The girls pose with the DVD that Misty, Maude bless her,
sent me as an early birthday present—Season One of Maude:
We can't WAIT to watch it. Well, maybe Sophie can.
Daily Kitteh
The girls pose with the DVD that Misty, Maude bless her,
sent me as an early birthday present—Season One of Maude:
We can't WAIT to watch it. Well, maybe Sophie can.
Girls Suck!
Everyone in the multiverse has emailed me this shitpile of an article at CNN, and I can't even bring myself to spend the sort of time with it that a serious rebuttal would require. It's crazymakingly infuriating.
All I could think as I read it was: "This is how misogynist men are made."
Have at it in comments, Shakers.
Feel the Homomentum!
Today Maine, tomorrow Main Street! (I know that sort of makes no sense, but you know what I mean, right?)
This morning, April 30, the Maine Senate voted 20-15 in favor of LD 1020, a marriage equality bill. It now moves to the House of Representatives. The Senate defeated an amendment to the bill that proposed putting the question of marriage equality for same-sex couples before voters.Gov. James Baldacci will sign it? Maybe? Hopefully?
...Maine currently provides same-sex couples with access to limited rights and benefits through a domestic partner registry. But, as did Vermont's Legislature, which pioneered civil unions, this was considered a half-measure, which didn’t provide all of the rights and responsibilities of full marriage equality. Similarly, New Jersey, which has civil unions, is considering full marriage equality, which will probably come up sometimes this year. And neighboring Connecticut, faced with the same situation, became the third state (after Massachusetts and Iowa) to grant full marriage equality.
...When and if Maine grants marriage equality, the only two remaining states [in New England] will be New Hampshire, where marriage equality made a giant step yesterday with passage in its legislature; and Rhode Island, where marriage equality is expected to be taken up by legislature sometime this year.
"Just as spring is coming to New England, so is marriage equality and it is just as welcome and just as sweet," GLAD Executive Director Lee Swislow said in a statement.
Fingers crossed. Go, Maine!
Ladies: Want to Be A Sports Reporter for Nike?
File your video application on the NikeWomen website.
Just two little stipulations.
1) You "gotta be an 18-to-24-year-old girl."
2) Judging from the video of one of last year's finalists, including lots of sweaty cleavage shots doesn't hurt.
Hrmph. Nike "women," indeed.
Edited to include a very grateful h/t to Shaker Ethel, with my apology!
Presenting ¡PRESENTE!
**ETA Scroll to the bottom for pre-made tweets to spread the word**
Presenting Presente.org:
Our goal is to create a broad-based online community of Latinos and our allies strong enough to make the United States honor its promises and protect our people. We’re starting with immigration, but we won’t stop there—we’ll provide you with ongoing opportunities to make change on the issues that most affect our communities.And from Nezua:
[O]ur voices have yet to be utilized and enjoined in a way that can efficiently organize around the issues that affect our communities. Don’t mistake what I say: the Latina/o (or “Hispanic”) community is famous for its ability to organize on the local level, and we are proud of this. And that is why it is time to continue to tie this ability and history together and bring it to an even higher level. ...[W]e should have a way to centralize and engage the politics that affect us on so many levels.That is one of the goals Presente.org hopes to achieve.
For more information, or to take part, please visit Presente.org.
