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

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

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

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

Sure thing, Joan Kelly, will do.

Re this post and the preceding ones.

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

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

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

Enjoy.

There is a special place in hell for people blocking meaningful health care reform in this country

Particularly for the profiteers off the current system and the politicians who are ranting about socialism and so on whilst comfortably partaking of government funded health care (the best there is!) for their very own worthless caracasses.

In it, this spot in hell, they all get infected with each and every one of the diseases that they deemed not worthy of coverage for someone, and are chained Tantalus-like inches away from someone holding out the required meds/ treatment.

Then they're told they can have the treatment if they fill out all the paperwork...in blood. Except by the time they finish one form
they're told that form is now obsolete and they have to start over from scratch.

I'm just saying. You know, in case the threats of political stonewalling and marches and petitions and shit don't work out.

All I have the energy for today

in light of the decision that is not a surprise:

At what point do the reactionaries notice that the couples who've been and continue to be married legally haven't destroyed the institution or sent the state sinking into the sea? Is there an exact number it needs to hit before the tipping point? Or was Traditional Marriage (tm) -already- destroyed during those few months and we just didn't notice? Is it -partly- destroyed, now? Did we turn straight marriages into a newt? Awful sorry.

"I got better."

Should be busy around this neck of the woods today.

More later, probably.

ETA: Oh, I lied, adrenaline's already going again, people are out in force and they're arresting, including clergy and a 19 year old trans kid...following it on Twitter, not even outside right now. #prop8protests, don't think you can link directly.

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.

"Once again, we had to choose between our neglect and our persecution."

Yeah, basically.

The sad thing is, I and a lot of other people knew -exactly- what the deal was signing up; it's -still- worth a fierce battle even to avoid outright persecution, and the Democrats damn well know it. Way out? Ain't pining after Hillary (also at least as disappointing during her senate term, would've been exactly the damn same, just like her husband); ain't Nader; ain't McKinney; and certainly ain't throwing ourselves on the tender mercies of the Republicans. So. Right on schedule, here we are:

[can't c & p the chart, it's in the comments. a Kossack diarist]

Calendar of When it is Acceptable to Bring up the Topic of Gay Rights:


1. He just got into office for f*ck's sake. Just STFU for now!

2. It's still early and he has a lot more important things to deal with. Just wait your turn and we'll get around to it later.

3. We've got midterm elections to win. You can't expect us to address gay rights and run for office at the same time so just STFU! We'll get get to gay rights after the election.

4. We're exhausted. We just had an election. The new Congress hasn't even started yet. Just lay off on the "gay rights" stuff til later.

5. We have to get Obama re-elected. Presidential elections take up the full two years of the cycle and you can't expect Obama to kowtow to left wing GLBT activist extremists and expect win moderate votes, so just STFU!

6.We just won re-election. Can you please just let us bask in the glow of that until after the inauguration?

7. This is Obama's last chance to really govern. We have real issues to deal with without making it seem we're beholden to some fringe special interest extremists like the GLBT community.

8. Why are y'all just bringing up gay rights now in the 6th year of President Obama's term? You guys didn't work for it and don't deserve to have your issues addressed on your terms. Besides, we haven't yet had a blue ribbon commission that will examine the issue for a year and issue a report, which will be followed by a peer reviewed study of the ramifications, which will be followed by a another commission which will examine the differences between the first commission report and the study. After that commission's report is studied, we'll make a recommendation to the President who will then have to have his advisors study the issue for a while. At that point, the President may add the recommendation to his State of the Union address. So give us another three years even though we're only here only have one left.

9. The commission is still doing its work behind closed doors, so don't talk about gay rights at all. We have another Presidential election to win and we can't be seen as being for gay rights in a Presidential election. Just STFU!

10. Hey GLBT activists, we're on our way out. Half the President's advisors have already left for jobs in the private sector, Congress has adjourned until the new Congress begins. We are complete and utterly powerless lame ducks. What can the Obama Administration do for you? We're here to help.

I understand it very well; not only is it similar to the HRC's pattern with trans rights, for instance, it's also remarkably similar to my own work habits. Bit different when the only results of my half-assery and procrastination and excuses are on my own head, mind you.

Solid Democratic majority in Senate fulfills socialists' wildest dreams. Oh, wait.

How odd. Somehow, the banks still won. Handily. Sorry, former homeowners who're now shit out of house, home and luck; you know, if it weren't for the liberal fascists, you wouldn't be in this mess.

By the way, if you haven't been reading David Neiwert and Sara Robinson's comprehensive (and sobering) analysis of the increasingly dangerous rhetoric/atmosphere coming out of the right wing, you really should. (See recent entries as well as series listed in the sidebar).

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.

"So, Dennis Miller and Bill O'Reilly walk into a bar..."

and someone locks the door after the worthless gobshites and drops the whole building down a wormhole and neither are ever heard from again, muhahahahaha!!

Ahem. No, just, via the ever watchful PPW, this charming little bit of dialogue:

O'REILLY: Now, the Sarah Palin hysteria. I mean, can you believe she's getting more ink now than the president-elect is getting? Didn't she lose? It looks like she won.

MILLER: Listen, she's a great dame. People are fascinated by her because the left hate her. I think the left hate her -- mostly women on the left hate her, because to me, from outside in, it appears that she has a great sex life. All right? I think she has non-neurotic sex with that Todd Palin guy. I think most of the women on the Upper East Side, their husbands haven't been aroused since Mailer signed copy of The Executioner's Song at Rizzoli's back in the early '70s.

So they look at her, and they hate her. I think that snowmobile looks like mechanized foreplay to me, and that's why people are fascinated by it.

O'REILLY: So you think that -- cutting through all of the metaphors that even I don't even understand. Rizzoli's used to be a bookstore.

You think that because she looks like a happy, wedded mom with --

MILLER: Yeah.

O'REILLY: -- not so much neurosis, that these people are going, "We have to hate her"? It's -- what, it's schadenfreude? Is that -- how do you say that? German?

MILLER: It's called schadenfreude.

O'REILLY: Schadenfreude. [unintelligible]

MILLER: The Germans concocted it. It's one's vague pleasure in another's discomfort. Leave it to the Germans, by the way, to concoct an intricate glossary of pain terminology.

But I think people have -- I think people have schadenfreude about her. It's like Tina Fey's movie Mean Girls. Women are mean to other women. They look at her, she looks happy, a lot of them aren't, and they're cranky about her.

Yes, Dennis and BillO, that's exactly it. The real reason women (or anyone) can't stand Sarah Palin is because we ENVY her relationship with Radical Fringe Separatist K-Fed. Certainly nothing to do with o we think her policies (insofar as they're coherent at all) are frighteningly reactionary & bad for women and other living things ( gay couples, the body politic, the planet...moose); or that she herself ranges from "vacuous twit" to "crypto-fascist rabble-rouser."

Oh, yeah, and we hate America. And women (i.e. pretty much anyone who isn't either Sarah Palin or a fangirl at this point).

You two, on the other hand, are AWESOME. Blessums ickle jowls. -pinch-

No, really, I was -just- saying the other day, you know, if there's one thing we as a nation and/or culture could really use right now, it's a couple of smug dessicated prick windbags making lumbering cracks on the tellyvision about What Women Want, and then, well:

O'REILLY: OK, and then arrest Barney Frank, correct?

MILLER: Barney might want to be arrested.

O'REILLY: Oh, jeez. Ugh. [shudders] OK, Dennis Miller, everybody. I told you to hide the kids.

Haw haw! No, wait, I geddit! Like, Frank's (lowers voice) gay, and so he probably -wants- to be arrested, because everybody knows prison rape is

a) What Teh Gay Really Want

b) Hiiii-LARious!

Yeah, "ugh, [shudders]." Thanks for sharing your important thinky thoughts there, Combover Central, really.

I mean, O.K., and so meanwhile here we are being treated to Falafel Boy and Dubya-Daddy Complex here speculating about what does and doesn't constitute -neurotic- about -sex-, right:

I think that snowmobile looks like mechanized foreplay to me, and that's why people are fascinated by it.

There really isn't enough "speak for yourself" in the WORLD.

Oh yeah, they've teamed up before to share wisdoms on similar themes, apparently. Just be grateful yer scintillating sidekick there didn't decide to make something of your "always having Bush's back" this time. Know what I mean, know what I mean, nudge nudge?! You dreary arrested-development tossers.

