Showing posts with label you missed the--no actually it's not even funny. Show all posts
Showing posts with label you missed the--no actually it's not even funny. Show all posts
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Friday, October 24, 2008
and now, a word from Memorex America
on the "s" word; it isn't "shoes," no.
I love the pretty, frilly, shiny items. I love designer shoes and handbags. I started my addiction for Lorac cosmetics back when I had money. I still have a once a year craving for a splurge at Sephora. I can't tell you how much I would love it for someone to come hand me $150,000 for a shopping spree. Although, seeing some of my friends and family barely holding on financially, I couldn't.
I sit and listen to Carly Fiorina define, out of a dictionary, socialism. Then goes on to say that Obama's idea for government healthcare is socialist. You know, there is a woman in my city who needs cancer treatment, it is experimental and stem cell based so the insurance will not cover it. The oncologist will meet her halfway and donate $100,000 of the treatment if she can raise the rest. So far, local fundraisers have brought her total to $33,000. Can you imagine? The only thing standing in the way of this woman raising her young daughter is half of Palin's new wardrobe.
I get so angry. The republicans are now talking about how spreading the wealth around would be a bad thing, after we have suffered such a bleed of wealth in the past few years that went straight to the top. Why wouldn't they want to fix that? Why wouldn't they want healthcare for single mothers who can't afford their cancer treatment? These people wave their wealth in our faces while we try to figure out how to stay alive.
We need community and compassion back. We need a responsibility to each other. We need to stop waging financial war upon each other. This money madness has to stop. Where has the compassion gone? How can the republicans believe what is coming out of their own mouths? How can they continue to support their words and deeds with a straight face?
Monday, August 04, 2008
Only blankety shopping days till the next War on Christmas.
...but I thought I'd just get the jump for once.
See, SnowdropExplodes has a follow-up on the cartoon business from last week, trying to explain one last time why some people were having their "racism!" buttons pushed by it (hint, it's not always black and white, yeah?) by digging up some good ol' Der Sturmer cartoons.
Anyhoo, not to bash one's head against that particular brick wall any more, so meanwhile: I was at the source he got some of the images from, Caricatures from "Der Stuermer," 1928-1932, I saw this one at the top of the page and thought, well now, here's something that speaks to the Bill O'Reilly in us all, isn't there:
link (can't upload the photo, but you'll see what I mean)
Note that last one. There's a lot of that theme there, too: porn as sinister corrupting force. Hey, who knows: maybe the "porno-iarchy" is really just one more part of the Zionist International Conspiracy after all; hell, most everything is, isn't it?
--Lenny Bruce on the Crucifixion
See, SnowdropExplodes has a follow-up on the cartoon business from last week, trying to explain one last time why some people were having their "racism!" buttons pushed by it (hint, it's not always black and white, yeah?) by digging up some good ol' Der Sturmer cartoons.
Anyhoo, not to bash one's head against that particular brick wall any more, so meanwhile: I was at the source he got some of the images from, Caricatures from "Der Stuermer," 1928-1932, I saw this one at the top of the page and thought, well now, here's something that speaks to the Bill O'Reilly in us all, isn't there:
link (can't upload the photo, but you'll see what I mean)
Title: "German Christmas"
Caption: The German Christmas angel has her hands tied by the swindling world bank Jews. Meanwhile, the department store Jew, behind the mask of Christmas cheer, is doing a booming business. (December 1928)
Explanation: The angel is bound by bands named taxes, credit stops, Dawes tribute and Lugano. The Jew is selling beauty creams and pornographic books.
Note that last one. There's a lot of that theme there, too: porn as sinister corrupting force. Hey, who knows: maybe the "porno-iarchy" is really just one more part of the Zionist International Conspiracy after all; hell, most everything is, isn't it?
"We did it, signed, Morty"
--Lenny Bruce on the Crucifixion
Monday, July 28, 2008
:facepalm: Okay. What's Wrong With This Picture?
-siiiiiiiiiiigh-
Renegade was addressing this post by Nine Deuce, and at first I was--lazily, I admit it--just sort of responding off of RE's response, briefly, because honestly, I just didn't want to get into it, and I didn't want to go over there and really engage. Mostly because I can hear the faint melancholy tinkle of "It's a Small World" playing in the back of my head again, and I--no. I mean--no. I'm obsessive compulsive, God knows, but even I have my limits for this particular argument, particularly--no, can't even be arsed to get into it that far. Okay, fine, porn is the root of all evil, people or at least men are like Pavlov's dogs and can be conditioned by orgasm, the idea that a career in sex work could ever be anything but dangerous and disgusting is merely an illusion and the people who are in such careers and argue otherwise are merely kidding themselves--you know what, I'm not one of those people, I'll stick up for my friends, but otherwise...what the fuck ever, I'm really tired. Whatevs.
But I did eventually click over because I -had- replied even tangentially to Ren's post there, and thought it'd be rum not to at least read the whole thing before commenting.
Unfortunately, I got stopped by this illustration. Which, I take it isn't of ND's drawing, but seems to have met with great approval from at least two other people who've since blogged it at their own spots. Um. Uh.
Okay. Not to be leading or anything, I'm just gonna go ahead and repost it and ask:
Why, exactly, might someone find this offensive? Even someone who -isn't- an Empowerful Stripper or Sparkly Fun Sexy Feminist? Three guesses, and the first two don't count, 'k?
I'll be over here.
ETA: right, okay, clearly I was wrong, Heart and Nine Deuce and witchy-woo have determined that the cartoon is not repeat NOT racist, (or sexist either, of course: we're not laughing AT the clueless blonde in the bikini, NO) and therefore it must not be. And obviously any cartoon by this cartoonist is probably okay, I mean: like, there's no racism here either, right?
ETA again: thanks, Sarah, for explaining -why- the former is erm -problematic- more coherently than I can at this point. I mean, obviously you are another one of those woman-hating meenie meenertons who Just Have It In For um whichever beleaguered personality it is this week and don't really mean what you're saying EITHER, because who would really; but, thanks for the effort: we who are about to crush the True Revolution salute you. Oh, and Ren, too, of course. And Bint, yes indeed.
ETA again, again: Yes, I am aware that the second cartoon is likely anti-W and anti-war. No, it wasn't actually -immediately- obvious to me on first seeing it, for a number of reasons, (for one, having seen a few too many unironic right wing odes to Dubya a la "My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys" back in the day, and just a shitload of really rank xenophobia) although I figured it out after a few more clicks. No, I don't think that the fact that it's not actually intended to be far-right propaganda means that it isn't using problematic, racially loaded imagery.
The artist in question--who's worked for both right wing and left wing media outlets and whose motto would appear to be that she is, in her words, "an equal opportunity skewer" (how...edgy) has a number of similarly erm ambiguous cartoons wherein mostly I think, as with the first one here: I really don't know -what- the fuck the point was here, exactly; I can -guess- what it's -supposed- to be saying more or less, but, ummmmm, it's not actually funny, see.
And, you know, I COULD go on explaining how actually, it doesn't -matter- that the audience in the first one may not have been -intended- to be -all- of color; it's -still drawing on loaded imagery and pushes reactionary buttons-, or the etiology of the "dumb blonde," but, well, mostly, at this point, I just want to know, from Certain Factions:
So, finally, is irony an all-purpose ass-cover, or isn't it?
Because, see, many of the people now going,
"Racism? What racism? I can't see any racism! The author didn't INTEND any racism (I know this to be true, I have osmosis)! Ergo, it isn't racist! Your perception of any racism therein, therefore, is INVALID. And it certainly isn't sexist! Just because it's drawing on sexist imagery to make its point doesn't make it sexist! It's, why, it's, it's...IRONIC."
i.e., the ones who thought this thing was a BRILLIANT illustration of something or other in the first place?
are the very same people who would -appear- to be insisting that when it comes to stripping, sex work, porn, burlesque, femme accoutrements, you know, pretty much anything that's OF the Patriarchy, BY the Patriarchy...no irony, no subversion, no nuance is possible. The POINT is, MEN will always see it a certain way; and that's all that matters. O.K.
Indeed, no authorial intent (what, you're saying the stripper can be an "author?" Get out!) matters. Some things cannot be reclaimed; cannot be "ironic;" queer burlesque is just more man pleasing by any other name; there IS no such thing as "feminist porn," high heels have one meaning, and one meaning only, one size fits all thanks, and so on, and so on, and so on. So sorry; whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, there--have a little orgasm, make art, trivial shit like that--you're going to have to just rip it all up and start from scratch.
But so now we learn that apparently when it comes to making fun of the people you want to make fun of? Employing stuff that, if it ISN'T the same ol' offensive reactionary racist-sexist-etc. shit, sure plays it on TV? Why, THAT'S just FINE. Of COURSE no one's going to interpret either of those cartoons as a straightforward celebration of sexual harassment or shoot-the-Indian! Don't be so stupid! C'mon! Where's your sense of humor? You're imagining things! Yer just so SENSITIVE...
And, finally, this? Sums it up.
Renegade was addressing this post by Nine Deuce, and at first I was--lazily, I admit it--just sort of responding off of RE's response, briefly, because honestly, I just didn't want to get into it, and I didn't want to go over there and really engage. Mostly because I can hear the faint melancholy tinkle of "It's a Small World" playing in the back of my head again, and I--no. I mean--no. I'm obsessive compulsive, God knows, but even I have my limits for this particular argument, particularly--no, can't even be arsed to get into it that far. Okay, fine, porn is the root of all evil, people or at least men are like Pavlov's dogs and can be conditioned by orgasm, the idea that a career in sex work could ever be anything but dangerous and disgusting is merely an illusion and the people who are in such careers and argue otherwise are merely kidding themselves--you know what, I'm not one of those people, I'll stick up for my friends, but otherwise...what the fuck ever, I'm really tired. Whatevs.
But I did eventually click over because I -had- replied even tangentially to Ren's post there, and thought it'd be rum not to at least read the whole thing before commenting.
Unfortunately, I got stopped by this illustration. Which, I take it isn't of ND's drawing, but seems to have met with great approval from at least two other people who've since blogged it at their own spots. Um. Uh.
