Sure thing, Joan Kelly, will do.

Re this post and the preceding ones.

Yeah, enabling Howly Blog does put you beyond the pale. I'm afraid so. I mean, truthfully, personally, I never cottoned to you much anyway, so no great loss. But, seriously? You are sucking up to a couple of vile trolls who would basically be Fred Phelps with a couple of small adjustments. Glad to see you've found a "spine" of some sort, though. It does take guts to "agree to disagree" about blatant hatemongering, fuck knows.

And, for the record, the tu quoqueing you've been doing? Yeah, those women (yes, women) are *also* toxic hateful assholes. Amazingly enough, the existence of some assholes doesn't excuse vile bigotry, which is, let me repeat, exactly what you are oh so magnanimously choosing to ignore as "disagreement." Let's not even get into the "what? I'm not saying I -like- infanticide, I'm just saying it beats the alternatives."

So, yeah, posting this will no doubt feed the martyrdom complex as well as the vomit monster machine, and, yeah, I keep swearing I'm giving up the dwama, but you know, I can live with it. Because, wrt the whole "if you don't like them, just don't read them?" You're full of shit. They post flaming gauntlets like that and especially leave hatespoor trackbacks to any trans blogger post they find for a reason. They wanted a reaction. They got it. And now, so have you.

Enjoy.

"Stop being so full of ressentiment, you ugly pathological lefties of subnormal intelligence. Shouting is viceful."

I found another fuckwit, y'all. Yes! On the Internets!! Inorite? I'm too lazy for a recap, I've been busy slapfighting with her, because I am out of chocolate and booze and it seemed like the thing to do, but here, enjoy.

Actually, we already -have- "death panels."

They're called, "the curtain on the window available for you to get any kind of health care under your insurance plan, even when you have one." And, don't hold back, Progressive Nation:

In your free market wonderland every one some how manages to get health care, even those who are poor or live in isolated areas, though the poor and isolated in your own state required assis­tance from the federal government.

And despite all of this, you appear blithely unaware that the free market health care system we have now does, indeed, have “death panels.” I’ve been part of a death panel conversation. I know about death panels.

You have no idea what it’s like to be called into a sterile conference room with a hospital adminis­trator you’ve never met before and be told that your mother’s insurance policy will only pay for 30 days in ICU. You can’t imagine what it’s like to be advised that you need to “make some deci­sions,” like whether your mother should be released “HTD” which is hospital parlance for “home to die,” or if you want to pay out of pocket to keep her in the ICU another week. And when you ask how much that would cost you are given a number so impossibly large that you realize there really are no decisions to make. The decision has been made for you. “Living will” or no, it doesn’t mat­ter. The bank account and the insurance policy have trumped any legal document.

If this isn’t a “death panel” I don’t know what is.

So don’t talk to me about “death panels” you heartless, cruel, greedy sons of bitches, who are only too happy to keep the profits rolling in to the big insurance companies while you spout your mealy-mouthed bumper sticker slogans about the evils of socialism. You don’t even know what socialism is. You don’t know what government health care is. You have no fucking clue about any­thing except that you lost the last election and you’re pissed off.

And, by the way, guess where the "kill Grandma" shit originated? Surprise, surprise:

When reporters asked former Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin where she got the misinformation she posted to her Facebook page about the health care reform bill creating a "death panel" to promote euthanizing the elderly and people with disabilities, her spokesperson pointed to the section in the House Democrats' legislation that begins on page 425.

If Palin or her staff had actually read the bill, they would have realized this section simply promotes advance care planning, which in fact puts the power to make decisions about end-of-life care in the hands of individuals -- not government panels.

So where did Palin get that bad information? It appears she pulled it from a set of talking points that has been making its way around the internet in recent weeks -- talking points assembled by the Liberty Counsel, a far-right religious group that's part of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University empire based in Lynchburg, Va...

Good old Unca Jerry, fouling up the zeitgeist even from beyond the grave. Well, him among many others. But yeah, these are the oleaginous fuckers that would've been thrown out of the temple in the gorram first place; it's no surprise that they're in bed with Big Insurance, all supposedly in the equally improbably names of Free Market Freedom, Jesus Christ, and Tender Loving Care For The Most Vulnerable. Compassionate as a canker.

Mommy, make the stupid STOP now, please.

I can't even watch:

Is this a great country, or what? Even though Alabama's Jeff Sessions was blocked from a federal judgeship because of kooky statements about the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan, he could still go on to become a U.S. senator, and lead a racially tinged charge against the first Latina Supreme Court nominee. Equal opportunity, indeed!

I thought that Sessions' bullying and blundering in the first two days of the Sonia Sotomayor hearings might get the GOP to ask him to hide his light under a bushel for a bit, but there he was on Wednesday, holding a quick press conference in the hearing break to announce he continues to be "troubled" by Sotomayor's views on race, as if there was any doubt about that.

Not to be outdone by Sessions, though, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn shamed himself with an unbelievable reference to Desi Arnaz's ancient Cuban stereotype, Ricky Ricardo, husband of Lucille Ball on "I Love Lucy." During a surreal exchange on gun rights, in which the theoretical example was what might happen to Sotomayor if she (wrongly, illegally, but maybe understandably) got a gun and shot Coburn, the right-wing senator told her, "You'd have a lot of 'splainin' to do," referring to Arnaz's refrain when Lucy got in trouble with one of her crazy schemes.

It should be shocking that in 2009, a U.S. senator would be inspired to relate to an eminent jurist who happens to be Puerto Rican with half-century-old Latino stereotypes (as well as a sort of sexist comparison to wacky Lucy) but after these last few days, it isn't shocking. The way Republicans have shellacked Sotomayor over her "wise Latina" remarks shows they really, really want to be the party of aggrieved white men. No others need apply.

Seriously; it's like instead of going up on a bell tower, they just dragged out their total meltdown over the airwaves and Senate floor and so on. For, how many years has it been? And, they just keep getting worse. I mean, Michelle Bachmann still has a job. Her lips, they keep moving.

I suppose something like Autotune the News has the best response in some ways:




Just make a fucking musical. Puppets. Origami. Topiary. I mean...I realize there's some elemental physics law that you can't actually get -rid- of the stupid, just transmute it into something. But godDAM. That's a lot of stupid.

ETA: Go git 'em Maddow.

Lily speaks for me.

This one goes out to Virginia Foxx, (please write your Congresscritter and ask for censure);

Miss California aka Won't Someone Please Think Of The Tiaras Children;

and of course the poor, besieged, soggy NOMmers

(p.s. it's NOT FUNNY. NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT. NO.)

while we're at it, let's throw in the drool-n-bile-soaked crypto-fascist talk show hosts who're using the swine flu as yet another excuse to whip up foaming anti-immigrant hatred. Oink, baby.


"Please, don't stay in touch."





Pee. ess.

"For the first time in a nationwide survey, more Americans say they support gay marriage (49%) than oppose it (46%), according to the latest Washington Post/ABC poll.

That 49% supporting gay marriage, in fact, is a significant jump from 2004, when the Post/ABC poll found just 32% in favor.

Bitch PhD=fail.

Follow the links at Questioning Transphobia to see why. No, I'm not gonna bother directly linking, or going deeper into an analysis of -how- she's being such a total asspillbox*. It's the same old shit, basically, and QT covers it all. Just FYI.


*While -literal- pillboxes can have a certain retro charm, I feel obliged to point out that they do not, in fact, cover one's ass. No matter how ironically one tries to angle them.

ETA: What she said.

and particularly what little light said in the comments:

There’s so much to unpack just here:

I didn’t admit, because I know people can be quite sensitive about these things, that I know I wouldn’t be able to work it, no matter how appropriate with a pre-op T-girl. Pity, she was a pleasant enough fellow.

