Oh joy, just what we all needed: PUMA 2.0

aka: "Shut up, Hamster."

Srsly okai.

Or, I guess, I had a long sit, as my partner drove. I read Deoliver47's post about 'Ms. Hamsher' and it rather annoyed me. I've lived for most of my life amongst those people who now go by "tea baggers" (their own moniker) and I knew that no matter what happened in politics, I could never accept an alliance with such hate-filled individuals and I couldn't understand a progressive that might advocate such a move. Then I read a diary that said Ms. Hamsher had gone on Faux and Friends to appeal to their audience to 'kill the bill'. It wasn't much of a diary (sorry diarist!), so I checked the Fox site itself and damned if it wasn't true. Not only had she gone on Faux, she'd not even asserted herself to decry what the party of "no" had done to decimate the hcr bill. She talked about how the bill would increase costs to the middle class and would effect your current coverage and "causes it to be worse"; it sounded like right-wing talking points.

So, despite my struggle to remain objective, I was getting a lil subjective. When I logged on tonight, the first diary I saw was about Ms. Hamsher joining forces with Grover Norquist to force Rahm Emmanuel to resign. Grover Norquist? Really? I'm sure readers here know who Norquist is...founder, supported by President Reagan, of American's For Tax Reform; opposition of President Clinton's attempt at health care reform; Contra and North supporter; co-author, with Messr. Gingrich, of the "Contract with America; Abramoff aficionado; supporter and promoter of President G. W. Bush. Need I say more? That sort of perked my ears.

But it wasn't until a poster noted that Ms. Hamsher had tweeted about Senator Bernie Sanders losing his seat unless he killed the bill. Losing his seat. The only self-professed socialist in the political spectrum. Losing his seat because he wasn't progressive enough? Bernie Sanders, promoter of single-payer health care? That guy who passionately argued for, and offered an amendment that would provide health care and dental coverage for every American? I almost couldn't believe it. But I clicked the linky, and sure enough...there it was, in all its glory...

moar:

Grover Norquist is a lifelong Right-Wing warrior. Destroying all progressives and any progressive/liberal agenda is his life’s work. He is very good at and has been finding useful idiots to help him divide and conquer progressives for over thirty years.

Norquist started this work with Jack Abramoff at his side. One party rule has always been their goal and Democrats and liberals have always been their blood enemies. Destroying progressives and everything we believe is their life's work. It is what they do.

Grover is deeply connected to Abramoff. Perhaps nobody goes back as far with Jack as Norquist...

...These two created Ralph Reed and inflicted him upon the world and they spawned a host of other lobbyists, activists, media whores, think tankers, staffers and politicians that make up the extreme conservative movement in America. Jack Abramoff’s ability to lobby and be successful as the point of the spear for the K Street Project depended upon Norquist and his weekly gathering of DC conservatives (Jack’s in jail, but these weekly meetings go on—perhaps Ms. Hamsher will be Grover’s featured guest at a future meeting). The sweatshops, sexshops, human trafficking and systematic labor abuse on the Marianas Islands have Grover Norquist to thank for their protection by Republicans just as much as they have Abramoff to thank (and Jack kicked back funds to Grover as part of the circle of "thank yous"). Norquist should be in jail, but he was protected by McCain, Rove, Bush and Congress. Now he is still out on the streets of DC and making fresh "alliances" with gullible and foolish people within the progressive movement. Sadly, Jane Hamsher is one of those foolish people.

...And the heart of her alliance with Norquist is the fact that she is lending her support and credibility to the conservative conspiracy theory that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending money to poor people through the Community Investment Act and Community Banks. It is an article of faith among conservatives that Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama forced Freddie and Fannie to engaged in risky loans and that these two mortgage giants forced the big banks to do the same. And then the system crashed. See, in wing-nut world everything bad that happened to the economy was caused by poor people taking advantage of the system. This is a scandal that the wing-nuts want exposed just like they want that whole birth certificate thing exposed, and the ACORN thing exposed, and the death panel thing exposed, and the government’s dirty hands on your Medicare thing exposed, and the socialist takeover of America exposed, and the...

