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

Well, I do.

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

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

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

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

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

nyargh.

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

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.

William F. Buckley must be so proud

Positively stationary in his grave, I'll bet. Smiling down with austere benevolence from the Great Country Club In The Sky, safe in the assurance that young conservatives are carrying his torch of intellect and high standards.

Oh, you remember the Young Cons, don't you?





So, Mike Stark of firedoglake got a chance to chat with them a bit:





Scintillating, I think you'll agree.

And thank the Lord that these fine young men, our nation's best and brightest, were not forced to give up their spaces at Dartmouth to some undeserving "affirmative action baby" minority person. Thank the Lord for -standards.-

I particularly enjoy "Stiltz;" he exhibits an almost Proustian display of existentialist conservative rap. And has not fallen off his chair once.

Damn. Does it -hurt?-

I never really took the time before to read Pamela Whosis of Atlas Shrugs before, I don't think. Not sure how much influence she has these days, or if she ever even really was more than a novelty act; after all, there's -so much- competition among the foaming classes. And that's before even taking Fox News Channel into account.

Surfing from Twitter just now, though, landed on this moonversation (moonologue?) on Obama's speech to the NAACP. I guess it's probably just boilerplate, standard levels of racism and stoopid from the World Nads Daily (and suchlike) set at this point, nothing new to see here, but. Actually stopped to read this one for some reason. Life on another (small, hostile, noxious) planet:

The speech proves, yet again, that he does not (nor does he want to) represent all Americans. He is the most racist, divisive official we have ever elected to any high office, let alone the most powerful office in the world. The speech was scandalous. Listen to the African American president of the United States rail against discrimination in the country that elected him. Obama deceives and demagogues when he castigates the economy (which he is destroying) as being racist. The economy targets blacks - got that? The US has the highest standard of living for African Americans anywhere in the world, but to the left, facts are irrelevant. He preaches to us that AIDS devastates the African American community here in the US with disproportionate force. Whose fault is that? Sex and drugs is the problem. The culture in the Black community promotes the riskiest behavior...

Oh, there's more. The Muslims are coming ooh ahh etc. More screeching Buchananesque spittle at the Black! President! of the! United! States! focusing on African Americans. In a speech to the NAACP. I mean, how inflammatory and radical can you get?

[Obama]: The first thing we need to do is make real the words of the NAACP charter and eradicate prejudice, bigotry, and discrimination among citizens of the United States. (Applause.) I understand there may be a temptation among some to think that discrimination is no longer a problem in 2009. And I believe that overall, there probably has never been less discrimination in America than there is today. I think we can say that.

But make no mistake: The pain of discrimination is still felt in America. (Applause.) By 2African American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and a different gender. (Laughter.) By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. (Applause.) 3 By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion simply because they kneel down to pray to their God. (Applause.) By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights. (Applause.)

On the 45th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, discrimination cannot stand -- not on account of color or gender; how you worship or who you love. Prejudice has no place in the United States of America. That's what the NAACP stands for. That's what the NAACP will continue to fight for as long as it takes. (Applause.)

I think all of us understand that our task of reducing these structural inequalities has been made more difficult by the state and structure of our broader economy; an economy that for the last decade has been fueled by a cycle of boom and bust; an economy where the rich got really, really rich, but ordinary folks didn't see their incomes or their wages go up; an economy built on credit cards, shady mortgage loans; an economy built not on a rock, but on sand...

...So, yes, government must be a force for opportunity. Yes, government must be a force for equality. But ultimately, if we are to be true to our past, then we also have to seize our own destiny, each and every day.

That is what the NAACP is all about. The NAACP was not founded in search of a handout. The NAACP was not founded in search of favors. The NAACP was founded on a firm notion of justice; to cash the promissory note of America that says all our children, all God's children, deserve a fair chance in the race of life.

It is a simple dream, and yet one that has been denied - one still being denied - to so many Americans.

Quoth the Pam:

When Obama speaks of children who don't "have a fair chance in life", he victimizes them before they have had a shot at grabbing the brass ring. Keep telling someone he's/she's a loser and pretty soon they believe you. Everyone is this great country has a fair chance in life.