Here’s the assumptions on hand:

1. It’s a normal, understandable, obvious thing that a straight man wouldn’t want to sleep with a trans woman, or at least a trans woman with a penis. He just wouldn’t be able to “work it.” This is unfortunate, because

2. It’s particularly appropriate to engaging in teabagging, considered exotic and degrading in the context of this piece–the kind of act you’d use to hate-fuck someone–with a trans woman. They’re into that kind of thing, or can at least be paid to do it. Both 1. and 2. are really because

3. She, being a trans woman, is actually a “fellow.”

These are just the assumptions forming a baseline foundation for the joke, that Ann Coulter looks “exactly like” a trans woman. You need all those assumptions to unpack that this means that she looks like a perverted man in drag, which is degrading, which is part one of the joke. The other part of the joke is that while it might be acceptable to hate-fuck a Michelle Malkin or Michelle Bachmann look-alike, and therefore by proxy either of those women, someone who looks like Ann Coulter–and who therefore looks like a trans woman–and therefore looks like a man–isn’t even worthy of hate-fucking. She’s not even worth sexually degrading out of hostile feelings, even if she volunteers, which she would, because that’s how trans people are.

That’s the basis for the joke. That’s what’s underneath it. It’s premised on saying that no matter how much you might want to fantasize about taking a neoconservative woman down a peg or two with sexual degradation, Ann Coulter, being or being like a trans woman, is so polluted you wouldn’t even do that because it involves touching her.

Wow, I’m just all over giggling right now. That’s just the funniest joke I’ve ever head. Sorry, BPHD, that you can’t feel “safe” to make a joke like that “yet” because people just aren’t cool enough, and are still too oversensitive, to get your hip humor. Life is so hard.

That said: I have to concur. Bil of Bilerico, you're wrong here.

Here's why. Also see. And. And. Or just go straight to the person you were threatening to excuse me fantasizing about sic(cing) Lily Law on.

And for the record, Bil, I consider a lot of things "unacceptable;" it's why this nice respectable cis white dyke has finally taken you off the roll, much as I've valued a lot of your work. I'm sure you'll manage fine, obviously; but hey, for the record.

p.s. and I have the strangest feeling of deja vu.

ETA: No, you hopeless dumbass, "Die In A Fire" does not LITERALLY mean someone is coming after you with the jug of kerosene and a torch.

also? if you've been avoiding sidewalk cracks all this time? Moms thanks you, but really: it's okay to -step.-

The axe is totes real though. Srsly. BE AFRAID.

ETA again: okay, I know DIAF is actually not exactly cute or funny for people who've been seriously threatened with kerosene and torch, or knew people who, yep, died in a fire. I'm not snarking at people who don't like the term, and it does seem like people are actually getting triggered or -something- right and left here. I was specifically snarking at the guy who suggested that Bil note the common Internet acronym as a "2nd threat," because, you know, if that's the yardstick you're using I think yeah, you -would- be handing out a lot more bans. Like, probably half your commentariat at one point or another (if it's not that, it's something else) Which is your prerogative, ban away (RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH!), but ffs any random person who invokes that isn't making a -threat-, all right? For a start, besides being common, it's not a threat, strictly speaking, that, it's a curse.

I mean, there's a lot of shit that gets casually uttered on the Internets (and elsewhere) that's actually not necessarily dandy just because everyone says it.

Beyond that, I'm not following this crap anymore because it's making me want to double-spork and I'm running low on eyeballs here. Regardless of how "real" -any- of the growly motions and handwaves are--and yeah, it does at least seem more -realistic- to suspect that someone offering to report someone's info to the police means business than someone talking about "heads on pikes," all right? --yeah, bottom line, Bil's been clueless, so's the HRC (and way beyond clueless) and it really blows that the very -real- and imo justified anger at the White Normative GAY andlesbian (and sort of bi)
... .... ... ... ... ...((((((((((((((((((((((((((((and okay trans when we need 'em for a symbol but meanwhile we'll collectively keep throwing real trans people under the bus every chance we get))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

...face of the "Umbrella" movement gets dismissed, again, because OH NOEZ MEEN SCARY DWAMA DWAMA DWAMA.

Oh, how much have I not missed this

Catching up a bit with my usual blogs, I must've missed this beaut captured by Renegade the first time around:

I think that anal sex is also a good way of saying, "I hate myself." I work in the microbiology department of a medical lab, but you don't need to be a microbiologist to know that the rectum is a filthy place. Here's my favorite statistic: 60% of the mass of a turd is bacteria.

Why would a man put his penis, which is supposedly his crowning glory, into a shithole? Seriously. Oh, don't try criticizing anal sex for any reason on a liberal site, all the faggots will cry, "Homophobe!" and they'll eat you alive. I don't care. It's disgusting and filthy, not to mention not good for the tissues back there. There's a media doctor here in the states who's always on about rectal prolapse and anal sex.


I believe that men wouldn't put their dicks in such a disgusting place if they didn't feel that they were disgusting themselves. They probably just extrapolate from that that if someone consents to anal sex, they are just as disgusting, too, and therefore, deserve any bad treatment they wish to dish out. And women consent to stuff like that because they have low self-esteem which was caused by men in the first place because they felt bad about themselves. - bonobobabe

Fail. Just...so much fail I can't fail even fail say anything fail but fail. FAIL.

and yes, that's real, and no, that isn't a fundamentalist religious zealot, that is, you guessed it, a putative radical feminist.

nice moniker there, too, not too ironic.

uh, I said -content-, didn't I? yeah. soon, really. Just...yeah.




fail.

ETA Regardez! Encore une faile de plus! via Trinity:

on January 31, 2009 at 11:00 pm bonobobabe
I fucking hate the concept of consent. The human mind is a pretty fragile thing, and you can get people to “consent” to most anything. It’s fucking meaningless.

That Glenn Marcus is a sick motherfucker. BDSM is abuse, pure and simple. If a person gets off on giving or getting abused, that person has something wrong with them mentally. Seriously. They need therapy.

It used to be a couple decades ago, people were willing to see themselves as fucked up. Everyone was in therapy. Now everyone thinks they are just fine and dandy as they are. “I eat shit. I’m awesome! I dress up in a teddy bear costume. I’m special! I like watching women in high heels step on mice and kill them. I’m a living miracle!”

Fuck the lot of them.

on January 31, 2009 at 11:54 pm delphyne

I feel the same way about consent bonobobabe. Consent to me seems like a concept invented by rapists - getting people to agree to be abused or raped and then blamed for what the rapist/abuser did to them.

Either you want something or you don’t. Consent is just another way of saying someone acquiesed to somebody else’s ideas and desires.

Thanks for the suggestion of therapy, though, fr srs. I'll have to keep that in mind, as I enter my ninth year of personal and/or group therapy and my second semester of training to oh noez become a therapist myself. And when I finally do hang out my shingle, as I join this organization, I'll keep y'all in my heart, for truly.

Meanwhile, among other things, I've now relinquished the last bit of guilt I was holding wrt (no doubt accurate in some cases) accusations of ableism for doing this very thing, i.e. consigning people to the wastebasket of fuckeduppitude because of things I didn't understand and/or my own personal shit. At least as such accusations have been raised by delphyne, in particular. Yeah, tu quoque doesn't make it right, but hey, it's not like we're actually engaging, here; I take the critiques on board, and as for the rest, this shit, for a shining example: yer still an asshole. (Yes, I can say that. It's my lunch hour).

Beyond that, there's just a shitload of arguments I could be taking up with this--oh, where to begin really--probably with that whole "consent was invented by rapists (!!) business, but there's just so *much* to choose from (Glenn Marcus=teddy bear fetishism=buttsecks! the real problem with nowadays is -too much self-esteem-, especially sexually!)

--but I'm tired and I'm busy and other people are already on it and I kind of can't be arsed right now and I've been to this rodeo a dozen times by now and it never changes and it's not like the people who most need to hear it ever will in the next kalpa anyway.

So, here is another FAIL icon instead.

And then, just in case you'd forgotten for -one second- why the outgoing administration sucks beyond black hole levels of sucking:

Look at this fresh pile of steaming shit:

The Bush administration today issued a sweeping new regulation that protects a broad range of health-care workers -- from doctors to janitors -- who refuse to participate in providing services that they believe violate their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The controversial rule empowers federal health officials to cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, clinic, health plan, doctor's office or other entity if it does not accommodate employees who exercise their "right of conscience." It would apply to more than 584,000 health-care facilities.

"Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said in a statement.

The regulation, which was issued just in time to take effect in the 30 days before the change of administrations, was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others as necessary to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.

Women's health advocates, family planning proponents, abortion rights activists, members of Congress and others condemned the regulation, saying it would create major obstacles to a variety of health services, including abortion, family planning, end-of-life care and possibly a wide range of scientific research.

Among other things. Hey, this has got to be wonderful news wrt standards of care for trans folk, amirite?

I'm just curious: say my personal, moral beliefs insist that "thou shalt not suffer someone who has cut me off in traffic to live..." no, you know, I can't even do this right now. Not funny. Not amused. Too mad and disgusted.

Oh, look, and that's a shocker, too, isn't it:

The 127-page rule is the latest in a flurry of federal regulations that the administration is implementing before President Bush's term ends, including a number that would weaken government protections for consumers and the environment.

Shoes are too good for you, you POS.

Although the Obama administration could reverse the rule, it would require a lengthy process. Last month, however, Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) introduced a bill to repeal the regulation legislatively.

...The rule will go into effect in 30 days and gives entities until Oct. 1, 2009, to provide written certification of their compliance. Those that do not comply face having their funding cut off or being required to return funding they already received.

Whee.

ETA: Feministe has more.

In one more blow to women’s health and rights, the Bush Administration has issued a sweeping new regulation giving just about anyone the right to refuse to offer basic women’s health services. It’s being framed as about abortion, but here’s the thing: There are existing laws that protect health care workers from performing or assisting with abortion. Under current U.S. law, no one can be forced to partake in an abortion procedure if they have a moral objection.

This is about birth control.

...

-Groan- FFS, Obama...

Yeah, I get that it's a symbolic sop, but as gestures go it's pretty fucking shitty. Did you really have to pick this guy?

The congressional committee putting together the inauguration earlier this afternoon announced that the program for President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural would include an invocation by Rick Warren, the celebrity preacher at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif.

People for the American Way, one of the best known liberal advocacy groups in the nation's capital, is letting it be known it's not happy with this choice.

An excerpt of a PFAW statement attributed to Kathryn Kolbert, the group's president:

It is a grave disappointment to learn that pastor Rick Warren will give the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama.

Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right's big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion...

I tend to agree with these commenters, off the top:

Yeah I get it. But at the same time there are other evangelicals that are less harsh than this guy.
For those of us who already feel kicked in the head by prop 8 and those, like Rick Warren and his ilk who believe in legal discrimination, it really hurts to see this guy share the stage with our new President.
Posted by: todd | December 17, 2008 6:16 PM

and

Why in the name of, well ... God, would Obama choose someone whose outspoken beliefs are substantively no different from the James Dobson's of the world? There's a thriving progressive religious community in every faith, and many believe the religious left is ascendant...

...Including the evangelical Christian left. I mean, yeah, why not Mel White? Or if that's too outre, what about Jim Wallis?

ETA: So apparently he didn't make the pick, it was the inaugural commission.

ETA again: or, not. well, unsurprisingly,

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday defended his choice of a popular evangelical minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, rejecting criticism that it slights gays. The selection of Pastor Rick Warren brought objections from gay rights advocates, who strongly supported Obama during the election campaign. The advocates are angry over Warren's backing of a California ballot initiative banning gay marriage. That measure was approved by voters last month.

But Obama told reporters in Chicago that America needs to "come together," even when there's disagreement on social issues.

"That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said.

Obama also said he's known to be a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays and lesbians, and will remain so.

Yes, well. Time will tell, won't it. I'm not personally gonna write him off totally over a symbolic gesture that's essentially a quid pro quo* but, you know, money talks, bullshit etc. And yes, need it be said, I'm turned off. Again. Still. Somewhere in between. Whatever.

Clinton was and is no doubt in his heart as fierce an advocate (i.e. he's yer basic social liberal, really believes social discrimination including Teh Gay) as any number of other bleeding hearts; but when push came to shove he fucked us over as well. (Signed DOMA, "Don't Ask Don't Tell"). Could it have been worse? Has it been? Might it be again/still? Sure; and that plus yep there are other issues is why I voted for him i.e. the mainstream Democrat who seems at least halfway competent, and barring extraordinary circumstances (which I reserve the right to redefine at any point) probably would/will do again, despite it all. Shit's too important.

(And yes, that goes for reproductive rights as well; Warren's pro-life, Obama's put his money where his mouth is when it came to policy in the past, which I put before his noises about "safe legal and rare" and lack of insistence on when life begins and so forth. But again: he'll have his chance to prove NARAL's 100% rating on a national level soon enough, policy wise).

But ultimately, you know, he's only gonna stretch as far as he thinks he can reasonably do without fucking over his own career. And yes, before anyone squawks, that went for Hillary too; and it goes for just about every mainstream Democrat with the exception of Frank, who's got his own full baggage of bullshit. Guess why.

So now what? Do we all go, right that's it, I won't be satisfied until we get a queer person in the WH and/or 30% in government, no matter how giant a chode they might be otherwise? Find a suitable mascot/acronym for the disaffected, maybe? Emus are nice, there must be a good acronym that goes with "EMU". No, wait! I have it! GOOSE! Gays Outraged Over Straight Enablers. Catchy, innit? Oh yeah, feel the power, baby. ROAR, I mean HONK.

(Actually, that's more or less what MILK is about, but y'know, for reals. Then again, nowadays, well, in many ways things are different; in others...not s'much, but hrrm. Much as I was going "hell yeah!" for historical Milk, I am thinking that a party of Barney Franks, Andrew Sullivans and Bruce Bawers, with inclusiveness even unto the Log Cabiners and rabidly transphobic "lesbian feminists" and the everyone else who enable them, is not what I had in mind either. Not that it matters since, oh wait! Teh Gay doesn't even have enough clout to make that a possibility in the first place!...

And of course loving the drearily predictable squawking from PUMA-land about neener neener, serves us right, should've gone with Hillary or ffs PALIN, because of course they're both -sooo- much better, not exactly the fucking same or much worse when it comes to Teh Gay, respectively. I mean! They're -women-! So what if they're straight! They MUST be more sympathetic to Teh Gay than a (straight) black male! And it's not like you can ever expect a representational Presidential candidate of your very own, or at least any time in the next zillion years even though that's exactly what we're bitching about ourselves being shafted over in the first place. Where's your loyalty? Where's...)

zzzzZZZZzzzzzzz

But, yeah, ritual snipe at Those Who Continue To Fail On An Epic Scale aside, there was a reason I sent money to the anti-Prop 8 campaign and none to the Democrats or the Obama campaign this year.

*Going through the google hits, btw, this does shed a bit of light, although I really think courting World Nads Daily types is a fool's errand, you know...

Rick Warren, the best selling author of "The Purpose Driven Life" and senior teaching pastor at Saddleback Church in California, has invited Sen. Barack Obama to speak to the congregation of the faithful on Dec. 1, 2006. In doing so, he has joined himself with one of the smoothest politicians of our times, and also one whose wickedness in worldview contradicts nearly every tenet of the Christian faith that Warren professes.

So the question is "why?"

Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit – a sacred place of honor in evangelical tradition – to the inhumane, sick and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?

According to press reports, it is because of a mutual respect that each feels towards the other over the HIV/AIDS pandemic on the African continent. That rationale, however, is not only dishonest, but is not even logical given the two distinct positions that the men come to on the matter. Because of this supposed shared concern, Warren is ready to turn over the spiritual mantle to a man who represents the views of Satan at worst or progressive anti-God liberals at best in most of his public positions on the greatest moral tests of our time.

Warren's stand on the matter in this instance is what is in doubt – not Obama's!

Barack Obama has a long history of defying the intended morality of Scripture. As a state legislator, he actively worked to preserve availability of abortion in all nine months of pregnancy. He opposed parental notification. He opposed any and all bans on partial-birth abortion (an act that includes delivery of the baby up to the head, the crushing of the baby's brain, the suctioning of the brain matter, and then completed delivery of the child's deflated cranium). In his run for the U.S. Senate, Obama even asked his wife to pen a letter to Illinois voters that reassured them of his commitment to fighting for the right to butcher children in the womb.

