WE'RE NUMBER 37!!

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.

Someone please call CPS on Rob Williams and Arnie State.

Tried several times to sufficiently convey my revulsion for these people in the headline and failed, sorry

Basically, these shitbag radio talk show hosts--what, redundant, you say? No, wait: really, here's a lower place:

Even by the flexible moral, ethical, and professional standards of American talk radio, the May 28th segment of KRXQ 98.5 FM Sacramento's Rob, Arnie, & Dawn in the Morning radio talk show makes for a sickening half-hour of ugliness and cruelty. For once, the focus was not LGBT adults, but minors. The hosts, Rob Williams and Arnie States, devoted the segment in question to a vicious diatribe against transgender children, some as young as five, focusing in particular on the case of one Omaha family raising a gender dysphoric child, and their decision to support her transition from male to female.

Williams and States took turns referring to gender dysphoric children as "idiots" and "freaks," who were just out "for attention" and had "a mental disorder that just needs to somehow be gotten out of them," either by verbal abuse on the part of the parents, or even shock therapy.

"Allowing transgenders to exist, pretty soon it becomes normal to fall in love with the animals," they said.

For his part, States bragged that if his own son were to ever dare put on a pair of high heels, States would beat his son with one of his own shoes. He urged parents whose own little boys expressed a desire to wear a dress to verbally abuse and degrade them as a viable response. "Because you know what? Boys don't wear high heel shoes. And in my house, they definitely don't wear high heels.

"I'm going to go, 'You know what? You're a little idiot! You little dumbass!'" States sneered, adding later, "I look forward to when [the transgender children] go out into society and society beats them down. And they wind up in therapy."

Or dead.

In light of the well-publicized suicides this year of the two boys who took their own lives because of bullying and harassment for "acting gay" (which, in the argot of modern North American teenagers, often refers to acting in a way considered unmasculine by their peers) the stunning lack of moral sensibility on the part of States and Williams is breathtaking. But it also points to the increasingly degraded landscape of talk radio.

No fucking shit.

GLAAD put out an action alert (via Autumn at Pam's House Blend):

TAKE ACTION: Demand that KRXQ Radio Hosts Rob Williams and Arnie States Apologize for Encouraging Violence Against Transgender Children

Contact:

Cindi Creager
Director of National News
(646) 871-8019
creager@glaad.org

Richard Ferraro
Director of Public Relations
(646) 871-8011
ferraro@glaad.org

TAKE ACTION NOW!
Please contact KRXQ management in Sacramento, California, where the show is produced and demand that radio show hosts Rob Williams and Arnie States publicly apologize. Call on KRXQ to hold Williams and States accountable for their remarks and establish clear standards to ensure their media platform will not be used to condone or promote violence against any parts of the communities they serve.

John Geary
Vice President & General Manager
KRXQ-FM
(916) 339-4209
jgeary@entercom.com

Arnie States
On Air Personality
KRXQ-FM
(916) 334-7777
rad@robarnieanddawn.com

Rob Williams
On Air Personality
KRXQ-FM
(916) 334-7777
rwilliams@entercom.com

Please forward this link to any of your friends and others who may also wish to take action. When contacting KRXQ, please ensure that your emails and phone calls are civil and respectful and do not engage in the kind of name-calling or abusive behavior.

Apparently, as of yesterday, the station offered an apology, and there was to be something by the hosts tonight, although not finding it online and not really interested in hearing what they have to say. Personally, I think hosts this fucking hateful shouldn't have a public platform to spew from, period. I'm sorry for States' own kid. Even sorrier and angrier that listeners soak up this shit and take it out quite fucking literally on the bodies and spirits of trans people. -Children.- Christ Jesus forbid someone by their very -existence- force it into these orcs' stunted consciousness that they don't run the fucking universe. And yeah, I'm beyond sick of all of these toxic throwbacks clogging up the airwaves and the public square.

Some people are starting to put together a boycott of the station's sponsors. From a commenter at Pam's:

The whole list of advertisers can be found here. [direct links to each advertiser including contact info therein]

Here's some of the big ones:

Hertz
Home Depot
Chrysler
Griffin & Reed Eyecare
Pro City Mortgage
sonic burger
Snapple
Tobacco Republic
Chipotle
State Farm Insurance
Albertson's
Carl's Jr.
Jared
Nissan
Wells Fargo Bank
Guitar Center
Mc Donalds
Mervyn's
Red Bull
Bank of America
The Sleep Train
Purina
at&t
Verizon Wireless
UC Davis Health Care System
Washington Mutual

Like I said, personally I think the fuckers should get gone from the airwaves. Obviously not the only one who thinks an "apology" and $3.50 will get you a nice latte at Starfucks, basically. It might or might not be worth continuing to contact the station owners/management themselves; your call. I can't imagine writing anything that would be remotely useful to the actual hosts.

Also, Monica of Transgriot notes:

And if that doesn't get their attention, for those of you in the Sacramento, CA metro area, you can lodge protests when their FCC broadcast license comes up for renewal.

Update: So far, Snapple, Sonic & Chipotle have pulled advertising from KRXQ.

Yessir, that's our Gubernator

Meanwhile, back in sunny Cali:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did not get the election results he sought. Now he seems determined to show California voters the consequences.

In a special election on May 19, voters rejected a batch of measures on increasing taxes, borrowing funds and reapportioning state money that were designed to close a multibillion-dollar budget gap. The cuts Mr. Schwarzenegger has proposed to make up the difference, if enacted by the Legislature, would turn California into a place that in some ways would be unrecognizable in modern America: poor children would have no health insurance, prisoners would be released by the thousands and state parks would be closed.

Nearly all of the billions of dollars in cuts the administration has proposed would affect programs for poor Californians, although prisons and schools would take hits, as well.

All his cuts target the poor and the disenfranchised, but, well, gosh, there's a good reason for that:

“Government doesn’t provide services to rich people,” Mike Genest, the state’s finance director, said on a conference call with reporters on Friday. “It doesn’t even really provide services to the middle class.” He added: “You have to cut where the money is.”

Blinded. I'm blinded. Fucking brilliant.

Okay, WTF, Senate?

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

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

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

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

Fuck this, seriously.

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.

This is disgusting.

GOP unearths aunt of Obama's living in U.S. on expired visa.

At this point, never even mind the intent as a last-minute "smear," which as far as Obama's campaign is concerned is probably a dud. Who cares, right? What does this have to do with the price of beans in Peru (presumably going down the toilet along with the rest of the global economy)? Well, for everyone except the rabid base, pretty much nothing at all, as with all the other shit they've been trying to throw at him (terrorist! socialist! elitist snob! twelve foot grey alien!) Which, of itself, move along, nothing to see here, right?

Except for: -this- time, there's also a real other person there, a middle-aged woman who's been quietly living in public housing on an expired visa because her request for asylum was turned down. Who was dragged--illegally, as it turns out--into the limelight by a bunch of opportunistic vultures operating under the delusion that a) significant numbers of U.S. citizens are going to be so outraged at her existence that it'll upset the race somehow b) because clearly, everyone shares their belief that ZOMG TEH ILLEGALS are stealing our precious collective bodily fluids, particularly the quiet law-abiding ones who don't actually have any power or money and are just basically trying to survive as best they can in the face of constant low-grade fear and exploitation and all kinds of other shit, i.e. pretty much most all of 'em. So, what happens to -her- now, hm?

Obama's already doing the "I never knew ye" thing, which, well, not a surprise, but for -fuck's- sake. How long is this kind of bullshit going to go on? Even assuming he -does- win?

So, yeah, about that spectre of racism, there...

So one thing that just now happened was this.

(the original post, which has a graphic of Obama next to a picture of a noose with the words: "asphyxiation: The Fucking Solution," has been removed: go here for a screencap of it).

I find the commentary of the website host interesting.

I wasn’t aware of this post until late this evening when another reader emailed me about its existence. The graphic was posted on my site, but I didn’t create it. I didn’t have any knowledge of it until tonight. And I do not condone it. Say Anything, much like Daily Kos and Red States with their reader “diaries,” has an open “Reader Blogs” section where any reader can put up their own posts. That is where this post appeared.

