to the top of the Senate, even if you're Hillary Clinton. It takes one nod to agree to be Secretary of State -- a position which has a general life expectancy of 2-4 years.
And something I've not seen anyone else say anywhere: How many gazillions of times have we heard that Clinton only got to be senator because her husband was president? After the primary, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue (though I've no doubt some will try) that she doesn't have the foreign policy chops for State. And if she gets (and takes) the position, it's in spite of her husband (and his current business dealings), not because of him.
She may well feel like it's something she's done totally on her own steam.
As well she should.
That's not a small thing.
I'll also just quickly note something this selection suggests to me about Obama, aside from the "challenging his thinking" stuff that's already well-tread ground and aside from the "media-created bitter rivalry" stuff that isn't (at least outside of Shakesville) but should be: Choosing Clinton suggests that Obama looked at the international landscape and saw human rights as a key issue. And rightly so, given the emergence of China as a superpower and the continuing problems in the Middle East, many of which are, truly, human rights issues at their root. If one were looking for a Secretary of State who was already well-prepared to give due consideration to human rights as a central issue, one couldn't do better than Senator Hillary Clinton.
(In fact, the only other two names who really come to mind are veep-elect Joe Biden and Senator Dick Durbin, who, if plucked from the senate would leave Illinois with a two-senator deficit. Which is not to say Clinton was third in line; I believe she's the best of the three for the role, anyway.)
So I'm hoping that this means President-Elect Obama is going to put some much-needed emphasis on global human rights, and I daresay (with hope and trepidation) selecting Clinton suggests that he will.
Remember when A&E used to actually have arts and entertainment on it?
What, exactly, are Gene Simmons: Family Jewels, Dog the Bounty Hunter, The Two Coreys, Psychic Kids: Children of the Paranormal, and Criss Angel: Mindfreak?
They must be art, because they're sure not entertainment.
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
This weekend, I found in a secondhand bookstore a 1911 novel by Robert W. Chambers called The Gay Rebellion, a bosom-heaver about the Suffragettes, the opening paragraph of which is:
