"Well, it's certainly uncontaminated by customers."

Dear used bookstore proprietor person:

Yes, you did remember me correctly as the same person who had sat down with a handful of books for roughly half an hour, and then left without buying any the other day. Yes, I was about to sit down with a handful of books again when you told me that unless I were going to buy something, browsing was not okay.

Speaking as someone who owns roughly a metric fuckton of books, I feel obliged to point out (again: yes, I did say something to this effect and I realize you were resolutely unmoved): generally speaking, most bookstores cheerfully allow for, even encourage unlimited browsing. This is not because they are kind generous people; this is because they understand that in bookstores, generally speaking, the people who sit there and browse are repeat customers; and yes, most of them do buy something, if not this time, then next time, or the one after that. For example, today I went and browsed in a different used bookstore, and they left me the hell alone, as they always do, and I ended up buying two books. See how this works?

Well, no, I can see that you don't. Okay. What I didn't say: you may also want to consider that maybe the reason you remembered me was because I was, that time, like this time, pretty much the only person in the store.

I mean, I'm not suggesting your attitude is the only reason for business being slow: the economy's bad, used bookstores aren't necessarily always exactly booming, and also your selection is kind of crap. But yeah, there was one book of food lit/crit I'd never seen elsewhere and I was seriously thinking about buying it. Even with the plastic on the cover and the relatively high price. Still, I'm sure it was worth it not to have to deal with the annoyance of watching someone look at books, in a bookstore, that you run.

You know what would really solve the problem? If you just got rid of all the books. You could have, like, those dummy copies they have in furniture stores, you know? It'd be great. And the customer could come in and be like, "Do you have anything in red?" and you could lead them silently to the back and glower at them until they found the right one to match their drapes, and paid for it.

Addendum: if you were even half this entertaining in your churlishness, I would have gladly let it pass. Sadly, you are not.

Dear political robocallers of various ilk ("live" included):

I am currently registered Apathetic. I am going to vote for (or against, respectively) the people and measures who/which seem least likely to fuck shit over even more than the alternative(s), based on what I READ from sources I trust, and that is It. No donations, no forwarding the emails to four thousand of my best friends, no joining your zombie blob campaign for no remuneration so that I can feel like Lucy with the football when you inevitably break the promises about the issues I most care about.

No, calling me twenty times a day and leaving long messages on my crap answering machine which doesn't fast forward do NOT make me more likely to want to vote for you, much less do anything else. Likewise, filling up my email box with spam about races I have not the slightest interest in/candidates I couldn't vote for anyway on account of I do not live in those places. They do make me more likely wish you into the fucking cornfield. Hope for your sakes I do not, in fact, have that ability. Thank you and piss off.

Addendum: WHY IN THE NAME OF BABY CTHULHU IS THERE A CARLY FIORINA AD TACKED ONTO ALL THE YOUTUBE BLACK BOOKS VIDEOS IS THIS SOME KIND OF SICK JOKE

"'Dear American Blacks': Join The Republicans, It's For Your Own Good"

And this hurts me more than it hurts--oh, wait.

How Not To Win Friends And Influence People, I mean, I'm -pretty- sure, over at Redstate as documented (and linked, so I don't have to) by Alicublog:

Dear American Blacks:

Sometimes the very best act of friendship I could do is tell you that the person you think is your best friend actually works against you behind your back, laughing at you, mocking your hardships, secure in the knowledge that you need him too much to ever leave him.

Sometimes — no, actually always — the true friend is the one who tells you what you don’t want to hear. The one who does not indulge you, the one who will neither promise you nor give you candy and other bennies. Instead he tells you to sit down and eat your green beans and spinach — and if you want that nice car, then quit whining, get an education, earn a good job, and earn that nice car.

The really ironic thing is that the slick, good-time “friend” will tell you what a jerk your true friend is. And you will believe him. You will believe him, that is, until you grow up, or until your good-time friend sells you up the river so far that your life is wrecked, and your future is ruined. Your wisdom will have been gained at a steep price.

But your true friend will still be there. And eating your green beans, securing an education, and working hard are still the path to success.

American Blacks, the Democratic Party is that good-time, lying, back-stabbing excuse for a “friend”. The DC Voucher story is an illustration — hardly a unique story — of how Democrats continually seek to set you up as a permanent underclass, so that you’ll depend on them to throw you scraps and believe their lies, in order to secure your votes to keep them in power...

...So while the Democrats toss your children’s hopes and dreams aside, secure in the knowledge that you’ll always vote for them, remember that your true friend is still here.

I ask you to consider, why is it that you hate Republicans so much?

Republicans do not know how to approach you. Democrats and the Democrat-dominated press have misled you and stoked up your wrath to the point that you will not listen to us.

So I propose this: how about listening? How about listening to what Republicans have to say, instead of what the Democrats say we say? How about listening to what we have to say before booing us out of the building?