Okay. Not to be leading or anything, I'm just gonna go ahead and repost it and ask:
Why, exactly, might someone find this offensive? Even someone who -isn't- an Empowerful Stripper or Sparkly Fun Sexy Feminist? Three guesses, and the first two don't count, 'k?
I'll be over here.
ETA: right, okay, clearly I was wrong, Heart and Nine Deuce and witchy-woo have determined that the cartoon is not repeat NOT racist, (or sexist either, of course: we're not laughing AT the clueless blonde in the bikini, NO) and therefore it must not be. And obviously any cartoon by this cartoonist is probably okay, I mean: like, there's no racism here either, right?
ETA again: thanks, Sarah, for explaining -why- the former is erm -problematic- more coherently than I can at this point. I mean, obviously you are another one of those woman-hating meenie meenertons who Just Have It In For um whichever beleaguered personality it is this week and don't really mean what you're saying EITHER, because who would really; but, thanks for the effort: we who are about to crush the True Revolution salute you. Oh, and Ren, too, of course. And Bint, yes indeed.
ETA again, again: Yes, I am aware that the second cartoon is likely anti-W and anti-war. No, it wasn't actually -immediately- obvious to me on first seeing it, for a number of reasons, (for one, having seen a few too many unironic right wing odes to Dubya a la "My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys" back in the day, and just a shitload of really rank xenophobia) although I figured it out after a few more clicks. No, I don't think that the fact that it's not actually intended to be far-right propaganda means that it isn't using problematic, racially loaded imagery.
The artist in question--who's worked for both right wing and left wing media outlets and whose motto would appear to be that she is, in her words, "an equal opportunity skewer" (how...edgy) has a number of similarly erm ambiguous cartoons wherein mostly I think, as with the first one here: I really don't know -what- the fuck the point was here, exactly; I can -guess- what it's -supposed- to be saying more or less, but, ummmmm, it's not actually funny, see.
And, you know, I COULD go on explaining how actually, it doesn't -matter- that the audience in the first one may not have been -intended- to be -all- of color; it's -still drawing on loaded imagery and pushes reactionary buttons-, or the etiology of the "dumb blonde," but, well, mostly, at this point, I just want to know, from Certain Factions:
So, finally, is irony an all-purpose ass-cover, or isn't it?
Because, see, many of the people now going,
"Racism? What racism? I can't see any racism! The author didn't INTEND any racism (I know this to be true, I have osmosis)! Ergo, it isn't racist! Your perception of any racism therein, therefore, is INVALID. And it certainly isn't sexist! Just because it's drawing on sexist imagery to make its point doesn't make it sexist! It's, why, it's, it's...IRONIC."
i.e., the ones who thought this thing was a BRILLIANT illustration of something or other in the first place?
are the very same people who would -appear- to be insisting that when it comes to stripping, sex work, porn, burlesque, femme accoutrements, you know, pretty much anything that's OF the Patriarchy, BY the Patriarchy...no irony, no subversion, no nuance is possible. The POINT is, MEN will always see it a certain way; and that's all that matters. O.K.
Indeed, no authorial intent (what, you're saying the stripper can be an "author?" Get out!) matters. Some things cannot be reclaimed; cannot be "ironic;" queer burlesque is just more man pleasing by any other name; there IS no such thing as "feminist porn," high heels have one meaning, and one meaning only, one size fits all thanks, and so on, and so on, and so on. So sorry; whatever it is you're trying to accomplish, there--have a little orgasm, make art, trivial shit like that--you're going to have to just rip it all up and start from scratch.
But so now we learn that apparently when it comes to making fun of the people you want to make fun of? Employing stuff that, if it ISN'T the same ol' offensive reactionary racist-sexist-etc. shit, sure plays it on TV? Why, THAT'S just FINE. Of COURSE no one's going to interpret either of those cartoons as a straightforward celebration of sexual harassment or shoot-the-Indian! Don't be so stupid! C'mon! Where's your sense of humor? You're imagining things! Yer just so SENSITIVE...
And, finally, this? Sums it up.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
I Blame the Assholes: the Infinite Quest
Strictly in the interest of scientific research, you understand. I may want to design a study, later on.
Keeping in mind that we're looking for unifying principles that transcend particular ideologies or "issues," compare and contrast:
exhibit 1:
exhibit 2:
Context helps a bit (in both cases, the commenters are addressing arguments that were never actually made in order to bring legality and medicalization into it, respectively), but I think we can start to tease out some common denominators nonetheless.
1) Your feelings are irrelevant, particularly seeing as how we're talking about something that depends -entirely- on a subjective experience.
2) The burden of proof is on you to justify your experience, if not your actual -existence-, to me.
3) why: I am logical and rational and objective! Witness me being logical and rational and objective! WITNESS, I say!
4) also, -appeal to authority-
5) Stop whining! If anything, actually, you're hurting ME.
...hm.
Further research is clearly indicated. Please send lots and lots of money to Me, c/o I Am Wearing My Serious Pants Cause On Account Of I'm Clever And Rational And Shit, box # lunch.
Keeping in mind that we're looking for unifying principles that transcend particular ideologies or "issues," compare and contrast:
exhibit 1:
These women say they are traumatised. The near impossible job for the Law is to try and assertain if that is the case when often there are no independant witnesses or evidence.
We all do things we regret. We shouldn't expect the Law to sort things out for us afterwards.
Convictions for rape should be made on objective not subjective evidence.
exhibit 2:
If somebody wants to prove that transgenderism is a valid medical condition, then they need to prove that it is not a fetish. Amazingly enough, this can’t be done either — not using any form of logic, anyway. If after 20 plus years of asking for proof, and the transfolk still can’t develope a logical argument, then a reasonable person starts to ask why.
Claiming that something is phobic can only be valid after the criticisms are actually addressed, and proven to be wrong. Asking the trans community to prove their assertions instead of just whining about their feelings is not a lot to ask. So prove it!
Context helps a bit (in both cases, the commenters are addressing arguments that were never actually made in order to bring legality and medicalization into it, respectively), but I think we can start to tease out some common denominators nonetheless.
1) Your feelings are irrelevant, particularly seeing as how we're talking about something that depends -entirely- on a subjective experience.
2) The burden of proof is on you to justify your experience, if not your actual -existence-, to me.
3) why: I am logical and rational and objective! Witness me being logical and rational and objective! WITNESS, I say!
4) also, -appeal to authority-
5) Stop whining! If anything, actually, you're hurting ME.
...hm.
Further research is clearly indicated. Please send lots and lots of money to Me, c/o I Am Wearing My Serious Pants Cause On Account Of I'm Clever And Rational And Shit, box # lunch.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
A clarification.
Wrt the "open letter" post. Perhaps I did not communicate my thesis as well as I might have done. Let me try to explain more clearly and succinctly:
I HATE CAPITAL P ELECTORAL POLITICS, I REALLY FUCKING HATE THIS PRIMARY SEASON, AND MOSTLY RIGHT NOW I HATE YOU ALL. -flaps hand irritably in general direction of irritating people-
'K?
I don't actually hate Hillary. I don't -know- Hillary. That's kind of, you know, the point. She's not my bestest buddy. She's not gonna get me a job or a girlfriend or a golden ticket through the glass ceiling to the top of the heap. She's not my fairy feminist godmother, gonna wave a wand and make my (for I am, indeed, Every Woman) life all better. NONE of the candidates are. We know this, as nice sensible rational non-sheeple, kee-rect?
I mean, this is why, when I go to read a nice, sensible person who's very concerned about the impending crypto-fundie-fascism of the "Obamabots" (yes, I'm sure they're really terrible TOO, I don't CARE, I didn't even mean to look THIS far, and Tom? so gonna KICK YOUR ASS for making me look)--she has this list, right, wherein she says,
...so, I click at random on a link from the list, right, and this is what I immediately run into:
http://alwaysforhillary.blogspot.com/
***
I'm not sure, but I think she's saying that she's for Hillary, there.
"Where does this leave the women of America?"
Well, I can't speak for the rest of 'em, but THIS woman is left rolling her eyes so hard they've fallen down the back of me.
Jesus fuck, can't these people indulge their passions in something -healthy-, like, I don't know, Harry Potter fandom or something? This person is 55? and she sounds like a rabid Harmonian (no, don't ask me how I even know about this shit, really).
ZOMG BILLARY 4EVER!!!ELEVENTYBEEP!!...
I mean, I -was- going to say something a bit more in-depth about, well...back to Violet, because there's some shit to unpack that I find interesting, here:
Well, first of all, she links to this endorsement of Obama, with the following accompanying photo:
And, well, yeah, that is rather creepy. At minimum: seriously naff. Vote for Obama and Thomas Kincade will give us all a unicorn? What? And as the first commenter notes:
The only problem with the picture you have of Obama is that he is not walking on top of the water.
So, Violet has some commentary, and some of it I do agree with, in fact, this bit:
Agreed. He's a canny politician, for better or for worse. It's looking increasingly like he just might be even cannier than Hillary, and this is why, in fact, he's edging her out. It may or may not be that he's the better candidate. Me, I still think in a number of ways it's a coin-toss. Depends on the issue, what time of day you ask me, and how arsed I can be to actually go know what the fuck I'm talking about.
As for "not particularly honest:" well, again, haven't been following the play by play much this time so can't really comment, but I will say with some rather glibly cynical confidence that "___ is not a particularly honest politician" is a truism on the level of "the Atlantic is not a particularly dry ocean."
What I -do- think is
a) either one of them is way WAY better than McCain, and I still will vote for whoever actually wins the nomination, assuming this ever fucking ends
b) neither one is exactly ideal and both have made me :headdesk: a number of times
c) actually? a little canninesss and charisma are not, perhaps, such bad things, in a politician. I mean to say, it'd be a refreshing change from our current dumbass arrogant motherfuckers, who simply rode as far as they could on nepotism and deluded arrogance and Rovian levels of dirty fuckery, and simply -bludgeoned- the rest of their way, Vogon-like, as far as they could go, domestically -and- internationally; and, well, check out the results. "We're soaking in it."