It is, I suppose, an interesting twist on the "what happens to a dream deferred" question. Angry White Left Behind Version: What happens to a fantasy based in privilege and denial, challenged? I don't know what the verb is, but judging from the output of folks like Ms. Geller, Pat "Sunshine" Buchanan and Glenn "The Alien Probe Was Too Cold Again" Beck, the result rather closely resembles the end of a very long night with severe stomach flu, no meds, and a stopped up toilet.

The comments are...remarkable only it that their ilk is relatively unremarkable in right wing circles by now: Obama is an Indonesian pretender without a REAL birth certificate and will soon be removed from office, Obama was a Black Panther, W.E.B. Dubois was a commie, and the requisite cry to "arm yourselves." Hey ho, let's go.

Ultimately spending too much time around this sort of thing leaves me feeling strangely...inert. Because, you really -can't- argue with this logic, can you:

The US has the highest standard of living for African Americans anywhere in the world

ETA: DUDE!

I have asked the Netherlands Justice Ministry to issue an exclusion order, barring Pamela Geller Oshry from the Netherlands, and I have asked the British Home Secretary to issue an exclusion order, barring her from the United Kingdom. Better known as Pamela Geller, she is the sole author of the xenophobic, racist, right-wing blog 'Atlas Shrugs'. (For coverage of the blog by others, see LGF Watch and GOVVS).

In general, I believe that the American right is America's problem. However,the US 'counter-jihadist' movement has begun building links with the xenophobic-populist parties in Europe, united by the fear of 'Eurabia'. They have adopted Geert Wilders in particular, and Pamela Geller is his strongest supporter in the US blogosphere. Like some other supporters there (e.g. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch) she has now begun fundraising for him...

She supported the recent anti-Islam rally organised by Pro-Köln, a regional xenophobic-populist party which is active in building contacts among European right-wing parties. The meeting signals the shift to pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, anti-Islam positions, among xenophobic-populist and nationalist parties in Europe.

...Geller promotes in the United States the activities of the German xenophobic-populist party Pro-Köln. She has regularly written in support of their anti-Islam meetings, at which neo-fascist and right-populist parties are represented: among others, Vlaams Belang, the Czech Národní Strana, the French Front National, and the Austrian FPÖ.

Through her activities, Geller contributes to the emergence of a transatlantic xenophobic movement, and to increasing co-operation among xenophobic right-wing parties.

...Geller openly advocates the use of torture, inside and outside the United States. In combination with her support for racial profiling - classification as a terrorist suspect on the basis of ethnic origin - this constitutes a physical threat to immigrant minorities in the EU member states.

...she describes other Jews who don't share her hard-line right-wing views on Israel and the Palestinians, as "Jewicidal" or "jihadi".

Why, yes, yes it does hurt, apparently. -clutches head and wanders away, muttering about converting to Druidism and changing my name out of vicarious shame-

Mommy, make the stupid STOP now, please.

I can't even watch:

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

ETA: Go git 'em Maddow.

Good idea, "rebranding."

As in, the Republicans are "rebranding" the Democrats "Democrat Socialists." Which apparently requires a special meeting, and funny hats, and a special dispensation from Godwin agreeing that they are Exempt from the Law as they are officially Post Irony. not from Steele, though, cos no one cares what he thinks.

As I understand it, the Democrats were considering holding a meeting to redub the Republicans "the Epic Fail Party," but it seemed a tad redundant.

ETA: Wait. I hadn’t realized we’d reached "pell mell." Crap. Oh, sure, I knew we weren’t hunky dory, and things have been decidedly higgledy piggledy for years now. But pell mell? Ipso facto, that’s bad news, yo.

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

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

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

Dear American Blacks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join us. Consider it, anyway.

yes, it's really real. Really.

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


Dear Republican Whites,

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

Consider it, anyway.

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

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

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

Yours in Supply-Side Jesus,

Marie of Romania.