I have removed that post over the protestations of the author who has labeled me a “coward.” Unfortunately I did not take the post down before it was noticed by bloggers at The Daily Kos and MyDD (among other places) who are, humorously enough, now calling on John McCain to apologize for it.

Because apparently John McCain is responsible for what random internet nuts post on open blog forums.

They’re also submitting links to that post to places like Digg and Reddit in a vain attempt to use it as evidence to shore up the “sowing seeds of hatred” narrative they’ve been trying to manufacture these last few days.

Because they’d rather talk about that than Obama’s long-standing ties to terrorists and political extremists...

O.K. Spot the cognitive dissonance in those last two paras, shall we?

"sowing seeds of hatred" narrative they've been trying to manufacture these last few days

Obama's long-standing ties to terrorists and political extremists

"Sure, he's scary and dangerous and unAmerican 'pals around with terrorists,' oh and by the way his name sounds a LOT like "Osama" and he WAS a Muslim (although he's -not- an Arab, okay, PHEW) and by the way there's this great video you need to see and terror terror terror terror...but um, we mean it all in the most benign possible way, really. No hate here! Play nice! TRAITOR KILL HIM--no, dammit, I said -play nice.-" (finger wag)

meanwhile, also, too, not very far away, there is the charming Obama Monkey Doll Guy.

All that said, I agree with the author about one thing: graphic of a male arm punching a woman in the mouth, regardless of who the woman is? Also pretty fucked up. M-I-S-O-G-Y-N-Y, yes, duh?



I love my fellow creatures, I do...

Reaping the whirlwind

John McCain is booed by his own rabidly anti-Obama crowds for telling them that maybe they ought to put down the pitchforks and torches after all.

The anger is getting raw at Republican rallies and John McCain is acting to tamp it down. McCain was booed by his own supporters Friday when, in an abrupt switch from raising questions about Barack Obama's character, he described the Democrat as a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

A sense of grievance spilling into rage has gripped some GOP events this week as McCain supporters see his presidential campaign lag against Obama. Some in the audience are making it personal, against the Democrat. Shouts of "traitor," "terrorist," "treason," "liar," and even "off with his head" have rung from the crowd at McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, and gone unchallenged by them.

...When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country," McCain stoked the sentiment. "I think I got the message," he said. "The gentleman is right." He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.

On Friday, McCain rejected the bait....

Um, yay? Still three and a half weeks to go, though, and that Ayers ad...and there's still your charming assistant running around doing her best Anita-Bryant-at-Nuremberg impression...

Well. And now for your moment of WTF?

"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:

"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

Arab: decent family man. Arab: decent family man.

"He ain't Arab, he's my colleague..."

'k then.

But no, there's no -racism- here or anything, so -stop saying that.- I mean, we totally almost don't even mind that he's -black.- What more do you want, for heaven's sake...?

What, us torture?

Sickened but not surprised:

Documents say detainee near insanity

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer 47 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A U.S. military officer warned Pentagon officials that an American detainee was being driven nearly insane by months of punishing isolation and sensory deprivation in a U.S. military brig, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.


While the treatment of prisoners at detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Afghanistan and Iraq have long been the subject of human rights complaints and court scrutiny, the documents shed new light on how two American citizens and a legal U.S. resident were treated in military jails inside the United States.

The Bush administration ordered the men to be held in military jails as "enemy combatants" for years of interrogations without criminal charges, which would not have been allowed in civilian jails.

The men were interrogated by the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, repeatedly denied access to attorneys and mail from home and contact with anyone other than guards and their interrogators. They were deprived of natural light for months and for years were forbidden even minor distractions such as a soccer ball or a dictionary.

"I will continue to do what I can to help this individual maintain his sanity, but in my opinion we're working with borrowed time," an unidentified Navy brig official wrote of prisoner Yaser Esam Hamdi in 2002. "I would like to have some form of an incentive program in place to reward him for his continued good behavior, but more so, to keep him from whacking out on me."

("whacking out on me")

So. Anyone planning to ask Senator McCain about this tonight? I mean I'd really like to hear what he in particular has to say, all things considered.

Mind you, we -could- just slink back into the comforting miasma of xenophobic hate.

It's not that I don't -get- feelings of pessismism and loathing of one's fellow humans, you understand. Witness for instance this charming and under-reported story of children being gassed at a mosque in Dayton, Ohio., bizarrely entitled "No evidence of hate crime"

A 10-year-old girl sprayed in the face with a chemical Friday, Sept. 26, while at a local Islamic mosque was not the victim of a hate crime, police Chief Richard Biehl said.

The girl was watching children whose parents and relatives had gathered at the Islamic Society of Greater Dayton, 26 Josie St., to celebrate Ramadan when she noticed two men standing outside a basement window about 9:40 p.m., according to police.

One of the men then sprayed something through the open window and into the girl's face from a white can with a red top, according to a police report. The girl said she immediately felt burning on her face and felt "sick to her stomach," the report stated.

Other children and a woman in the room felt affects from the chemical and the mosque was evacuated.

"The men didn't say anything to her (before she was sprayed)," Biehl said. "There was nothing left at the scene or anything that makes us believe this is a biased crime."

...Mosque board member Tarek Sabagh said many people within the mosque speculated that the incident was the result of a DVD about Islamic radicalism titled "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" that was mailed to area homes by its producers and circulated as a paid advertisement with more than 70 newspapers, including the Dayton Daily News.

"We are not linking the two at all," Sabagh said.

Oh, yes, "Obsession."

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/about_synopsis.php

(not hyperlinking)

Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against the West is a new film that will challenge the way you look at the world.

Almost 70 years ago, Europe found itself at war with one of the most sinister figures in modern history: Adolf Hitler. When the last bullet of World War II was fired, over 50 million people were dead, and countless countries were both physically and economically devastated. Hitler’s bloody struggle sought to forge the world anew, in the crucible of Nazi values. How could such a disaster occur? How could the West have overlooked the evil staring it in the face, for so long, before standing forcefully against it?

Today, we find ourselves confronted by a new enemy, also engaged in a violent struggle to transform our world. As we sleep in the comfort of our homes, a new evil rises against us. A new menace is threatening, with all the means at its disposal, to bow Western Civilization under the yoke of its values. That enemy is Radical Islam.

Using images from Arab TV, rarely seen in the West, Obsession reveals an ‘insider's view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. With the help of experts, including first-hand accounts from a former PLO terrorist, a Nazi youth commander, and the daughter of a martyred guerilla leader, the film shows, clearly, that the threat is real.

A peaceful religion is being hijacked by a dangerous foe, who seeks to destroy the shared values we stand for. The world should be very concerned.

Yeah, probably. Probably so, at that. Although maybe not for exactly the reasons the authors of this...project think. Oh, they've been mailing it to peoples' homes, unsolicited. 28 million copies so far, apparently. (Oh, and only in the "swing states," curiously enough.) Thousands of which landed in Ohio residents' mailboxes the week before the gassing of the Dayton mosque.

I read the story as reported by the Dayton Daily News, but this was after I had received an email written by a friend of some of the victims of these American terrorists. The matter of fact news report in the Dayton paper didn't come close to conveying the horrific impact of this unthinkable act like the email I had just read, so I asked the email's author for permission to share what they had written. The author was with one of the families from the mosque -- a mother and two of the small children who were in the room that was gassed -- the day after the attack occurred.

"She told me that the gas was sprayed into the room where the babies and children were being kept while their mothers prayed together their Ramadan prayers. Panicked mothers ran for their babies, crying for their children so they could flee from the gas that was burning their eyes and throats and lungs. She grabbed her youngest in her arms and grabbed the hand of her other daughter, moving with the others to exit the building and the irritating substance there.

"The paramedic said the young one was in shock, and gave her oxygen to help her breathe. The child couldn't stop sobbing.