...Want the opportunity to escape poverty, crime, and poor schools? Then quit voting for the Democrats that put you there.
Tired of 15% unemployment in your areas? Then quit supporting the Democrats who raise taxes and force increase regulations on employers. [oh yeah, the Democrats call them the 'rich', but when was the last time a poor man gave you a job?]

Eat your green beans! Do the thing that frees you!

It’s tough love, but I assure you, friend, it’s love. That’s why we fought like hell to restore the DC School Vouchers. That’s why we fought like hell to lower taxes on businesses, so employers could hire more people and create more success for everybody.

We received not one ounce of gratitude from you, but we did it anyway. And we will continue to do what is right for America, for whites, for blacks, for Latinos, for Republicans, for Democrats, for today, and for the future.

Join us. Consider it, anyway.

yes, it's really real. Really.

I was going to say something snarky about someone having watched too many episodes of "boot camp for recalcitrant minors" on the talk shows, but then something stirred in my heart, and or/bowels, and I was moved to respond in like spirit.


Dear Republican Whites,

As a true friend, your only REAL friend, really, I must tell you that the only cure for the shrinkage you're currently suffering is to slam all of your various bits and extremities very hard in a car door, followed by a roll in coarse salt and a bath in a tub full of live herring and miniature crabs. You should achieve immediate growth, or at least swelling.

Consider it, anyway.

I realize I will receive not one ounce of gratitude for this heartfelt (and free! let it never be said that there is no such thing as a free lunch. although you -will- have to pay for the herring yourselves, I'm afraid) advice. But, I'm giving it anyway. Such is the overflowing bounty of my care and compassion. My poor misunderstood bleeding heart, it even bleeds for you. ESPECIALLY for you.

See, I don't hate Republican Whites. Black Americans don't hate Republican Whites. Democratic Whites don't hate Republican Whites. -No one- *hates* Republican Whites. That's where you've gotten us all wrong. We LOVE you. Deeply. And sincerely. Everyone loves Whites! And especially Republicans!! Seriously, how could anyone hate -you?- What would anyone ever do without you? Can't you feel the love, tonight?

Bless you, Republican Whites. BLESS YOU. And, thank you. For...you know. Everything.

Yours in Supply-Side Jesus,

Marie of Romania.

Believe us, no one wants to be around your spawn either, you great lump

.

Wherein Joe I'm So Stupid And Pointless I Can't Even Count To Fifteen Minutes T. Plumber says something offensive and stupid as shit.
I know, right?

While we're on the subject of hateful morons who are the political equivalent of headless chickens (and who would probably cease to exist at all if it weren't for bored and pissy rubberneckers like *ahem* *twist foot* some people who can't help going "say, has that headless chicken stopped running around yet? -No?- Damn): um, no, we already talked about this viz you are not "the new Jew;" apparently this is a really difficult concept, but PUMAs are not "the new gay," either.

But perhaps the most outrageous (read: stupid) thing about that 300-plus comment donnybrook is the largely ignored theme of the post that kicks it off, in which Murphy contends that the whiny, petulent PUMA movement is similar to the gay rights movement led by Harvey Milk in San Francisco:

“…That’s what Puma is. We ARE San Francisco — the place where Americans who are politically homeless, party-less, and DONE with the manipulations, lies, empty promises, and utter lack of integrity of the powers that be find themselves at home. The Puma writers and commenters who have been building Puma for almost a year now have touched MILLIONS of formerly isolated and despondent people who were ready to give up…

We don’t need to worry or panic or move mountains overnight. All we have to do is stay HERE — on the internet, connected to each other via this incredibly powerful, FREE, 24-hour a day, 365 days a year network of people just like us…
We ARE the Castro. Only bigger. And faster. And slightly less obsessed with leather."

Jesus H. Christ on a cable car. Yeah, the PUMAs are exactly like Harvey Milk’s gay rights movement. Only instead of having a leader possessing genuine moral courage, political savvy and organizational skills like Milk, PUMA has a woman who runs a crappy blog and solicits donations. And instead of representing a constituency of millions of people who are routinely beaten, jailed, ostracized from their families and communities and discriminated against for no good reason like gay Americans, PUMA has a few dozen whiny sore losers.

Nice little smarmy aside wrt "obsessed with leather," though; nothing sez "friend of Teh Gay" like a tired homophobic snark.

One other thing: while it wasn't explicitly covered in the movie, I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have taken Milk et al over an hour to figure out how to order pizza.

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.

Yup.

What she said.

The man has been saying goodbye for so long, he’s come to resemble one of those reconstituted rock bands that have been on a farewell tour since 1982. We had exit interviews by the carload and then a final press conference on Monday, in which he reminisced about his arrival on the national stage in 2000. “Just seemed like yesterday,” he said.