And spread the word via twitter:
To direct people to Presente.org Please TWEET:
Stand and be counted, Latinas, Latinos, Hispanos, Gente, Amigos and Amigas! Join http://presente.org today. #latino #hispanic #immigration
Or TWEET:
Stand and be counted. Empower the Hispanic/Latin@ Community. Join http://presente.org today. #latino #hispanic #immigration
To direct people to Nezua's post
TWEET:
The Unapologetic Mexican: Presenting ¡PRESENTE! http://tinyurl.com/cw6fyp #immigration #latinas #latinos #hispanic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Para dirigir personas a Presente.org Por favor
TWEETEA:
Ponte de pie y seas contado, Latinas, Latinos, Hispanos, Gente, Amigos y Amigas! Unete Hoy! http://presente.org #latino #hispano #inmigración #migrantes
O TWEETEA:
Ponte de pie y seas contado. Apodera a la comunidad Hispana/Latin@. Unete Hoy! http://presente.org #latino #hispano #inmigración #migrantes
Para dirigir personas a este post,
TWEETEA:
El Unapologetic Mexican: Presentando a ¡PRESENTE! http://tinyurl.com/cw6fyp #latino #hispano #inmigración #migrantes
Lost Open Thread
Last night's episode will be discussed in infinitesimal detail, so if you haven't seen it, and don't want any spoilers, move along...
Shaker Gourmet: Chocolate Toffee Crackers
Our recipe this week comes from Shaker puellasolis who warns that it is addictive and she takes no responsibility for any stomach ache that may occur after you've inhaled the whole batch.
If you'd like to participate in Shaker Gourmet, email me at: shakergourmet (at) gmail.comChocolate Toffee Crackers
Modified from Smitten Kitchen, and others
Makes one sheet pan of candy
Ingredients
1. matzoh or saltine crackers to fill a rimmed baking sheet, matzo cut to fit if necessary
2. 1 cup (1/2 pound, or 2 sticks) unsalted butter
3. 1/2 cup granulated sugar
4. 1/2 cup brown sugar (light or dark, as you wish)
5. large pinch of salt
6. 2 tablespoons water
7. 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
8. 1 1/2 cups semi- or bittersweet chocolate, chips or chopped
9. 3/4 cup nut(s) of your choice, sliced or chopped as appropriate, toasted if desired (I recommend almonds or pistachios)
10. coarse salt for sprinkling (probably overkill if you're using saltines)
Directions
1. Preheat oven to 350F.
2. Line a large (11x17") rimmed baking sheet with aluminum foil, including the sides, then place a sheet of parchment paper over the foil.
3. Arrange matzoh or crackers so that they cover the bottom of the baking sheet, breaking if necessary to fill the sheet. I recommend Deb's tip of pressing a serrated knife between perforations, not on them, in order to create neat edges.
4. In a medium heavy saucepan set over medium heat, combine butter, sugars, water, and pinch salt, stirring occasionally until butter has melted.
5. Bring mixture to a boil. Affix candy thermometer to side of pan, ensuring that the thermometer's tip does not touch the bottom of the pan. Boil gently, stirring only rarely and brushing sides of pan with a wet pastry brush as needed, until thermometer reads 300F, or hard crack stage. Meanwhile, measure out the vanilla and have it handy.
6. Remove mixture from heat and stir in vanilla, being careful of hot splatter.
7. Quickly pour mixture over matzoh on baking sheet, using spatula to spread it more or less evenly.
8. Bake matzoh and caramel until caramel starts to bubble, 5-10 minutes. Keep an eye on it--you don't want the caramel to burn.
9. Remove pan from oven and scatter chocolate over caramel. Let stand 5 minutes, or until chocolate has melted, then use an offset spatula to spread chocolate evenly over caramel.
10. Sprinkle with coarse salt and nuts, and let cool.
11. When chocolate has set, break crackers into pieces. Store in an air-tight container for up to 10 days.
Notes
1. If you're feeling impatient, you can help the chocolate along by placing the pan in the fridge after you've added the nuts and such.
2. I've used nuts here, but you could use all sorts of things: David Lebovitz suggests cacao nibs, and I bet some dried fruit would be lovely.
Still Pissed at Perez Hilton...
...Miss California to campaign against gay marriage.
Carrie Prejean told NBC's "Today" show Thursday that she'll be working with the National Organization for Marriage to "protect traditional marriages."I'm amused by the idea that marriage is "very dear to [her] heart" (like orphaned puppies or her Grandma Mima) and that "traditional marriage" needs saving, not from divorce, or abuse, or philandering, but from queers seeking just a sliver of equality.