"This didn't happen in some far away place -- but right here in Dayton, and to my friends. Many of the Iraqi refugees were praying together at the Mosque Friday evening. People that I know and love...

The presidential campaign edition of the Obsession DVD, produced and currently being distributed by the Clarion Fund, carries the endorsement of the chair of the counter-terrorism department of the U.S. Naval War College, using the name and authority of an official U.S. military institution not only to validate an attack the religion of Islam, but to influence a political campaign. For these reasons, this endorsement has been included in MRFF's second lawsuit against the Department of Defense, which was filed on September 25 in the Federal District Court in Kansas.

My opinion as an individual and thoroughly appalled human being:

John McCain has a moral obligation to publicly censure the Clarion Fund; to denounce the inflammatory, anti-Muslim message of Obsession; and to do everything in his power to stop any further campaign activities by his supporters that have the potential to incite violence.

Which I'm sure he will, any day now, 'coz, you know, we're all about taking the elevated, bipartisan, non-hatin' tone these next few weeks.

And, it's perfectly understandable that people are reluctant to classify the mosque attack as a hate crime, or connect it in any way to a boogity-boogity-THE ISLAMOFASCIST HORDES ARE COMING FOR YA movie sent to a tenth of the U.S. population, including right there in the town where it happened. Or that the Islam-baiting is anything other than a perfectly rational response to extremist zealots who've already targeted us once, after all (which, we have none of our own, extremist zealots that is, or anyway those are worser, always), and has nothing to do with good ol'fashioned Fear And Hatred Of The Other, Especially When The Other Is "Swarthy" And Have Funny Names And Are Supposed To Be Doing Menial Tasks For Us Instead Of Being All Uppity And Shit.

Of course.

The 16th Street Baptist Church bombing was a racially motivated terrorist attack on September 15, 1963 by members of a Ku Klux Klan group in Birmingham, Alabama in the United States. The bombing of the African-American church resulted in the deaths of four girls.

- Wikipedia

I can’t remember a time when I really didn’t know about this story. About four girls whose lives were taken from them because of the color of their skin at a place of community, a place where above all they should have been safe. In short they lost their lives because of hatred a hate so strong that no where and no one is safe.

...Last night as I read the accounts of the gassing at the mosque in Dayton Ohio, last Friday, my mind continued to flash on the pictures of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing.

It is disturbing to read how Dayton Police could not think this was a hate crime. As if the perpetrators walked up to any random building, lighted, filled with people, with cars in the parking lot, then sprayed something in the windows was a normal occurrence. No, not targeted at a group for their beliefs, they merely mistook the irritant gas sprayed for a can of Glade Air Freshener...

So this is the only relevant part about Bristol Palin's pregnancy, as far as I'm concerned:

No, Sarah Palin is not a hypocrite as such on -abortion- because her kid got pregnant and is having the kid. And no, the scandal as such should not be an issue. And, sure, "choose life," fine, it's still a choice...but here is my concern, well, one of them.

a) -Is- it really -Bristol's- choice? I mean it's great and all that Mom is speaking up -for- her, but um. Where's Bristol herself in all this? She's seventeen and still very much under Mom's thumb; the pressure to do what Mom wants must be enormous. I'm not saying she may not really want to keep the kid and participate in "family values" with the father. I'm just saying: if it so happened that she didn't? She'd kind of be screwed, it seems to me. I mean, hi: no pressure, there. True for many minors; I think it'd be -worse- when Mom's a major public figure (which she already was, lest we forget, even before the veep selection).

also: -mono-?

b) And here's where the "hypocrite" part does have some resonance: What about sex
ed, y'all? What messages did Bristol get, exactly?

Because, Sarah Palin, you know, is for "abstinence only"(...among other things.)

3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
JB: We should not exclude abstinence-until-marriage education programs.
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support...

The above, btw, is taken from an Eagle Forum questionnaire that "was sent to all candidates for [Alaska] Governor with their responses listed in the order [Eagle Forum] received them." Note that all of the other candidates did not respond to this one, including the other three Republicans.

And then, too:

SP: I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.

2. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?

SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.

So, among other things, we do learn that the buck stopped with SP, for what Bristol was "taught" wrt sex ed. Which apparently, assuming Palin was consistent, would've been limited to, "don't do it."

How's that working out?

And more to the point, how's that going to work out for a lot more young women if Sarah Palin gets into the second-highest appointed office in the land?

Oh, btw, here's McCain himself on the issue(s):

Republican John McCain, whose running mate disclosed that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, has opposed proposals to spend federal money on teen-pregnancy prevention programs and voted to require poor teen mothers to stay in school or lose their benefits.

...In Senate votes, McCain has opposed some proposals to pay for teen-pregnancy prevention programs. In 2006, McCain joined fellow Republicans in voting against a Senate Democratic proposal to send $100 million to communities for teen-pregnancy prevention programs that would have included sex education about contraceptives.

In 2005, McCain opposed a Senate Democratic proposal that would have spent tens of millions of dollars to pay for pregnancy prevention programs other than abstinence-only education, including education on emergency contraception such as the morning-after pill. The bill also would have required insurance companies that cover Viagra to also pay for prescription contraception.

also:

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn.** He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

...Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

I feel reassured, don't you?

ETA: Renee over at Global Comment has a number of salient points as well:

Though Bristol is going to have a difficult time having this child in the public spotlight, there are many issues that she will not face. If Bristol lived in Harlem, and her name were Latifah, this conversation would take a very different tone. That Bristol is a child of privilege, and is white, will forestall the questions of who is going to pay for raising this child. If Bristol were a Latina, there would be cracks about whether the baby was conceived to drain the limited social safety net and achieve US citizenship

Race and class will protect Bristol from the attacks that poor Black and Latina women face on a daily basis when they decide to become mothers. She will not have to negotiate social services trying desperately to get pre-natal care. She will not be looked upon as a social leech, or a raving whore. The aforementioned are labels that are attached to WOC. She will not lay awake at night wondering where the money to raise this child is going to come from.

...We will pretend that we are having conversations about morality, while ignoring the real issues of race, class and gender in our understanding of motherhood. In the end she will emerge reborn and reconstituted, a tribute to what white women are meant to do - breed.

But hey, we can hold office now, too, a very few of us at least, and that's what really matters, right?

**ETA again: Btw, in case you, too, were wondering, "whom?" this is "Dr. Coburn:"

Tom Coburn is a Republican Senator from Oklahoma, and he’s not a subtle guy. During more than three years in the Senate he has spoken out against both sex education and contraception (which didn’t prevent Bush from appointing him co-chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS). A 2007 article on his government-sponsored website likens sex ed to pornography.

He is a self-proclaimed unwavering defender of the sanctity of “life”. That being said, he believes unequivocally that anyone performing an abortion should be put to death by the state.

Coburn’s Chief of Staff is Michael Schwartz. During the 2007 conference entitled “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith” Schwartz distinguished himself with a speech in which he advocated

“the mass impeachment of judges” and denounced the Supreme Court for giving Americans “the right to commit buggery.”

In the 80’s Schwartz was a founding member of Operation Rescue, the vigilante “pro-life” group that has advocated militant tactics...

Yeah, THAT Tom Coburn. Senator Tom Coburn. It took me a minute because I wasn't used to thinking of him as "Dr.," for some strange reason. You know, this guy:

In 1997, Coburn introduced a bill called the HIV Prevention Act of 1997, which would have amended the Social Security Act. The bill would have mandated HIV testing in some situations, would have allowed physicians to demand an HIV test before providing medical care, and would have allowed insurance companies to demand an HIV test as a condition of issuing health insurance.[25]

...Abortion
In 2000, Coburn sponsored a bill to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from developing, testing or approving the abortifacient RU-486. On July 13, the bill failed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 182 to 187.[15] On the issue, Coburn sparked controversy with his remark, "I favor the death penalty for abortionists and other people who take life."[16] Coburn also objects to legal abortion in cases of rape, and he has justified his position by noting that his great-grandmother was raped by a sheriff.[17] In the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings concerning Samuel Alito, Coburn asserted that his grandmother was a product of that rape.
26]

...Coburn has also been quoted as saying:

“ "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power... That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda."[6]

but best of all wrt the good Dr.:

A sterilization Coburn performed on a 20-year-old woman in 1990 became what was called "the most incendiary issue" of his Senate campaign.[27] Coburn performed the sterilization on the woman during an emergency surgery to treat a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, removing her intact fallopian tube as well as the one damaged by the surgery. The woman sued Coburn, alleging that he did not have consent to sterilize her, while Coburn claimed he had her oral consent. The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed with no finding of liability on Coburn's part.