Hell, it's why I supported Clinton's husband in the damn first place. Rather eerily similar mix of personal charm, either inspiring or nauseatingly saccharine, depending on your purview, appeals to "hope," apparent genuine better-than-the-other-guyness and disappointing sellouts; and, yep, canny, even oleaginous, as all fuck, no doubt. It's what made him good at what he did, see, in large part: charm and canniness HELP when you're trying to persuade people to pass your bill or put down the large nuclear weapon. It -can- be used to get people to drink the Koolaid or join the Hitlerjugend too, yes. But it doesn't have to be. And without it, well, basically...you're Ralph Nader.
There was, for me, with Bill, a tipping point where I just couldn't muster up any enthusiasm anymore--this was well into his actual tenure--but I never had any illusions that he was, y'know, Holy Savior On A White Unicorn. And if anyone -really- did, to the point of actual -worship-, well...more fool they, I suppose.
That said, though, well: okay. We're not just rolling our eyes at this pic, apparently, we're supposed to, what, see this kind of generic poli-fanboy kitsch as a threat to humanist democracy, because:
You know, there's more to say about the not-so-subtext--there's an actual texty quote I had to this effect, by someone else of similar politics, elsewhere--about this tendency about let's say a certain demographic of people, I think more on the more or less "traditional" left, perhaps, to look at anything smacking of actual religion/faith with deep suspicion, how it ALL must be scary fundieism; and how indeed this fear of fundamentalist demagoguery ties into the mistrust of, well, again, charisma.
But it's more than my frazzled attention span can manage at the moment, it's a longer post than I've already got here anyway. Besides, the conclusion I'm stumbling toward, i.e. actually "the spirit," let's say very generally, is a GOOD thing, a HUMAN thing, and if the left doesn't acknowledge this um...well, what -are- we talking about? appeal to faith, hope and charity? theatre and spectacle and ritual and all things associated with religion as well as humbug? the wisdom of crowds?...but rather insists we must do away with it altogether, well, THAT'S when you get your Hitlers and other false prophets. It's not a question of needing to believe so and so really IS the Messiah; you're right, literally putting that on any human being IS a bad thing, that's what fundamentalism IS, the over-literalization of all...this; it is however a question of, no, we're -not- all just-the-facts-ma'am, it's not how we're built, and it's better to work with it consciously than rail about what stupid unevolved sheep we all are...something like that.
...anyway, well, let's just say the -philosophical- tone I was gonna take with -that- post, which is indeed a separate post I think, much less "why yes, having faith in -something-, especially one's fellow human critter, is a -good- thing in a leader and a political movement," sits rather uneasily with my current mood of FUCK ALL Y'ALL, YOU'RE ALL TERMINALLY ANNOYING MYOPIC BASTARD PEOPLE AND I HATE YOU SO BAD.
It'll pass.
Anyway.
So let's just take this thesis of Violet's on its face for now, okay, that Obama-Kitsch-person is a representative of all that's bad and scary about THEM, you know, the Obama people, and we must turn to the sane sober -smart- people who are NOT prone to mindless worship to save us from ourselves, i.e...the Hillary supporters.
Like this person.
Well. Okay then!! I'm convinced!! Sign me up for my full quota of exclamation points!!!!! -thumbs up-
Did I mention the part about oh GOD will the LOT of you SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY? I may have, once or twice.
And finally, here's the part which really fucks me off, okay:
These people who are all like, nnnghh rrrggghhh HILLARY (or OBAMA I suppose, someone must be doing this somewhere, NO don't show me) OR BUST n i'll VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN or stay home and BITE MY PILLOW! ?
are, in many cases the VERY SAME PEOPLE who four years ago (remember?) were all like,
ZOMG BUSH CAN'T WIN AGAIN IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD THE LAST LATE CHANCE FUCK YOU YOU NADER FUCKERS FOR RUINING EVERYTHING IF HE DOES WIN OMG HE DID WIN O DESPAIR DESPAIR WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOMED FOREVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR it's the end of democracy and Western Civ and puppies and EVERYTHING.
Remember this?
And you know? I kind of bought it, for a while. Maybe I was right to, even. I mean, we DO live on a Hellmouth, more or less; we just kind of, what, get used to it? Something. Fuck knows there are a bunch of people in the Middle East who are a lot more dead than they probably would've been if someone who wasn't totally in bed with the neocons, the theocons, and their daddies' pals in the Awl Bidness had been in office. (Which is not to say that there still wouldn't have been a body count; yes, I am well aware Bill Clinton was not exactly a bomb-free gift to the Iraqis or a bunch of other people either, yes) Plus a bunch of other -specifics- that I'm too lazy and shallow to get into at the moment, but hey join the club there. And fuck knows Nader sucks, yes.
And yet. So now, though, here we are again, four years later, and YEAH, for a lot of people the world DID end, same as it always has cause garsh, there's more to U.S. policy and politics and well LIFE than you imagined, Horatio, and more people in the world, too, but well never mind;
But fact is, the world still continues to turn, more or less, against all odds, and now oh look just in time for election season (which I KNOW some of these same people screaming about their primary candidate now were swearing upndown we'd never have one again at ALL after '04), it's yet ANOTHER fucking crisis.
No, the world won't even probably end as such if McCain wins either, or not -just- BECAUSE McCain wins instead of the Democrat. Although I DO think it'll be pretty bad for a lot of people in ways that it wouldn't be otherwise, yes, and I plan to write more about this henceforth. And no, it won't be all roses for everyone if either HRC or Obama wins either. Absolutely.
But. Here's the point: whom do you imagine is most going to feel the immediate impact of the -actual policies- enacted by the -actual whoever is voted in, o flag-waving peanut gallery? You? I wonder. Because, well, four years after the last OMG THE SKY IS FALLING, well, here you all are again, more or less, gearing up for the NEXT test match, threatening imminent doom and/or hara-kiri if your candidate doesn't WIN DAMMIT, all sound and fury and signifying not a whole fuck of a lot, quite frankly.
Which leads one, finally, to the question:
Why get all het up over the CANDIDATES so much more than the ISSUES? (whatever they were again?)
Well...it's more fun and it's sexier, and fuck knows it's -hard work- to pay attention to the issues. Hey, guilty as charged right here.
But for the love of little plastic baubles, do NOT try to sell me YOUR political fandom as the ONE TRUE SHIP while at the same time handwringing about all those OTHER terrible people who just don't -understand- what's at stake here, unlike you, o enlightened, -serious- person.
As for this?
Maybe we don’t deserve democracy anymore.
Speak for your damn self. And, piss off with the damn Twilight of Western Civ elegies, T.S. Eloise, I -hate- that shit. Include me out with your -we-, and don't tell me what I -deserve-.
I don't know -what- "we," or even I, deserve, to be perfectly honest. I know what I -want-, but that may not be what I -deserve-. And to some degree, well, karma will wreak its justice, and them's the breaks.
What I -can- control, however, is whether or not I continue to hurt my brain by tuning into this crap.
I don't -think- I deserve it (glares at Tom). I know I don't -want- to.
So, I...won't.
Off to cultivate my garden, or some goddam thing, at least till the next outrage I get caught up in (checks watch)
***
ETA: Let me be a little clearer about one last thing, also. I am not actually saying she should drop out before the last few primary state elections straggle to the end, no. Not at this late date. That would not be reasonable.
What I AM saying is, the suggestions that at the end of those, even if she's in the red in delegates, superdelegates, AND money, she's still gonna plug away at Michigan and Florida and maybe fuck me dead even run as an independent after the nomination (no, I don't think she'd go that far, but there WAS fucking Lieberman, not the same I know, but...)
Again. The last. fucking. thing. anyone wants. is to have a prolonged drag out fight. over a technicality. in FLORIDA.
Please, God? Please? PLEEEASSSEEEEE
I HATE CAPITAL P ELECTORAL POLITICS, I REALLY FUCKING HATE THIS PRIMARY SEASON, AND MOSTLY RIGHT NOW I HATE YOU ALL. -flaps hand irritably in general direction of irritating people-
'K?
I don't actually hate Hillary. I don't -know- Hillary. That's kind of, you know, the point. She's not my bestest buddy. She's not gonna get me a job or a girlfriend or a golden ticket through the glass ceiling to the top of the heap. She's not my fairy feminist godmother, gonna wave a wand and make my (for I am, indeed, Every Woman) life all better. NONE of the candidates are. We know this, as nice sensible rational non-sheeple, kee-rect?
I mean, this is why, when I go to read a nice, sensible person who's very concerned about the impending crypto-fundie-fascism of the "Obamabots" (yes, I'm sure they're really terrible TOO, I don't CARE, I didn't even mean to look THIS far, and Tom? so gonna KICK YOUR ASS for making me look)--she has this list, right, wherein she says,
The seeds of the new progressive blogosphere
A list is taking shape of those political bloggers who are either pro-Hillary or at least fair in their coverage of the candidates — in other words, bloggers who aren’t raving Clinton-hating Obamabots. Versions of this emerging blogroll are popping up here and there; the one below is cobbled together from lists at Tennessee Guerilla Women, The Hillary 1000, and a couple of other places.
Why does this list matter? It’s not merely a question of knowing where to go for misogyny-free political commentary. These are the seeds of a new progressive blogosphere in the making. The Obamabots are poisoning the original netroots, transforming what used to be an arena for progressive politics into nothing more than a rabid, mindless He-Man Woman-Haters club. The Democratic Party — or at least the high-visibility Obamabot segment — is morphing into the Young Republicans: all the misogyny and callowness and ignorance and blind hero-worship of the old GOP, but with a self-congratulatory aura of imaginary cool to make the YouTube generation feel at home.
And where does that leave the women of America?
...so, I click at random on a link from the list, right, and this is what I immediately run into:
http://alwaysforhillary.blogspot.com/
This is my blog on campaigning for and supporting Hillary Clinton for President! I firmly believe she is the most intelligent, qualified, and experienced "person" running and the fact she is a woman is just icing on the cake!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
I'M SEETHING!!!! I'M ANGRY!!!!