The 21-year-old says that marriage is "something that is very dear to my heart" and she's in Washington to help save it.
Go, Miss California, fight the good fight in the name of bigotry and intolerance! I'm sure you'll make your home state proud.
Laverne, Surely
In yesterday's QotD, I noted that I loved the show Laverne & Shirley "so much that, I shit you not, a childhood friend and I performed the theme for a school talent show when we were in third grade. And Mama Shakes even stitched an L (for Liss/Laverne) onto my blouse for the occasion!" Which, naturally, prompted Mama Shakes to find and scan the image for me.
There is nothing we won't try;
Never heard the word "impossible."
This time there's no stopping us—
We're gonna do it!
Which is more awesome, do you think? My sassy pose, or that orange and brown shag carpeting? I'm going to call it a draw.
We Matter
by Shaker Lena Dahlstrom, a crossdresser from the San Francisco Bay area who also performs as a drag queen under the stage name "Joie de Vivre."
Yesterday was a bit of an emotional roller coaster for me.
I took grim satisfaction that the Library of Congress was ordered to pay Diane Schroer nearly $500,000 in what is the largest award in transgender job discrimination case. (Short version: Schroer, a former Army Special Forces commander, was widely agreed to be the most qualified applicant for a job as a terrorism analyst, but when the woman who offered the job found out that Schroer was transitioning from David to Diane, she had a blatantly transphobic freak-out and yanked the job offer the next day. We're still waiting to see if the Obama administration will appeal the decision.)
I was pleased to see the U.S. House of Representative once again passed a bill expanding anti-hate crimes laws to include both sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. (The real test will be when the Senate votes on it.)
I was ecstatic when the New Hampshire Senate unexpectedly passed a marriage equality bill, making that state poised to become the fifth one to allow same-sex marriages.
But there was also some news you probably didn't hear about. That same morning, the New Hampshire senators unanimously—let me repeat that, unanimously—voted to kill a bill that would have extended housing and employment anti-discrimination protections to trans people.
This came after the fundamentalist haters used a campaign of bearing false witness lies to portray it as a "bathroom bill"—a nickname picked up and used by the local media—that would allow male sexual predators in dresses into women's bathrooms. (Never mind that there's been no bathroom incidents in the 13 states that have similar laws. Or that trans people are already in bathrooms, because you know...sometimes we have to pee too.) Now evidently there was some sort of political maneuvering behind the vote, since even the sponsors voted against their own bill. One of the sponsors said that passing it now would only worsen the situation for trans people because of the way the bill was portrayed. (I guess they had to destroy the village to save it....) But whatever the good intentions, the 24-0 vote wound up sending the message: You don't deserve the same rights as everybody else. You don't even deserve a valiant-but-losing effort. You just don't matter.
It was yet another Prop. 8-like moment for trans issues, particularly given the contrast to the same-day marriage equality vote. I feel the same sort of bitter aftertaste to sweet success that I felt on Election Night. I'm beginning to feel like we trans people are human shields, taking the brunt of the anti-LGBT hatred out there while marriage equality is becoming mainstreamed. We're "those people," the ones who can be demonized, the ones who by comparison make the shiny, happy sex-same couples waiting to walk down the aisle looking ever so "normal." Because after all, they're the ones who matter.
You probably didn't hear about the vote, not even in the LGBT media/blogosphere. I guess having a ghost at the banquet is a bit of a downer. (FYI, I know a number of these sites knew about the story because I personally alerted them to it.) The thing is, it's just latest incident in their all-too-frequent deafening silence when it comes to trans-related issues and news. Schroer's victory was also MIA today. A week ago, a jury in rural Colorado took less than two hours to convict the killer of Angie Zapata of first degree murder and committing a hate crime—the first U.S. hate crime conviction ever in the murder of a trans person. It was the trans communities' equivalent of the Matthew Shepard murder and attracted hordes of attention from the mainstream media. The gay and lesbian media...not so much (with a few notable exceptions)—even on the eve of the federal hate crimes bill going to a vote. Because apparently the T in LGBT doesn't seem to matter.