The state attorney general claimed that Coburn committed Medicaid fraud by not reporting the sterilization when he filed a claim for the emergency surgery. Medicaid did not reimburse doctors for sterilization procedures for patients under 21, and according to the attorney general, Coburn would not have been reimbursed at all had he not withheld this information. Coburn says since he did not file a claim for the sterilization, no fraud was committed. No charges were filed against Coburn for this claim.

This, once again, is the guy to whose opinion McCain is deferring on all matters reproductive and sexual, the guy he "really respects."

Just noting.

I guess, you know, he would count as a sort of "maverick," would Coburn, on account of he's "someone simply uninterested in being popular" (so sayeth George Will, at least). It is a nice way of saying he's stubborn and has a bad tendency to say jaw-droppingly rude and ill-considered (at best) things. Moderate, though...not s'much.

And McCain himself? Still think he's a "moderate?" Still think Palin's probably at least sort of okay on account of hey she's got female bits? Still think Obama wouldn't be any better? Feminists? Moderates? Bueller?

Natalia Antanova on Russia/Georgia: "Darkness Falls"

source

at Global Comment:

What horrifies is me is not just the violence, as if it isn’t bad enough, but the fact that being ethnically half-Russian and half-Ukrainian, I grew knowing that the Georgians are our friends. I grew up in a household in love with Georgian culture. To my Russian mother, Georgia was “the most beautiful place in the world,” and she wasn’t alone in this by far.

The people baying for blood on both sides, have they honestly forgotten our common ties? If the forgetting is this easy, perhaps we really ought to be worried about the future of Russia and Ukraine. The unthinkable is already happening before us, and history has entered a gloomy and bewildering chapter. This is the sort of thing that happens when empires fail; it’s bloody and vile. It reeks of gunpowder and rot and the dried-up glue that used to hold together our old, red memorial wreaths.

...The absurdities of nationalism know no bounds.

The joy with which such people greet pictures of dead Georgians is diabolical. Their desire to see Russian soldiers fall due to some misguided notions regarding “glory” is equally diabolical. They do not value Georgian lives, but neither do they value the lives of their own troops or the lives of South Ossetians they are supposed to care about.

The loudest of the loud among us do not have sons serving in the Russian army, or so I have noticed.

This isn’t to say that I am a fan of Georgia’s President Saakashvili, however. I think it’s laughable that some writers are busy painting a picture of the genteel Saakashvili and uniformly bloodthirsty, fanged Russians. Have we learned nothing from Georgia’s squashed opposition? Do we really think that Saakashvili has the best interests of his people in mind? Or the best interests of the South Ossetians who are, predictably, almost invisible in this conflict?

Political elites benefit from grand-standing, regular people just lose their limbs in the process.

The West is no better in this regard...

read the rest.


source

Oh, cute: now Jon Justice is trying to get Isabel Garcia disbarred.

Update on this post, as reported by Woc PhD:

While Jon Justice continues to enjoy full privileges as a radio host after posting mock sexual assault videos in which he made racist comments about Latinas and immigrants while assaulting a piñata with public defender Isabel Garcia’s face pasted to it (see [PBW's] original post for more), his efforts to have Garcia dismissed from her job as a public defender in Arizona have gone forward. Garcia is currently under investigation by the AZ state bar for participating in a protest against a book signing for a book that supports active discrimination against immigrants and subversion of their rights. “Justice” and others, have misrepresented the events to say that Garcia’s “toting of a severed piñata head of a police officer” constitutes violation of the bar’s code of conduct. Garcia was actually picking up the head after protesters split the piñata open in traditional form. She and others actively protested the incitement of anti-immigrant sentiment and abuse of immigrants and the Latin@ community in AZ which they felt were being exacerbated by the event and the author. Should the review board decide that Garcia is guilty of violating codes of conduct, she could lose her license to practice law in the state of Arizona and would also lose her job as a public defender...

(read more)

...Anyone who is concerned about sexual violence, racism, and/or the place where these two things intersects needs to take action to support women’s rights in Arizona. You can make your voice heard by joining the write in campaign [PBW] mentioned in the previous post AND by doing the following:

1. Contact Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry in support of Isabel Garcia. 520.740.8661 or e-mail: chh@pima.gov
2. Contact the Journal Broadcast Group, expressing your opinion of Jon Justice and the tactics of 104.1FM, and your concern that local KGUN 9 would be associated with an outlet that is so obviously NOT an objective media source. Contact Julie Brinks: 520.290.7600 or e-mail: jbrinks@journalbroadcastinggroup.com
3. Contact the Board of Supervisors, voicing your support of Isabel Garcia, who has broken no rule or regulation as a Pima County employee.

Pima County Board of Supervisors
30 West Congress Street, 11th Floor
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Receptionist - (520) 740-8126
Fax - (520) 884-1152

Ann Day, District 1
Ann.Day@pima.gov
(520) 740-2738

Ramón Valadez, District 2
district2@pima.gov
(520) 740-8126

Sharon Bronson, District 3
district3@pima.gov
(520) 740-8051

Ray Carroll, District 4
district4@pima.gov
(520) 740-8094

Richard Elías, Chairman, District 5
district5@pima.gov
(520) 740-8126

Yeah, basically.

Via season of the bitch:

In which the author humbly requests that someone stage an intervention, or, um, something.

No, I mean for me, actually, though it might appear--stop me before I post this, I--

oh--

agh.

*sigh*

okay.

Dear Violet, and no doubt a bunch of other similarly inclined people that I don't "know" as well, by proxy more or less:

You know, I know it's been a hell of a long time since we've really been on speaking terms, and I realize we disagree on, well, a whole shitload of things.

It's just, well, I kind of had this idea that whatever else, you were always kind of ironically self-aware. Level headed. Wry. With a sense of humor, and proportion, and stuff.

So, well, I, I, I just don't really know what to make of, say, this entry:

I still don’t have regular internet access and I don’t watch TV, so
I’m out of the loop. But I hear things — weird, disturbing, almost
unbelievable things — and so I’m grabbing a few minutes here on my
Dad’s computer before a family birthday party for this brief announcement:

When I wrote this post on Democratic party history back in April, I was not calling for the assassination of Barack Obama. Just thought I’d get that out there now before the Gestapo shows up at here at the house.

Sorry to post and run, but I’ll leave you with something to think
about: if the collusion between the Obama campaign and the media
continues like this, will that pose the most severe threat to free
speech in this country since a) the Alien and Sedition Acts, b) the
1917 Espionage Act, c) the McCarthy era, or d) the Patriot Act of
2001? Discuss amongst yourselves.

Update: Over at the Mighty Corrente Building, FrenchDoc is facing a
fork in the road:

"There is no question that a line was crossed yesterday, by the
media and the so-called progressive blogosphere. Personally, it has
put me on the fence: if Senator Obama becomes the nominee, do I take a
break from politics until November or do I actively campaign against
him?"

I’ve been wrestling with the same issue, but I know now what my answer
is. Barack Obama has run the dirtiest, most dishonest campaign I’ve
ever seen from a Democrat on the national level. His mob-like
supporters terrify me. And his media enablers are catastrophically
dangerous. They must be stopped. Must be.