Sort of like turning a stone over to see the squiggly worms

Abyss2hope fisks a comment by a rape apologist. It is sort of fascinating and horrifying to see how the mentality works. Thanks for doing it, A2H. Honestly, I got as far as

In my personal opinion, being accused of a crime when one is innocent is worse than being the victim of that crime. That is why we have this "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

and couldn't even get past WTF??! WTF??!?@?# -dissolve into incoherent sputtering-

anyway, though, the rest is equally enlightening in its fucked up way, so, if you're in the sort of mood where you can process that sort of thing: worth a full read.

ETA: oh, wait, here's a lower place.

Note to self: do not ever hire Choe, Jackson and Weitz.

should I ever happen to be in L.A. and in need of anti-sexual harassment/workplace discrimination legal representation.
See here for why. And then here, here, and especially here.

Klassy.

ETA: more details, and a guide to reporting to the California Bar Assoc. if you feel so inclined.

ETA again: okay, the skinny if you haven't clicked the links.

Basically, there's this guy called Luke Jackson. See links above. Creepy-as-fuck douche who works as an anti-sexual harassment/work discrimination lawyer by day, appallingly racist/misogynistic/hateful troll calling himself "Igor Sanchez" by...well, day, too, now apparently, as Kynn called him out and he's now posted K's ex-wife's personal information on his blog and engaged in gross transphobia under his own name in retaliation. and posted the contact info of people who wrote letters to his law firm as well. Which, thus far, I was just noting the general WTF?

Looking back now, though, there's increasing layers of creepy, and this was the bit I wanted to note here:

(via Kynn)

At one point, he posted as Luke on the MySpace of Sunny Leone, a desi- Canadian porn star living in Los Angeles, to dedicate one of “Igor’s” racist graphical rape/murder fantasies to her:

This was inspired by YOU:

http://igorsanchezDOTlivejournalDOTcom/552.html [NSFW, possibly triggering]

***

Besides the kind of shit he writes being fucking hateful as hell, if he's writing that kind of mash note to actual porn stars + he's shown himself willing to cross the line wrt peoples' personal info AND he (for FUCK'S SAKE) works as an -anti-discrimination lawyer-, I am thinking: seriously, this guy reads like Kyle Payne on steroids (now with more racism!!) except that he hasn't actually gotten caught committing sexual abuse. "Just" incitement to harassment/outing of personal information. So far.

Oh, how much have I not missed this

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

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

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


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

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

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

nice moniker there, too, not too ironic.

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




fail.

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

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

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

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

Fuck the lot of them.

on January 31, 2009 at 11:54 pm delphyne

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, here is another FAIL icon instead.

Ah yes, the all-womens' college as a nurturing haven from the sexism of the outside world...

except when the venal, dumbass administration decides that using the campus to shoot a fratboyxploitation movie (while classes are in session) is a fine idea.

From The Bilerico Report (via Bitch Magazine and Uncensored Feminista):

Agnes Scott College, the supposed World for Women, has become the cesspool for Hollywood's C-list sequels. In my four years here, I've had the pleasure of experiencing the filming of such quality movies as a remake of "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Van Wilder III" Our most recent cinematographic credit is "Road Trip II: Beer Pong."

...Although Agnes Scott was tied for Georgia's most LBGTQ-friendly campus by Atlanta newspaper, Southern Voice, students eating dinner were recruited in the cafeteria to be extras in the film's derisive "Lesbians until Graduation" scene. The recruiter assured us that the only requirement was "acting like lesbians." But in case we were interested, they welcomed same-sex "background kissers."

Apparently the main premise of the scene involved the male protagonists stumbling upon the room full of these "making-out lesbians" (to presumably "convert" them?). When we expressed offense, the recruiter said she was warned about encountering uncooperative students who were "really into being women" (versus into being objects?).

This recruitment was foreshadowed by a fake bulletin board as part of the movie's properties advertising the "exploratory meeting" for their fake college's "Lesbians Until Graduation" club, qualified by statements like "Miss your boyfriend from high school?" which is apparently the only acceptable "excuse" for being a lesbian.

To understand the mindset behind these actions, let's examine how the filmmakers put up signs that said that if we entered certain areas on our campus (including our main quad with our library and humanities building), we were granting the production crew permission to reproduce our images "throughout the universe for all of eternity." This same utter entitlement to our bodies was reproduced in the way that the production team assumed that just because we were on (our own) campus and that we were women, they could recruit us for this degrading "Lesbians until Graduation" scene.