...If you want to fight with Rahm Emanuel, fine. If you want to pretend that he is your chosen personification of evil on this earth, go ahead. Whatever. But, if you decide that your hatred of Rahm is stronger than common sense, if you decide that you must join Jane Hamsher in making common cause with a shitbag like Norquist to attack Democrats, the President and his agenda, well then—and I mean this in the most civil way possible—go to hell. You have let your anger and your desire to piss farther and harder than you think Rahm can piss cloud your judgment.

Honestly? I'm listening to people on the left who are against the hcr bill as it stands now, even though I'm leaning toward the "hold your nose and support it, after making it as good as possible till the very end, because whatever that is is as good as we're going to get." But, joining up with Grover "drown the vulnerable anyone who gets in my way the government in a bathtub" Norquist to try to unseat Bernie Sanders because Sanders isn't progressive or aggressive enough in upholding progressive values. Because the guy who's been actually doing work, even brought up a bill for single-payer, has said this bill is worth supporting; and you think you know better, so you're gonna go side with the people who don't think we should have health care (reform) *at all*. Ooooookayy.

As for Obama and (some of) the Congresscritters supporting this bill (Lieberman can also be devoured by roving wolverines, yes, that goes without saying):

Listen, if I'm going to be supporting actual moderate-to-conservatives/self-aggrandizing cynical corporate sellouts going under the progressive flag whose "help" in this case not only doesn't much but may (*may*) even make things worse, I'm at least going to stick with the ones who aren't complete fucking boneheaded losers. That would be the ones who got elected into office, have some proven ability to find their ass with both hands, and are at least *trying* to make some kind of useful policy that will *help* *some* actual people be better able to not, you know, die. Hint: P.R. disasters like the Lieberman blackface stunt do not count as "progressive activism." They do count as "boneheaded loser moves."

p.s. how the hell did I get on Hamster's mailing list, anyway? No, I'm not signing your stupid petition. GOE AWAY.

Damn.

p.p.s. This, dammit.

If anyone thought that Obama's language about bipartisanship and compromise were just a ploy to get elected, and the fierce passionate liberal would then pull away the mask, they were deluded.

To me, Obama's open, bipartisan and cross-ideological tone was never just a pose. It was how he intended to govern, defining a mild, modified liberalism as centrism and putting the opposition on the defensive. A fierce, aggressive liberalism, the counterpart to the high point of conservative exercise of institutional power in the middle of this decade, was not going to succeed. Recall, that such an approach ultimately failed conservatism.

However, Republican senators' refusal to participate in any meaningful way in the health-care conversation, with the small and notable exception of Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe's single, hesitating vote when the bill was before the Finance Committee, is a painful revelation that Obama can't govern the way he campaigned. And that revelation is in itself a kind of cost, a useful illusion now lost. As recently as a few weeks ago, every savvy Hill insider would tell you that health reform might get 58 votes and fail, or it might get 61 or 62 votes. But it wouldn't, couldn't get exactly 60 votes, just because some Democrats -- Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu -- would insist on Republican cover. The biggest surprise of the last week is that health reform had to hit that target 60-vote target exactly, and that it did.

Health care's passage shows exactly how small the target is for any future Obama initiative, from cap-and-trade to financial reform. With no room for bipartisan compromise, and also no room to tell Joe Lieberman what everyone surely wants to tell Lieberman, the path forward is hard to see. As long as Republican opposition holds, even with the occasional press-release exception such as Sen. Lindsay Graham on cap-and-trade, there will be no room to the right and even less room to the left..

Have I mentioned lately that I execrate Cultural Feminists of the FluffyBunny Wicca-y type?

Well, I do.

Sadly, I can't recount the entire story here, as it involves a listserve whose email isn't really for public consumption.

Suffice it to say that I firmly believe that if you anthropomorphize the moon to the point where this story drives you into a state of utter panic and mourning WHAT HAVE WE BECOME, sending out calls for a mass protest and vigil against the "insane" "dudes" of NASA who would DARE to harm our sister-goddess' body like this? to the point where you say you can't "bear" to do the research to confirm the details of the story?

And then, when someone snarks her dissent -very mildly- at you, you are "driven to tears?" and then -separately-, after that, after an (admittedly not very heartfelt) apology from said snarker, said snarker then posts a snark-free link to the story for public interest, and you email back that y'all already KNOW "these facts" but the snarker needs to let it go because you're "grieving" anyway?