Barack Obama has long supported the advance of the radical homosexual activist lobby in its pursuit to destroy traditional marriage. He supported the creation of "special rights" for people who engage in homosexuality for the sole purpose of putting them at the front of the line on issues of employment, housing and litigation. He has also solidly backed the advancement of all "hate crimes" legislation, which ultimately may be used to silence clergy who believe according to their own convictions that homosexual behavior is wrong and preach so from biblical texts. Obama has a perfect voting record against the defense of marriage.

-ironic cough-

What's that one ancient wheeze my grandmother used to tell? Marriage broker in Chelm goes to a poor family and says, Listen, I have the perfect girl for your son. She's beautiful, she's intelligent, she's rich, she's cultured and talented, speaks several languages, wonderful personality, everyone who knows her loves her.

So the family is all excited. Who? Who??

The shadchen says, Marie of Romania.

Outrage. Horror. Marie of Romania?! A shiksa! Unthinkable.

No, no, says the broker, just hear me out, hear me out. So it's one tiny flaw. Look at all her other amazing qualities! Besides, I have it on good authority that she's willing to convert.

Doubt. But, isn't she already married? Handwave. Listen, you know how these things are. He's not so healthy. She's not happy. I can't tell you everything I know, but...It shouldn't be a problem.

Hours later, the broker's convinced the family that, alright, Marie of Romania is O.K. by them, they suppose, if that's really the best he can do.

Broker goes outside, takes a deep breath, wipes his forehead. Okay, he says out loud to himself, that's -half- the battle...


This creaky old yarn has been brought to you by Traditional Family Values (tm). I mean, -thank G-d- that the institution of marriage hasn't changed at all over the years and cultures, eh?

ETA again, again: This. The OP, that is, all of it; and also too this, from the comments:

Sigh. If only we’d gone with the spouse of the man who signed DOMA into law. She’s chummy with Billy Graham, who could probably have been wheeled to her inauguration.

Innit though. Yeah, six of one.

Uh, yes, hello, that would be gross sexism right there.

Jon Favreau, luddites and germs.

Yes, sorry, I don't care how talented he is: this is nasty shit, and fucking -stupid- also; and a good case for sexual harassment. It's up to HRC if she wants to include this in the hatchet-burying, of course, but personally, I don't think keeping this jerk as director of speechwriting for the White House is a really terrific idea, Dear Obama. As in, I think firing his ass would be a better one, myself.

I mean, I think there are probably other good speechwriters out there, you know?

ETA: evil fizz points out:

Actually, from the WaPo piece, it sounds like he’s actually in the process of applying for other jobs, specifically with the Secretary’s of State office. A stellar way to make a first impression on your future boss if there ever was one.

And I can say with considerable certainty (although with no small amount of bitterness) that one photo like that is never going to constitute actionable sexual harassment. Not saying it’s not harassing, just that it’s short of the legal definition.

It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to apply to work for the very woman you’ve been groping-by-proxy, I gotta say. If she really she wants to take him on for whatever reason it’s her own lookout I guess; but at minimum I don’t think he should be Obama’s director of speechwriting, for o just a whole -bunch- of reasons.

ETA, again: I had to go and look.

jenniforhillary 12.06.08 at 10:06 pm
Some of you get my take, and some don’t. I am saying–and it is my
opinion and just that–that I DON”T WANT TO TALK ABOUT HILLARY ANY
MORE. This may or may not be ‘throwing her under the bus’ (in my
opinion, it is not) BUT WHAT IT IS IS REFORMING THE QUESTION AND THE
ATTACK!!

INSTEAD OF ASKING HILLARY WHAT SHE IS GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS BULLSHIT,
LET’S ASK THE FUCKING MEN. LET’S ASK ACLU, NAACP, NOW, and NARAL.
LEAVE HILLARY ALONE is not exactly a condemnation people, but rather a
plea.

What if, like Dances suggests, we have stop having sex with men AND we
stop discussing Hillary Clinton. Let’s deal with issues, and assholes,
and forget about her for a while. And I agree with Trish, what men do
or don’t do is has fucking little to do with Hillary–so leave her outa
it.

I like Sandi’s idea a lot. Let’s make an image of His Lowness and have
some women (how about Oppie and Brazilla) molesting his lower
half….and send it on….let’s fight the boys with bullets they
understand… ...

jenniforhillary 12.05.08 at 11:35 pm
And, for the record, if I don’t hear the word RACIST for 100 years, I
will be happy.

THAT BEING SAID, I accept and apologize that I said something that was
perceived as racist, because that was NOT my intention.

THAT BEING SAID, I think that VAGINA trumps COLOR and always has AND
MUST if women are ever to stop being treated like shit.

THAT BEING SAID, I like mean women a lot, unless they are being mean
to me…..(thought a lil’ humor might be a good thing)

...I can't stop reading that thread; it's a magnificent clusterfuck of fail.

OP: blah blah something or other the usual womanhood is a universal experience if you've got a vagina, BUT WE NEED TO STOP TALKING ABOUT OUR BITS, here is a lovely illustration from "The Yellow Wallpaper" to demo just how universal my call to all wimminz everywherez is. Can't we all just get along?? (except for Obots, obviously)

Commenter: That's lovely, even though I don't really understand what you're trying to say. But it's lovely anyway.

Other commenters: rhubarb rhubarb agreed rhubarb rhubarb, something vaguely approaching what looks like feminist and/or the existence of teh gay CR 101

A commenter: I think I don't like this bit of what I thought you were trying to say, so I'm going to assume you really weren't. You really meant the bit about we should put aside our difference and get along. Right?

Murphy: Wrong. I MEANT, STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR BITS fulminate fume rant

A commenter:...'k then.

Others: ...So! How 'bout that weather or cupcakes or something, then! (We love you, Murphy!)

Murphy: and while we're at it, SCREW THE LESBIANS!! you self-absorbed LESBIANS with your clitoris gazing and so on! what've YOU ever done for anyone, HANH??

A lesbian commenter: Among other things, set up your entire website and do all the work around here. p.s. fuck you too then.

Murphy: Don't LEAVE, lesbian commenter, you've done all the work around here!! Whatever will I do without you? please o please o please don't go

ALC: O.K.

****

It's like an enigma inside a trainwreck, wrapped in bacon. Or something.

ETA, encore une fois: Best. exchange. EVAR.

sandipuma 12.06.08 at 2:25 am
That picture with Hillary is disgusting and i am sure she could have
pushed them away.Anyone of her stature would never have to except that
without doing something about it.

DancesWithPumas 12.06.08 at 3:21 am
sandipuma 12.06.08 at 2:25 am
That picture with Hillary is disgusting and i am sure she could have
pushed them away.
———————-
That picture of Senator Hilalry Rodham Clinton is a cardboard cutout.

sandipuma 12.06.08 at 3:32 am
Dances i noticed that afterward and i still think it’s disgusting and
degrading to all women and their families. After i read then looked
back at the picture, anyway thats Obamas close freinds for ya. I will
never have a good word to say about Obama and if it be for the next 4
years i will never look at him on TV.I will never listen to his voice
and i do not believe Hillary found this humorous.

No, really, some of -my- best friends...

In which, to begin with, we learn that PUMA solidarity extends even unto poor martyred little Anita Bryant.

At least a few of the commenters get it, but really, Tennessee Tea Party Guerilla Women....

In light of this week's historic decision finding that the 30 year old bigoted Florida law -- barring gays and lesbians from adopting children -- is unconstitutional (duh), it seems like a good time to recall the Florida Sunshine Girl.

Anita Bryant's legendary homophobic campaign ruined her career and inspired gay rights activists across the nation to work that much harder for justice. Unfortunately, Anita Bryant was just a clueless pawn, a young and naive woman who was conned by the Church Fathers to use her celebrity status for their bigoted cause.

