No Wonder

Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) became the latest Republican to announce that he's not running for re-election in 2010. He joins Sam Brownback of Kansas, Kit Bond of Missouri, Mel Martinez of Florida, and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who is planning to run for governor of the Lone Star State.

Chris Cillizza notes that the GOP is looking pretty bedraggled.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the No. 3 Republican leader, said the decisions by Voinovich, Martinez and Bond hurt the party both politically and legislatively. "We're losing three of our best players," said Alexander, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.

"It makes an already tough situation even worse," added Fred Davis, a Republican consultant who spearheaded advertising strategy for Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential race.

Several factors have contributed to the large number of looming retirements. Age and length of service have played a role (Voinovich will be 74 on Election Day 2010, and Bond has spent the past three decades in public office), but the common element in each decision appears to be the difficult path facing Republicans if they hope to regain the majority.
And it's probably not helping when you have a top contender to be the next chair of the RNC proclaiming that being gay is a "compulsion" that can be "restrained."
"You can choose to restrain that compulsion," [Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken] Blackwell told radio host Michelangelo Signorile, a gay and lesbian advocate, this summer during the Republican National Convention. "And so I think in fact you don't have to give in to the compulsion to be homosexual."

"I've never had to make the choice because I've never had the urge to be other than a heterosexual," Blackwell added, "but if in fact I had the urge to be something else I could have in fact suppressed that urge."
Presumably Mr. Blackwell is referring to sexual behavior, because I don't think there's any reputable scientist or psychologist who would define sexual orientation as a "compulsion," any more than you would define being left-handed or blue-eyed by that term, at least not within the last forty years.

Herein lies the root of the problem with the Republican party, at least on one level: they are obsessed with sex, particularly gay sex. They can't look at a gay man or a lesbian and not immediately jump into what goes on in the bedroom, at least in their fevered imagination. They base all of their judgments on the gay community's fitness to be marriage partners, parents, teachers, or just plain citizens entitled to the equal rights under the law on what they think happens in the privacy of someone else's home with another consenting adult. No other group is held to such an intensely private and personal standard to earn their place at the table, and the right wing's obsession with it borders on psychosis. You might even call it a compulsion. (Trust me, if we in the gay community had as much sex as the homophobes think we do, there wouldn't be enough time left in the day for the rest of the Radical Homosexual Agenda, like hairdressing, flower-arranging, and doing brunch.)

As long as the GOP insists on making other peoples' private lives, whether it's their sex life or reproductive choice, the most important issue the nation faces and ignores such mundane problems like education, health care, and the economy, it's no wonder they are being seen as increasingly irrelevant -- not to mention creepy -- by the majority of the voters.

(Cross-posted from the new and improved Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Open Wide...

Read This—and Resolve Again to Be All In

[Trigger warning.]

So, Good Morning America has a recurring hidden camera segment called "What would you do?" in which actors stage various scenes and people's reactions are filmed without their knowledge and broadcast so we can all marvel at the enigmatic complexity of human nature feel morally superior to reprobates who majorly fail the test and allow people to step in dogshit or get ripped off by a conman or fall victim to whatever other scenario the producers have cooked up.

This morning's "What would you do?" positioned a man ("John") and a woman ("Brigitte") at a bar in the late afternoon, pretending to be on a date, with John putting a powder into Brigitte's drink when she went to the bathroom.

First up were two guys, who were sitting just on the other side of Brigitte and had their faces blurred, which wasn't a good sign. When she got up to go to the bathroom, John engaged the two men and they did a little male bonding over Brigitte being hot and "a handful." The two guys watched as John poured the powder into her drink. They said nothing to discourage him.

When Brigitte returned, they said nothing to her—even when she took a drink of the now-contaminated wine.

Then John got up to go to the bathroom. They still said nothing. While he was gone, Brigitte said she started to feel ill. They still said nothing. John suggested they go back to his place and relax in the pool. They still said nothing. She agreed, got up, and left with him.