This + this = you are driving me to increasing levels of sadism, Fluffy Dianic Too Sensitive To Live Person.

and I mean. a -graduate- student. wtf critical thinking skills...? oh, right, those are from the Patriarchy, never mind.

nyargh.

EDIT In fact, I feel compelled to burst into Song. and so I shall.

"When I say I want to talk about you, I don't mean I'm actually INTERESTED in what YOU have to say for yourself," part infinity-four

This edition, a slight twist on other versions of this wank, at least for this blog: a feminist who has decided that not only is sex a -positive- thing, it's positively -mandatory.- Whether you actually want it or not.

Clarissa explains it all for us:

Asexuality

A recent post at Feministing illustrates the point I was trying to make about tolerance that sometimes turns into a parody of itself.

The post responds to a message from somebody who feels asexual and finds anybody's touch "absolutely repulsive. The thought of sex makes me gag a bit." The response that the author of the message gets to her post takes the idea of political correctnes to the extreme that is even a little scary. The main idea of the response is "Asexual people of the world, unite!" Don't worry about beinng asexual, it says. You can always get together with other asexual people, date them, and form yet another neat identity group.

This attitude does not come exclusively out of the desire to show the world how tolerant and accepting one is. It is also the result of a deeply Puritanical view of sex, which refuses to see human sexuality on terms of a physiological process. If anybody found the idea of eating or sleeping (also physiological processes) "absolutely repulsive", we wouldn't be as likely to dismiss this problem with a lot of well-meaning but ultimately empty words. Nobody would (at least for now, I think) suggest to form an identity group around this problem.

Another problem that the response to this post brings to light, is the deep-seated fear that many Americans feel towards psychology as a field of knowledge. While several people suggested that the author of the post look for hormonal causes of her asexuality, nobody mentioned that it might be helpful for her to search for psychological causes.

a) "Political correctness"=pretty much automatic fail already. Sure enough:

b) "I'm all for 'tolerance,' but when it comes to something I'm too lazy to learn about and/or still want to make fun of/wax superior over, that's going -too far.-"

c) "For instance, the very idea that people might want to have meaningful relationships without sex, and that that might be about -their happiness- and have -nothing to do with me-, rather than about forcing poor put upon me to be "tolerant" of yet another "identity group."

d) "Blah blah blah one size fits all boilerplate which certainly has something to it but still doesn't have anything to do with this person whom I don't know -here- lecturecakes blah."

e) Glad you mentioned psychology. I happen to be training in psychology. And the first thing you learn in -my- school, at least, is you meet people where they're at. I.e., you don't try to "fix" them according to -your- standards of what would make -you- happy before even learning the first thing about -that other person who isn't you.- Those would be the second and third things as well, actually.

f) Also, armchair diagnosis over the Internets, while a fun party trick (I've done it myself): really not for the sake of the actual person being "helped," you know, so much as for the gratification of the person making the diagnosis and/or third party observers. Pretty much that would be always.

So, okay, so a bunch of people argue with her, many self-ID'd asexuals. And I was -going- to go over and throw in my tuppeny, but quickly realize I actually couldn't say the whole "you are not the center of the universe! no, really! p.s. this ain't feminism (or sex positive either, for that matter)" any more clearly than a number of other commenters already.

And then, to confirm my suspicion that anything I had to say over there would be both redundant and unheard, at the very bottom:

Clarissa said...
For those who feel the need to participate without reading what was said previously, I repeat: this discussion is closed.

I'm always ready to discuss anything with calm, reasonable, and polite people (such as pretzelboy, Allison, and more recently Erbs).

Those, however, who come to repeat things that have been discussed 100 times, or those who are so enraged with the fact that somebody somewhere dared to have an opinion do not interest me as interlocutors. Coming here to scream "batshit," "SILLY" and "LEARN" in capital letters is not, in my opinion, an acceptable way to engage in a discussion. I don't even want to imagine what would make people want to seek out blogs of those with differing opinions and to engage in such public fits of hysteria. Curiously, these are always the same people who scream "tolerance above all".

If there are still people who fail to understand that for me this is not about the asexual community, I can't help you.

Once again: the discussion is closed until the participants start behaving in a way I find more acceptable.

Oh, cupcake.