But yeah, Dennis, do explain to us plebes again--along with all your other superior knowledgey knowledges--exactly what means schadenfreude.

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...

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.

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?

The troll encapsulated.

Some people go to the Bible for their clever and profound illustrations of Universal Truths; others find Shakespeare more satisfying. Being of more vulgar stuff, I find this suits my current needs, once more, with feeling:

Quote of the day, 4/25/08

I don’t get it. People are saying these apologies are refreshing. Refreshing?! If someone strands you in the desert for days then comes back and presents you with a glass of warm piss, that is not refreshing. That is the bare fucking minimum they could do to keep you alive. Refreshing would be some, I don’t know, ACCOUNTABILITY, for AM and the editorial masterminds at Seal Press.

--commenter Corey

Fisk Me, Baby, One More Time

So, first of all, update on this situation: the upshot is, Renegade and Jill Brenneman are going to speak at William and Mary; Sam Berg, now that her attempt to get RE uninvited has been unsuccessful, has withdrawn. In, um, protest, or something. According to her supporters, this was the professional thing to do. I am sure that she did it in a most professional manner, too, to be sure.

And one should probably just leave it at that.

But, well, just, some peoples' performance excuse me -activism- is so remarkable that I had to, well, remark on it.

Liars. They lie. They negate the lives of those suffering for the choices they make and then have the audacity to promote themselves as the ‘one true voice’ in the well of silence centred in the poverty of those they argue they represent.

And then they get booked to speak at the last minute in discussions about how what they do impacts upon the rest of us (women). And they agree! And then they start posting about “laughing like a super villain” and their “wank worthy fantasy” of debating “some anti-porn sex work types”. To me, the language used is the same language that rapists use (I’m a rape crisis counsellor, I’ve heard it a million times)

Maggie Hays // April 20, 2008 at 12:05 am

...“laughing like a super villain”? “wank worthy fantasy”? I agree that these comments were totally inappropriate. This makes me think: this kind of language is awfully similar to the sort of language a porn-using abuvive ex-boyfriend of mine was often using when talking to me.

#

Laurelin // April 20, 2008 at 10:16 pm


It’s interesting to note how many of the male ’sex pozzes’ use this sort of language to ‘argue’ against radical feminist arguments against pornstitution. They speak of ‘fisking’ us, accuse us of ‘wanking’ over details etc (Witchy has certainly had this aggressive language used against her recently by cowardly fuckwits).- all of it is major projection, of course. They cannot see the world in any other way, they use sexualised language to try and win their pathetic little game. It speaks volumes about them, it really does, and it only proves our point about pornification. The more the shout to drown us out, the more they tell us just who they are.
#

Laurelin // April 20, 2008 at 10:17 pm

I think ‘fisking’ is a sexualised word- do tell me if I’m wrong. (Don’t have a dictionary to hand)

Well--perhaps that would be the problem then; we're really not speaking the same language.

Because, I don't know, just, the professional defender of all women and fearless crusader against porn, Sam Berg, the one you're defending against the abusive pornspeakers here, yes? The professional. She never uses gratuitous sexualized language, one would certainly assume.

So, therefore, there's nothing at all inappropriate or boundary violating or creepy when she says, for instance:

‘Model’ is so 1980’s and doesn’t capture the “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money” pornsick approval meme nearly as well as “sex worker”.

or

The vaunted "right" for women to be or simply act like cum-hungry bi-sexee hoes is affirmed all over these two liberal cities I have lived in the past few years.

or

There is no sensible feminist reason to ignore the 92% of prostitutes who do not consider it work but slavery in favor of the 8%minority, especially when doing so only affirms the rape culture that already says (often literally) men have a God-given right to wet their penises with women's holes any way they desire, any time they want it.

or

Amber, you can have all of Sonia's former customers now that she has been freed because her many male customers are still around and they have your blessing to continue renting women's insides to spill their fluids into like renting a port-a-potty.

or, one of my favorites:

Turn the male gaze around just once and take a long look at the men who pay to see women smiling while hanging upside down from a pole like a painted negro in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts and stripping looks entirely different.