They said nothing.

Next up was a middle-aged couple, who were sitting just on the other side of John. Their faces weren't blurred, so I felt hopeful. When Brigitte got up to go to the bathroom, and John put the powder in her wine, the woman immediately asked John if he'd just put something in Brigitte's drink. He denied it, but she insisted she saw it. Her husband tried to get her to stop.

Upon Brigitte's return, the woman immediately said to her (paraphrasing), "This is probably inappropriate and he [gestures to husband] thinks I'm crazy, but I'm sure I saw him [gestures to John] put something in your drink while you were gone."

Brigitte confronted John and then left the bar; the woman went after her to make sure she was okay. When they returned, Brigitte told John the date was over while the woman stood beside her and nodded supportively. John yelled at the woman for getting involved and at Brigitte for ditching him and believing the woman, then John eventually left.

At that point, the scenario was revealed to the woman, and she was asked why she decided to help. She burst into tears, and said she did it because she hoped someone would have done the same for her.

The camera panned to Brigitte, who was also crying. The women embraced each other tightly. The reporter said, "Why are you crying? You're an actress!"

Brigitte, the real woman, had had her drink spiked two years earlier—and no one had told her until it was too late.

Word that was never used in this segment: Rape.

[Related Reading: Heroes and "No matter what the consequences were, we were going to do what was right."]

Open Wide...

Obama to Move Swiftly to Close Gitmo

He's making it a Day One priority, though the process could take as long as a year:

President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.

But experts say it is likely to take many months, perhaps as long as a year, to empty the prison that has drawn international criticism since it received its first prisoners seven years ago this week. One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.

People who have discussed the issues with transition officials in recent weeks said it appeared that the broad outlines of plans for the detention camp were taking shape. They said transition officials appeared committed to ordering an immediate suspension of the Bush administration's military commissions system for trying detainees.
All good, though I agree with Hilzoy that, while closing Gitmo is an important symbolic gesture, the more pressing substantive issue is ceasing the practice of indefinite detention sans charges: "We need to detain people only if they belong to some recognized legal category of, well, people who can be detained: prisoners of (non-metaphorical) war, people who have been indicted on concrete charges, people who have been convicted, etc. Anyone currently under detention who does not fit one of those categories should either be fit into one (e.g., by being charged with a crime) or released."

As Team Obama appears, per the New York Times, "to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside the United States," it looks like we're headed in the right direction both symbolically and substantively.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Ren and Stimpy

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

Taken from this thread, by request: If you woke up tomorrow morning and you were the "opposite" sex than you were when you went to bed, would your life be different? How? Better? Worse? Same?

To those among us who are intersex or currently transitioning or in some other way don't fit the binary structure of the question, please feel welcome to interpret the question as appropriate, e.g. if you woke up and were no longer intersex or if you woke up and had mind-body gender alignment, etc.

If I woke up tomorrow as a man, my life would be wildly different. The precise ways in which it would be different is contingent on whether my sexuality remained fixed, making me a gay man, or switched along with my bits, making me a straight man. If I were a gay man, I would gain male privilege and lose straight privilege, rendering my marriage void, just for a start.

If I were a straight man— If I woke up a straight man tomorrow, I believe I would go utterly mad. I fear that being a straight man even for a day would expose to me the comprehensive scope of my inequality in a way I have never been, a grotesque vision from which I don't believe I'd ever fully recover.

I fervently hope to continue being a woman when I awaken tomorrow.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"I am definitely not pro-sodomy."Mike Huckabee, just making sure everyone knows, in case there was any confusion.

Open Wide...

Guess Who


"To lose one parent is a tragedy. To lose both sounds like carelessness."


Answer below the fold.

That's Brian Bedford as Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival at Stratford, Ontario, this coming summer.

I can't wait to see it. And as Lanford Wilson notes in Fifth of July, "Anything's possible with a little taste and charm."

Open Wide...

I Do. Hand Me a Gordita.