...During the filming, we experienced other forms of dehumanization through harassment from the film's production team. One student, when walking by the set with a paper cup of coffee, was accosted by an extra, who asked the student to get him one. Another student was told, in the vein of a pick-up line, that she was so attractive, she should watch out for being raped...

Klassy, eh? What a great recruitment tool for new students, not to mention morale-boosting. Oh, apparently the school picks up 30K for letting the yobs run around campus and film their students, about the cost of one student's yearly tuition.

But, yes, the admin still thinks it's best for the bottom line, as noted in this comment at Bitch:

I am a student at Agnes Scott, and we did bring our concerns to the administration. After sending in individual letters to the deans, they were collected and apparently discussed. Our new president (founding director of Duke University's Kenan Institute for Ethics, no less) addressed the issues we raised by sending an e-mail out to the campus community. It was generally received to be vague with the clear intention of attempting to save face, very unreflective of the president the students had quickly come to know, love, and trust.

Some of the more direct and juicier bits of the email were as follows:

"In some cases, films have also helped to raise Agnes Scott’s profile and, in fact, have attracted students to apply and enroll. We make a decision on a case-by-case basis about whether to include, in the film contract, that Agnes Scott be listed as a location in the credits. In this instance this was not included in the contract."

Yes. We're not going to put our name on the credits. That'll keep our secret safe that we accept money from people who degrade women...

..." But I also need to acknowledge that if we restricted ourselves to films that fully reflect Agnes Scott’s culture and promote our mission, we would drastically reduce film-shoot revenues. I am hopeful that as more women – including Agnes Scott alumnae – enter positions of leadership within the film industry, they will work to change and improve it!"

Yes. Drastically reduce those $30,000 a pop revenues that happen a couple of times a year. This revenue is less than the cost of tuition for one student. Do the math. Also, of course, we should build up the female objectification that has gone rampant in the entertainment industry so we will have a bigger challenge to try to change it. Because, who doesn't love a challenge?

and another:

We protested to the best of our abilities. Several of us made signs, infiltrated the shooting of the "LUG Club" scene, and got the attention of the filmmakers. My sign said "I am not a stereotype." As a result of our silent protest (we stood behind the cameras quietly hold our signs), several crew members thanked us for sharing our opinion and the screenwriter took his photo with us. He thanked us for our interest and stated that he didn't really like these films, but they made money. Not a great excuse, but acknowledging that something wasn't right was a start. Many of us wrote letters to our administration outlining our concerns and were met with nothing short of a brush off from our president. Basically, it was explained to us that it came down to a matter of money (a mere 30K--not enough for one student's full-year tuition and definitely not enough to create a significant overall tuition increase)...Thank goodness I go to a school that will easily abandon its values for a quick dollar and then give me a response that is sanitized for my convenience when I ask why.

Oh, and they fired the harassing extras, so THAT'S all right, then.

So, in a nutshell, no, the students don't seem to get a say in this.

Still another letter:

This was right in the middle of midterms. A lot of students were frustrated that the administration would do this to us, especially at such a stressful time, but many were just too exhausted from academic work to do much more than a small protest. Doesn't excuse it, though.

In the future, I hope that WAVE, the campus feminist organization at ASC, or the LBTQIA Collective will provide more leadership in opposing this bullshit. Every protest that I know of was organized by students acting independently, and they just didn't have the resources to get the word out like those groups would.

Still yet another:

It seems to me we should have seen this coming after what our administration has allowed to take place on our campus over recent years.

Our campus was used for an American Eagle photoshoot, as well as a filming location for the failed Revenge of the Nerds remake. I felt insulted having to take detours to go from building to building so as not to get in the way of various shoots. Imagine, if you will, the a young woman lugging her physics books past a group of preening models lounging in the middle of one of our walkways and overhearing "Like, OMG, there are really no guys here? Why even go to college?" I kid you not. Or how about having to sit an exam while on the quad just outside, take after take of the Large-Crowd-Cheering scene goes on. Try studying or getting some much needed sleep while set up crews make all kinds of racket at 3 am. Yeah, I'm sure that had no detrimental effect on our scholarly pursuits...Need I also remind my fellow Scotties that our students were approached by Revenge of the Nerds crew to be extras as well, supposedly to play the part of average college students in the background of various shots, yet surprise, surprise, only the "hot" girls were actually given the parts, because we all know that only hot-chicks go to college, right?

