Open Thread

Photobucket

Hosted by butternut squash.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket

Hosted by cheez doodles.

This week's open threads have been brought to you by things that are orange.

Open Wide...

So, Jon Stewart Was on the Rachel Maddow Show

[Background: On the "Restore Sanity/Fear" Rally, Too Clever By Half, I Write Letters.]

Still whinging that his Big Important Rally was misunderstood, Jon Stewart took a seat beside Rachel Maddow and, in the first segment of their interview (the remaining pieces of which, as well as the raw, unedited interview in its entirety, can be found here), explained what the rally was REALLY all about to us stupidfuck critics who are too daft to get hip to his jive:


These are the relevant bits that I want to address:
The intention [of the rally] is to say that we've all bought into [the idea that] the conflict in this country is left and right, liberal and conservative, red and blue. All the news networks have bought into that. CNN sort of started it. They have this idea that, you know, the fight in Washington is Republicans and Democrats, so, why don't we isolate that and we'll stand back here, and…Democrats and Republicans will go at it. Red and blue staters will go at it. And what it does is amplify a division that I actually don't think is the right fight.

…Both sides have their way of shutting down debate. …You've said Bush is a war criminal. Now, that may be technical true. In my world, war criminal is Pol Pot or the Nuremburg trials. …I think that's such an incendiary charge that when you put it in the conversation as—well, technically he is. That may be right. But it feels like a conversation stopper, not a conversation starter. …We were talking about tone, not content necessarily.

…My problem is it's become tribal. And if you have 24-hour networks that focus—their job is to highlight the conflict between the two sides—where I don't think that's the main conflict in our society. That was the point of the reality, was to deflate that idea that that's a real conflict—red/blue, Democrat/ Republican. I feel like there's a bigger difference between people with kids and people who don't have kids than red state/blue state.
Wow. I mean, it must be nice to be so privileged that you can argue, with a straight fucking face, that progressive-conservative isn't "the right fight," that it's just a made-up conflict started by CNN (!) and wildly blown out of proportion for ratings or fun or whatever.

It must be nice to be so privileged that the most vast difference you see among people hinges on whether they're parents.

Holy. Shit.

I mean, yes, this rally was, from the get-go, evidence that Jon Stewart is a privileged wanker with his head firmly stuck up his ass, but HOLY SHIT. "In my world, Pol Pot is a war criminal, not George Bush." Okay, but YOUR world isn't THE world.

In THE world, the one in which Jon Stewart and the Great Parental Chasm aren't the center of the universe, the "technical" truth of George Bush being a war criminal and Stewart's distaste for the "tone" of shouting that fact in public doesn't fucking matter to the millions of displaced people, the countless dead, the survivors of the dead, the wounded, the tortured, the indefinitely detained, people whose lives were ended or will never be the same all because George W. Bush started two wars of choice on lies with no strategic longterm plans for success, for rebuilding, for caring for our soldiers when they came home, and then threw out the Geneva Conventions and the rule of law, which doesn't even begin to examine what his folly has cost USians in treasure, in safety, and in support from their government as social services will be decimated to pay for his mess.

The biggest distinction between Pol Pot and George Bush is that the latter did his damage while wearing white gloves.

It's not the content, it's the tone. Right, Jon?

And I don't know how many different ways I can say that imagining there is no legitimate progressive-conservative grievance in this country is bullshit. Look, I get that Stewart is pissed that corporate rule is irrevocably corrupting our system, and that the media plays a big part in that, and that people on the left and the right need to find some way to work together to stop the fire sale of the entire nation to corporate vampires who haven't a shred of patriotism or any interest in protecting the long-term security of the US economy, because they'll just move onto China once we've been bled dry.

But suggesting that it's exclusively a false conflict trumped up by the media which divides left and right, and that there are no genuine barriers, beyond ideology and media narratives, stopping some grand cohesion of progressives and conservatives, is unmitigated horseshit.

I guess it probably does just feel like a game to someone whose humanity, basic rights, bodily autonomy, and dignity aren't at fucking stake. But Stewart needs to get it through his goddamn impenetrably thick exoskeleton of privilege that IT ISN'T A GAME TO MARGINALIZED PEOPLE.

In HIS world, where there are "real" war criminals and "technical" war criminals, elite conservatism is populated by people who are only anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-affirmative action for political reasons, but personally want access to abortion, don't give a fuck about gay marriage, and hire people of color without having to be required.