Last night, Hillary won Indiana where Obama won North Carolina. Indiana was a state his campaign predicted they would win by at least 7 points. Well, because Hillary only won Indiana by 2 points, the pundits and media have AGAIN COUNTED HILLARY OUT AND LEFT HER FOR DEAD!!!! They are saying the nomination is over and Obama will be the nominee. He may well turn out to be the nominee, but this is at least the 4th or 5th time throughout this campaign, that Hillary's political demise has been delivered!!! Today George McGovern who supported Hillary early on in the campaign, for him both Bill and Hillary campaigned for him for president in the 70's, has now called on Hillary PUBLICLY TO GET OUT OF THE RACE and he has switched his support to Obama!!! I am SO ANGRY; I AM SEETHING!!!!!
Hillary is the most admirable woman in the world!!! As this campaign has progressed, my admiration and love for her as deepened day by day, month by month. After being counted out time after time, she STILL GETS UP EVERY DAY and goes out there and campaigns. This is a woman who has again lent her campaign another $6 million so she can be competitive with Obama!! Doesn't the fact she has loaned her campaign over $11 million already, and is willing to give more, SHOW HOW PASSIONATE SHE IS TO HELP THIS COUNTRY?????
I just made by upteenth call to the DNC. I told them how ANGRY I was; how I was SEETHING!!! I said Hillary won Indiana last night and all I'm hearing is how she should get out of the race; the race is over, "she's toast", etc. I told them that I had said all along that I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA BUT THAT I WOULD WRITE IN HILLARY'S NAME, but I have gone one step further. I am SO ANGRY that I have decided if Hillary does not get the nomination which she deserves and has earned, I WILL VOTE FOR MC CAIN!!!!! And that goes against everything I believe in, but at least I RESPECT MC CAIN! I DO NOT RESPECT OBAMA!!! I DO NOT TRUST OBAMA!!!! I THINK OBAMA WOULD BE TERRIBLY DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY!!!
In both states last night, 50% of Hillary's supporters said THEY WOULD NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA!!! They will either vote for McCain or not vote at all. I am not giving up yet. Hillary is a FIGHTER and she might still have some tricks up her sleeve. I PRAY SHE WILL STILL WIN THIS NOMINATION. I want to vote for the person I believe in!! I want to vote for the person who will be great for this country!!! I want to vote for the person who will be a GREAT PRESIDENT!!! I WANT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!
***
I'm not sure, but I think she's saying that she's for Hillary, there.
"Where does this leave the women of America?"
Well, I can't speak for the rest of 'em, but THIS woman is left rolling her eyes so hard they've fallen down the back of me.
Jesus fuck, can't these people indulge their passions in something -healthy-, like, I don't know, Harry Potter fandom or something? This person is 55? and she sounds like a rabid Harmonian (no, don't ask me how I even know about this shit, really).
ZOMG BILLARY 4EVER!!!ELEVENTYBEEP!!...
I mean, I -was- going to say something a bit more in-depth about, well...back to Violet, because there's some shit to unpack that I find interesting, here:
Well, first of all, she links to this endorsement of Obama, with the following accompanying photo:
And, well, yeah, that is rather creepy. At minimum: seriously naff. Vote for Obama and Thomas Kincade will give us all a unicorn? What? And as the first commenter notes:
The only problem with the picture you have of Obama is that he is not walking on top of the water.
So, Violet has some commentary, and some of it I do agree with, in fact, this bit:
Barack Obama is not a creep or a vicious little man. He is, however, a canny politician, and not even a particularly honest one. He’s a product of the Chicago machine, and he’s played as dirty as anybody. His whole career, going back to the moment he graduated from Harvard Law, has been focused on one thing: his own advancement. The elaborate advertising campaign that’s selling him to the gullible masses as some kind of savior is just that — an advertising campaign.
Agreed. He's a canny politician, for better or for worse. It's looking increasingly like he just might be even cannier than Hillary, and this is why, in fact, he's edging her out. It may or may not be that he's the better candidate. Me, I still think in a number of ways it's a coin-toss. Depends on the issue, what time of day you ask me, and how arsed I can be to actually go know what the fuck I'm talking about.
As for "not particularly honest:" well, again, haven't been following the play by play much this time so can't really comment, but I will say with some rather glibly cynical confidence that "___ is not a particularly honest politician" is a truism on the level of "the Atlantic is not a particularly dry ocean."
What I -do- think is
a) either one of them is way WAY better than McCain, and I still will vote for whoever actually wins the nomination, assuming this ever fucking ends
b) neither one is exactly ideal and both have made me :headdesk: a number of times
c) actually? a little canninesss and charisma are not, perhaps, such bad things, in a politician. I mean to say, it'd be a refreshing change from our current dumbass arrogant motherfuckers, who simply rode as far as they could on nepotism and deluded arrogance and Rovian levels of dirty fuckery, and simply -bludgeoned- the rest of their way, Vogon-like, as far as they could go, domestically -and- internationally; and, well, check out the results. "We're soaking in it."
Hell, it's why I supported Clinton's husband in the damn first place. Rather eerily similar mix of personal charm, either inspiring or nauseatingly saccharine, depending on your purview, appeals to "hope," apparent genuine better-than-the-other-guyness and disappointing sellouts; and, yep, canny, even oleaginous, as all fuck, no doubt. It's what made him good at what he did, see, in large part: charm and canniness HELP when you're trying to persuade people to pass your bill or put down the large nuclear weapon. It -can- be used to get people to drink the Koolaid or join the Hitlerjugend too, yes. But it doesn't have to be. And without it, well, basically...you're Ralph Nader.
There was, for me, with Bill, a tipping point where I just couldn't muster up any enthusiasm anymore--this was well into his actual tenure--but I never had any illusions that he was, y'know, Holy Savior On A White Unicorn. And if anyone -really- did, to the point of actual -worship-, well...more fool they, I suppose.
That said, though, well: okay. We're not just rolling our eyes at this pic, apparently, we're supposed to, what, see this kind of generic poli-fanboy kitsch as a threat to humanist democracy, because:
Obamamania gives liberals the opportunity to surrender to the same mindless hero-worship as Republicans. That’s really the deal. George W. Bush is, in actuality, a creep. A vicious little man. But he was marketed as a Man of Honor, a Man of God — and people fell for it. Because they wanted to, because they were ripe for that kind of pseudo-religious surrender.
...We are a nation of consumers, of believers, of dupes. Maybe we don’t deserve democracy anymore.
You know, there's more to say about the not-so-subtext--there's an actual texty quote I had to this effect, by someone else of similar politics, elsewhere--about this tendency about let's say a certain demographic of people, I think more on the more or less "traditional" left, perhaps, to look at anything smacking of actual religion/faith with deep suspicion, how it ALL must be scary fundieism; and how indeed this fear of fundamentalist demagoguery ties into the mistrust of, well, again, charisma.
But it's more than my frazzled attention span can manage at the moment, it's a longer post than I've already got here anyway. Besides, the conclusion I'm stumbling toward, i.e. actually "the spirit," let's say very generally, is a GOOD thing, a HUMAN thing, and if the left doesn't acknowledge this um...well, what -are- we talking about? appeal to faith, hope and charity? theatre and spectacle and ritual and all things associated with religion as well as humbug? the wisdom of crowds?...but rather insists we must do away with it altogether, well, THAT'S when you get your Hitlers and other false prophets. It's not a question of needing to believe so and so really IS the Messiah; you're right, literally putting that on any human being IS a bad thing, that's what fundamentalism IS, the over-literalization of all...this; it is however a question of, no, we're -not- all just-the-facts-ma'am, it's not how we're built, and it's better to work with it consciously than rail about what stupid unevolved sheep we all are...something like that.
...anyway, well, let's just say the -philosophical- tone I was gonna take with -that- post, which is indeed a separate post I think, much less "why yes, having faith in -something-, especially one's fellow human critter, is a -good- thing in a leader and a political movement," sits rather uneasily with my current mood of FUCK ALL Y'ALL, YOU'RE ALL TERMINALLY ANNOYING MYOPIC BASTARD PEOPLE AND I HATE YOU SO BAD.
It'll pass.
Anyway.
So let's just take this thesis of Violet's on its face for now, okay, that Obama-Kitsch-person is a representative of all that's bad and scary about THEM, you know, the Obama people, and we must turn to the sane sober -smart- people who are NOT prone to mindless worship to save us from ourselves, i.e...the Hillary supporters.
Like this person.
Hillary is the most admirable woman in the world!!! As this campaign has progressed, my admiration and love for her as deepened day by day, month by month. After being counted out time after time, she STILL GETS UP EVERY DAY and goes out there and campaigns. This is a woman who has again lent her campaign another $6 million so she can be competitive with Obama!! Doesn't the fact she has loaned her campaign over $11 million already, and is willing to give more, SHOW HOW PASSIONATE SHE IS TO HELP THIS COUNTRY?????
Well. Okay then!! I'm convinced!! Sign me up for my full quota of exclamation points!!!!! -thumbs up-
Did I mention the part about oh GOD will the LOT of you SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY? I may have, once or twice.
And finally, here's the part which really fucks me off, okay:
These people who are all like, nnnghh rrrggghhh HILLARY (or OBAMA I suppose, someone must be doing this somewhere, NO don't show me) OR BUST n i'll VOTE FOR THE REPUBLICAN or stay home and BITE MY PILLOW! ?
are, in many cases the VERY SAME PEOPLE who four years ago (remember?) were all like,
ZOMG BUSH CAN'T WIN AGAIN IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD THE LAST LATE CHANCE FUCK YOU YOU NADER FUCKERS FOR RUINING EVERYTHING IF HE DOES WIN OMG HE DID WIN O DESPAIR DESPAIR WE'RE ALL DOOOOOOOMED FOREVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR it's the end of democracy and Western Civ and puppies and EVERYTHING.
Remember this?