Can I just say: 30K may be insulting chump change when it comes to how many pieces o'silver your alma mater is getting for all that disruption and disrespect; but it'd probably buy an exasperated student a fine education somewhere that's else. Hey, at least one former student agrees:

As an alumnae, I cannot express my disappointment enough in Agnes Scott. My time at ASC shaped me to become the woman leader that I have become and I am deeply saddened that the administration has actively participated in undermining the values that were instilled in me: think deeply, live honorably and engage the social and intellectual challenges of our time.

So, with a heavy heart but strong passion, I call on all you who are as outraged as I am to boycott Agnes Scott College. Don't apply, don't visit, don't volunteer, don't donate. I am saddened to see that ASC so cheaply sold its values but since that is their priority, a mass movement that impacts them financially may be the only way to get a message across.

So, join our Facebook group: Road Trip II: The Boycott of the Alums (Alums only) or our Facebook event: Road Tripp II: Boycott!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=40694287895#/ical/event.php?eid=40...

Make your outrage into action!

As for the alum who disagrees with the idea and thinks they should "donate like crazy" while insisting the money go to the places they want it to go (so that the school isn't -forced- to resort to renting the campus to Alan Smithee), ummm...I guess it's none of my business, never having been to Agnes Scott; but in my own experience of expensive private colleges that constantly solicit funds...generally, a) you might want to get into the financial office and take a look at the -actual- numbers; they could well be healthier than they let on b) earmarking your donations, especially if it's an administration that's been cheerfully impervious to -basic- requests like "please get these sexist fuckheads and disruptive camera crews out of our space and especially during fercrissakes MIDTERMS kthxbai," maaayyyyyyy not work. Maybe. Just saying.

Anyway. Ick.

Okay. You got my attention. Clap, clap.

Mind you, I do tend to be drawn to shit like this; given that I can spend hours at a time perusing David Icke's alien classifications, I wouldn't read too much into my choosing to post on this, but anyway:

Most pathetic post I've read in a while, and that's saying quite a bit.

Is puma the new jew - a people persecuted for their beliefs, and eventually for their failure to fall in line, and follow the chosen one?

Now, I am not saying that PUMAS have been subjected to the horrors of the holocaust, or the years and years of persecution, but I thought it was a snappy intro that might grab your attention.

I started this post with the intent of trying to better understand the current Israel/Hamas conflict, by creating *what if’s*. I thought if I brought the concepts *home* I might be able to better understand the anger and outrage coming from both sides. The process, and research led me to thinking about the hate directed towards one group for holding beliefs different than the majority, which brings me to the comment, *is puma the new jew*.

""You know, I had to work through lunch for the third day in a row. And then when I got home, the takeout place was all out of my favorite cashew chicken AND the hot and sour soup, and my roommate finished all the milk so I couldn't even have mac n cheese, and the grocery store was already closed, and I realized...I now have a bit of understanding what the Irish potato famine was like. I mean, I haven't had any potatoes in WEEKS. Not even a french fry. Now, I'm not saying I've been subjected to the horrors of mass starvation unto the point of genocide, but, well, it's as close as I'm ever going to get, and I can now speculate, based on my feelings of irritation and tummy rumbling, what it -might- be like to starve to death along with my entire family and country, and that led me to more thinky thoughts, isn't that -fascinating?- Damn, I'm getting deep."

And no, Empathy Einstein, Jews have not been solely persecuted for -beliefs-; do you know anything about history whatsoever? The Holocaust? Conversion wasn't an option at that point. To begin with.