The Florida Sunshine Girl lost her popularity, her career, and her marriage. The Church Fathers lost nothing.

As palinpumawatch acidly notes,

Anita Bryant was born in 1940 and started her anti-homosexuality crusade in 1977. I find it hard to buy a 37-year-old woman as a vulnerable girl-child — particularly when said woman was not plucked from obscurity but already had some experience with fame.

On the bright side, she now seems to have her very own ministry, does Bryant. You GO, sisterrrr!! Throw off those shackles of your oppressive Church Fathers! You SEIZE those tools in your very own paws! Grrrr!! Pounce!...

"I can do all things through Him who strengthens me"

Oh lookie here, she has lots of pics of her glory days, past and present, as befits a comeback star. Press clippings, recent ones, too. Here's one by another woman--you see? conservative feminism at its finest! one woman supporting another! One Janet Folger, to be precise, says:

Last weekend I met a true hero. A woman I have long admired for a stand that cost her everything. In fact, I dedicated my book, "The Criminalization of Christianity," to her. The inscription reads:

"To all those with courage to speak the truth in the face of ridicule, blame, assault, censorship, and the threat of being criminalized: Including Anita Bryant …"

At a meeting of national leaders in New Orleans this weekend, Anita Bryant received an award and a standing ovation that lasted nearly 10 minutes. I clapped until my hands hurt.

A friend of mine who heard about the highlight of my weekend asked, "Who is Anita Bryant?" He said he had only heard me talk about Phyllis Schlafly with "such superlatives."

This beauty queen and orange juice spokeswoman was known for saying "a day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine." She had her own television show at the age of 12. She had a successful singing career and entertained the troops with Bob Hope. And when a candidate she had endorsed took a stand for the homosexual agenda in the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Anita Bryant took a stand against it.

Enter the real "hate speech": pies in the face, kidnapping threats, death threats, threats to her children, acts of violence to her home. Like a scene out of Sodom, homosexual activists surrounded her home screaming at the top of their lungs. Her mother was afraid to open the front door. She lost her marriage. She lost her jobs and any means of supporting herself and her four children. She was a sacrificial lamb to wake a sleeping nation. She stood alone. And yet she stood..

It goes on. Oh, it does go on. Hate crime laws for the sodomites and other, even worse travesties of justice followed in the wake of her defeat: terrible, terrible, poor martyred hero-lamb Bryant tried to stop them, but to no avail. And so forth.

Brings a god-dam tear to your eye, I tell you what.

But so yes, here's poor naif Anita Bryant at the peak of her gay-baiting career:

In 1977, Dade County, Florida (now Miami-Dade County) passed an ordinance sponsored by Bryant's former good friend Ruth Shack, that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Anita Bryant led a highly publicized campaign to repeal the ordinance as the leader of a coalition named Save Our Children. The campaign was waged based on what was labeled "Christian beliefs regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality and the perceived threat of homosexual recruitment of children and child molestation."

Her view was that "What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable alternate way of life. [...] I will lead such a crusade to stop it as this country has not seen before." The campaign was called 'Save Our Children', the start of an organized opposition to gay rights that spread across the nation. Jerry Falwell went to Miami to help her.

Bryant made the following statements during the campaign:

"As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children"

and

"If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters."

On June 7, 1977, Bryant's campaign led to a repeal of the anti-discrimination ordinance by a margin of 69 to 31 percent...

More details.

You know, all of this feels -awfully- familiar, but I can't think why.

...It's a familiar pattern: the Christian right often has its greatest triumphs just after it's been pronounced moribund. In 1999, just as the Christian right was about to achieve unprecedented power in the Bush administration, The Economist wrote, "The armies of righteousness, which once threatened to overwhelm the Republican Party, are downcast and despondent."

One could have written the same thing last month. Now, as then, the movement has been resurrected. At the recent Values Voter Summit, a religious-right gathering in Washington, DC, sponsored by the Family Research Council, attendees were ebullient. "The surge of energy is unbelievable," said Emily Buchanan, executive director of the Susan B. Anthony List, a PAC that supports antiabortion candidates and aims to mobilize antiabortion women. "Sarah Palin is going to be our poster woman," she said. "She represents exactly what we've been trying to do since we were founded in 1992."

And you fell for it, PUMAs. Hook, line, and sinker. And, apparently, are still falling for it, and prepared to fall for it again in the next election cycle(s). I can't wait to hear still more about the exciting confluences and new agendas and whatever the fuck else "feminism" it is where powerful rightwing women get to be Queen For A Day (one way or another), along with, vicariously I guess, their adoring fangirls; and this takes priority over...well, everyone and everything else, apparently, including civil rights for the rest of us plebes.

Anyway,

barring gays and lesbians from adopting children -- is unconstitutional (duh)

Yes indeed. NOW it is. Finally. Says Florida. Thirty-one years later. Good thing someone in Florida finally got the memo, because seems like with our current SCOTUS, it wasn't gonna happen on the federal level:

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the Florida law.

Also, too, lest we forget,

Some states, like Mississippi and Utah, effectively bar adoptions by same-sex couples through laws that prohibit adoption by unmarried couples. Arkansas voters passed a similar measure this month.

Along with, -snaps fingers,- o, what was that other measure that just passed...

With the passage of Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, the California constitution now defines marriage as “between a man and a woman,” excluding and thereby banning same-sex marriages. The proposition’s victory of 52 percent sparked protests statewide as well as nationwide. Now it seems that protesters have moved off the streets and into the courthouses.

On Nov. 19, the California Supreme Court agreed to listen to lawsuits charging that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Six of the seven justices agreed to hear the cases and required the parties involved to answer several questions pertaining to the proposition.

Whether Proposition 8 qualifies as a revision or an amendment to the California constitution, whether it violates the constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine by confining judges’ authority to protect gay couples, and if constitutional, whether it may nullify the some 18,000 gay marriages that occurred in California between June 16 and Nov. 4, are all questions facing the court.

It is a legal clusterfuck, I'll just sum up the rest of the piece helpfully, and the bottom line is: sooner or later, it's gonna have to go to SCOTUS. Now perhaps sooner rather than later. And while you, O gentle PUMAs, may think it's a "duh" that these laws have been unconstitutional, at -least- four of the sitting judges--the haler and healthier ones by far, on the whole--may not agree with you. And whatever they say, goes. You do understand this, right? I mean, you did? And that there was always more at stake than Roe alone? And that there are probably going to be at least three, maybe four, openings in the Court these next few years? Just checking.

A little background on the federal Defense Of Marriage Act, btw:

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996...The law has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs...

...Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages or not, which is unsurprising as only Iowa[8], California, and Massachusetts have issued licenses for same-sex marriages...

As I said: legal clusterfuck. Bob Barr authored DOMA and has since apologized (!); Bill Clinton signed it, was adamant that he's for marriage as "between a man and a woman" (like who isn't, she said wearily). Very few people are happy with this state of affairs; the only exceptions are probably the people making filthy lucre and building their careers off the complex ongoing state-by-state battles. Some people--including, surprise! Obama--are for the repeal of DOMA altogether.

And then there are those--Sarah Palin, for one example--who are in support of this solution: a Federal Marriage Amendment.

The legal consensus is that the 2003 version of the FMA would have barred all governments from recognizing same-sex marriage from, civil union or domestic partnership status. It also might have prohibited the granting of any of the civil rights and responsibilities of marriages to any unmarried couple, including responsibilities regarding joint parenting, adoption, custody and child visitation rights, joint insurance policies, veteran's benefits, and domestic violence relief such as restraining and protection orders.
...

2004 and later versions

The first sentence of the 2004 FMA, and the effectively identical 2005/2006 and 2008 versions, would prevent any state from allowing same-sex marriage, even if the voters of that state amended the state's constitution to require recognition of same-sex marriages. Ratification of the amendment would have caused the dissolution of existing same-sex marriages recognized in Massachusetts.

As you can see by following the timeline, each run-through makes passage look increasingly remote; and this round, of course, between Obama and the heavily Democratic Congress, it seems unlikely anyone will even bother to try, unless as yet another rally-the-troops-for-the-sake-of-it gesture. Still, it really ain't over till it's over, and right now it's far from over.