You know, and it's not as though the "media enablers" aren't also getting a tad, shall we say, melodramatic. Admittedly the only one I just really paid attention to is/was Keith Olbermann, who is also beginning to wear on my nerves, something I never thought I'd say--all RIGHT, we GET it, it was a stupid fucked up thing of her to say,** we're all vicariously cringing and were already beyond sick of the whole goddam thing, really, and yeah, I'm sure not exactly what either the Obamas or the Kennedy family really needed to hear, not to mention the rest of us; still, considering a) Obama himself just basically said 'let it go,' as did whichever the hell youngish Kennedy's still out there, I can't keep track b) she herself didn't actually KILL anybody, can we maybe stop with the Hercule Poirot GOTCHA routine?

...But, really. "They must be stopped?" THEY MUST BE STOPPED?

"...but how?" -bites knuckle-

I mean, fuck knows it's not like we had craptacular sensationalistic media before, EVER. Damn you, Barack Obama!

Okay, so at this point I realize that my little "y'know, there's this other dude McCain, and actually some of us think his presidency WOULD be more "dangerous" than that of Obama, even though I get that the latter seems suspiciously charismatic and that's automatically a Very Bad Thing and so on, well, I think basically at this point those who have ears to hear, you know. You'll live and die for Hillary (or Obama), for to save us from those other fanatics, yer fighting tooth and claw to the bitter bitter end; okay, I get it, wouldn't try to say you nay. Mostly because I'm on my very last pair of eyeballs, I don't get another prescription till next month.

But would it be too much to ask for people to, I don't know, consider getting a petit grip?

Just asking.

I mean, I understand, really. Well, sort of. God knows I've had plenty of rants, for far less than this, even, that probably led a number of people to the conclusion that I'm basically Time Cube guy at a John Birchers convention.

And having said that (I am large, I contain platitudes), I hereby request of all concerned friends and loved ones, that if I ever end up getting quite this um well apocalyptic about an electoral campaign, particularly a bleeding primary in which it's blatantly obvious to most of the non poliwonk-as-football-fan world that there's really not all that much difference between the candidates in question? that they beat me about the head and shoulders with a wet halibut until I damn well come to my senses.

Thank you.

**ETA and then, too, there is also this (thanks, Kevin):

I was not alive when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968. Yet, when I hear the words “1968″ and “assassination” in the same sentence, I cannot help but to think of Martin Luther King, Jr. I cannot help but to think of the racial unrest of the period. I cannot help but to think of the struggles that my people have had to undergo in order for a black person to be seriously considered for the Presidency of the United States of America. I cannot help but to think of the numerous civil Rights leaders slain.

This is my history.

And let it be known that this is not solely the history of black folks. People of Color across the board share this history in the United States. We may be invited to the dinner table now and again, but don’t even think we will get anything until the establishment has had their fill.

I don’t think that Sen. Clinton’s statements can be divorced from several events that occurred in 1968:

The assassination of Robert Kennedy.

The Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The riots at the Democratic National Convention.

Maybe it’s just me, but when I learned of her remarks (which she has made before, but I was unaware of), that’s what came to mind. It was offensive to the Kennedy family, especially given Ted Kennedy’s illness (Sen. Clinton did apologize for that, however). It unnecessarily brought up the specter of black folks getting killed for being black and standing up for their humanity; and it also, for me at least, brought up the 1968 Democratic Convention riots, given all the talk these days about a “civil war” at the Convention, talk that I’m sure she is aware of.

A clarification.

Wrt the "open letter" post. Perhaps I did not communicate my thesis as well as I might have done. Let me try to explain more clearly and succinctly:

I HATE CAPITAL P ELECTORAL POLITICS, I REALLY FUCKING HATE THIS PRIMARY SEASON, AND MOSTLY RIGHT NOW I HATE YOU ALL. -flaps hand irritably in general direction of irritating people-

'K?

I don't actually hate Hillary. I don't -know- Hillary. That's kind of, you know, the point. She's not my bestest buddy. She's not gonna get me a job or a girlfriend or a golden ticket through the glass ceiling to the top of the heap. She's not my fairy feminist godmother, gonna wave a wand and make my (for I am, indeed, Every Woman) life all better. NONE of the candidates are. We know this, as nice sensible rational non-sheeple, kee-rect?

I mean, this is why, when I go to read a nice, sensible person who's very concerned about the impending crypto-fundie-fascism of the "Obamabots" (yes, I'm sure they're really terrible TOO, I don't CARE, I didn't even mean to look THIS far, and Tom? so gonna KICK YOUR ASS for making me look)--she has this list, right, wherein she says,

The seeds of the new progressive blogosphere

A list is taking shape of those political bloggers who are either pro-Hillary or at least fair in their coverage of the candidates — in other words, bloggers who aren’t raving Clinton-hating Obamabots. Versions of this emerging blogroll are popping up here and there; the one below is cobbled together from lists at Tennessee Guerilla Women, The Hillary 1000, and a couple of other places.

Why does this list matter? It’s not merely a question of knowing where to go for misogyny-free political commentary. These are the seeds of a new progressive blogosphere in the making. The Obamabots are poisoning the original netroots, transforming what used to be an arena for progressive politics into nothing more than a rabid, mindless He-Man Woman-Haters club. The Democratic Party — or at least the high-visibility Obamabot segment — is morphing into the Young Republicans: all the misogyny and callowness and ignorance and blind hero-worship of the old GOP, but with a self-congratulatory aura of imaginary cool to make the YouTube generation feel at home.

And where does that leave the women of America?

...so, I click at random on a link from the list, right, and this is what I immediately run into:

http://alwaysforhillary.blogspot.com/

This is my blog on campaigning for and supporting Hillary Clinton for President! I firmly believe she is the most intelligent, qualified, and experienced "person" running and the fact she is a woman is just icing on the cake!

Wednesday, May 7, 2008
I'M SEETHING!!!! I'M ANGRY!!!!

Last night, Hillary won Indiana where Obama won North Carolina. Indiana was a state his campaign predicted they would win by at least 7 points. Well, because Hillary only won Indiana by 2 points, the pundits and media have AGAIN COUNTED HILLARY OUT AND LEFT HER FOR DEAD!!!! They are saying the nomination is over and Obama will be the nominee. He may well turn out to be the nominee, but this is at least the 4th or 5th time throughout this campaign, that Hillary's political demise has been delivered!!! Today George McGovern who supported Hillary early on in the campaign, for him both Bill and Hillary campaigned for him for president in the 70's, has now called on Hillary PUBLICLY TO GET OUT OF THE RACE and he has switched his support to Obama!!! I am SO ANGRY; I AM SEETHING!!!!!

Hillary is the most admirable woman in the world!!! As this campaign has progressed, my admiration and love for her as deepened day by day, month by month. After being counted out time after time, she STILL GETS UP EVERY DAY and goes out there and campaigns. This is a woman who has again lent her campaign another $6 million so she can be competitive with Obama!! Doesn't the fact she has loaned her campaign over $11 million already, and is willing to give more, SHOW HOW PASSIONATE SHE IS TO HELP THIS COUNTRY?????

I just made by upteenth call to the DNC. I told them how ANGRY I was; how I was SEETHING!!! I said Hillary won Indiana last night and all I'm hearing is how she should get out of the race; the race is over, "she's toast", etc. I told them that I had said all along that I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA BUT THAT I WOULD WRITE IN HILLARY'S NAME, but I have gone one step further. I am SO ANGRY that I have decided if Hillary does not get the nomination which she deserves and has earned, I WILL VOTE FOR MC CAIN!!!!! And that goes against everything I believe in, but at least I RESPECT MC CAIN! I DO NOT RESPECT OBAMA!!! I DO NOT TRUST OBAMA!!!! I THINK OBAMA WOULD BE TERRIBLY DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY!!!

In both states last night, 50% of Hillary's supporters said THEY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA!!! They will either vote for McCain or not vote at all. I am not giving up yet. Hillary is a FIGHTER and she might still have some tricks up her sleeve. I PRAY SHE WILL STILL WIN THIS NOMINATION. I want to vote for the person I believe in!! I want to vote for the person who will be great for this country!!! I want to vote for the person who will be a GREAT PRESIDENT!!! I WANT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!

***

I'm not sure, but I think she's saying that she's for Hillary, there.