Putting everything else aside (woo, tone argument for the epic fail! "Cut his mike!" "I can spout ignorant offensive bullshit as though from the Papal office and then ignore any counterarguments that don't suit me if I want! IT'S JUST MY OPINION!" is that a universal BINGO card I see before me?):

Friend, if -you- can't understand how calling a post "asexuality" and then proclaiming, quite truthfully apparently, that "for me this is not about the asexual community" might just be a wee tiny bit fucked up...well, I can't help you either.

And aren't you glad you -asked- for my -help- and thinky thoughts?

--Especially wrt this, now I notice:

As to you parallel with homosexuality, I still fail to see how it applies. As I said, sexuality is a physiological process, like sleeping or eating. depriving yourself of sleep will be detrimental to your health. This is my firm belief and I have a right to it. Since gay and lesbian people do not deprive themselves of sex, there is no reason to believe that they might suffer detrimental effects of sexual deprivation.I find that trying to bring homosexuality into the discussion of sexless lives is nothing but a tactic aimed at diverting the conversation from the actual topic.

Oh where to begin.

Yes, sex is important to -most- people, and being "deprived" (i.e. "unable to obtain something you want and need, not something other people think you want and need) can seriously fuck up your emotional health and eat away the rest of your life. Been there, done that, got the scratchy hairshirt. Yes, I believe that sex-negative culture has had a lot of deleterious effects, individually and structurally. Yes, I even think Wilhelm Reich was onto something (at least some somethings).

And yet: no, actually, the individual -doesn't- need sex like sleeping or especially eating: if you don't eat, you're gonna die. As in, literally and physically, in a relatively short amount of time. This is not how sex works. That's not a "belief;" that's a fact. Unless you are some other species that I am not aware of.

And, I for one also really do not appreciate the implications of "deprive -themselves-" from what sure looks like a blandly oblivious heteronormative perspective; there's a lot to say about the ways in which internalized as well as externalized homophobia can cause "deprivation" and "detrimental effects"--see above re: unable to obtain something you want and need--but I for one sure wouldn't have found that sort of smug tone implying there was yet something -else- wrong with me remotely helpful, ever. One gets quite enough of that all around.

ETA: and yeah, as someone else noted, the whole "sex is a natural biological process" business is a wee tad 'normative itself. and annoying.

veyz. yeah, I can't actually get into all of the ways this irks right now. more later. maybe.

ETA: it crystallized a bit more:

Re the parallel with the queer umbrella sexualities and why it's a relevant parallel: most of us have direct experience with having been pathologized and disprespected for our sexuality (yes, "sexuality" includes "lack thereof," in fact) even when said sexuality is in fact none of anyone else's business, isn't harming anyone else, and in fact the people who say or imply they're lecturing us/attempting a "cure" "for our own good" clearly do -not- have our best interests in mind, but rather their own agenda.

Anyway, really, the definitive comment was made on an earlier (and equally headdesky) post at feministing some time back:

UnHingedHips said:

Dear Woman Doing Something: I am a feminist and want women to be able to make their own choices. However, YOU are too (young/old/poor/x/y/z)and I think your choice to (have babies/not have babies/sail around the world/a/b/c) while being so (young/old/poor/x/y/z) is reprehensible and you should be loudly condemned for daring to do something like *that*, even though it has no impact on my life.

I hope you see the error of your ways.

~Another Woman

ETA again: Just for the record's sake, here's one of those other commenters from over there.

Shain Neumeier said...
To both Clarissa and Anonymous 5:40 a.m.,

I think the main problem I have with all of this is that people who are not me are trying to tell me what I and people like me should be and disguising it as what we "are" and are refusing to accept, or what we should want by saying it's what any functional person would really like. It's unfair, and frankly condescending, to say about people that the puritanical patriarchy has brainwashed them into not wanting sex (I find this a bit antithetical to feminism anyways - isn't it the belief that women ARE smart and capable enough to make their own decisions about their bodies?), or that they're immature and will grow out of it. If someone happens to eventually want or at least like sex, or if the benefits of having it outweigh the costs for them at some point for whatever reason, then great. But at the point that someone is coming out as asexual, I can think of no way in which it helps anybody, you or them, to invalidate the conclusion they've come to about themselves.