I say this as a comfortably assimilated third-to-fourth generation Jewish-American who in no way would appropriate the persecutions of my ancestors and/or distant relatives as my own, nor would attempt to use them as a way of excusing the horror currently going on in Gaza. Commentary on which I have been steadfastly avoiding for a number of reasons. All I will say is that if you truly can't understand why anyone in Palestine, at least, would have a problem with Israel, unless it maybe has to do with garsh Muslims don't tolerate Jewish -beliefs-, that -must- be it, then you are beyond hopeless. At least, -I- can't think of a clue phone that'd ring loud enough. Maybe someone can. Me, I'm just sitting here with the popcorn, as so often.

Oh, I liked this bit too:

To bring Judaism into modern times, the last 2000 years, Jews rejected Jesus as the son of God, which was a major turning point in western history. Jesus was a major game changer in our history. The acceptance of Jesus changed things politically and religiously.

Personally, I see this more so in a political arena, than a religious one, of the Jewish elders reluctance to Jesus as the son of God. I think they saw him as gaining a huge following, and gaining strength as a leader. Perhaps they just didn’t believe him, or what he claimed, or perhaps they were afraid of losing power. But Jesus arrived at a time ripe for change. He had garnered a huge following. Some people chose to believe he was *The Chosen One*, the Savior, the Holy One, and others didn’t. Jesus was a Jew, so he wasn’t some stranger from a strange land. He was one of them. But he divided the *party*. Those who followed him, and those who didn’t, whatever the reasons.

But, whatever the reason, they did not accept that Jesus was the savior. They didn’t believe or accept that he was The Chosen One, or sent down from God, as his son, and they have paid for their beliefs ever since.

-tucks tongue into cheek, hard-

I mean, I'd never be able to tell that the author was at least raised Christian, here. Because this in no way is redolent of all kinds of erm narratives that are only familiar to me from the general culture, decidedly -not- from my family or anyone else who's actually Jewish, at least, that -I've- ever encountered. Yes, it's now divorced from actual theology, -apparently-, but, well. No. Really. No.

"Jews rejected the Savior, and they've been paying for it ever since. Still, they -are- the Chosen People, and Israel plays an important role in eschatology, and the Muslims, well, they're just plain -bad-, so let's appropriate all the most poor-persecuted-us-because-we're-Speshul bits of the Old Testament narrative for ourselves; along with the Holocaust, of course, which is now available to pretty much everyone who feels put-upon anyway; it'll all go nicely with the already-headdesky narrative of 'we're being specially singled out and put up on the cross because we're the only ones who speak TEH TROOF.'"

Certainly none of this has anything to do with tribalism/racism, much less nationalism, or specifically what happens to ethnic groups who don't have a country of their own; and this in turn has nothing to do with why Israel was created in the first place, or why Palestinians might be just a tiny bit tetchy right now. Also, martyrdom is cool. Especially when you don't have to suffer any actual consequences for it beyond "wow, a bunch of people made fun of us for acting like dumbasses, and that doesn't feel very nice."

Yes, there's a lot of seriously hateful crap out there, and I particularly wasn't charmed by that same Wonkette thread. Most if not all of the hatefulness falls into yer classic gross misogyny, along with fat-bashing and a few other familiar categories. Are you really saying you haven't experienced or even -encountered- anything like that ever before? Not even -seen-? Lucky you. Seriously. And yes, it's fucked up. It's just not -new-, even remotely, and people for whom none of this is news aren't particularly charmed by the whole gormless "zomg, I had NO IDEA. Well...sputter...someone ought to -do something- about this!! Why doesn't anyone else think of that, huh?"

Strip all of that away, though, and no, ffs, you aren't being singled out for -persecution- as a political fringe group, of itself: You're being relegated to a running bad joke by more-or-less (relatively speaking, at least) serious politicos and/or bored rubberneckers for basically being the new Lyndon LaRoucheites. One more thing to google, yes.

ETA Oh ffs. From the comments (actually one of the less headdesky ones, but those aren't worth responding to, even rhetorically):

I always wondered about that…. If you are a non practicing Jew, why wouldn’t you say you were Israeli, or Israeli American, or wherever your ancestors are from? Is it a religion, or heritage or both? Saying you are Jewish, I assumed was like saying you are Catholic. And saying you are Israeli is being from Israel, but not necessarily Jewish. (which is one of the reasons I used Jewish for this, and not, for example, an ethnicity, because I was trying to equate it to *beliefs* In my opinion, it is ridiculous to *hate* people for their beliefs, whatever they are…as well as skin color, or sex. But like I said, I was trying to make a point about being hated for your beliefs)

"Wherever my ancestors are from" is, at least within living memory, and quite likely a good few centuries or so, Central to Eastern Europe. There -is- a specific term for ethnic Jews of Eastern European origin: Ashkenazim.