Oh--also too by the way? That first, 2003 version of the FMA was penned by one Marilyn Musgrave. Thankfully, her defeat this year went to another woman, Betsy Markey, so the 30% solution is still as safe as it was -there-. Phew, right? I mean, what a loss it would've been otherwise, this fine woman who was--milestone! the first Republican woman elected to Congress from Colorado. She was also

an original cosponsor of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. She has received the support of the Susan B. Anthony List, an pro-life PAC.[18]

Musgrave also opposes embryonic stem cell research on abortion-related grounds,[19] and was a vocal proponent of the 2005 congressional intervention into the Terri Schiavo case...

...Musgrave has also weighed in on the Emergency Contraception controversy. On July 25, 2005, Musgrave criticized a witness at a congressional subcommittee hearing who had claimed she was "humiliated and discriminated against" at a pharmacist's refusal to fill prescription of emergency contraception, claiming that it was only an issue of "inconvenience" to be denied emergency contraception.[21]

In 2003, a Musgrave submitted an amendment to the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act, which would have prevented distribution of contraception to runaway teens. It was defeated. [22][23]

...In June 2005, Musgrave cited Coral Ridge Ministries founder D. James Kennedy, one of the leaders of the Dominionist movement, as one of her inspirations to enter politics:[11]

...Other political groups that Musgrave is allied with include Focus on the Family, Alliance for Marriage, the Family Research Council, the National Taxpayers Union, the Christian Coalition, and the Traditional Values Coalition.

And yet, look at this heartwarming picture of conservative feminism in action, before her sad defeat (I'm sure she's right not to have conceded or said anything to Betsy Markey even to this day):

Musgrave (left) receives a pro-life and pro-woman Susan B. Anthony Award from Jane Abraham.

See that? Once more, with feeling: it's a woman in politics, giving an award--named after a famous feminist, yet!-- to another woman in politics!! Look at that great big tent! Sisters, it just doesn't get any better than this.

And now, your moment of zen:

jenniforhillary 11.07.08 at 9:10 pm

...as a WHITE woman who as worked her entire life in social service mostly with people of color I am FUCKING offended by BO and his fucking ‘community organizer’ bs since I have done more in my life for blacks than he ever will.

Sixth, Blacks voted AGAINST gays and I laughed all the way home…you both deserve each other as voting blocks. Most of my friends of gay and NONE of them supported BO....The fact that blacks showed their hypocrisy and gays got hurt is KARMA since MOST local and the NATIONAL GLBT supported BO. I say you deserve each other.

Duh.

And while we're on the subject of racism:

Yes, I know, "racist" is the worst thing one could ever, ever, ever accuse anyone of being and one must therefore reserve such speculations for, like, actual lynchings, if that ("he's a nice boy! he doesn't have a racist bone in his body! he didn't mean it PERSONALLY. he just got...upset"). Nonetheless. It is hard to know what (else) to make of, well, pretty much anything that comes out of Reclusive Leftist these days, but specifically, now (once again via Palin Puma Watch):

Warning: post contains a quotation with racial epithets.

Apostate, bless her, is still trying:

I agree with you that the sexist stuff is inexcusable. However, please believe me to be sincere in saying that it does seem as if there is simple *adoration* of Palin in the PUMA camp. This adoration is not in keeping with your stated disagreement with most of Palin’s platform.

Plus, at least half of your commenting community sound like Republican women to me. I may be wrong about this, but such is my impression. After a certain point, your commenting community begins to define the tone of your blog.

To which Violet replies:

Apostate, your comment 136 about people “adoring” Palin reminds me of an old and horrible phrase: “nigger-lover.” That used to be what racists called white people who committed the sin of not sharing in the racism of the day. If you refused to join in the slurs, if you stood up for the simple humanity of a black person, if you tried pointing out his or her qualities and abilities, you weren’t seen as being just or decent; you were a “nigger-lover.”

It is a sad commentary on the zeitgeist that by simply refusing to engage in the bashing of Palin, by standing up for her as a person, for trying to see the real woman, for treating her with basic dignity and honesty, I’m “adoring” Palin.

As for the “everyone” you refer to who interprets this as adoration, that is an artifact of your circumstances. From what I know of you, the only feminists you come into contact with (online and in real life) are exactly the same lemmings who have engaged in the kind of sexist Palin-bashing I’m describing. The mostly young feminists online have devolved into a caricature; I’m embarrassed by them. Planned Parenthood allowed the Obama campaign to use its mailing list to send out a smear email about Palin.

The women in my circle, in real life and online, are long-time feminists who are deeply disturbed by what has happened.

By the way: I usually like Shakesville, but the last time I was there they were uncritically repeating the rape kit smear. I haven’t been back since.


What. In. The. FUCK.

Aside from the gratuitous use of racial slurs, the inherent WTFery of a white woman lecturing a woman of colour about racism, and the disingenuous bullshit about how she's just been defending Palin's humanity instead of actively encouraging people to vote for her, read these comments and tell me with a straight face there's no adoration going on. Read Violet's repeated assertions that she recognizes Palin as "kin" to her and tell me she's just objectively defending a woman against sexism...*

So, first of all, seconding the rest of PPW's commentary there (which you should go read), and this and also this, insightful analyses of what else might actually be going on with the Palin fanbase.

I'll just add this, because now I'm good and pissed:

You know. Given just how much projection is going on there ("lemmings" "devolved into a caricature" "embarrassed by them" "smear," and that's just in that one post). And given that there is otherwise very little Earth explanation as to how exactly someone gets from "likes Palin, an unpopular view in the larger feminist community" to...that;

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that maybe, just maybe, -that- was what VS (along with some others) was really wanting to call the "O-bots" all along.

I mean. -Such- betrayal. -Such- outrage. Is it -really- all because gosh darn it we should have just supported the woman, -any- woman, over the man, -any- man? Really. And yet, at that same place: the campaign to throw the vote, however "unwillingly" to McCain; and even now, a number of snarks at Michelle Obama (ain't she a woman?)

So, say the nomination had ultimately come down to Edwards versus Clinton, and had narrowly gone to Edwards (assuming of course he hadn't fucked up with the stupid sex scandal, which of course besides being the political suicide that it was would be duly and correctly excoriated by most feminists: everyone loves Elizabeth, he was another arrogant shit, but anyway moving on). Would the PUMA's have existed at all? In this form? And still be going, and going, and going, and fucking going? With freepers all over the fucking place now, yet? Really.

I mean, anything's possible; we can all speculate a thousand "what if" scenarios, right, and the goddam election, I keep having to remind myself, is -over-. Mostly because, well, now the -hard part-, and the adrenaline is hard to let go of.

But also, yeah, crap like this.

This post-PUMA thing, as I'm looking at it, insofar as it may be relevant at all, is shaping up as an unholy "confluence" between the dregs of what was already a noxious form of "cultural" feminism, which already had more than its share of thinly-if-at-all-veiled racism, creepy calls for "purity" and crypto-fascist nostalgia for mythical times, among other reactionary markers; and actual full-on right wing reactionaries. Now with more xenophobia and nativist bunker mentality!

Which is, of course, -exactly what the world fucking needs-. FEMINISM, especially, we -need- this, fuck knows. I mean the real problem with mainstream feminism, it turns out, is that it's -not focused on white and/or straight women enough.

Oh, yeah: it's hard out there for a white, straight woman.

[from someone called "Cindy"]

The following I’ve written as an open “letter” to Americans (from my perspective as a straight, white woman):

We are American women.
We have done eveything society asked of us.
We behaved in school.
We looked as pretty as possible at all times.
We learned to cook.
We learned to sew.
We went to church.
We dated nice boys.
We got married.
We took our husbands’ names.
We gave up our identities.
We took jobs for less pay.
We bore you children.
We lovlingly taught, nursed, guided, and nurtured these children.
We volunteered at our children’s schools.
We baked cookies for community fundraisers.
We volunteered at political campaigns.
We volunteered at nursing homes.
We took care of our elderly parents.
We have been loyal American patriots.
What have we done wrong? Why do you hate us?
Were we not pretty enough for you?
Did we not scream loud enough during childbirth?
Are we not dying at the hands of intimate partners fast enough for you?
Why do you hate us?