Deeky: Know what else I hate? People who have "unusual" wedding ceremonies.

Liss: Just what every bride wants on her wedding night: Massive diarrhea.

Deeky: LOL! Nothing more romantic than farting through one's honeymoon.

Liss: "Was that you—or did you turn on the jets in our totally not tacky heart-shaped in-room jacuzzi?"

Open Wide...

Random YouTubery: The Orchestral Doogie Howser

For Misty.



The digital shorts continue to be the only thing worth watching on SNL.

Open Wide...

Action Item

Thank Campbell's Soup for gay-positive ad.

PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) has requested that LGBTQIs and their allies take a moment to thank Campbell's Soup for featuring a lesbian couple and their child in one of their holiday ads (which can be viewed here—Swanson's is owed by Campbell's).

Despite the ad's placement in The Advocate, Campbell's is receiving lots of negative feedback after the fuckazoids at the American Family Association urged their members to complain to Campbell's for featuring a queer family in its advertising.

So PFLAG has suggested contacting the Group Director for Corporate/Brand Communications for Campbell's, Anthony Sanzio, by email or by phone at 1.800.257.8443, and thank Campbell's for acknowledging diversity among families and showing that every kind of family is deserving of recognition and respect.

o.oP!

[Thanks to Shaker Lola for the heads-up.]

Open Wide...

Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton. Have we met?

Sarah Palin's countdown clock is blinking 14:59, and desperate times call for desperate measures—like making the inconceivably daft claim that if she'd been a wealthy woman running on the Democratic ticket, she wouldn't have been subjected to such unfair and sexist coverage.

Governor Palin, may I introduce you to Parts 1 through 114 of the Hillary Clinton Sexism Watch?

For the record, I agree with Palin that she was frequently treated unfairly (which is why there was also a Sarah Palin Sexism Watch at Shakesville), but her contention that she was victimized by the Liberal Media because she's a conservative is laughable.

As is her continued unwillingness to call out the very campaign of which she was a part for its sexism or own up to her complicity in the subversion of her agency.

Of course, if she were honest about why she got ten tons of shit from the media—not because she's a conservative, but because she's a woman—it would undermine that precious conservative narrative about how institutionalized sexism doesn't exist and, hey, even if it did (and they're not admitting it does nor that they perpetuate it every chance they get), real American boot-strappin' women wouldn't let it keep 'em down!

If Palin admits she were targeted just because she's a woman, just another pair of uppity tits thinking she's someone, it would really close the book on that pretty little story of her priceless exceptionalism.

The red pill is hard to untake.

Open Wide...

Seeya Later, Decisionator

I've got a new piece up at The Guardian's Comment is free, "Goodnight Bush," about Bush's presser this morning and saying goodbye to an era:

It's a weird habit that Bush has, when questioned about his legacy or the mistakes he and his administration may have made, to be simultaneously both tenaciously defensive of his decision-making and also talk about catastrophes and disasters and failures as things that just sort of magically happened – to the country, to him – without any sense that his role was to influence whether these things happened in the first place, no less to plan for their possibility. Even after eight years, after 9/11 and the impact of Katrina and the economic crisis, he still regards the presidency as a primarily reactive, rather than a proactive, position.

And he mightily defends his reactions – though he did allow this morning that maybe there were a few minor hiccups along the way: "Clearly, putting a 'mission accomplished' on [an] aircraft carrier was a mistake. It sent the wrong message. We were trying to say something differently, but, nevertheless, it conveyed a different message. ... I've thought long and hard about Katrina; you know, could I have done something differently, like land Air Force One either in New Orleans or Baton Rouge."

Rarely is the question asked, is our presidents learning? I believe the answer is: Not really.
Read the whole thing here.

Open Wide...

Package Stimulus

First Amendment advocate and noted misogybag Larry Flynt needs a bailout. Flynt, along with predatory douchehound and all-around scumfuck Joe Francis, is asking Congress for $5 billion to help the porn industry.