"Where does this leave the women of America?"

Well, I can't speak for the rest of 'em, but THIS woman is left rolling her eyes so hard they've fallen down the back of me.

Jesus fuck, can't these people indulge their passions in something -healthy-, like, I don't know, Harry Potter fandom or something? This person is 55? and she sounds like a rabid Harmonian (no, don't ask me how I even know about this shit, really).

ZOMG BILLARY 4EVER!!!ELEVENTYBEEP!!...

I mean, I -was- going to say something a bit more in-depth about, well...back to Violet, because there's some shit to unpack that I find interesting, here:

Well, first of all, she links to this endorsement of Obama, with the following accompanying photo:



And, well, yeah, that is rather creepy. At minimum: seriously naff. Vote for Obama and Thomas Kincade will give us all a unicorn? What? And as the first commenter notes:

The only problem with the picture you have of Obama is that he is not walking on top of the water.

So, Violet has some commentary, and some of it I do agree with, in fact, this bit:

Barack Obama is not a creep or a vicious little man. He is, however, a canny politician, and not even a particularly honest one. He’s a product of the Chicago machine, and he’s played as dirty as anybody. His whole career, going back to the moment he graduated from Harvard Law, has been focused on one thing: his own advancement. The elaborate advertising campaign that’s selling him to the gullible masses as some kind of savior is just that — an advertising campaign.

Agreed. He's a canny politician, for better or for worse. It's looking increasingly like he just might be even cannier than Hillary, and this is why, in fact, he's edging her out. It may or may not be that he's the better candidate. Me, I still think in a number of ways it's a coin-toss. Depends on the issue, what time of day you ask me, and how arsed I can be to actually go know what the fuck I'm talking about.

As for "not particularly honest:" well, again, haven't been following the play by play much this time so can't really comment, but I will say with some rather glibly cynical confidence that "___ is not a particularly honest politician" is a truism on the level of "the Atlantic is not a particularly dry ocean."

What I -do- think is

a) either one of them is way WAY better than McCain, and I still will vote for whoever actually wins the nomination, assuming this ever fucking ends

b) neither one is exactly ideal and both have made me :headdesk: a number of times

c) actually? a little canninesss and charisma are not, perhaps, such bad things, in a politician. I mean to say, it'd be a refreshing change from our current dumbass arrogant motherfuckers, who simply rode as far as they could on nepotism and deluded arrogance and Rovian levels of dirty fuckery, and simply -bludgeoned- the rest of their way, Vogon-like, as far as they could go, domestically -and- internationally; and, well, check out the results. "We're soaking in it."

Hell, it's why I supported Clinton's husband in the damn first place. Rather eerily similar mix of personal charm, either inspiring or nauseatingly saccharine, depending on your purview, appeals to "hope," apparent genuine better-than-the-other-guyness and disappointing sellouts; and, yep, canny, even oleaginous, as all fuck, no doubt. It's what made him good at what he did, see, in large part: charm and canniness HELP when you're trying to persuade people to pass your bill or put down the large nuclear weapon. It -can- be used to get people to drink the Koolaid or join the Hitlerjugend too, yes. But it doesn't have to be. And without it, well, basically...you're Ralph Nader.

There was, for me, with Bill, a tipping point where I just couldn't muster up any enthusiasm anymore--this was well into his actual tenure--but I never had any illusions that he was, y'know, Holy Savior On A White Unicorn. And if anyone -really- did, to the point of actual -worship-, well...more fool they, I suppose.

That said, though, well: okay. We're not just rolling our eyes at this pic, apparently, we're supposed to, what, see this kind of generic poli-fanboy kitsch as a threat to humanist democracy, because:

Obamamania gives liberals the opportunity to surrender to the same mindless hero-worship as Republicans. That’s really the deal. George W. Bush is, in actuality, a creep. A vicious little man. But he was marketed as a Man of Honor, a Man of God — and people fell for it. Because they wanted to, because they were ripe for that kind of pseudo-religious surrender.

...We are a nation of consumers, of believers, of dupes. Maybe we don’t deserve democracy anymore.

You know, there's more to say about the not-so-subtext--there's an actual texty quote I had to this effect, by someone else of similar politics, elsewhere--about this tendency about let's say a certain demographic of people, I think more on the more or less "traditional" left, perhaps, to look at anything smacking of actual religion/faith with deep suspicion, how it ALL must be scary fundieism; and how indeed this fear of fundamentalist demagoguery ties into the mistrust of, well, again, charisma.

But it's more than my frazzled attention span can manage at the moment, it's a longer post than I've already got here anyway. Besides, the conclusion I'm stumbling toward, i.e. actually "the spirit," let's say very generally, is a GOOD thing, a HUMAN thing, and if the left doesn't acknowledge this um...well, what -are- we talking about? appeal to faith, hope and charity? theatre and spectacle and ritual and all things associated with religion as well as humbug? the wisdom of crowds?...but rather insists we must do away with it altogether, well, THAT'S when you get your Hitlers and other false prophets. It's not a question of needing to believe so and so really IS the Messiah; you're right, literally putting that on any human being IS a bad thing, that's what fundamentalism IS, the over-literalization of all...this; it is however a question of, no, we're -not- all just-the-facts-ma'am, it's not how we're built, and it's better to work with it consciously than rail about what stupid unevolved sheep we all are...something like that.

...anyway, well, let's just say the -philosophical- tone I was gonna take with -that- post, which is indeed a separate post I think, much less "why yes, having faith in -something-, especially one's fellow human critter, is a -good- thing in a leader and a political movement," sits rather uneasily with my current mood of FUCK ALL Y'ALL, YOU'RE ALL TERMINALLY ANNOYING MYOPIC BASTARD PEOPLE AND I HATE YOU SO BAD.

It'll pass.

Anyway.

So let's just take this thesis of Violet's on its face for now, okay, that Obama-Kitsch-person is a representative of all that's bad and scary about THEM, you know, the Obama people, and we must turn to the sane sober -smart- people who are NOT prone to mindless worship to save us from ourselves, i.e...the Hillary supporters.

Like this person.

Hillary is the most admirable woman in the world!!! As this campaign has progressed, my admiration and love for her as deepened day by day, month by month. After being counted out time after time, she STILL GETS UP EVERY DAY and goes out there and campaigns. This is a woman who has again lent her campaign another $6 million so she can be competitive with Obama!! Doesn't the fact she has loaned her campaign over $11 million already, and is willing to give more, SHOW HOW PASSIONATE SHE IS TO HELP THIS COUNTRY?????

Well. Okay then!! I'm convinced!! Sign me up for my full quota of exclamation points!!!!! -thumbs up-

Did I mention the part about oh GOD will the LOT of you SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY? I may have, once or twice.

And finally, here's the part which really fucks me off, okay:

These people who are all like, nnnghh rrrggghhh HILLARY (or OBAMA I suppose, someone must be doing this somewhere, NO don't show me) OR BUST n i'll VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN or stay home and BITE MY PILLOW! ?

are, in many cases the VERY SAME PEOPLE who four years ago (remember?) were all like,

ZOMG BUSH CAN'T WIN AGAIN IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD THE LAST LATE CHANCE FUCK YOU YOU NADER FUCKERS FOR RUINING EVERYTHING IF HE DOES WIN OMG HE DID WIN O DESPAIR DESPAIR WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOMED FOREVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR it's the end of democracy and Western Civ and puppies and EVERYTHING.

Remember this?

And you know? I kind of bought it, for a while. Maybe I was right to, even. I mean, we DO live on a Hellmouth, more or less; we just kind of, what, get used to it? Something. Fuck knows there are a bunch of people in the Middle East who are a lot more dead than they probably would've been if someone who wasn't totally in bed with the neocons, the theocons, and their daddies' pals in the Awl Bidness had been in office. (Which is not to say that there still wouldn't have been a body count; yes, I am well aware Bill Clinton was not exactly a bomb-free gift to the Iraqis or a bunch of other people either, yes) Plus a bunch of other -specifics- that I'm too lazy and shallow to get into at the moment, but hey join the club there. And fuck knows Nader sucks, yes.