But in THE world, James Byrd, Matthew Shepard, and Dr. George Tiller are dead.

"My problem is it's become tribal." Yeah? Well, fuck you, Stewart. And fuck your smug contempt for the hoi polloi and its primitive tribalism. (I'm not even going to get into the implicit racism in that bullshit. Suffice it to say: Congratulations for being as enlightened as a 17th century ethnographer.) Not all tribes are formed in pursuit of conflict. Some tribes are formed as refuge from attack.

A reality which, I acknowledge, is decidedly inconvenient in its fundamental subversion of the "imaginary conflict" narrative.

I am deeply, deeply sympathetic to the idea that the media distorts and exacerbates conflict, but not the idea that the media creates it. The ideological divide is meaningful beyond having different ideas about how things should be done; it is also, because of ancient bigotry, about who we are as people. Pretending otherwise doesn't help in any way at all the people targeted for who we are. Especially when that dangerous pretense is accompanied by insufferable concern trolling about our "tone."

Stewart says, in order to justify his rally and the philosophy he's embraced which underlined it, and without seemingly any worry that he might be wrong, "I actually don't think [left-right division] is the right fight."

"Right fight" implies a choice. "Right fight" implies that marginalized people could spend their time discussing Very Serious Things, but instead they're fighting the Culture Wars with hysterical tones.

It's not about the "right fight." I don't know any feminist/womanist who wouldn't give anything to never have to worry about rollbacks of Roe ever again. I don't know any LGBTQI activist who wouldn't give anything to never have to spend another moment advocating for rights LGBTQI people don't have ever again. I don't know any anti-racist activist who wouldn't give anything to never have to be concerned with a person of color being denied access or opportunity ever again. I don't know any advocate for people with physical disabilities, people with neurological disabilities, undocumented immigrants, the poor, the uninsured, the unemployed, fat people, non-Christians, abuse survivors, veterans, and/or other marginalized people who wouldn't give anything to never have to fight for equality denied or be obliged to teaspoon oceans of bigotry ever again.

It's not about the "right fight." It's about the necessary fight. It's about the fights we can't avoid, no matter how much we want them to not exist at all.

And, yeah, there was a time when this fight didn't exist, not in the way it does now. And part of that is attributable to cable news. But mostly it's because marginalized people started asserting their rights. We don't want to live in a country where black and white folks are at separate water fountains, gays are in closets, people with disabilities are tucked away in institutions, and women are dying in back alleys anymore. We don't want to live in a country with internment camps and reservations and housing projects, of separate but equal and 75 cents on the dollar and Don't Ask Don't Tell anymore. We don't want to be marginalized for the sake of maintaining civil peace for the privileged anymore.

And if there's a fight about that, it's because the people holding the power to grant our equality are treating we the people as an exclusive country club and liberty and justice for all as a suggestion.

The media didn't create this fight. The media is only responsible for treating both sides as equal, for pretending two women getting married to each other is "shoving their sexuality in people's faces" but the Quiverfull movement isn't, for pretending that "choice" and "my way" are equally valid arguments, for pretending that "because God says so" is a legitimate political position.

And that's the same damn rap that Stewart's running, by pretending the fight isn't real.

It's real. And its genesis is a nation that promises its people equality, then endeavors to deny it to them.

Stewart is right that it's not strictly about left vs. right; it's more about marginalized vs. privileged (which is a lot more left vs. right than it's not). The irony, of course, is that it's his unexamined privilege which renders him unable to see that he's getting it wrong, to understand that his "solution" is just another part of the problem.

Urging moderation, suggesting there can be compromise with oppressors, is just a big silencing tactic, the same one that's been used to discredit marginalized people angling for what their nation promised them, since the nation's inception. History tells us that the only compromise acceptable to privileged oppressors is our surrender. We fight loud and hard because that's all there can be.

We don't need another concern troll, Jon Stewart. We need allies.

And if you're not going to lead or follow, then get the hell out of the way.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket

Hosted by carrots.

Open Wide...

The Virtual Pub Is Open


[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]

TFIF, Shakers!

Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"Well, my take on Charlie Sheen is that, if that was a woman, she would have been fired; her ass would've been fired a long time ago. So, you know, only in television can a male who's done all that stuff still have a job, because how many average men or women could behave that way and keep their job? And in this economy, it's kind of infuriating—because I think the guy makes a million dollars an episode or something like that, and I think about all the people that go to work every day, and, if they make one misstep, they're fired, and then we see them at the job fair, and this guy's just livin' large."—Kathy Griffin, on Charlie Sheen, privilege, sexism, classism, and double standards. [Video here.]

Open Wide...

Daily Dose o' Cute


[Also at Daily Motion here.]

Video Description: Clips of all four furry residents of Shakes Manor being super cute and cuddly, set to Ronan Keating's version of "When You Say Nothing at All." Highlights include Sophie leaping up onto a chair to greet me as I walk into the office (0:15), which she does all the time and is sooooooo cute, and Dudz sticking his nose into the crevice of my arm (2:30), which he loves to do, as well as give me a muzzle-nuzzle in the hollow where my shoulder meets my neck.

As always, still pix of all below the fold (on most browsers)...


"What're you guys doin' over there?!"


"Scratches, please."


Redonkulously cute.


Ready to rock and roll.

Open Wide...

SCOTUS Upholds DADT While Legal Challenges Continue

This was an expected decision, but still frustrating:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Friday to pause enforcement of the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian service members while that policy faces a legal challenge.

The high court sided against the Log Cabin Republicans, a GOP gay rights group, that had asked that discharges of gay and lesbian members of the armed forces under the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy be suspended.

The Obama administration had argued that the ban should be allowed to stay in place while litigation continues.
FIERCE ADVOCATE!!! Now to the right of (gay) Republicans on a basic civil rights issue.

There's a Democrat in the White House, right?

Open Wide...

Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"



Blank

See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.

[In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman (Liss) and a biracial queerbait (Deeky) telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.]

Open Wide...

And you also need...

Another perfect combination of WTF? and Awesome!. Hence:


The Vienna Vegetable Orchestra


[Video description: People buying vegetables. People carving vegetables with spoons and power tools. People playing their awesome vegetable instruments.]

Open Wide...

You Know What You Need?



A video of the Leatherman from the Village People signing "Danny Boy".
Brought to you by Dr. Pepper.

Open Wide...

Awwwwwwwwwkwaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrd!!!

Cindy McCain blasts 'don't ask' as husband fights to keep it alive.

Earlier today, I sent that link to Shaker BrianWS with whom I was talking about a related subject, and he said: "Ha! I saw that too! Family dinner is going to be GREAT this weekend for the McCains!!!!!1"

To which I replied: "I'm guessing family dinner is ALWAYS great at the McCain residence."

A few moments later, my phone rang, and on the other end was just the sound of uncontrollable laughter.

This has been your regular reminder that John McCain is a horrible person.

Open Wide...

This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.

[Trigger warning for fat hatred, disordered eating, diet talk.]

The bottom-line diet: Eat less.

Genius. Why have I never thought of that?

The thing is, eating less was indeed a great plan to lose weight for the man at the center of this story who was consuming 10,000 calories a day.

But if you're not a compulsive eater in the first place, cutting 7,600 calories out of your daily diet isn't an option. In fact, I'm going to guess that cutting 76% of one's daily intake of calories is not something the vast majority of fat people could actually do and still survive.

We're going to keep seeing shit like this as long as the "conventional wisdom" holds that everyone who is fat is fat because they have an eating disorder.

They don't, despite what Maura Kelly, Esther Cepeda, Dan Savage, Bill Maher, MeMe Roth, et. al. would have everyone believe.

[Related Reading: B-b-but CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT!!!, Part One, B-b-but CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT!!!, Part Two, Killer Pearfat!, I Am Not a Bunsen Burner, Today in Lazy Fatasses, No Shit.]

Open Wide...

Friday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, proud publishers of Paul T. Spud's memoir, OMG Owls!

Recommended Reading:

Andy: Log Cabin Republicans File Reply to Supreme Court Over DADT

[TW for homophobia] Resistance: More Education, Please

[TW for racism] Joe: Somos Republicans Condemns Extremist Republican Leaders

[TW for harassment] vaurora: Street harassment reporting app now available for iPhone and Android.

Helen: Trans Bodies, Trans Selves Call for Interns

Jorge: No Matter What Toys I Buy…

Leave your links in comments...