Why I don't generally go around calling myself an Ashkenaz-American:

a) Because most of the time, there's no particular reason to. For demographic purposes within the contemporary U.S., i.e. forms and such, I'm "white."

b) Because "I'm Jewish" is perfectly accurate and sufficient most of the time.

c) Because the blank stares would get kind of old.

If someone asks specifically "where are your ancestors from" (usually the preface is something like "are you Irish," based on my complexion and hair I expect, certainly not my features), assuming it's friendly-like and I want to engage them (usually the case), I might use the term, or just say "Eastern European Jewish."

If the question, however, is, "are you Jewish," the answer is, simply, "yes." I am not a -practicing- or -religious- Jew, that is correct. I also have no particular affinity with or sympathy for Israel the contemporary nation-state (have never been there, don't have any near relatives there, don't know more than your average American about daily life, etc); and I'm not a fan of mystic appeal to ancient legendary homeland blargh, hence would not refer to myself as "Israeli American," ever. Nonethless, I am Jewish, ethnically and culturally.

(No, I don't know who I'm actually addressing at this point, but do with it what you will, ethernets).

A conundrum.

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, solipsism. You gotta love it.

And now for something completely depressing.

"Freeper Madness," going boldly into the depths where even dedicated rubberneckers like myself (usually) dare not go. hint: do not read during lunch. -runs off-

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

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

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

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

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

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

As palinpumawatch acidly notes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bryant made the following statements during the campaign:

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

and

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

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

More details.

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

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

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

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

Anyway,

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

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

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

Also, too, lest we forget,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2004 and later versions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And now, your moment of zen:

jenniforhillary 11.07.08 at 9:10 pm

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

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

Duh.

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

Via karynthia.

Yes indeed, they are apparently serious:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Too late now, I guess. poor little turnip.

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

Just rabidly homophobic unto the point of eliminationism.

Which is, as we know, totally different.

Oh, Sarah Palin. Stay gold, you know?

...you wacky l'il dumbass maverick, you. -bites lip- oh, bless.



You almost feel bad for disappointing her: she just seems so, so, so, well, -flattered-, doesn't she?

And yet, it probably won't cost her much: one gathers her fanbase does not perhaps have the most ummm uhh errm exacting powers of discernment, let's say.

“John McCain! Not Hussein!”

So goes the latest popular chant on the campaign trail with Gov. Sarah Palin, demonstrated at a morning rally in central Florida.

...After the rally in Florida ended, two of the people leading the chant explained why they did so.

“Because it rhymes,” said Shirley Mitten, 64, a volunteer at a pregnancy center and a resident of Brooksville, Fla.

...Mr. Mitten said he could not trust Mr. Obama because of his past association with William Ayers, the 1960’s radical, and because of his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. He also pointed out that Mr. Obama’s father was a Muslim.

The middle name Hussein, he said, added to the suspicion. “I guess Obama was named after Saddam Hussein,” he said.

poor little kittens.

Btw, y'all have seen this, right?

ETA: right, right, sorry, my mistake, Palin's a Brainiac. No, rilly. I apologize for ever thinking that just because a woman running for VP can't accurately explain to a third grader what the Vice President's job actually is, can't answer really tough on-the-spot questions like "what magazines do you read," and consistently provides glittering generalities, mugging and winking as a substitute for actual content, -any- content, when asked -look, how exactly are you going to do your job, can you demonstrate that you take this remotely seriously-, that she might not be the brightest bagel in the box. It must just be internalized sexism: clearly, a Palin presidency would be in -my best interests.-

And anti-Real Americanism: I care -deeply- that she shoots moose, you know, christ knows I've talked about nothing but her huntin' shootin' fishin' credentials and how much that offends my elitist organic latte-sipping sensibilities. Of which latter, expecting someone who's apparently -still- under the impression that she's a viable candidate for the most powerful position on the planet even assuming Tuesday goes down the way the reality-based community expects it to, well, that's part of it too, isn't it.