According to Flynt, "People are too depressed to be sexually active. This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex."

People may be too depressed to be sexually active, but apparently they're not too depressed for a wank: "...The industry itself is in no financial danger — DVD sales have slipped over the past year, but Web traffic has continued to grow." Well, that's good news.

So why are Flynt and Francis asking Congress for money? Free publicity, I guess. It's one way to get your name on the CNN ticker without getting arrested.

I just don't know why Dink Flamingo doesn't jump on this too. It has to beat spending your days at the Army Surplus outlet sniffing around the dress blues. Then again, Dink's probably got too much class to hang around the likes of Flynt and Francis.

Open Wide...

Monday Blogaround

Seriously, learn to blogaround.

Recommended Reading:

Abby: Sexual Bullying in the Playground

bfp: Untitled

Pam: No Surprise At All -- Number of Hate Groups Has Increased

Lauredhel: What the Fuck, Catholic Church? War on Schnitzels

TBogg: Viagra for the NeoCon Soul

Leave your Benjamin Buttons Shit! in comments...

Open Wide...

hey your gay bishop

The Politico reports that the Presidential Inaugural Committee has announced that the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who caused a Big Gay Controversy followed by a Big Gay Schism after becoming the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, will deliver "the invocation for Sunday's kickoff inaugural event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial."

Someone more cynical than I, ahem, might suggest that this is an indication that Team Obama knows they fucked up big time with Warren, but can't admit it, so they're throwing a bone to the gays. But someone more cynical than I, ahem, would be reassured by Team Obama that they are wrongity-wrong-wrong, because "Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism—but it's just not so."

All righty then.

So I guess the question then is: Why would a queer, feminist, progressive minister—who has, by any measure, a more inclusive ministry and whose politics hew more closely to Obama's than Warren's—be offered the second-tier gig in the first place?

Careful with your answer there, Team Obama. This is a trick question...

I find the alleged timeline on this pretty interesting, too. The uproar about Warren started in mid-December, but, in an interview with BeliefNet two weeks later, Robinson says he "wouldn't miss [the inauguration] for the world," yet makes no mention of participating in an event. Huh.

Amazing how this looks so much like an afterthought, if it isn't one.

Open Wide...

Shaker Input Needed

by Shaker Roramich, who battles the tyranny of the 5-year old's pink snow boots in the Northwest.

Dear Shakers,

I'm guest posting a plea for help, information and wit from this awesome community. First, a little background, then more specifically what I'm looking for.

I'm teaching a class on the Psychology of Gender for the first time, at a large public university. At the end of the first class, I asked students for reactions to the question "If you woke up tomorrow morning and you were the "opposite" sex* than you were when you went to bed, would your life be different? How? Better? Worse? Same?"

[*I have briefly problematized the idea of the "opposite" sex dichotomy, but it's only the first week, and that's not the issue right now (important, but not the issue for the moment).]

I asked them to bring their responses to the question back to the second class, and I made it the lead off part of the class. The first comment was from a male student who claimed that if he were a woman, he would have an easier time getting into elite law schools, that law schools have a quota of women to fill, and that the effect of the Michigan law school ruling was to make it harder for him, as a man, to get into the best/most elite schools. If I understand his somewhat tortured logic correctly, I'm pretty sure he was saying that because fewer women than men apply to law schools, and law schools "have to meet quotas," women have a better chance at getting accepted than men do; in other words, the usual claim that affirmative action hurts white men.

His claim prompted immediate reactions from a number of female students, and the conversation got tense; I was trying to simultaneously manage the tension, keep track of the comments, and get the whole class back to the larger question at hand (which was about our perceptions of gender roles), rather than referee a back and forth-er about law school specifically, and I suspect that I kinda failed somewhere in there. And I found myself having no idea about how law school admissions work, anyway. After class he forwarded me a link giving the University of Michigan law school ruling, which I think is meant to show me that the UM ruling only disallows the specific point system that the UM was using; with the presumption that female-advantage affirmative action policies still exist, and to make his point about "best and most elite" because the ruling only applies to public schools, which feeds his assumption that the private schools are still out to get him (or rather, not get him, but the random woman standing next to him, but you know what I mean, I hope).