Open Wide...

Oooh...How EDGY!

(trigger warning for violence, racism, Islamophobia)

Colour me shocked - SHOCKED, I tell you - that it's a Conservative pol who's been caught for this particular type of offence.

SHOCKED. This is my shocked face: ō_ō

In the UK on Wednesday, a Tory member (Gareth Compton) of local government in Birmingham1 posted to Twitter the following comment (since expunged):

Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really.
There's so much fail in this that I can't even...well, I guess I'll try anyway. Ms. Alibhai-Brown is a journalist who had earlier remarked that any British politician who had supported the war in Iraq was on shaky ground criticizing other governments for their human-rights records.

First, "jokingly"2 referring to the death of a political opponent is an appalling escalation, and one we're seeing more and more. And it will come as no surprise here to know that this "joke" is more frequently deployed against people with marginalized bodies. Ms. Alibhai-Brown, as a woman, a Muslim, and a person of colour, clearly fits the bill. People with marginalized bodies are always going to be an easier target for this sort of thing, as the "joker" perceives them to not have the power to do anything about the "joke", and will instead be silenced. As Liss wrote recently, that's kind of a goal of privilege.

Second, it's profoundly racist to make this particular "joke" about stoning someone to death, and the insensitivity of it - given the current campaign (led, I might note, by Amnesty International, one of my own particular favourite groups) to fend off the execution of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani - is breathtaking.

Third, hate-motivated attacks against South and West Asians in Britain3 have been endemic since the London bombings, fueled by a river of vitriolic xenophobia from right-wing politicians, both the extremists of the BNP and the "moderate" racists of the Conservative party.

I look forward to seeing the news of the trial of Mr. Compton, who was rightly arrested for the threat. I will hope that the courts recognize that there's no joke in receiving death threats, as both I and our Shakesville host can attest personally.

1 Britain's second-largest city, and one which has a large percentage of the population being of South Asian backgrounds - including many, many Muslims.

2 Scare quotes because what exactly is supposed to be funny about a woman being beaten to death with hurled rocks?

3 Muslims and non-Muslims; most bigots don't bother to find out before they hurl their words, bricks, whatever's handy. :/

Open Wide...

SCIENCE!

Did you ever wonder what is the sound of one cat lapping how cats lap up liquids?

Well, now you know!

That is, unless the cat in question is pulling the dip-paw-in-and-lick maneuver, as Olivia likes to do to my glass of ice water every chance she gets, or stands in a sink mewling pitifully until her Two-Legs turns on the tap, which is Matilda's favorite liquid-acquisition strategy of choice.


[Transcript here.]

Open Wide...

Two Facts

1. David Brooks is still getting paid handsomely for writing for the New York Times.

2. David Brooks evidently has no fucking clue that there are millions and millions of Americans who literally need every penny of their Social Security checks (and sometimes more) to survive, or else he wouldn't be asking bullshit questions like: "Are you really unwilling to sacrifice your Social Security cost-of-living adjustment at a time when soldiers and Marines are sacrificing their lives for their country in Afghanistan?"

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



King: "Love and Pride"

Open Wide...

The Overton Window: Chapter Twenty-Five

Contest time:

If you can guess what happens in chapter twenty-five, you might win one gently used gummi worm! Hey, who wouldn't want that? (You wouldn't want that, trust me.)

If you said "nothing happens" then you're a winner! But we're all winners here, aren't we? By reading this book, we've all had the opportunity to Grow and Learn, and that is something to be proud of. There is no second place in learning and there is no crying on Glenn Beck's TV show. Oh, wait, there is lots of crying on Glenn Beck's TV show. Nevermind.

Okay, so there are two plot points revealed this chapter, which, I guess makes them a slight bit more engaging than the previous three installments of The Kearns & Bailey Show. Maybe this story arc is starting to pay off.

To the plot point, the most important one, I am guessing:

Danny took a printout from his pocket, a transcript of the most recent chat room conversation, and matched up the four men with their screen names. The fifth, he was told, a guy named Elmer, had taken an unexpected trip to Kingman, Arizona, on a related matter and wouldn't return until well after midnight Monday morning.

Elmer is away. That is ominous, isn't it? Where do you suppose he is? I mean, aside from maybe Kingman. (Winona? Barstow? San Bernandino?) Wherever he is, I assure you it is not good.