But I wouldn't give the MSM a cookie either. All too often their coverage began: "A man who claimed he snapped after discovering a transgender woman was actually male..."—repeating as fact the exact same self-serving "trans panic" defense, the same "deceptive tranny" victim blaming, that the jury specifically rejected. Nor did they bother to mention that the evidence showed Zapata's killer knew she was trans 36 hours before she died, that there was no evidence that Zapata had sex with him that night she died, that he returned to finish her off when he realized she wasn't dead yet. Because we don't matter enough to get the story right.
I'll admit it, my nerves are a bit raw about this. In the past few weeks, we've seen a feminist blogger crack a tranny "joke" and then tell people who objected to lighten up (and STFU). Because after all, it was about "Mann Coulter" so it was OK. We've seen similar "you're just being too sensitive" comments posted over at Bitch Magazine directed toward those who thought a cartoon about lesbians who fetishize trans men was embodying the very attitudes it supposedly was critiquing. We've seen a series of problems with trans people being silenced in the comments discussions at Feministing and Feministe. (Though to their credit both sites are trying to address the problems.)
These problems ranged from plain old privileged cluelessness—"stop the discussion until someone explains what 'cisgender' means because I can't be bothered to figure it out for myself," to "I want to talk about how I deserve a cookie for being so enlightened about those exotic trans people," to "I know the post was about trans rights, but I want to talk about how I don't like sharing bathrooms with men"—to insisting that people's lives conform to someone's pet ideology, to outright transphobic attacks. When men engage in this sort of silencing behaviors, especially in feminist spaces, many feminist women are quick to anger and quick to call them on their shit. But when some of these very same women do the exact same thing to trans people...well, not so much. Because we don't matter.
Except, we do.
Obama Still Not Getting It on Abortion
Obama on abortion in his presser last night (emphasis mine):
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. In a couple of weeks, you're going to be giving the commencement at Notre Dame, and as you know, this has caused a lot of controversy among Catholics who are opposed to your position on abortion.Let's take this point by point.
As a candidate, you vowed that one of the very first things you wanted to do was sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which, as you know, would eliminate federal, state and local restrictions on abortion. And at one point in the campaign, when asked about abortion and life, you said that it was above -- quote, "above my pay grade."
Now that you've been president for a hundred days, obviously your pay grade is a little higher than when you were a senator. (Laughter.) Do you still hope that Congress quickly sends you the Freedom of Choice Act, so you can sign it?
MR. OBAMA: You know, the -- my view on -- on abortion, I think, has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue. I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they -- if they suggest -- and I don't want create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with, and families and individual women have to wrestle with.
The reason I'm pro-choice is because I don't think women take that -- that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day, and I think they are in a better position to make these decisions, ultimately, than members of Congress or -- or a president of the United States, in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their clergy.
So -- so that's -- that's been my consistent position.
The other thing that I said consistently during the campaign is, I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion or at least considering getting an abortion, particularly if we can reduce the number of teen pregnancies, which has started to spike up again.
And so I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that.
Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority. I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the -- the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's -- that's where I'm going to focus.
Obama doesn't "want create straw men here," so instead he just creates a straw-woman, that mysterious yet ubiquitous pro-choice activist who "suggest[s] that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations." You know, the funny thing about that straw-woman is that she always seems to be invoked by ostensibly pro-choice men who seem to regard women's freedom—or, more accurately, women's autonomy, agency, and ownership of their own bodies—as the least important part of the abortion debate.
And if you're wondering if our president is one of those men, note his deeply unthrilling juxtaposition between "abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue" and "those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they ... suggest that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations." He invokes that straw-woman who only cares about "women's freedom" specifically to lecture her on centralizing the moral component of abortion, because he has not internalized the idea that women's autonomy, agency, and ownership of their own bodies is itself a moral issue central to the abortion debate.