As far as the argument that sex is good and even necessary for one - If I may, I'll accept, but revise, the food comparison. I would say that asexuality is a little like having an aversion to a food that most people like and/or that's very good for people. Would life be better for someone who couldn't stand the smell of bananas or the texture of salad if they could eat these foods without throwing up? Maybe. But if, as things are, they get sick if they try to eat these foods, the health benefits might not be worth the costs of trying to learn to like them. So let them use their multivitamins or whatever other compensatory measures to make up for any lost nutrients, or choose to do nothing at all. It's no one's business to tell them what they need or should want in case like this.

Likewise, maybe it's true that one gets headaches and irritability from not having sex. But you know what? I'd rather stock up on ibuprofen and get some hobbies that allow me to vent my anger in a productive way than let someone do things to my body that I'm uncomfortable with. I can imagine that someone will want to jump on me for that description of sex, but that's how I see it. I'm simply uncomfortable with invasive physical contact, as I am with a number of other sensory experiences, and sex falls under the category of invasive physical contact. I get emotional fulfillment from others through a lot of things, like watching movies, making up stories and having good debate, but sex just isn't conducive to trust or love in my mind. This is abnormal, but, as it does not interfere with my day-to-day or overall functioning, it's not by definition disordered. Such is the case with many asexuals, whether or not they're repulsed by sexual contact as I am. So who is anyone else to tell us that we should be otherwise?

If I'm unhappy or unhealthy because I'm not having sex, I'll see an actual psychologist or doctor about it, and work something out that makes me better without making me uncomfortable. All I want - and, I think, what most "aces" want - from people who are not being paid for medical advice is acceptance and the belief that we are capable enough to define ourselves as makes sense to us.

Okay, WTF, Senate?

Dude, Obama often disappoints me, too, including right now, but considering this (please fuck off yesterday, Reid) is what he has to work with...

90-6 voted -against- closing Guantanamo. You know, the radical Democrat Socialist-led leftie Senate, blahblah.

That is, they denied the funds for closing the joint down and moving the prisoners to maximum security U.S. prisons.

But, we always have enough for more war, natch. Keep us safe, like.

Fuck this, seriously.

Oh yeah, if there's one thing I think of when I think of Obama, it's "Shaft."

.

Sort of in the same way that Jimmy Carter reminds me of Elvis Presley.

And Kyra Phillips puts me in mind of** Xena, Warrior Princess. AIYIYIYIYIYI!!



"This is like my favorite subject matter, especially with you."

h/t matttbastard


**Actually.

.

Seriously, do we need to tack a gorram Venn diagram onto every feminist blog, or what?

little light commenting at feministe:

THIS IS THE GODDAMN PROBLEM. To you, WOC and queer people are allies to feminism. They are adjunct groups, special interests, separate causes distract from women’s issues.
Let’s unpack that a little.

Women of color, in bringing up their concerns, are allies to (regular) women, who are just doing plain old feminism. Women of color are allies to feminism. Queer people are allies to feminism. Issues of racism, gender identity, and orientation, plus the accompanying oppressions and concerns, are “interesting” side dishes to feminism, which is for women.

Women of color and queer women are women. We are women. Our issues are women’s issues. They are inextricable from our womanhood. They are part of our feminism, and part of we want feminism to pay attention to, because these things are women’s issues. Your version posits that there’s regular women, who just do feminism, and then there’s those allies who drag those regular women in the trap of paying attention and giving energy to other causes–like the concerns of the women next to them who are brown, trans, and queer.

What does that make these regular women, the core of feminism, so gracious as to allow in the interesting sidebars on race and gender and orientation and ability and class, so vulnerable to falling into the trap of paying too much attention to those issues? White. Straight. Cissexual. Able-bodied. Not working-class. Those are “just plain women” in your frame. Their issues are “WOMEN’S issues.” Other women? Women who are different? Their issues aren’t “WOMEN’S issues,” except for the ones they share in common with white, straight, upper-class, cissexual, able-bodied women. Their issues are an occasionally-interesting distraction from real women’s issues.

Thanks but no thanks for your inclusion, pal.

all i have to say at this point

is this:



Well, no, that's not totally true; I have a couple of comments down at the end of this post at RE's. If it's saying anything new to anyone who has ears to hear, well, Maud speed and Maud bless.

meanwhile, well, the Great Work continues, don't she.

"and life goes on."