No matter. "All of them agreed, though, that Elmer was a serious player and absolutely a man to be trusted." I think they had the same ideas about Kearns & Bailey too. No one in this bunch seems especially thoughtful. No one seems to have a name yet, either, aside from Ron, who has "been wise to those Zionist bankers and the good-for-nothing queen of England ever since [he] saw what they did to us on 9/11." (I guess that is supposed to be a joke.)

Nameless, faceless terrorists. At least they've not been saddled with the label "diverse."

Bailey explains the bruises on his face, the beating he took, and how it was the final straw, so to speak.

He'd been picked up by the cops after a patriot meeting in New York City, he told them, and then they'd beaten him within an inch of his life while he was in custody. Everyone has their breaking point, and this had been his. He knew then that there wasn't going to be any peaceful end to this conflict; the enemy had finally made that clear. So he'd called his old friend Stuart Kearns to come and bail him out so he could be a part of this plan.

Sure. Everyone who gets roughed up by the cops decides the best recourse is to nuke a major American city. That makes sense and is totally believable. By which I mean it isn't. Not even in the confines of this novel does that sound plausible. Maybe Beck is trying to demonstrate how far out there these terrorists are. Or perhaps, this is just shit writing.

Kearns shows the men the bomb.

As the men looked on with a mix of awe and anticipation, Kearns began to provide a guided tour of the device. The yield would be about on par with the Hiroshima bomb, he explained, though the pattern of destruction would be different with a ground-level explosion. The device was sophisticated but easy to use, employing an idiotproof suicide detonator tied to an off-the-shelf GPS unit mounted on top of the housing. With the bomb hidden in their vehicle and armed, all they'd have to do is drive to the target. No codes to remember, no James Bond BS, no Hollywoodesque countdown timers—just set it and forget it. The instant they reached any point within a hundred yards of the preset destination the detonator would fire, and the blast would level everything for a mile in all directions.

There is no "Hollywoodesque countdown timer" just a GPS trigger which does not qualify as Hollywoodesque either. Kearns arms the bomb, and "a line of tiny yellow bulbs illuminated, winking to green one by one as a soft whine from the charging electronics ascended up the scale." That is also not Hollywoodesque, in case you were wondering. Nothing Hollywoodesque to see here, move on!

Now, that second plot point I mentioned. The target: "the home-state office of the current U.S. Senate majority leader, the Lloyd D. George Federal Courthouse, 333 Las Vegas Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada."

Oh. My. God. The target of the plot is Harry Reid (D-NV). What the fuck? How is this appropriate, even for fiction? Even for faction? I realize Reid is a public figure and all, but this seems beyond the pale. Maybe I am overreacting. I don't know. However, I do know that I do not like this book at all.

I understand nuking a city is acceptable for a thriller. I think Tom Clancy did it once, right? And I've read enough post-apocalyptic fiction to not get all squeamish about California sinking into the ocean or whatever. It happens. It's supposed to be scary, in a roller coaster sort of way.

But...

There is something frightening, and in a whole different way than the author intends, no doubt, about using a real, sitting U.S. Senator as the target for a fictional assassination in a book that is a thinly, at best, veiled manifesto on the evils of the Left.

Open Wide...

Today in Not News

Glenn Beck is a shameless, vile nightmare.

Yeah, I know, so self-evident at this point it's hardly worth the energy to type. But it takes a real special sort of human horror show with garbage where his soul should be to take to the airwaves not one day, not two days, but three goddamn days in a row to smear Holocaust survivor George Soros as a Nazi collaborator.

And to do it on the basis that Soros' life was saved because his father paid a government official to say the then-13 year old Soros was his godson, so he would be spared from removal to a concentration camp, and the official who agreed to be his protectorate was tasked with taking "inventory on the vast estate of Mor Kornfeld, an extremely wealthy aristocrat of Jewish origin," which Beck has reimagined as "confiscating the property of your fellow Jews."

I mean, I've seen some pretty ugly goddamn smears from the shitsacks at Fox News in the six years I've been doing this, but that is some low-ass fuckery, right there, even for that lot.

You'd think for a group that's so invested in BOOTSTRAPS! they wouldn't be so keen to [TW] victim-blame children for doing whatever it takes to survive in the most incomprehensibly horrific circumstances.

Open Wide...