Poignant, innit?

Almost as poignant as the plight of Joe the Plumber (whom?): you bought a dream which was never even -meant- to be applicable to 80% of the population in the first place (and unwanted by another good 15% or so I'd say); and now that the dream is clearly being revealed as a bill of goods, you:

a) cling frantically to the politician who promises to keep the increasingly threadbare, -even to you-, fantasy going, no matter what the cost to you, let alone anybody else in the entire world (whom?)

b) incredibly, are now whining, to the 95% of the population to whom this means exactly jack and shit, for -sympathy-, even as you continue to do everything in your passive-aggressive power to fuck them over. All while denying strenuously that you're doing any such thing.

Ummm...sorry, what was the question? Right, right. "We" hate "you, plural," because, um.

a) You're beautiful, like a Prell commerical (or whatever the fuck that was. Also, popular and shiny, and we covet your red scrunchie.

b For your freedoms, unless it's for your not-freedoms.

c) Because "we're" "the" "axis" "of" "evil." Thugs, 'bots of various sorts, etc. etc. etc.

d) Because we, the WINO's aka "Women In Name Only," forgot the "feminist" rule that you're not supposed to attack a woman (i.e. a "real" woman, whom I guess at this point the only one would be...you), no matter what she does to you first.

Certainly not because "you" are a whiny, plaster-of-Paris, self-absorbed, genteely bigoted, rightwing -git- who's becoming everything you claim you're afraid of and (collectively) would be dangerous if you gave any signs of being able to find your way out of a grease-proof paper bag unassisted.

I'm sorry; was that sexist of me? Too -mean-? -Unfair-? Unladylike unfeminist?

Because, you know, I feel just awful about it.

Damn.

ETA Then again, with endorsements like these, how could you possibly go wrong, am I right?

http://www.greenconsciousness.org/weblog/2008/01/reclusive-leftist....

I, who am a dried up angry embittered angry cynical paranoid angry hag, burst out laughing out loud, over and over and over as I read the Reclusive Leftist. She is anti war and I am not, which is usually the Great Divide but not here. She cares about women even if she doesn't get what it will take to create room for women under Sharia to breath. (it will take a lot of killing).

elsewhere, from the same charming commenter ("Green Consciousness;" she's some sort of eco-feminist too, see, Animal Liberation Front and so forth):

http://www.greenconsciousness.org/weblog/2008/06/another-so-called-...

Muslims are a threat in every country they immigrate to and from -they bring their anti-semitic hatreds, their misogyny, their separatism, their gender apartheid and their dhimmi tactics against the infidels which include a moral threatening outrage over imaginary and legitimate criticism. They cry victim to shame and guilt trip the people they victimize. We must defend our democracy from these Muslim war tactics or we will be their victims.

Obama used these tactics successfully against the Clintons by calling them racists every time they made any factual statement the BO campaign could twist to their advantage. People had to know what they were doing when they jumped on that race baiting band wagon but they wanted BO to win more than they cared about fairness...His backers proudly wear teeshirts with the name Hussein to proclaim their solidarity with his Muslim heritage.

If legitimate fear and loathing of fascist Muslim culture and religious practices can be made to seem racist, soon the hate laws will cover Muslims. Then Muslims will use these laws the way abusers use injunctions against their victims. The way that group of Muslims baited authorities on that airplane where they prayed in the aisles, asked for seat belt extenders, went to the bathroom in groups and generally tried to provoke a lawsuit.

I struggle --- constantly struggle with a hatred that is growing in my own heart, not toward Muslims who I coldly recognize as my enemy, but at those who pretend to stand for women while protecting slave masters who seek to dominate us by overwhelming numbers or by force. Muslims as individuals are both good and bad but it is the women I am concerned with and about - those who feel a desire to be their own boss and oppressed by their religion, practices and culture. The correct thing to do is to help the decent people leave the Muslim faith and find a way to live free. Very hard but battered women do it, all abuse survivors do it. You cannot live free and stay Muslim. This attitude must become part of our foreign policy in that we insist on secular political systems in countries we support. Because the Muslim religion does not tolerate nonbelievers, we nonbelievers must not tolerate the Muslim religion to gain power in our democracy which is vulnerable to it...

That's one helluva Freudian slip (or something) there, American Family Association...

Via karynthia.

Yes indeed, they are apparently serious:

Let Your "Light" Shine For Christ This Christmas Season!

Looking for an effective way to express your Christian faith this Christmas season to honor our Lord Jesus? Now you can.... with the "Original Christmas Cross" yard decoration.

Light up your front yard, porch, patio, driveway, business, organization or church this holiday season with a stunning Christmas cross.

This beautiful Christmas Cross is 5.5 feet tall, with 210 individual ultra bright lights. SHIPPING IS INCLUDED!

Assembles in just minutes! Includes simple instructions and requires only a screwdriver. The cross is compact when not in use. And of course, it's weather-proof.

Decorate this holiday season with the Original Christmas Cross to remind your friends, family, neighbors, and all who drive by your home, office, or church of the real meaning of Christmas. You won't find the Original Christmas Cross in stores, so order online today!

I'm sure it's just an embarrassing mistake anyone could make, this. It's not as though the "War on Christmas" crap -already- had any racist connotations. Nonono.

You know. They just want to make their last stand in a world apparently already gone "dark," right? Light a candle (or a tacky electric cross, only $81! rather than curse etc):

If the liberals win the upcoming election, America as we have known it will no longer exist. This country that we love, founded on Judeo-Christian values, will cease to exist and will be replaced by a secular state hostile to Christianity. This “city set on a hill” which our forefathers founded, will go dark...

Too late now, I guess. poor little turnip.

--O stop reading all that innuendo, you oversensitive liberals: -that's- not what Don Wildmon MEANS, and you know it. He, along with his entire American Family Association, is -not racist.- Not one little teeny tiny bit. What a terrible thing to suggest.

Just rabidly homophobic unto the point of eliminationism.

Which is, as we know, totally different.

WTF is this shit?

Charming new Pepsi ad as noted by Shakesville (rape trigger warning).

I'd really like to know who sits around and brainstorms for this sort of thing, and what sort of ideas ended up on the "discard" pile before they decided "that's it, this is the one."

ETA: o hay, lookie here: apparently it's -not- Pepsi behind this, after all.

Official Response from Pepsi-Cola Company:

Pepsi-Cola Company wants to assure you that there’s absolutely no Pepsi advertisement in circulation that even remotely resembles the creative in question. After investigating this matter further, we learned that an advertising agency developed this print ad on “speculation” and it inadvertently made its way to the internet.

Please know that we would never use this type of imagery to sell our products. We are not using this image now, nor do we have any plans to use it in the future.

We’re sincerely sorry that this has upset you and we’re grateful to have had the opportunity to set the record straight. If anyone following this topic would like to discuss this issue further, free to contact me at the email address listed below.

Bart Casabona
bart.casabona@pepsi.com
Pepsi-Cola Company

I followed up with Bart to verify that this is in fact an official statement. In his response to my email, Bart also expressed his respect and understanding for our offense at the ad and assured me that Pepsi would never choose to market their brand in this manner...

for one certainly appreciate that Pepsi took the time to look into this, and that their response not only denied but also denounced this advertisement. I think it’s very important for them to do so when these ads have been gaining traction in advertising circles (where I myself looked in attempt to validate them) as legitimate. The company may not have created the ad, but their branding is still on it; for that reason they needed come out against the values perpetuated in the image. And I very much hope that Pepsi will not be using the advertising agency that created this ad in the future.

As for the ad itself . . . I think that this whole thing has been a rather interesting if not particularly surprising experiment in rape apologism. I spent the weekend wading through, deleting and occassionally responding to large volumes of troll comments on two different blogs. In those comments, I was called everything under the sun and the outrage that many of us felt upon seeing this ad was harshly mocked. The complaint from every single one of these people was not that the ad was illegitimate, but that there was nothing wrong with it.