He then asserts that the reason he is pro-choice "is because I don't think women take that—that position casually," except, apparently, the pro-choice activist straw-women he just needed to scold in front of the nation to make sure everyone understands what a bipartisan hero he is. Suffice it to say I'm not happy that he feels obliged to invent heartless pro-choice activists who don't care about women who get abortions when they don't want to—because they have no other choices, because they're under- or unemployed, because they lack healthcare, because they lack daycare, because they lack the ability to care for themselves or existing children—just so that he can construct a false balance between pro-choicers who are wrong on the issue and anti-choicers who are wrong on the issue and cast himself as the Great Bipartisan Unaffected Observer Who's Going to Find the Common Ground.
"I would like to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies that result in women feeling compelled to get an abortion or at least considering getting an abortion," he says, as if that's not already the inevitable result if the comprehensive reproductive rights policies advocated by pro-choice activists were adopted. And he says it as if it's a new idea, and not one promoted and shared by reproductive rights activists. (And, very importantly, not promoted and shared by anti-choice activists.) He has to position himself outside both camps, in order to look like King Fucking Solomon, which is positively infuriating, given that he deliberately misrepresents the pro-choice reproductive rights movement to do it.
"So I've got a task force within the Domestic Policy Council in the West Wing of the White House that is working with groups both in the pro-choice camp and in the pro-life camp to see if we can arrive at some consensus on that," sayeth King Solomon. Great. Congratulations. Of course, pro-choice and women-centered pro-life groups have been holding summits for the past few years specifically to find common ground on issues like rights of pregnant incarcerated women, state-sponsored healthcare for pregnant women, making contraception affordable and accessible, requiring comprehensive sex education in schools, etc., but don't let us real women get in the way of your straw-women, captain.
And then the coup de grace, as he declares: "Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority." Oh, really? Shocking.
I know I'm just a silly woman made out of real fleshy bits, and Obama tends to favor women made out of straw on the pro-choice side of this issue (women who, conveniently, can't get pregnant, heh), but I wonder why it is that the Freedom of Choice Act isn't one of his highest legislative priorities, given how inextricably linked economic resources (or the lack thereof) and abortion is.
Just sayin'.
Playing for Change
Something to make you smile this morning:
According to their site: "Playing for Change is a multimedia movement created to inspire, connect, and bring peace to the world through music."
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
In honor of President Obama's 101st day. Luckily, all the women (Hillary Clinton) the rightwing has ever (Nancy Pelosi) called Cruella De Vil are (Barbara Boxer) already on his (Dianne Feinstein) side.
Assvertising
I just saw this commercial and it took me a long few seconds to register that I had in actually seen it:
Mayflower movers are easy to spot. They're the ones that always go the extra mile to protect what's precious. Even on their days off. That's why we've been protecting your belongings since 1927. Mayflower--we were made to move.Because the women designated as "brides" are precious belongings, get it? Although I usually avoid YouTube comments, I noticed that "MayflowerMoving" left a defense of the ad in comments:
MayflowerMoving says:Wow. That's love, folks, amirite? I mean, to be loved as much as some other people's stuff? Is it getting hot in here?
It's not meant to be sexist at all. Just meant to show that he loves her and wants to protect her as much as he loves protecting people's stuff for work.
Seriously, though, if you are reading this and thinking it's just a sweet and light-hearted little ad, think some more. It only seems romantic because of our deeply ingrained ideas of romance: woman as property, and man as its protector.
It's all part of what Zuska calls "the gender smog we breathe" (see also her follow-up here). The fact that so many reflexively move to defend these light-hearted ads, comic strips, and so forth is just more proof of how insidious our ideas of gender relations are, not a defense against the ubiquity of sexism.
Finally, it simply doesn't matter that the ad is not "meant to be sexist". Intent is irrelevant. the ad promotes retrogressive gender roles. If one has thoroughly internalized retrogressive ideas of gender roles, one doesn't have to "intend" to express sexist behavior--it just comes naturally.