And you know? I kind of bought it, for a while. Maybe I was right to, even. I mean, we DO live on a Hellmouth, more or less; we just kind of, what, get used to it? Something. Fuck knows there are a bunch of people in the Middle East who are a lot more dead than they probably would've been if someone who wasn't totally in bed with the neocons, the theocons, and their daddies' pals in the Awl Bidness had been in office. (Which is not to say that there still wouldn't have been a body count; yes, I am well aware Bill Clinton was not exactly a bomb-free gift to the Iraqis or a bunch of other people either, yes) Plus a bunch of other -specifics- that I'm too lazy and shallow to get into at the moment, but hey join the club there. And fuck knows Nader sucks, yes.
And yet. So now, though, here we are again, four years later, and YEAH, for a lot of people the world DID end, same as it always has cause garsh, there's more to U.S. policy and politics and well LIFE than you imagined, Horatio, and more people in the world, too, but well never mind;
But fact is, the world still continues to turn, more or less, against all odds, and now oh look just in time for election season (which I KNOW some of these same people screaming about their primary candidate now were swearing upndown we'd never have one again at ALL after '04), it's yet ANOTHER fucking crisis.
No, the world won't even probably end as such if McCain wins either, or not -just- BECAUSE McCain wins instead of the Democrat. Although I DO think it'll be pretty bad for a lot of people in ways that it wouldn't be otherwise, yes, and I plan to write more about this henceforth. And no, it won't be all roses for everyone if either HRC or Obama wins either. Absolutely.
But. Here's the point: whom do you imagine is most going to feel the immediate impact of the -actual policies- enacted by the -actual whoever is voted in, o flag-waving peanut gallery? You? I wonder. Because, well, four years after the last OMG THE SKY IS FALLING, well, here you all are again, more or less, gearing up for the NEXT test match, threatening imminent doom and/or hara-kiri if your candidate doesn't WIN DAMMIT, all sound and fury and signifying not a whole fuck of a lot, quite frankly.
Which leads one, finally, to the question:
Why get all het up over the CANDIDATES so much more than the ISSUES? (whatever they were again?)
Well...it's more fun and it's sexier, and fuck knows it's -hard work- to pay attention to the issues. Hey, guilty as charged right here.
But for the love of little plastic baubles, do NOT try to sell me YOUR political fandom as the ONE TRUE SHIP while at the same time handwringing about all those OTHER terrible people who just don't -understand- what's at stake here, unlike you, o enlightened, -serious- person.
As for this?
Maybe we don’t deserve democracy anymore.
Speak for your damn self. And, piss off with the damn Twilight of Western Civ elegies, T.S. Eloise, I -hate- that shit. Include me out with your -we-, and don't tell me what I -deserve-.
I don't know -what- "we," or even I, deserve, to be perfectly honest. I know what I -want-, but that may not be what I -deserve-. And to some degree, well, karma will wreak its justice, and them's the breaks.
What I -can- control, however, is whether or not I continue to hurt my brain by tuning into this crap.
I don't -think- I deserve it (glares at Tom). I know I don't -want- to.
So, I...won't.
Off to cultivate my garden, or some goddam thing, at least till the next outrage I get caught up in (checks watch)
***
ETA: Let me be a little clearer about one last thing, also. I am not actually saying she should drop out before the last few primary state elections straggle to the end, no. Not at this late date. That would not be reasonable.
What I AM saying is, the suggestions that at the end of those, even if she's in the red in delegates, superdelegates, AND money, she's still gonna plug away at Michigan and Florida and maybe fuck me dead even run as an independent after the nomination (no, I don't think she'd go that far, but there WAS fucking Lieberman, not the same I know, but...)
Again. The last. fucking. thing. anyone wants. is to have a prolonged drag out fight. over a technicality. in FLORIDA.
Please, God? Please? PLEEEASSSEEEEE
Monday, April 28, 2008
Quote of the day, 4/28/08
Nick: My simple child reaction of what you did is that you are not funny. Funnier than you is even Stuart Schlossman, who is my friend, and is eleven, and puts walnuts in his mouth and makes noises. What is not funny is to call us names, and what is mostly not funny is how sad you are, and I'd feel sorry for you if it wasn't for how dull you are. And those are the worst-tasting potato chips that I've ever tasted. And that's my opinion from the blue, blue sky.
--A Thousand Clowns
Friday, April 25, 2008
Ummm, yeah, about those "racism" charges...
So, okay, wrt the whole Amanda Marcotte/brownfemipower left the blogosphere/appropriation/head explodes business, on top of everything else it now transpires that the book that she and Seal Press have just released has these, well, ummmm, illustrations, okay.
You can see them here.
I'll just wait here while you check them out.
-hums a bit-
Back? Right, so:
Also, I was in the local B&N today, checked out the book, and saw ‘em with my own three eyes. amazing. I particularly like the one (not pictured at DWF there) where there’s this brutelike looking dark-skinned man slouching out of his hut, glaring scarily at Our Heroine as she saunters past.
And, like, they don’t even make any -sense-. They have precisely -nothing- to do with the content, which at a glance seems relatively innocuous, even mildly entertaining, of itself. She didn’t -need- -any- illustrations. And–who thinks that shit is funny? let alone doesn’t get that some people might have a problem?…especially after the cover?…like, what, people complain about the Symbolism of an ape but will be totally fine with -actual stereotyped “natives”?- or, what, won’t notice, or…?
Yeah.
Ah.
...and after that, one just doesn't know quite what to say, at the moment.
*
ETA: Seal Press has apologized.
Um. Yeah.
ETAA: and so has Amanda.
ETAYA: back to Seal for a moment, speaking of things one misses because one probably just doesn't even want to see it on account of it's depressing enough already, Sly Civilian pointed this bit out from their "apology:"
Aren't we cute. Not at all defensive or snide or dismissive there, no precious.
But o hay, they're going to "anti-racist training," so everything should be better from now on, right?
"Sorry I ran you over with my car during my last drunken bender. I know I didn't hear you the -first- 12,000 times you told me I might have a problem with alcohol? But now after the arrest and everything, I'm thinking maybe you might have a point after all. Not just the one on top of your head, either, you big party pooper! Ha ha! Just lightening the tension a little, if you will. Anyway, I'm going to rehab, so we're all square now, right?
--What do you -mean- they'll have to take away my driver's license? But I worked -really hard- for that license! I studied and took the test and everything! I just got that car! I barely dented the bumper when I hit you, it's in beautiful condition! Why o why is everyone out to get me! It ISN'T FAIR DAMMIT. And stop trying to make me feel guilty, I need a SAFE SPACE. --Oh, you're already stuck in the hospital room, and I have the entire outside? Well, I still don't FEEL safe. I can still feel you glaring at me through your window. Stop it! Stop ruining my happy day! you mean bully, you."
And yeah, considering that these are the same two geniuses referred to here and here, and then alluded to further here, here (speaking of "safe spaces" ffs, read the whole damn post, tell you what, and then come back and argue about how hard it is for the poor white women whose careers might be at stake, okay) and here, I am thinking: sure, go to the anti-racist training? but, um, also:
You're fired. For sheer, utter fucking incompetence, and no, that doesn't get fixed with a "see, this is why pictures of blonde women with white male backups kicking black spear-carrying "savages" in the face are offensive, mkay" written out dutifully 100 times, I am afraid.
If it were up to me, anyway.
Just saying.
You can see them here.
I'll just wait here while you check them out.
-hums a bit-
Back? Right, so:
Also, I was in the local B&N today, checked out the book, and saw ‘em with my own three eyes. amazing. I particularly like the one (not pictured at DWF there) where there’s this brutelike looking dark-skinned man slouching out of his hut, glaring scarily at Our Heroine as she saunters past.
And, like, they don’t even make any -sense-. They have precisely -nothing- to do with the content, which at a glance seems relatively innocuous, even mildly entertaining, of itself. She didn’t -need- -any- illustrations. And–who thinks that shit is funny? let alone doesn’t get that some people might have a problem?…especially after the cover?…like, what, people complain about the Symbolism of an ape but will be totally fine with -actual stereotyped “natives”?- or, what, won’t notice, or…?
Yeah.
Ah.
...and after that, one just doesn't know quite what to say, at the moment.
*
ETA: Seal Press has apologized.
We are taking action immediately to remove the offensive images from It's A Jungle Out There. We are currently reprinting, and we will make these changes now. We apologize for any pain or concern these images have caused.
We do not believe it is appropriate for a book about feminism, albeit a book of humor, to have any images or illustrations that are offensive to anyone.
Some have asked the valid question, "What were you thinking?"
Please know that neither the cover, nor the interior images, were meant to make any serious statement. We were hoping for a campy, retro package to complement the author's humor. That is all. We were not thinking.
Um. Yeah.
ETAA: and so has Amanda.
ETAYA: back to Seal for a moment, speaking of things one misses because one probably just doesn't even want to see it on account of it's depressing enough already, Sly Civilian pointed this bit out from their "apology:"
“This 1950s Marvel comic is not an accurate reflection of our beauty standards, our beliefs regarding one’s right to bear arms, nor our perspectives on race relations, foreign policy, or environmental policy.”
Aren't we cute. Not at all defensive or snide or dismissive there, no precious.
But o hay, they're going to "anti-racist training," so everything should be better from now on, right?
"Sorry I ran you over with my car during my last drunken bender. I know I didn't hear you the -first- 12,000 times you told me I might have a problem with alcohol? But now after the arrest and everything, I'm thinking maybe you might have a point after all. Not just the one on top of your head, either, you big party pooper! Ha ha! Just lightening the tension a little, if you will. Anyway, I'm going to rehab, so we're all square now, right?
--What do you -mean- they'll have to take away my driver's license? But I worked -really hard- for that license! I studied and took the test and everything! I just got that car! I barely dented the bumper when I hit you, it's in beautiful condition! Why o why is everyone out to get me! It ISN'T FAIR DAMMIT. And stop trying to make me feel guilty, I need a SAFE SPACE. --Oh, you're already stuck in the hospital room, and I have the entire outside? Well, I still don't FEEL safe. I can still feel you glaring at me through your window. Stop it! Stop ruining my happy day! you mean bully, you."