I mean, damn, look at Dubya! we weren't too hard on -him- just because he gave a -terrific- impression of a deeply incurious, completely incapable of nuanced thinking, smugly, terrifyingly ignorant Yahoo who made terrible decisions with devastating consequences for lo these past eight years, and he's a MAN. Shouldn't we give a woman, yes, -this- woman, a fair chance to fuck up the country at least as thoroughly as he has? I mean, be fair.

And yes, by cracky, this commenter is RIGHT: a vote against Palin is -a vote against feminism-, because!

AndreainNY
I'm in my fifties. Feminism, to me, has always meant having the freedom to reach one's full potential. Contrary to the popular notion, it does not require one to be liberal.

A litmus test of liberalism was never part of feminism. If anything, it's time to liberate feminism from the liberals.

Excellent: the only thing that makes it "feminism" is that it puts a female type person in a position of power, so that that individual, at least, if no one else, can reach her -full potential-, whatever that potential may be, and whatever effect it has on, well, everyone else. I agree completely.

signed,

Beverly LaHaye Judith Reisman Savitri Devi Countess Erzabet of Bathory Marie of Romania, FEMINIST.

and don't you forget it, bub.

Yeah, sums it up as well as anything.

The Stump's take on the debate tonight, that is.

although frankly this was pretty damn prescient as well.

"You pucked with the wrong Ice President."

ETA: Also, too, also:

Sarah Palin's Soliloquy.

By liam - October 3, 2008, 12:07PM
I was a Barracuda of Wasilla yup when I put the lipstick on my mouth like the Hockey Moms used or shall I wear a red yup and how he vetted me under the Cindy scowl and I thought well as well never blink as another never blink and then I asked him with my winks to ask again yup and then he asked me would I yup to say yup my abstinence flower and first I put my maverick ways around him yup and he maverick and we mavericks he could feel my maverickness all bovine yup and his heart was going like mad and yup I said yup I will Yup.

tangentially:

I don't have time to get into it fully tonight, but wrt this from hexpletive, which you should read the whole damn thing?

I mean, there are only so many ways to say "omfg Heart you're a hateful pernicious idiot," but -really-:

I don’t care how many condoms get handed out in the Third World somewhere

You WHAT. You...no, I said I don't have time, and I don't. Not today.

But speaking of regressive policies that we really would rather AVOID voting their proponents into office if we can help it, that right there, you know, is a -great- place to begin for why Bush sucked and McCain/Palin will continue to suck, and why, once again, some "feminists" really need to stfu and go back to the waiting arms of the Religious Right from whence they sprang, thanks.

Also: what saorla said.

Well I care about condom distribution in the developing world (third world is pejorative now), I live in Cambodia. In Cambodia whether the sex work is through trafficking or voluntary the women call themselves sex workers. They feel that "prostitute" is pejorative. The major of sex workers in Cambodia turn to sex work through poverty, rape or trafficking and they are damned sure they want protection through condoms. People living with HIV are discriminated against and Cambodia has a high rate of HIV transmission.

http://saorla.blogspot.com/2008/05/ignorance-is-no-excuse.html

It's nice that you have the luxury not to care when you live in a country that withdraws billions of dollars in vital aid when condoms or abortions for sex workers are funded.

http://saorla.blogspot.com/2006/10/religious-right-and-development-aid.html

http://saorla.blogspot.com/2007/07/flicker-of-common-sense.html

You have a choice not to care. You could choose not to be callous about that choice. But your government makes sure to put these women in further danger.

Oh and by the way, there's virtually no porn in Cambodia and definitely no hardcore stuff but sex work is at every level of society.

ETA: oh, you've got to be fucking KIDDING me now. No, Heart, Saorla is not a "john" or a "sex tourist," or a man for that matter; and, no, no one owes you independent proof of their identity ffs (who the fuck do you think you ARE?")

Edited, again, again: so, she apologized, apparently.


ETA again: the original unedited thread is recapped at Renegade's, here, if you've an interest.