And yet. So now, though, here we are again, four years later, and YEAH, for a lot of people the world DID end, same as it always has cause garsh, there's more to U.S. policy and politics and well LIFE than you imagined, Horatio, and more people in the world, too, but well never mind;

But fact is, the world still continues to turn, more or less, against all odds, and now oh look just in time for election season (which I KNOW some of these same people screaming about their primary candidate now were swearing upndown we'd never have one again at ALL after '04), it's yet ANOTHER fucking crisis.

No, the world won't even probably end as such if McCain wins either, or not -just- BECAUSE McCain wins instead of the Democrat. Although I DO think it'll be pretty bad for a lot of people in ways that it wouldn't be otherwise, yes, and I plan to write more about this henceforth. And no, it won't be all roses for everyone if either HRC or Obama wins either. Absolutely.

But. Here's the point: whom do you imagine is most going to feel the immediate impact of the -actual policies- enacted by the -actual whoever is voted in, o flag-waving peanut gallery? You? I wonder. Because, well, four years after the last OMG THE SKY IS FALLING, well, here you all are again, more or less, gearing up for the NEXT test match, threatening imminent doom and/or hara-kiri if your candidate doesn't WIN DAMMIT, all sound and fury and signifying not a whole fuck of a lot, quite frankly.

Which leads one, finally, to the question:

Why get all het up over the CANDIDATES so much more than the ISSUES? (whatever they were again?)

Well...it's more fun and it's sexier, and fuck knows it's -hard work- to pay attention to the issues. Hey, guilty as charged right here.

But for the love of little plastic baubles, do NOT try to sell me YOUR political fandom as the ONE TRUE SHIP while at the same time handwringing about all those OTHER terrible people who just don't -understand- what's at stake here, unlike you, o enlightened, -serious- person.

As for this?

Maybe we don’t deserve democracy anymore.

Speak for your damn self. And, piss off with the damn Twilight of Western Civ elegies, T.S. Eloise, I -hate- that shit. Include me out with your -we-, and don't tell me what I -deserve-.

I don't know -what- "we," or even I, deserve, to be perfectly honest. I know what I -want-, but that may not be what I -deserve-. And to some degree, well, karma will wreak its justice, and them's the breaks.

What I -can- control, however, is whether or not I continue to hurt my brain by tuning into this crap.

I don't -think- I deserve it (glares at Tom). I know I don't -want- to.

So, I...won't.

Off to cultivate my garden, or some goddam thing, at least till the next outrage I get caught up in (checks watch)

***

ETA: Let me be a little clearer about one last thing, also. I am not actually saying she should drop out before the last few primary state elections straggle to the end, no. Not at this late date. That would not be reasonable.

What I AM saying is, the suggestions that at the end of those, even if she's in the red in delegates, superdelegates, AND money, she's still gonna plug away at Michigan and Florida and maybe fuck me dead even run as an independent after the nomination (no, I don't think she'd go that far, but there WAS fucking Lieberman, not the same I know, but...)

Again. The last. fucking. thing. anyone wants. is to have a prolonged drag out fight. over a technicality. in FLORIDA.

Please, God? Please? PLEEEASSSEEEEE

An open letter to HRC

This is one of my -very- few commentaries on this sorry clusterfuck of a primary season. Please Maud it will be my last.

Dear Hillary:

I totally, totally hate you. Please go away now kthxbai.

And you know what the bitch of it (something not even -remotely- Freudianly suggestive of internalized sexism) is? I -didn't- particularly hate you before. Was (ETA AND STILL AM IF BY SOME MIRACLE OF MAUD YOU ACTUALLY TURN THIS THING AROUND, I JUST DON'T THINK YOU WILL, OKAY) ready to get behind you or whoever won, albeit without much enthusiasm. Have not been much of an Obama supporter; I voted for him at the last minute, but that was about it. Did not pass go, did not collect my brief flaring of passion for the guy wayyyyy back in '04, did not join the campaign or even write or read more about him. Just went right back to dumb-as-shit blogwars where at least I can engage/spar more or less -personally- with the dumbasses in question; and picking dandruff off the cat; and y'know, generally, my own life, such as it is. No more rah rah goDemsgo for me, thanks.

"I've been hurt before."

Mostly, this round, I've been trying to -ignore- -all- of your sorry asses, and the even dumber and more hateful arguments among your various supporters. All the race-baiting, and the what-trumps-who, and the number-crunching, and the backseat pollstering, and the posturing at great length which we all know perfectly well will mean precisely nothing as soon as victory's in your or anyone's hot little hand, and the fucking FUCKING mass emails and dead trees jamming up my mailbox and the -phone calls-, oh GOD the PHONE calls, how many different ways are there to tell someone you've never met "no, I am not giving you any money, now will you PLEASE take me off your list now PLEASE?"

And no, I can't even reference the latest oh-Christ-what-the-fuck-did-they-do-NOW except in the vaguest of ways, the headdesky racist phone calls in whosit, the dumbass public remark or staff gaffe du jour. Never even mind hahaha the ISSUES. I mean, the difference between your positions and Obama's and how exactly you're each pinky swearing no one's gonna pull away the football THIS time and who probably means it slightly less? Does anyone even know what they -are- anymore? Does anyone care? Do you? Fuck knows I barely do at this point. -trudges off to do quick refresher course, grinding teeth-

-That- bit's my own fault, I admit it.

The bit where I've been too disgusted and jaded to even -bother- paying attention, because I know that once I start I can't avoid an earful of the really hateful, -stupid- shit, plus I don't trust any of you lot as far as I can throw you at this point anyway so I feel like it barely matters? YOUR fault. Among others', -yes-. No, sharing the blame doesn't get your ass off the hook. No, I do not want to hear about your -platform- now, much less how "we can do it! chirp!!" Shut up. YOUR FAULT. (Did I mention the part about 'I hate you?')

ETA: YES, already, if the positions were reversed, I would be addressing this letter to Obama. Hey, I'll even put it in for the hell of it, I'm sure I'll be thinking it again before long.

Dear Barack: I totally, totally hate you and I hate your ass face (actually I kind of do, he physically kind of reminds me of my arch-nemesis at the Dwama School, not his fault, but it doesn't help matters), shut UP shut UP shut UP.

Would be the gist of my appeal, if he were the one losing at the straggling end of this loooooooong ass primary but still plugging away. But...he's not. That simple.

Lookit: It's MAY. McCain's been the Republican nominee for how long? Over a third of a YEAR, you say?

See, if you bunch of sorry-assed Beltway mofos HAD to imitate the Republicans in ANY way, the ONE way you SHOULD be doing it is of course the ONE way you -don't-. To wit:

When it's obvious it's either you or the Party, it's time to finally sit your ass down.

And, like so -many- other people, believe me, of -course- I don't give a fuck about the -Party.- What I do give a fuck about is NOT having THIS guy win, okay:

McCain, whose six years of captivity and torture in Vietnam made him a national celebrity, negotiated (in September 2006) a compromise in the Senate for the Military Commissions Act of 2006, suspending habeas corpus provisions for anyone deemed by the Executive Branch an "unlawful enemy combatant" and barring them from challenging their detentions in court. Coming on the heels of a Supreme Court decision adverse to the White House, McCain's compromise gave a retroactive, nine-year immunity to U.S. officials who authorized, ordered, or committed acts of torture and abuse, and permitted the use of statements obtained through torture to be used in military tribunals so long as the abuse took place by December 30, 2005.[11] McCain's compromise permitted the President to establish permissible interrogation techniques and to "interpret the meaning and application" of international Geneva Convention standards, so long as the coercion fell short of "serious" bodily or psychological injury.[12] Widely dubbed McCain's "torture compromise", the bill was signed into law by George W. Bush on October 17, 2006, shortly before the 2006 midterm elections.

...In October 2007, McCain said of waterboarding that, "They [other presidential candidates] should know what it is. It is not a complicated procedure. It is torture."[14] However, in February 2008 he voted against HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from waterboarding prisoners.