I think I speak for the entire nation when I say that the way this transition has been dragging on, even yesterday does not seem like yesterday. And the last time George W. Bush did not factor into our lives feels like around 1066.

(...AND....three...two...one...)

A conundrum.

How is it that it is invariably the most backward, least evolved people--mentally, spiritually, socially, emotionally--who are the most fervent advocates of some form of Social Darwinism?

They look at the world, they see a fallen creation that's nasty, brutish and short (not unlike themselves), and they decide that the best way forward--o, for the good of the -species-, mind you--is to get rid of all those -other- people who really aren't contributing anything to the greater good, or at least their capacity to reproduce. You know, THEM. The BAD people. The DEFECTIVE people. The OTHER people.

They will tell you this, with much passion and spittle, using "logic" and often syntax that can be most generously described as "twisted," but more accurately is in fact "sprained." Sometimes--most often, no doubt-- they're the equivalent (virtual or not) of the town drunk. Sometimes they clean up decently and actually sound sort of plausible. Even publish books, occasionally. Sometimes, God help us, find their way to actual power.

But you get right down to it, and -none- of these people manage to make a terrifically good case for why -they- should be exempt from the chop. Oh, sure, they might recognize that no one can actually stand their ass; but -that- is not about their own inherent moral or existential deficiency, no; -that- is about society's failure to -understand- them properly. See.

Which means, clearly, that society is -wrong-; and therefore it's -society-, more or less, that should be up against the wall.

Ah, solipsism. You gotta love it.

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.

Python of the day, 7/25/08

Kickass, I didn't realize getting a root canal was a feminist act

Someone of whom I've never before heard posting at somewhere I've heard entirely too much of, but you can go there via here or here or here, here, or here, anyway:

ashley Jul 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm


the defining characteristic of feminism is that it's not fun and it
costs dearly in social acceptance.


when guys approve, it's a great guage of whether or not something is
feminist at all.


who doesn't like to dance around naked? we should all be able to do it
without any rules or judgment or without having invited physical
assault on ourselves.

...you know, fuck it, fisking much less serious attention would be redundant in more ways than one, so very briefly:


1) I dunno who's supposed to "having invited physical assault on ourselves," but

2) did you know that being kicked or stepped on with spike heels hurts -a lot-? It's true.

3) y'know, Harlan Ellison and Woody Allen ceased to be amusing long since, too, for similar reasons (same old spiel gets boring, misogynist dickhead actually not all that charming at the end of the day, angry rebel schtick somehow less convincing when coming from an obviously really comfortable person, oh yeah, and the misogyny really does kind of get old)

4) indeed, dancing around naked (or however) without judgment or rules would be nice. here's an idea: be the change you seek.

5) so! how 'bout that Project Runway?


I'll blog about something substantial when y'know I have the mental energy to write about something that takes more effort than a good fart.

ETA: Jesus fucking Christ. Seriously? Seriously?

ginmar Jul 21st, 2008 at 7:55 am
Oh, christ, she’s got a picture of her ass on her blog? And she’s got Ren Ev commenting? Yeah, that’s empowerfulizing. RE’s had her nose broken four times in this emperfullizing career of hers as a stripper, but it’s the feminazis that are mean and awful to her. Jeezus.

and, currently, in moderation, this:

RenEv Jul 21st, 2008 at 8:18 am
Ginmar-
Let’s not do this again. Yes, my nose has been broken 4 times: Once in a car accident, once in a sports accident, and yep, by an abusive partner, who happened to be female. Never as part of my job, never due to stripping, or anything like that. My ex partner wasn’t a dancer or a patron of strippers, she was just a violent person. Also, once again dragging out my personal life to prove an argument, and distorting the actual facts of what happened, well, yes, I’m sick of it. My broken noses did not occur in the course of my job, and anyone saying so is not only lying, but very, very unethical...

ginmar Jul 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Drakyn, why are you here? I can easily show those here how you treat feminists.
And frankly I wouldn’t trust anything RE said at all. She appears to have a miserable time as a stripper and porn actress, but she gets really infuriated at feminists who point that out. And she just plain makes shit up about radfems.

***

[RE again]...And yeah, seeing the truth of the history of my nose mutilated, distorted and used like that was triggering in a way for me. In that enraged crying sort of way. Getting the shit kicked out of you by a single abusive female asshole being used to fuel Gin’s little personal hate on for me and stripping when, gee, guess what, stripping and the money it provides and whatnot helped me get OUT of that situation, that fucking sucks. It’s wrong, it’s abusive, it’s oppressive, and it’s silencing...

Ginmar, if you're "not going to trust anything RE says," maybe at minimum you should stop trying to speak FOR her, especially when it's about her own damn experiences, hm? Particularly experiences of broken bones? Seriously, don't bother: just fuck off. Your shit is not wanted here, or pretty much anywhere.

.