"Gee."

"That one."

ETA: teh remix (thanks, trin)



So basically what we have here is Archie Bunker without the charm.

This is what’s really unsettling: you take into account this is him on his -best behavior.- I mean he’s actively trying *not* to come off like a racist, condescending prick, on account of he must know that whatever he thinks in his pebbly little heart o' hearts, no one -actually likes- a racist, condescending prick, and he's trying to win an election here, not demonstrate How To Lose Friends And Alienate People--With John McCain! (part XXVII). I think.

I mean, not that I -actually- think a guy who thinks "gooks" is a fine and dandy word to keep on using no matter what people say, or who repeatedly voted against recognizing Martin Luther King Day and then later showed up to apologize for it whilst having a black man hold an umbrella over his head might -actually-have any kind of problem with the ol' racism. (Or sexism, and/or homophobia, for that matter). Nonono. I'm sure he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body. So few people -really- do, you know. Also, too, he's another uniter-not-a-divider, is John McCain.

But I think people are picking up on what poor self-control this shows, which is -really- worrying even to people who aren’t that moved by the idea that he’s racist. How frigging hard is it to remember to look someone in the eye and call him by his name ffs? Can’t he even manage -that-?

Or...maybe he thinks it’s a sign of weakness to meet the bare minimum of civility; certainly his labored incredulity at the idea of zomg sitting down and -talking to- The Enemy as a part of (shudder) -diplomacy--–yeah, it fits. "Leadership" as brittle alpha-male posturing and ego-wanking, yeah, fuck knows we haven't had enough of -that- these past eight years. I don’t know who he thinks he’s impressing in the debate there, though. No one who wasn’t already at least as big an asshole as he is, and that lot, I don’t think he needed to worry about losing their vote to Obama to begin with.

What was that about -character-, again?

Yeah, basically.

Josh Marshall on McCain's attempt to postpone the debate in the name of (go on, you can say it with a straight face) putting the good of the nation over partisan politics.

Occasionally..., in a perverse kind of private entertainment, I've found myself imagining what would happen if I pawned off on someone just the ballsiest, most inane excuse for flaking on some commitment. And not something that people might buy -- nothing entertaining about that -- but just something completely off the wall and nonsensical. What would people's reaction be? Speechless, laughter, tearing me limb from limb? Would they ever speak to me again?

So, let's see, I can't moderate the panel because I've been called to Washington to give a special briefing on guerilla tactics to be used against the Taliban?

Or maybe, I want to be at the meeting, but as weird as this sounds, all the bridges and tunnels out of Manhattan have been shut for the day. Some counter-terrorism thing probably. I tried renting a helicopter but they're all booked by people at the UN.

Isn't this pretty much what John McCain tried to pull today? But actually really did it? And on a national stage? He wants to cancel the debate? And maybe also Palin's debate. Are you kidding? Why not cancel the election too? And because he has to go back to DC to solve the financial crisis? Really? The topic he knows nothing about and after he's shown up less in the senate in the last two years than anyone but Tim Johnson, the guy who had the stroke? Which of my employees is going to call from home tomorrow and say they can't come to work because of the financial crisis?

What gutted me was, the first I read of this, the article was making like saying "um, how about no" was going to put Obama in a bad light, which, I can't even look at the latest spin/etc., but, really:

--oh, the same yahoo link now goes to an update. Before Obama's response it was something like, it puts Obama in a bind, because if he says "yes" it looks like he's following McCain's lead and thus not, you know, leading; but if he says "no" it looks like he's rejecting McCain's noble, selfless call to put the good of the country first and that makes him, Obama that is, look bad...

thankfully, his response was only a slight elaboration on the answer that was going through my brain like a CNN news ticker as I rode the J-line right after reading that yesterday ("Betch, please.")

"It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess," Obama said at a news conference in Clearwater, Fla. "It's going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."

Honestly, I have to say, if he -hadn't- responded with something like that, I'd have probably written him off for good, because part of the president's or rather any effective politician's job is -also- to smack down such transparently bullshit manipulations as that as clearly and succinctly as possible.

I mean, it took chutzpah, I'll give him that, McCain. Sadly, all too often over the past umpty years, that's been enough to carry the fuckheads in charge through. Spit and chutzpah. "The Big Lie." Please Deity that -might- finally be coming to an end. -Please.-

and um yeah, hopefully a bit more will be said, come the day, on oh maybe -why- we're in this fucking meltdown in the first place.

I mean, not that I in any way suspect ulterior motives to McCain's wish to "cease campaigning" much less (!!) CANCEL THE DEBATE right about now, and particularly put the kibosh on any heated arguments over the IMMINENT ECONOMIC FUCKING CRISIS MY DOG WE NEVER SAW THAT COMING LO ALL THESE MONTHS AND YEARS, not in the light of say news tidbits like this:

Source: McCain aide's firm paid by Freddie Mac
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Wed Sep 24, 7:09 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Almost up until the time it was taken over by the government in the nation's financial crisis, one of two housing giants paid $15,000 a month to the lobbying firm of John McCain's campaign manager, a person familiar with the financial arrangement says.

The money from Freddie Mac to the firm of Rick Davis is on top of more than $30,000 a month that went directly to Davis for five years starting in 2000.

The $30,000 a month came from both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the other housing entity now under government control because of the nation's financial crisis.

Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reported early Tuesday evening that Davis' lobbying firm remained on the Freddie Mac payroll. The New York Times reported all the payments, posting an article on its Web site Tuesday night revealing the $15,000 a month to the firm of Davis Manafort. The newspaper quoted two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

On Wednesday, the campaign of McCain's Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama, accused Davis and McCain's campaign of not telling the truth about Davis' continuing financial relationship with Freddie Mac.

Campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said it was troubling that Davis' firm "continued to be compensated by Freddie Mac until as recently as last month, but that the firm did little work and apparently was being paid simply to provide access to the McCain campaign."

McCain' vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, said her understanding was that Davis had recused himself from the firm's business.

"I don't know how long ago, a year or two ago that he's not benefiting from that," she said when questioned about the payments during an interview Wednesday with "CBS Evening News" anchor Katie Couric. "And you know, I was ... I would hope that's not the case..."

Wouldn't you just.

But I mean, yeah, fuck knows, let's all come together and solve this problem, let's not point any fingers of blame, what's done is done, (just like Iraq, it's not like anyone's to BLAME for that being a fuckup, it just HAPPENED, let's move on, you know, let's not be ANGRY or anything)-- let's all just sing Kumbaya for six weeks until the election which is actually going to happen regardless, I didn't see any call for postponing the ELECTION, mind you, not even o somehow trying to get it on a weekend, as long as we're changing Big Shit at the very last minute, and hey maybe some more of the voters who aren't -yet- unemployed from the fallout of Big Fucking Greedy Institutional Bastards Who Overate And Have National Indigestion Now can actually go and fucking vote...

I mean, let's not get carried -away- or anything. Let's be, you know, -reasonable.- Noble, selfless, concerned for the nation's wellbeing as opposed to one's personal career and/or sorry ass, etc. etc. etc.

you MAVERICK, you.

ETA: oh dear, looks like the Dems really aren't feelin' the bipartisan luv. I'm surprised and saddened, I really am:

Democrats think that Republicans were backing away from a compromise many of them agreed to earlier Thursday — without McCain's involvement — in order to give McCain time to play a role and perhaps appear as a rescuer.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he believed the breakdown was simply an effort to allow McCain to miss Friday night's scheduled debate with Obama.

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, seconded that belief. "I think McCain was hurting politically," Frank said. "I think this was a campaign ploy."

When McCain arrived in Washington to discover that an agreement was near, Frank said, it became necessary to upset it so that McCain could later be seen to have played a role. "He's making it harder to get things done," Frank said.

...fuck it, I keep saying I'm not paying attention to this shit, but it's time, I guess: tis now and truly the season. and hey, if everything burns down around our ears at least it makes the popcorn pop more better. Pass it over here.

-chomp chomp chomp-