...In a major economic speech on April 15, 2008, McCain proposed a number of tax reductions and backed away from his pledge to balance the budget by the end of his first term, saying it would take him eight years. His speech focused on cuts to corporate tax rates and the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and also called for eliminating the alternative-minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for dependents to $7,000, This is in contrast to McCain's historical emphasis on deficit reduction over tax cuts. [42]

...The Washington Post noted that "much of what he detailed was a corporate special pleader's dream: a cut in the corporate income tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent, a proposal to allow businesses to write off the cost of new equipment and technology from their taxes, a ban on Internet and new cellphone taxes, and a permanent tax credit for research and development."...

McCain is against publicly-funded health care, universal health care, or health coverage mandates, instead favoring tax credits of up to $5,000** for families that get health insurance.

**(had to pay any health care costs out of pocket lately? -major- health care costs, like surgery and longterm hospital stays? basically, this will get you something involving a can opener, some string, and maybe a bottle of duty-free vodka for anaesthetic. never even mind chronic conditions like cancer or lupus or...)

you know, THIS guy:

# Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
# Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
# Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)

...Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.
# Rated 33% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
# Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

...# Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
# Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
# Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)

...# Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
# Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
# Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
# Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
# Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (May 2001)
# Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (Apr 2001)

...Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. (Jul 1996)

...I support the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. (Jan 2006)

...and so on. Compare and contrast, if you please, with Obama's positions and record. Might as well start, because he IS the presumptive candidate. Which brings us back to our thesis here, i.e. go away now plzkthxBAI.

What's that you say? But, but but BUT, but...where's my sisterly solidarity? The First Woman President! It had -such- a nice ring to it.

Listen up, because I'm only gonna say this once more: I. Don't. Care.

That's right. Do not care. Don't care if you have EIGHT vaginas. Don't care if you have endorsements from Early Money Is Like A Yeast Infection [ETA this does make me wince on reread, strike one for internalized wotsit] and Ilse Muttersdottir the First Matriarch AND Asphalta the Goddess of Parking Spaces. (ETA: Yes, I know "eight vaginas" and the rest of this bit ISN'T FUNNY AT ALL. I -have- eight vaginas. Damn right it isn't funny. -You- try going to the ob/gyn with...) See this? This is my not bothered at ALL at this point what goddam gender the next President is face, okay. And you want to know cause why?

1) at THIS point, whatever symbolic significance there is in having a woman break that last glass ceiling, and I will admit there is -some-, pretty much we've had it already. It's like the Oscars: the important part is the nomination. Yeah, yeah, I know, no one who's up for one REALLY believes it, and you've been SO ready for your closeup for SO long. Nonetheless. I'm sure the -next- female candidate who -isn't- a total plonker will be indebted to you, as are we all, really. Brava. However, this is a separate question from your PERSONAL ambition, I am afraid, and THAT, well, really not caring about. Like, at all. Sorry.

2) also? If you have to become more and more like Maggie Thatcher to win this thing? Don't want you -anyway.- And say-hey, ever since Maggie lo these couple of decades or so ago, why, there's no more sexism, legally OR culturally, in the UK, right? Right...?

3) yes, we know, there's been really rancid sexism in the media aimed at you. It sucks. We've discussed this. Thing is, of itself, not really enough to make me support -you-, as opposed to simply noting "gorram, those people are sexist fuckstains." What's more, they can and will continue to be sexist fuckstains quite happily with OR without your continued candidacy. It's just how it goes. And, we can attack them for being sexist fuckstains without having to add the obligatory "even though I don't particularly like Hillary herself...", really, we can.

4) -snaps fingers- oh yeah! Womens' RIGHTS, as in what affects the REST of us who AREN'T you and have OTHER primary concerns besides YOUR PERSONAL CAREER.

Well, now, let's see. Here's McCain on reproductive rights.

# Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
# Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
# Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
# Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
# Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
# Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
# Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
# VVoted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
# Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
# Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
# Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
# Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

I am pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere in the world, because to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator. I will never waver in that conviction. Our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.
Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008
# Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.

Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?

A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series May 13, 2007

On the issue of nominating Supreme Court justices based on an abortion litmus-test, �McCain has said that he will nominate justices based on their experience, and those who share his values,� said a spokesman.

and here's Obama:

* We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)
* Undecided on whether life begins at conception. (Apr 2008)
* Teach teens about abstinence and also about contraception. (Apr 2008)
* GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
* Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
* Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
* Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
* Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
* Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
* Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
* Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
* Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
* Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
* Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
* Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
* Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
* Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
* Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
* Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

Q: What us your view on the decision on partial-birth abortion and your reaction to most of the public agreeing with the court's holding?

A: I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it. There is a broader issue: Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on? Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances.
Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

Yeah, there is also this.

"In the Illinois state legislature, Obama voted 'present" instead of "no' on five horrendous anti-choice bills."
--E-mail from NOW attacking Sen. Obama's record on abortion issues.

The National Organization for Women has strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. A chain e-mail denounced Obama's record on abortion, citing his "present" votes on a succession of bills sponsored by anti-abortion activists.

The Facts: Under the rules of the Illinois legislature, only yes votes count toward passage of a bill. Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation [and asked Obama to vote 'present' as a strategy]. NOW never endorsed the Planne Parenthood strategy of voting 'present,' saying "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes." Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood had different voting strategies on the abortion issue. It was impossible for Obama to satisfy both groups at once.
Source: GovWatch on 2008 NOW pro-Clinton campaign literature Feb 6, 2008

You may or may not agree with this spin on his decision. Personally? On the whole, he rides the fence too often for my tastes, yes, on a number of things. Definitely do not love his lip service toward "abstinence" in public school education, although his actual voting on any such isn't clear from that. (We won't even get into the "yay, giant useless expensive fence along the Mexican border which no one including his co-sponsor McCain actually thinks will do any good at all." See above re 'actually, I hate you all and I hate your collective Ass Face.') And yeah, of themselves, the quotes on abortion being a moral issue and so on? Sure, they grind a lot of peoples' teeth. But... look at how he -did- vote, -when- he did.

Now look at McCain. And well--look at you. Are you "better" when it comes to reproductive rights? Well, depends on your perspective, obviously. But assuming one takes the position that "my body, my choice" is sacrosanct, -even if- this were the Most Important Issue Ever: if you -are- better than Obama in this one regard? at this point, by my lights it's not enough to justify your plugging away and risking McCain instead. (Are you listening, Phyllis Chesler?)

Obama: 100% rating by NARAL. McCain: 0% rating by NARAL. Y/N?

Oh, right, okay, but: still, it's been a close race, you're a fighter, yadda yadda. Yes, up to a point. But, the diva, she has -sung-, geddit? He's -ahead-. He's -been- ahead. There's just not that much more to say, and you can't close the gap. And if you're counting on Florida and Michigan, -all- I have to say is: NOW you want to go to the mat over a technicality in fucking Florida rather than concede? NOW?? FUCK YOU.

At this point it's not even about Obama or you. No one wants a gorram intraparty repeat of 2000 here, understand? You're not worth it. Seriously, just...go. Have some damn dignity. Go build houses with Jimmy Carter or something. And, hey, look on the bright side: if Obama wins, and he turns out to be as much or more of a plonker as you, well, hey, at least you won't be the one who's totally, totally hated.

It'll mean less glory too, yes.

You'll live.

And that's all she wrote, folks.

ETA: Let me be a little clearer about one last thing, also. I am not actually saying she should drop out before the last few primary state elections straggle to the end, no. Not at this late date. That would not be reasonable.

What I AM saying is, the suggestions that at the end of those, even if she's in the red in delegates, superdelegates, AND money, she's still gonna plug away at Michigan and Florida and maybe fuck me dead even run as an independent after the nomination (no, I don't think she'd go that far, but there WAS fucking Lieberman, not the same I know, but...)

Again. The last. fucking. thing. anyone wants. is to have a prolonged drag out fight. over a technicality. in FLORIDA.

Please, God? Please? PLEEEASSSEEEEE