And yeah, considering that these are the same two geniuses referred to here and here, and then alluded to further here, here (speaking of "safe spaces" ffs, read the whole damn post, tell you what, and then come back and argue about how hard it is for the poor white women whose careers might be at stake, okay) and here, I am thinking: sure, go to the anti-racist training? but, um, also:
You're fired. For sheer, utter fucking incompetence, and no, that doesn't get fixed with a "see, this is why pictures of blonde women with white male backups kicking black spear-carrying "savages" in the face are offensive, mkay" written out dutifully 100 times, I am afraid.
If it were up to me, anyway.
Just saying.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
as per the latest shitstorm:
y'know, this thing.
All I have to say is, both the OP and many of the responses put me in mind of nothing so much as this:
1) omg, "boobs!" without shame!
2) omg, what a boob! shame!
3) OMFG EXPLOSION THE LIKES OF WHICH WE HAVEN'T SEEN SINCE THE BLOWJOB WARS!
sigh.
All I have to say is, both the OP and many of the responses put me in mind of nothing so much as this:
1) omg, "boobs!" without shame!
2) omg, what a boob! shame!
3) OMFG EXPLOSION THE LIKES OF WHICH WE HAVEN'T SEEN SINCE THE BLOWJOB WARS!
sigh.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
"Passing:" some "privilege."
Over at this Alas a Blog thread, Sylvia has an excellent comment that I'm gonna repost in full, just because it's so very excellent and full context helps:
and my response:
Yes, absolutely. In all of those instances, I suppose one could make the argument that having the "choice" at all is a "privilege" over those who can't--for instance, the young man who's so obviously gay that he never gets into the fraternity at all, and is the one who gets the slurs written on the whiteboard--but what a fucking choice. It doesn't change the basic problem, or who's at fault for perpetuating it.
also, for those who can and do make the choice to "pass," internalization, the "closet," if you will (which can exist on a number of axes, not just sexuality) is its own special kind of hell.
in fact, speaking of, an old joke (not that I'm laughing here, but by way of illustration, I actually think it's apt) suddenly comes to mind:
Person dies and goes to hell, and the devil tells hir that sie has a choice of several rooms wherein sie can go and suffer for all eternity.
The first room has people being boiled in oil.
The second room has people lying on beds of knives.
The third room has people standing chest-to-chin-deep in steaming shit, but they're actually talking to each other and holding cups of coffee, and don't seem to be in physical agony. The new infernal tenant tells the devil, "I'll take this one, then."
Choice made, the person goes to join the throng. Shortly thereafter, a demon comes in with a pitchfork and goes,
"Right everyone, coffee break's over, back on your heads."
That there would be "passing," basically.
ETA:
--dw3t-hthr (see comments)
“Passing privilege” — I can’t believe anyone is going to argue that the alleged ability to “pass” makes a group’s oppression somehow “not as bad.” Even if individuals can pass, they can only do so by hiding and disguising who they are. Is homophobia a “lesser” oppression because gays and lesbians (at least the white ones) can “pass?” — if they STFU, anyway. Are we really going to start comparing oppressions? Is that what anyone in anti-oppression work should be doing?
Penka, you’re absolutely right. I mean, to bring it back to writing as an example — look at the Brontë sisters. If I raised an argument that they were successful because they did a great job passing as male writers, and therefore we should not talk about the fact they could not initially publish works as female writers, everyone here would be looking at me as if I had two heads and one was shoved high up my ass. Passing isn’t a privilege; it’s a survival skill. It is a choice to blend in with the oppressors to keep yourself as safe as possible from harm FROM those same people. It’s feeling knots as you hear people who care about you trash and belittle something that is a part of you you cannot change. And it is no cakewalk — it’s difficult to even couch it in terms of being a privilege.
I mean, think about these incidences of passing:
1) A woman diagnosed with a debilitating disease and experiences chronic pain tirelessly works a physically demanding job to reach managerial status as if she is able-bodied because she knows if she revealed that she had that disease and the treatments she receives, she would lose the job she loves.
2) A man attempting to join a primarily heterosexual fraternity gets an impromptu assignment to write homophobic slurs on a friend’s whiteboard. The group dives into writing; the fraternity heads are all watching. But he’s been dating this friend for a couple of weeks.
3) A woman who works three jobs to support her younger siblings while going to college part-time learns about a banquet at the end of the school year for graduating seniors. The banquet is mandatory for all graduates because they present their projects as the main event, and the cost is over $300 per person because of the event’s location. She only has $500 for groceries for the next two months.
In all these situations, people are forced to choose between “passing” and reaching a goal that is important to their immediate advancement or revealing something about themselves that could leave them vulnerable to attack or loss. How is this a privilege?
I tried to broaden these examples beyond race and gender because often the superficial examples of passing seem to scramble people’s brains as a “good thing.” Where is this hidden benefit of being able to pass?
and my response:
Yes, absolutely. In all of those instances, I suppose one could make the argument that having the "choice" at all is a "privilege" over those who can't--for instance, the young man who's so obviously gay that he never gets into the fraternity at all, and is the one who gets the slurs written on the whiteboard--but what a fucking choice. It doesn't change the basic problem, or who's at fault for perpetuating it.
also, for those who can and do make the choice to "pass," internalization, the "closet," if you will (which can exist on a number of axes, not just sexuality) is its own special kind of hell.
in fact, speaking of, an old joke (not that I'm laughing here, but by way of illustration, I actually think it's apt) suddenly comes to mind:
Person dies and goes to hell, and the devil tells hir that sie has a choice of several rooms wherein sie can go and suffer for all eternity.
The first room has people being boiled in oil.
The second room has people lying on beds of knives.
The third room has people standing chest-to-chin-deep in steaming shit, but they're actually talking to each other and holding cups of coffee, and don't seem to be in physical agony. The new infernal tenant tells the devil, "I'll take this one, then."
Choice made, the person goes to join the throng. Shortly thereafter, a demon comes in with a pitchfork and goes,
"Right everyone, coffee break's over, back on your heads."
That there would be "passing," basically.
ETA:
Oh yes, passing privilege. The ability to lie about things that matter in order to make assholes happy.
--dw3t-hthr (see comments)
Monday, April 07, 2008
-nod smile back away slowly-, part ___
Uh, Renegade has the scoop. I'll just, um, be over here. Too. Um, wow.
"Can YOU say 'malignant paranoia,' gyns and soon-to-be-extinct-pyrsyns? I knew you could!! Can you say, 'armed compound?'..."
Seriously, it's a terrific example of the fascist/totalitarian narrative.
1) Our People are oppressed by The Enemy, who are demonic
2) We have no power, the Evil Empire rules over all
3) but Tomorrow Belongs To Us
4) meanwhile, we must root out the impure among us.
oh, p.s., lady: I'm a Jew, and you are emphatically on the -wrong end- of that little Godwinism there. please to shut the fuck up and go away now kthxbai
"Can YOU say 'malignant paranoia,' gyns and soon-to-be-extinct-pyrsyns? I knew you could!! Can you say, 'armed compound?'..."
Seriously, it's a terrific example of the fascist/totalitarian narrative.
1) Our People are oppressed by The Enemy, who are demonic
2) We have no power, the Evil Empire rules over all
3) but Tomorrow Belongs To Us
4) meanwhile, we must root out the impure among us.
oh, p.s., lady: I'm a Jew, and you are emphatically on the -wrong end- of that little Godwinism there. please to shut the fuck up and go away now kthxbai
Friday, February 22, 2008
Why? Why? Why? Why has lightning not just struck O'Rly? part XXXVI in an ongoing series
SOP for this shitsucker of a campaign season as well as fucking fucking O'Rly, I suppose, but really.
O'Reilly says:
I don't know how his "hard facts" about how the woman is supposed to feel about whatever it is--oh, right, something or other she's not patriotic enough now or something, blah-- would be gleaned. Maybe Tom will lend him an e-meter or something. God knows if anyone's infested with stubborn itchy body thetans, it's gotta be BillO.
also, it is sweet that he is concerned about the "militant woman's" anger problem, is Bill.
but, yes, good of him to hold off on the LYNCHING PARTY, i feel. you know, till he can ascertain, in his fair and balanced way, whether she -deserves- it. oh, metaphorically, of course; it's not like he actually suggested she deserved the -literal- act, like whatsisstupidname, has-been Seinfeld comic with the "fork up your ass" thing. He just, what, chose an unfortunate turn of phrase for the smear campaign he's preparing to launch on a black woman, for not loving America enough, that is. And now everyone's jumping all over him just for that, right? Poor little soul. Typical, typical. Everyone out to get him for no reason. Almost like o i don't know a LYNCHING PARTY it is, really.
won't someone please think of the O'Rly?
O'Reilly says:
"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels."
I don't know how his "hard facts" about how the woman is supposed to feel about whatever it is--oh, right, something or other she's not patriotic enough now or something, blah-- would be gleaned. Maybe Tom will lend him an e-meter or something. God knows if anyone's infested with stubborn itchy body thetans, it's gotta be BillO.
also, it is sweet that he is concerned about the "militant woman's" anger problem, is Bill.
but, yes, good of him to hold off on the LYNCHING PARTY, i feel. you know, till he can ascertain, in his fair and balanced way, whether she -deserves- it. oh, metaphorically, of course; it's not like he actually suggested she deserved the -literal- act, like whatsisstupidname, has-been Seinfeld comic with the "fork up your ass" thing. He just, what, chose an unfortunate turn of phrase for the smear campaign he's preparing to launch on a black woman, for not loving America enough, that is. And now everyone's jumping all over him just for that, right? Poor little soul. Typical, typical. Everyone out to get him for no reason. Almost like o i don't know a LYNCHING PARTY it is, really.
won't someone please think of the O'Rly?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Yes, you're right, asshole, I'm Memorex. We all are. Now sit your ass down.
oh, three guesses. Specifically, the woman RE has linked to, there (follow the trail of breadcrumbs, not throwing the extra link her way).
Well, Renegade answers the woman's various points pretty damn thoroughly, as do a number of the commenters.
-snip-
RE:
(tee fucking hee)
from commenter thene:
from dw3t-hthr:
*******
What I have to add, myself, is nothing new for anyone who's been following along here; but apparently repetition is important, so here we go again.
1) if cutesy endearments like "spead-em'ism" and shit like this is real feminism, why does it sound so suspiciously similar to the toxic bilge that comes out of your average reactionary fucked-up misogynist?