I have several concerns; I don’t just want to shoot him down or treat him as we might a troll (a la several recent highly amusing Shapely Prose discussions!), as I need to continue to teach him for 9 more weeks. So, witty insults are fun, but not totally useful for me right now. Nor do I want to devote disproportionate time to inaccurate information from any student in general, but I feel some response is needed in this case (although I could be wrong about that), and I feel inadequate and disadvantaged by not having full and accurate information.

So, that's the background, my questions are these:

• What ideas do the fabulous Shakers have for some creative ways to respond to this student? Or more generally to students of this type (poor me, I'm so oppressed, women really have all the power)?

• Are there affirmative action quotas that are known to operate during law school admissions? What are some sources of info for me to be able to respond the issue of affirmative action policies for higher education in general (law, med, etc.)?

• Does anyone have any strategies to help me find my way in this class more generally, as I do expect there to be further situations where conversations will be tense and someone will say something inflammatory. (I did spend considerable time in the first two classes working with them on norms and standards of respect for discussions, but… still…)

Just as an aside, in case anyone is curious, not a single person during the extended discussion of the original question touched on the idea of violence or personal safety until I brought it up. When I did bring it up, a different male student voiced the following "Why do my women friends take the idea of walking alone at night so seriously? We had, what, two whole rapes on this campus last year? It's just so statistically unlikely!" Which also prompted a variety of responses, but that could be another whole post!

Many many thanks for Liss for allowing me the space to ask for your help, and many thanks in advance for any advice, wit, zingers, comebacks, classroom strategies, info on law schools, etc., that you might be able to send my way. Back channel responses are also welcome if that is better; to roramich AT care2 dot com (after you fix that address).

Open Wide...

What a Jokester!

President Bush is giving the 47th and likely final press conference of his presidency (Obama's already had 16 since getting elected), and he's telling the White House press corps how much he's respected them over the years. HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Comedy gold.

UPDATE: Now he's talking about how the Republican Party needs to be more compassionate and inclusive and how, I shit you not, the party needs to allow diverse viewpoints. Holy Maude, this is hilarious.

When the reporters ask him serious questions about the war(s) and the economy, he gets all exasperated and testy. He's totally got the same attitude that I've had every time I've already given my two weeks notice at some shitass job. Yeah, yeah. Whatevs.

Open Wide...

Post-Golden Globes Open Thread


Kate Winslet holds up the two Golden Globes (woot!) she won last night, for Best Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture (The Reader) and Best Actress in a Motion Picture Drama (Revolutionary Road). I lurrrrve her.

Tina Fey also picked up a couple for 30 Rock, and the big story of the night was Slumdog Millionaire, which picked up four. I can't wait to see that.

Best Red Carpet Interview: Taraji P. Henson. She is adorably winsome.

My favorite moment of the night was when Kate Winslet gave her acceptance speech for Revolutionary Road and told her husband Sam Mendes (who directed the film) that working with him made her love him even more. He looked so damned proud of her; it was a real-life romantic moment that was quite genuinely sweet.

I also loved the audience reaction shots when Johnny Depp came out to present. Everyone they showed, from Glenn Close to Brad Pitt, looked completely smitten with him. He has a charm and charisma that stands out even among the most enormous stars in the world.

Colin Farrell was funny.

When Terrence Howard came out to present, I groused, "Oh no, not him." And without missing a beat, Iain said, "I forgot to tell you I picked up some baby wipes for you while I was out earlier." LOL.

Thoughts?

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

Tiny Toons

Open Wide...

Sunday YouTubery

Alan Rickman & Johnny Depp; "Pretty Women" (Sweeney Todd)

Open Wide...