[Assvertising: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty Nine, Sixty.]
Question of the Day
We've done this one before, but not for almost (gack!) four years, so here it is again: What should be the theme song of Shakesville?
My submission is the theme from Laverne & Shirley, a show I loved so much that, I shit you not, a childhood friend and I performed the theme for a school talent show when we were in third grade. And Mama Shakes even stitched an L (for Liss/Laverne) onto my blouse for the occasion!
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight:
Schlameel! Schlamazel! Hasenpfeffer Incorporated!
We're gonna do it!
Give us any chance, we'll take it.
Give us any rule, we'll break it.
We're gonna make our dreams come true—
Doin' it our way!
Nothin's gonna turn us back now.
Straight ahead and on the track now.
We're gonna make our dreams come true—
Doin' it our way!
There is nothing we won't try;
Never heard the word "impossible."
This time there's no stopping us—
We're gonna do it!
On your mark, get set, and go now.
Got a dream and we just know now,
We're gonna make that dream come true.
And we'll do it our way, yes, our way,
Make all our dreams come true,
And we'll do it our way, yes, our way,
Make all our dreams come true—
For me and you.
Meet David Horsey, Pulitzer-Prize-Winning Cartoonist
David Horsey won two Pulitzers, in 1999 and 2002, for his political cartoons for the now-defunct Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Now the P-I's successor, seattlepi.com, has given him a blog. Needless to say, it won't be winning any Pulitzers.
(BTW, the title of this post, "The skinny on beauty queens," refers to the fact that Horsey prefers his beauty queens with "a healthy bit of meat on their bones.")
The saving grace of Barbie is that she could never open her mouth and say something that would reveal the empty space in her little plastic head.Hmmm, I always thought the saving grace of Barbie was that you could pop her little plastic head off, make her little plastic boyfriend wear girl clothes, and put her little plastic body in the microwave. But maybe Horsey didn't play with his Barbies the way I did.
Moving on:
Lately, real life BarbiesWait a minute. "Real life Barbies"? I'm no fan of beauty contests, but I do think their contestants are, you know, human.
Lately, real life Barbies have been making news for opening their mouths and letting their deepest thoughts spill out. Last year, a Miss Teenage USA contestant gained instant Youtube notoriety with a rambling, utterly nonsensical monologue about world affairs that made Sarah Palin look like a genius in comparison. More recently, at the climax of the Miss USA pageant, Miss California was asked to share her opinion about gay marriage and, when she expressed the view that marital bliss is intended for Kens and Barbies, not Kens and Kens, she was pilloried.On the one hand: Human Barbies shouldn't open their silly little mouths--they're in a beauty contest, not the National Merit Finals! On the other hand, isn't it hilarious when beauty queens try to think because good-looking women are so stupid!
... Personally, I'm not especially upset when a beauty queen expresses an opinion with which I may not agree. Thank the Lord for the First Amendment. And, like every other smarty-pants cultural elitist in the country, I am hugely entertained when one of them proves incapable of expressing any coherent opinion whatsoever.
Unfortunately, Horsey's utter lack of a coherent point, unlike making Ken play dress-up, isn't "hugely entertaining." However, it certainly proves that he's "incapable of expressing any coherent opinion whatsoever." Maybe cartoonists, like beauty queens, ought to keep their mouths shut and do what they're good at.
Via my friend Stephanie, who notes, "Men compete in stupid, degrading contests, too. I'd say professional footballers aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the bunch, but you don't see David Horsey gleefully cheering at their stupidity."
Number of the Day
20. The percentage (pdf) of American adults who identify as Republican, according to the new NBC/WSJ poll. And 7% of those identify as "not very strong Republican." Ouch.
[Via.]
Feel the Homomentum!
Shaker JR_JR emails: "New Hampshire Senate passes gay-marriage bill: Since they made some changes, it has to go back to the House for reapproval, but they will likely pass it. Yay, New Hampshire!"