2) if "pro-pornstitution feminism" is public enemy number one, then clearly this stuff is...well, it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about here, of course. And I mean, it's not like "real feminists" ever ally with the authoritarian, patriarchal State and/or the Religious Right in the pursuit of "pornstitution."
3) oh goodie, nothing i love more than hetnormativity.
It just never gets old.
And really, we all NEED sexual shaming; wasn't that a song or something? It's so FEMINIST. Especially those of us who're queer, not that this matters in the all-important Battle Against Men, which is of course defined by angry straight women. And it's not like there's any intersection between transhate and whore-bashing, not to mention good old fashioned sex panic, classism, racism, ableism, etc., etc., etc. etc.
4) Finally, in answer to the burning question of whether I call all this "feminism."
Supporting women regardless of whether or not I "approve" of their "choices." Not trying to police other peoples' most intimate selves. Not putting -my- ideas of how things -should- be over what actually -is.- Yes, I call that feminist. More important, however, I call it human. Because when it comes right down to it, the actual people are more important than the fucking label.
On edit, a coda:
That last goes, by the way, for everybody. I've heard people (mostly women) I respect on both sides of the aisle expressing a wish for people who haven't been there or done that to kindly step off. I can't really argue with that, actually, and no, I understand that this isn't just a fun academic exericise. People who are adamant that they're sex workers, that they'd rather be doing what they do than something else, I'll call them "sex workers." People who do not want any such term applied to themselves, who are clear that they found the experience degrading and abusive and harmful, I will use the term "prostituted woman" or whatever they prefer. Questions of policy aside, really, really trying not to define anyone else's experience here, wouldn't even if I did have a similar tale to tell.
I'm just tired of seeing that happen to other people I care about.
'Spread'emism' (spread-them-ism), as radical feminist S.M. Berg (creator of Genderberg.com) so wonderfully put it, is "the misleading idea that women can fuck and get fucked into political, academic and social equality with men via prostitution and pornography".
'Spread'emism' is how all the pro-pornography and pro-prostitution so-called "feminism" should be named...
...Tell me, pro-pornstitution "feminists", do you seriously think this is feminism what you're doing? Real feminism?
Well, Renegade answers the woman's various points pretty damn thoroughly, as do a number of the commenters.
-snip-
RE:
...What is the plan, anyway? You know, a lot of us are taking hits for saying “The sex industry? It’s not going anywhere, so let’s work for harm reduction and getting those who want out the help they need, and leave those who want in alone…” So yeah…what is the Amazing, Super Secret Plan to Rid the World of the Sex Industry? We’re dying (figuratively and literally) to know. In the mean time, what with all the talk of not allowing it to be normalized, without ever accepting it as work, without ever giving sex workers any sort of legal status and voice…well, women are being abused, raped, killed, dehumanized, and marginalized...
And yep, I am biased. I am a woman whom has chosen, of my own free will, to make my living in the sex biz…without having been raped, sexually abused, beat up by a man or a junkie. Please, do not attempt to save me from myself! I freakin’ cheer every time I hear of some sort of normalization, the real deal, and not the Hollywood drama y’all seem to take as such, because then it means in some legal sense, well hell, we almost get to be treated like humans! And until I hear this grand plan, that’s what I’m concerned with. That’s where my loyalty, money, and voice go. I will stand with those working to help sexworkers, in the here and now, rather than pretend that the abolitionist plan will not have scores and scores of victims, won’t lead to more cases like this, won’t become Big Sister is ruling my body rather than Big Brother. I am all for making a difference, right now. Choice and right of Domain over ones body goes beyond abortion after all.
(tee fucking hee)
from commenter thene:
*raises hand* Pro-porny who hates porn and never watches it, right here.
...From the post you linked:
"The first failure of pro-pornstitution "feminism" is that it totally capitulates to patriarchy. [...] Many women are socially trained to conform to cultural instruments of sexual brainwashing"
-going along with the long-standing hate that our dear Christian patriarchs have for sex workers *is* capitulating to patriarchy and it is sexual brainwashing.
"Women are commonly trained to please men in this culture. Thus, it is no wonder that among women who are interested in feminism, some will choose a type of 'feminism' that doesn't bother men or does not look like a real threat to men, because these women want to be appreciated by men in what they do."
Yeah, just like that. The sex industry is liek 95% geared towards men and what they like to watch and do, so wasting this many black pixels on describing in detail how awful it is, while all the while there is no plan and the industry is expanding all the time, is hardly 'threatening to men'. It's more like putting them in the middle of your feminism and showing them that your life still revolves around them, really.
from dw3t-hthr:
So long as a whore is subhuman, abuseable, ignorable, discardable, women can be kept in line by the threat of converting them into whores. That's what I see as the essential dividing line, the essential -- if the feminists will forgive an outsider making the comment -- feminist issue here.
One can't fix that problem by abolishing whoredom, even if there were a magic wand that made it possible to do so. That still means that the category is forbidden, and anyone who crosses into it becomes an unperson, a nonentity.
The only thing that can touch that threat, that can unravel it and undo it and make it something without teeth, is normalisation, is treating sex work like work, making sure that its abuses are controllable (which cannot be done under a prohibition standpoint, to send a postcard from Obviousville here), to treat sex workers like people.
*******
What I have to add, myself, is nothing new for anyone who's been following along here; but apparently repetition is important, so here we go again.
1) if cutesy endearments like "spead-em'ism" and shit like this is real feminism, why does it sound so suspiciously similar to the toxic bilge that comes out of your average reactionary fucked-up misogynist?
2) if "pro-pornstitution feminism" is public enemy number one, then clearly this stuff is...well, it has nothing at all to do with what we're talking about here, of course. And I mean, it's not like "real feminists" ever ally with the authoritarian, patriarchal State and/or the Religious Right in the pursuit of "pornstitution."
3) oh goodie, nothing i love more than hetnormativity.
It just never gets old.
And really, we all NEED sexual shaming; wasn't that a song or something? It's so FEMINIST. Especially those of us who're queer, not that this matters in the all-important Battle Against Men, which is of course defined by angry straight women. And it's not like there's any intersection between transhate and whore-bashing, not to mention good old fashioned sex panic, classism, racism, ableism, etc., etc., etc. etc.
4) Finally, in answer to the burning question of whether I call all this "feminism."
Supporting women regardless of whether or not I "approve" of their "choices." Not trying to police other peoples' most intimate selves. Not putting -my- ideas of how things -should- be over what actually -is.- Yes, I call that feminist. More important, however, I call it human. Because when it comes right down to it, the actual people are more important than the fucking label.
On edit, a coda:
That last goes, by the way, for everybody. I've heard people (mostly women) I respect on both sides of the aisle expressing a wish for people who haven't been there or done that to kindly step off. I can't really argue with that, actually, and no, I understand that this isn't just a fun academic exericise. People who are adamant that they're sex workers, that they'd rather be doing what they do than something else, I'll call them "sex workers." People who do not want any such term applied to themselves, who are clear that they found the experience degrading and abusive and harmful, I will use the term "prostituted woman" or whatever they prefer. Questions of policy aside, really, really trying not to define anyone else's experience here, wouldn't even if I did have a similar tale to tell.
I'm just tired of seeing that happen to other people I care about.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
the call is coming from inside the house.
Tom Cruise is from head Org and he's here to help.
on edit: the Compleat Suppresive Parody video page.
We are the authorities on, getting people off drugs, we are the authorities on the mind. We are the authorities on improving conditions. Crimanon, we can rehabilitate criminals. Way to happiness, we can bring peace, ahh, uhh, and unite cultures...that...you know, whatever, it's like: We're here to help.
on edit: the Compleat Suppresive Parody video page.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
as if there weren't enough reasons to loathe these people
John Gibson says! Heath Ledger's death is so funny, you know, he played that gay cowboy that was all tragic and now he's dead for reals, isn't that funny?
dear talking heads: Matthews, Gibson, fucking O'Rly, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Coulter, Hannity, please feel free to insert your own:
Just: Die In A Fire already. 'K? Yes, you got me, that's right, I'm NOT a bleeding heart liberal, and I'm not laughing today, my heart is BURNING, and I have no more blood or laughter or empathy for empathy-devoid wastes of skin like you. Just: disappear. LEAVE this planet. You have consumed far too much oxygen as it is. There's not enough to go around, you're RIGHT. Now: you go first.
No, seriously. GO. Die in a pool of your own broken misery, you soulless cesspits from hell. Go on. It'll be -funny.- It'll be ENTERTAINING. Isn't it always? Maybe we can snap a pic of your bloodied undies while we're at it, hm? You worthless, wretched, GHOULS. You bloated, entitled, smug pasty fuckers. You, sitting on a pile of your own waste and calling it "civilization," the thing you want to -protect-, STANDARDS, you -foul- little pieces of shit--
tell me, o righteous defenders of Christmas, borders, America, Family Values, hapless blonde women who aren't alive to protest your salivations, who's going to save us from -you?- Who, you carrion feeding fucks? YOU -are- the Weakest Link, goddamit; and while getting rid of your -slime- for once and for all wouldn't fix what's wrong with this culture, probably wouldn't even be much of a beginning, godDAM but it would be a spark to my heart.
Maybe then, I'd have some blood for you. Maybe, finally, then. But not before.
For now, you'll have to settle for bile.
It's all the same to you anyway, isn't it?
dear talking heads: Matthews, Gibson, fucking O'Rly, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Coulter, Hannity, please feel free to insert your own:
Just: Die In A Fire already. 'K? Yes, you got me, that's right, I'm NOT a bleeding heart liberal, and I'm not laughing today, my heart is BURNING, and I have no more blood or laughter or empathy for empathy-devoid wastes of skin like you. Just: disappear. LEAVE this planet. You have consumed far too much oxygen as it is. There's not enough to go around, you're RIGHT. Now: you go first.