I'm sorry your paper's allegiance to the money and faux hipsterism of strip club culture makes the truth about men's demands for women to act like disposable dick accessories a story that will never be told.

best of all:

Spreademism.com

spread'emism (spread-them-ism), n. 1. the misleading idea that women can fuck and get fucked into political, academic and social equality with men via prostitution and pornography

Contact me at spreademism(at)yahoo.com

****

So, just so we're clear: "laughing like a super villain," "cerebral wank," and "fisking"=abusive pornsick male language, clearly the mark of a Bad Person, no matter what the context.

"spread'emism," "disposable dick accessories," "hot, bi-sexee, willing to suck and fuck anything for money," "wet their penises with womens' holes," and "cum-hungry bi-sexee hoes" = perfectly reasonable language from someone who purports to loathe that sort of language and everything it represents. Certainly not at all offensive or misogynist or abusive, no matter what the context. And, good for all occasions! It's the professional way! It's the FEMINIST way.

Hokey-dokey then.

ETA: Dear Laurelin. You seem rather confused. Let me clear a bit more up for you, since we're talking:

"Silencing" is not, in fact, "making fun of people who are making utter asses of themselves without any help at all, to wit, throwing a tantrum and backing out of a planned debate at the last moment because she can't control the terms."

Silencing would be more, oh, say, threatening to post a porn performer's pictures "without the eye strips" (hi, Stormy!) or, I don't know, back to the case at hand for a moment, trying to strong-arm said conference organizers into disinviting the porn performer in question first.

You are, however, correct about this bit, to wit, that it is neither "silencing" nor "censorship":

when someone refuses to publish your comments on their blog, in their own personal space.

the same as having one’s actions critiqued by feminists. the critique itself presents no barrier to your continuing to act.

being asked to take responsibility for one’s own words.

...although, you know, I get the impression your and my ideas of what means "critique" are also not from the same page or possibly even the same library. Nonetheless. Saying ignorant-ass crap about other peoples' sexuality and lives and then refusing to engage them when they challenge your "critique," in your own space or even in o for example at a public debate? No, that's not "silencing." It is, however, disingenuous, and, frankly, kind of pathetic.

also, wrt this, per your guest poster?

"What to do when a woman who says she’s happy in prostitution says, “Take me, for example” when you know if you actually do take her as her own example by quoting her own words and deeds she will complain, “How dare you make an example of me?”

see, no; "please talk to me directly like a human being" is NOT the same thing as "please gank one of my quotes out of context and use it as your sigline," nor indeed "please raid my personal blog for bits that you find damning and indicative of my general ill character and/or unfitness to make my own decisions, statistical improbability, lack of trustworthiness, what you will, and drag it all over several of the most high profile feminist blogs, STILL without deigning to engage me like a person."

also also, "fisking" is, once again, not what lewd pronsick males fantasize about doing to hapless radical Victorian damsels feminists with an airport metal detector;

and the London Underground is not a political movement.

Please do let me know if there's anything else I can clear up for you.

kisses!

And yet more! House passes bill targeting "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act;" What Does It All Mean, Dear?

These guys think: nothing good..

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

First let’s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.

The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda...

...

The bill, btw, was sponsored by a "rank and file" Democrat, Jane Harman. Apparently this is the first of the 38 bills she's sponsored which has made it out of committee. The one before this was a bill to get the President to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo.

I dunno what she/they were thinking. One wonders if perhaps someone finally took the "hey, all this focus on the evil Islamofascists and no one's doing jack about groups like Operation Rescue" seriously and, things being what they are, this is what became of it in committee. One ponders that something this vague could, like so much else thrown at us by Fearless Leaders recently, be dangerously unConstitutional and target a number of undeserving innocents and be completely toothless toward finding and stopping actual dangerous groups at the same time; or if indeed the whole thing mostly translates to "put in circular file, needs further study," or what.

One then considers that technically, HUAC was a "committee."

One is feeling sort of overwhelmed by information/panic overload alternating with everyone's apparent apathy/cluelessness at the moment. One has misplaced one's tinfoil hat and has an eye on one's passport. One wants to go home. Wherever that is.

h/t Lisa Harney.

If only Olbermann were sufficient to keep them honest

*sigh*