There is still an outside possibility, however, that the governor will veto the measure. But proponents of the law have done everything they can to squelch every possible objection:
[A]n amendment was added that prohibits polygamy and marriage of family members, among other measures. ... The last-minute changes to the legislation would [also] allow clergy to decline to marry homosexual couples and give couples the freedom to either keep the words "bride" and "groom" on marriage licenses, or simply use the word "spouse" instead.New Hampshire has already had civil unions since 2007.
Every state that legalizes same-sex marriage puts more pressure on the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages, so let's go, New Hampshire! Woot!
100 Daze
I've got a new piece up at The Guardian's CifA in which I imagine the first 100 days of a McCain presidency in an alternate universe:
Day 1: Having spent the nearly three months between election day and inauguration day being brought up to speed by Dick Cheney on effective concealment strategies for the Bush administration's plethoric dirty secrets and giving Vice President Sarah Palin a crash-course in introduction to government, President McCain does not hit the ground running. He is stunned to find out that the September suspension of his campaign did not magically solve the financial crisis and that the fundamentals of the economy are not strong.Read the whole thing here.
Day 2: President McCain nominates the only Republican willing to accept the position as secretary of the Treasury, whose appointment is fast-tracked through Congress in light of the growing economic crisis.
Day 3: Treasury secretary Ron Paul promptly disbands the department of the Treasury.
Days 4-18: The stock markets crash, precipitating a run on the banks, which in turn hastens the financial collapse. Mass chaos erupts across the country. Vice President Palin blames the economic catastrophe on University of Illinois professor William Ayers and calls for his execution. Texas announces its secession from the union. Chuck Norris is elected president of Texistan.
Day 19: President McCain tries to restore order by giving a televised speech which will later become known as the "My Friends, We're Fucked" debacle.
And check out the rest of the great "100 Days" coverage at CifA.
Shameless, Brainless, Heartless, Factless, Full of Absolute Shit
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina): The, uh, hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard Bill is named after, uhn, uh, a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know, uh, that that young man was killed in the, uh, in the commitment [sic] of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This—the bill was named for him, the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it, it's, it's really a hoax!More here.
Text: FALSE. Fact: "According to local police and prosecutors, the two men lured Mr. Shepard out of a bar by saying they were gay. Then, the Laramie police say, the pair kidnapped Mr. Shepard, pistol-whipped him with a .357 Magnum, and left him tied to a ranch fence for 18 hours until a passing bicyclist spotted Mr. Shepard, who was unconscious."—The New York Times, 10/12/98
Just to be clear, although Rep. Foxx may well be dumber than a box of rocks (with my apologies to rocks), what she is doing here is itself not the result of stupidity, though it is appallingly coarse: It is a deliberate strategy, an attempt to play into the ubiquitous conservative talking point you hear in opposition to hate crimes legislation that giving specific consideration to crimes committed against people on the basis of some specific part of their identity amounts to "special rights" and some kind of preferential treatment.
This is, of course, bullshit: The prosecution of hate crimes requires special consideration because when someone is targeted for hir race, nationality, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, it has the potential to affect everyone who shares that identity in hir community, state, across the entire nation. Period.
The accusation that supporters of hate crimes legislation are "exaggerating" the circumstances of Matthew Shepard's death to justify the policy is part of a shamefully cynical effort to undermine that rationale.
In case you'd like to call one of Rep. Foxx's offices and politely let her know she's got her facts wrong and politely request that she not perpetrate lies about Matthew Shepard and the much-needed Hate Crimes Bill, you can call her Washington office at 202-225-2071 or her North Carolina offices toll-free at 1-866-677-8968. You can also contact the National Republican Congressional Committee at 202-479-7000 and politely let them know you disapprove of Republican House members disparaging victims of hate crimes and telling demonstrable lies on the House floor.
[H/T to Bill.]