No, seriously. GO. Die in a pool of your own broken misery, you soulless cesspits from hell. Go on. It'll be -funny.- It'll be ENTERTAINING. Isn't it always? Maybe we can snap a pic of your bloodied undies while we're at it, hm? You worthless, wretched, GHOULS. You bloated, entitled, smug pasty fuckers. You, sitting on a pile of your own waste and calling it "civilization," the thing you want to -protect-, STANDARDS, you -foul- little pieces of shit--
tell me, o righteous defenders of Christmas, borders, America, Family Values, hapless blonde women who aren't alive to protest your salivations, who's going to save us from -you?- Who, you carrion feeding fucks? YOU -are- the Weakest Link, goddamit; and while getting rid of your -slime- for once and for all wouldn't fix what's wrong with this culture, probably wouldn't even be much of a beginning, godDAM but it would be a spark to my heart.
Maybe then, I'd have some blood for you. Maybe, finally, then. But not before.
For now, you'll have to settle for bile.
It's all the same to you anyway, isn't it?
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Asshole Bingo!
-Is- there a card? for the generalized phenomenon, I mean? if not, there ought to be.
or maybe it's more of a flowchart. anyway at the moment, sans graphic or structure, the components go something like this:
*God, I can't understand how anyone could do/behave like/call themselves/be THAT. Sick, stupid, messed-up, filthy, sad... I wring my hands in despair at the fundamental depravity of it all.
*although, snerk, it's also kind of funny...
*Oh, well, I didn't mean -you.- Don't take it -personally.-
*What? It's just my opinion!
*YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
*Stop judging me for judging you!
*Anyway, I'm -not- judging -you,- just that terrible awful icky thing that you claim is an integral part of your being,
*which you wouldn't claim anyway if you knew how brainwashed/damaged/foolish/Lost to Darkness you are.
*I'm only trying to help.
*Really, I'm not telling you what to do. All I want is for you to admit that no matter how you protest, deep down, I'm right, you are wrong about your own experience, and you -really feel just like I do.- Isn't that so much better?
*You're derailing. -Why- must you make it all about -you?- Can't you just be quiet and let us talk -about- you?
*yer so SELFISH. What about the Cause?
*Okay, now you're just being rude. How can I learn if you insist on being so rude and angry all the time?
*I can't be expected to know all about this stuff. I'm just thinking out loud.
*Besides, I am an expert (tm) on this subject, whereas you are only talking about your own experience and thus cannot be objective.
*You are oppressing/silencing me with your stultifying Political Correctness. Shut up!
*The problem with you is, you're just too sensitive. And also mean. To me.
*I'm not like other people! I can't stand pain, it hurts me!
*And, you won't even listen to reason, it's like bashing my head against a brick wall, in fact I actually AM bashing my head against a brick wall, o the noise, LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUUU...
*Okay, okay, clearly I screwed up, even though I still don't understand how exactly and it doesn't interest me much to be honest, but! I FEEL REALLY BAD BECAUSE YOU'RE YELLING AT ME *sniffle*, I'm a terrible person, I heap ashes and sackcloth upon my head, I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I SAID I'M SORRY GODDAMIT CHRIST WHAT MORE DO YOU UNGRATEFUL PEOPLE WANT ANYWAY
*Screw you guys, I'M GOING HOME.
...
*And ANOTHER THING...
or maybe it's more of a flowchart. anyway at the moment, sans graphic or structure, the components go something like this:
*God, I can't understand how anyone could do/behave like/call themselves/be THAT. Sick, stupid, messed-up, filthy, sad... I wring my hands in despair at the fundamental depravity of it all.
*although, snerk, it's also kind of funny...
*Oh, well, I didn't mean -you.- Don't take it -personally.-
*What? It's just my opinion!
*YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
*Stop judging me for judging you!
*Anyway, I'm -not- judging -you,- just that terrible awful icky thing that you claim is an integral part of your being,
*which you wouldn't claim anyway if you knew how brainwashed/damaged/foolish/Lost to Darkness you are.
*I'm only trying to help.
*Really, I'm not telling you what to do. All I want is for you to admit that no matter how you protest, deep down, I'm right, you are wrong about your own experience, and you -really feel just like I do.- Isn't that so much better?
*You're derailing. -Why- must you make it all about -you?- Can't you just be quiet and let us talk -about- you?
*yer so SELFISH. What about the Cause?
*Okay, now you're just being rude. How can I learn if you insist on being so rude and angry all the time?
*I can't be expected to know all about this stuff. I'm just thinking out loud.
*Besides, I am an expert (tm) on this subject, whereas you are only talking about your own experience and thus cannot be objective.
*You are oppressing/silencing me with your stultifying Political Correctness. Shut up!
*The problem with you is, you're just too sensitive. And also mean. To me.
*I'm not like other people! I can't stand pain, it hurts me!
*And, you won't even listen to reason, it's like bashing my head against a brick wall, in fact I actually AM bashing my head against a brick wall, o the noise, LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUUU...
*Okay, okay, clearly I screwed up, even though I still don't understand how exactly and it doesn't interest me much to be honest, but! I FEEL REALLY BAD BECAUSE YOU'RE YELLING AT ME *sniffle*, I'm a terrible person, I heap ashes and sackcloth upon my head, I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I SAID I'M SORRY GODDAMIT CHRIST WHAT MORE DO YOU UNGRATEFUL PEOPLE WANT ANYWAY
*Screw you guys, I'M GOING HOME.
...
*And ANOTHER THING...
Monday, December 03, 2007
Quote of the Day, 12/3/07
`I don't know what you mean by YOUR way,' said the Queen: `all the ways about here belong to ME--but why did you come out here at all?' she added in a kinder tone. `Curtsey while you're thinking what to say, it saves time.'
Alice wondered a little at this...
`I only wanted to see what the garden was like, your Majesty--'
`That's right,' said the Queen, patting her on the head, which Alice didn't like at all, `though, when you say "garden,"--I'VE seen gardens, compared with which this would be a wilderness.'
Alice didn't dare to argue the point, but went on: `--and I thought I'd try and find my way to the top of that hill--'
`When you say "hill,"' the Queen interrupted, `_I_ could show you hills, in comparison with which you'd call that a valley.'
`No, I shouldn't,' said Alice, surprised into contradicting her at last: `a hill CAN'T be a valley, you know. That would be nonsense--'
The Red Queen shook her head, `You may call it "nonsense" if you like,' she said, `but I'VE heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!'
...Just at this moment, somehow or other, they began to run.
Alice never could quite make out, in thinking it over afterwards, how it was that they began: all she remembers is, that they were running hand in hand, and the Queen went so fast that it was all she could do to keep up with her: and still the Queen kept crying `Faster! Faster!' but Alice felt she COULD NOT go faster, though she had not breath left to say so.
The most curious part of the thing was, that the trees and the other things round them never changed their places at all: however fast they went, they never seemed to pass anything...
And they went so fast that at last they seemed to skim through the air, hardly touching the ground with their feet, till suddenly, just as Alice was getting quite exhausted, they stopped, and she found herself sitting on the ground, breathless and giddy.
Alice looked round her in great surprise. `Why, I do believe we've been under this tree the whole time! Everything's just as it was!'
`Of course it is,' said the Queen, `what would you have it?'
`Well, in OUR country,' said Alice, still panting a little, `you'd generally get to somewhere else--if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.'
`A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. `Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'
--Through the Looking Glass
Monday, September 24, 2007
Earth to Dubya: Shut UP shut UP shut UP omiGOD would you JUST FINALLY SHUT UUUUUUUUUUUUPPPP.....
In which Fearless Leader confuses Nelson Mandela with the state of his three remaining unfermented brain cells and pronounces him dead.
In other news, we are not, in fact, under attack from the Martian terrorists--no, wait!! YES WE ARE!!! ZOMG RUN FOR THE HILLS!!...
Mind you, this is just a scant two weeks after his star turn representing our proud nation:
So nu okay, the two-time "Banality of Evil Homecoming Queen" Award winner has officially moved into the Wile E. Coyote phase of his "career." Move along, nothing more to see here. try not to hurt yourself cringing.
NELSON Mandela yesterday assured the world that, contrary to the impression given by the President of the US, reports of his demise were greatly exaggerated.
Even for blunder-prone George Bush, it was a gaffe of toe-curling proportions.
Defending his stand on the war, Mr Bush said Saddam Hussein's brutality made it impossible for a unifying leader to emerge to halt civil warfare that has torn Iraq apart.
"I heard somebody say, 'Where's Mandela?'," Mr Bush said. "Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas."
The South African authorities were besieged with calls after Mr Bush's speech, which was carried live on TV. Many viewers feared the country's first black president and Nobel Peace Prize winner had died.
In other news, we are not, in fact, under attack from the Martian terrorists--no, wait!! YES WE ARE!!! ZOMG RUN FOR THE HILLS!!...
Mind you, this is just a scant two weeks after his star turn representing our proud nation:
Bushisms were famous before the man even entered the White House. But with his presidency entering its twilight phase, there is no end, it seems, to the steady supply of inadvertent slips of the tongue.
Yesterday he had reached only the third sentence of his address to an audience at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, when he committed his first gaffe.
"Thank you for being such a fine host for the Opec summit," Mr Bush said to the Australian prime minister, John Howard, confusing two completely different groupings of nations. "Apec summit," he quickly corrected himself.
Article continues
He then joked that Mr Howard had invited him to the Opec summit next year (for the record, an impossibility, since neither Australia nor the US are members of the oil exporting cartel).
That slip paled in comparison with the next gaffe - a slip of the tongue that placed Austrian, not Australian, troops in Iraq.
Talking about Mr Howard's visit to Iraq last year to thank his country's soldiers serving there, Bush called them "Austrian troops".
That one was fixed for him, with the official text released by the White House switching it to "Australian". Tapes of the speech, however, clearly show Mr Bush saying "Austrian".
Then, speech done, Mr Bush confidently headed out - the wrong way. He strode away from the lectern on a path that would have sent him over a steep drop. Mr Howard and others redirected the president to where there were steps leading down to the floor of the theatre.
So nu okay, the two-time "Banality of Evil Homecoming Queen" Award winner has officially moved into the Wile E. Coyote phase of his "career." Move along, nothing more to see here. try not to hurt yourself cringing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
