Bad Jew, no matzoh

L'shanah tovah to all who observe, and "good year to you" to the rest of you.

(i ALWAYS forget this time of year. ALWAYS. Passover, too).

Why?

am i gets this comment?

Anonymous said...

NerdRoom@WAKEUP.com

Many Nerds won't be returning. Some old timers I remember from last year, people like Trenchcoat Mafia, Silk Dragon Shirt, probably won't be coming back next year.
Spamming blogs I put their names up, immortalizing them, if only until the blog owner erases everything::::
1. Trenchcoat Mafia
2. Silk Dragon Shirt
3. Piano Case Coffin
4. The Distinguished English Gentleman
5. The Haggard English Gentleman
6. Beta Nerd, and of course
7. Rosie The Transsexual
Rosie's original name was just Rosie, due to his rosie cheeks. They shared he has a high level of knowledge, a tactic the gods employ to create a false sense of security. This of course is the segment which they dump so many transsexuals into.
I too enjoy irony, and therefore Rosie has now become Rosie The Transsexual.
Who else has a nickname in the NerdRoom?

I'd like to remind you many of the people in the NerdRoom are good men. I hope this is reflected in what they are allowed to learn and the progress they're allowed to make.
I'd also like to remind you their predecessors, REAL nerds from a generation ago who fill the computer swap meet, are WONDERFUL men, and since I likely won't be going again I want to remember them as well.

Actually the comparison of the two is a testiment to the devolution of society which will be used as justification for the Apocalypse:::
Today's nerds are NOT wonderful men. They grew up with the internet and many consider pornography as an acceptable vice. They gamble freely, enjoy evil imagry in video games and engage in sexual pursuits their predicessors never did.
This issue is a microcosim of our deterioration.

...yeeeeeahhh, not really funny at all, actually.

Watched this video:



after boggling and wtf?!'ing, brought it to the attention of other people, one of whom pointed me in the direction of this article about Chris Crocker. Read it. Then watched the video again. Found self mentally substituting "me" (i.e. Crocker himself) for "Britney." Suddenly, it doesn't seem over the top or outlandish at all. Just heartbreaking.

...fucking hell.

Black Amazon has a link to an incredibly disturbing story, with of course her own commentary. Summary, from the linked article:

A woman was sexually abused, beaten and humiliated while being held captive in a home for at least a week, sheriff's officials said Monday after making six arrests.

Those arrested, including a mother and son and a mother and daughter, are white. The victim, a Charleston woman who was being treated at a hospital Monday, is black. The FBI plans to investigate it as a possible hate crime.

"The things that were done to this woman are just indescribable," Logan County sheriff's Sgt. Sonya Porter said.

It then goes on to describe some of the things. Yep. It's...bad. As for how "shocking" it is...read BA's commentary.

And from there, this post, as noted at HRTFP.

I'm not stunned. Not in the least.

It is, “par for the course”. The tale of Jena reminded me of an incident that took place in my family some 14 years ago. It was a simple family reunion...in a small southern town...

read the rest. now.

And in related fun facts news:

"In 31 states, it's still legal to fire someone because they're gay or lesbian; in 39 states it is legal to fire someone for being transgendered."

Pass ENDA [Employment Non-Discrimination Act] now.

Fun facts for the day on U.S. immigration policy

Did you know that:

...no matter how many domestic partnership rights your city or state or company grants you, it will not protect your relationship if your partner is not a U.S. citizen? No matter how long you've been together?

If my [same-sex] partner and I enter into a civil union in Vermont, will the government recognize it for immigration purposes?

No, a civil union conferred by the state of Vermont is not recognized by the federal government, which oversees immigration.

Can I marry my same-sex partner in the U.S. so I can change my status to legal permanent resident?

No. A federal law, the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) passed in 1996, states that the federal government will not respect same-sex marriages. Therefore, even when states begin to end their discrimination and allow same-sex couples to marry, marrying a same-sex partner in the U.S. will not affect immigration status until DOMA is repealed or deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

Do other countries recognize same-sex partnerships for the immigration purposes?

Yes. 14 countries consider same-sex partners as families for immigration purposes: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

What if my partner and I are legally married in another country? Will that allow me to sponsor my spouse for U.S. immigration?

No. The law stating that the U.S. government does not respect marriages between same-sex couples applies no matter where the couple was married. Further, depending on your circumstances, getting married in another country could even lead to your spouse's deportation. While this law may be challenged in court, doing so may be very risky, both for your partner who may be deported, and for other same-sex bi-national couples. Before making any decisions about marriage, consult a qualified immigration attorney who is knowledgeable about LGBT issues for individualized advice about your situation.

You should also be aware that legislation to allow U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their same-sex partners for immigration to the U.S. has been introduced in Congress. For more information about the Permanent Partners Immigration Act or to work for its passage, contact the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force or the Human Rights Campaign.

...and, furthermore,

Generally, people with HIV are barred from both entering the country and receiving Legal Permanent Resident status (a green card). However, some waivers are available that permit people to enter the country or change their status to LPR. Before applying for a green card, you may want to find out your HIV status ahead of time at a site that conducts anonymous testing. You can find such a site by calling the National AIDS Hotline at 1-800-342-AIDS.

What types of waivers are available?

* HIV Waiver—Family: If you have an immediate family member that is a legal permanent resident or a citizen, they may obtain an HIV waiver on your behalf. To qualify, you must show that a close relative who is a U.S. citizen will sponsor you, that you will not be a danger to public health, that there is a minimum possibility of you spreading HIV, and that you will not become a “public charge.”

* HIV Waiver—Humanitarian: See section on asylum below.

How does the government determine if you are a “public charge”?

The government may determine you are a “public charge” and deny you legal permanent residency or re-entry into the U.S. if you leave for a period of time. A “public charge” is a person who cannot support him- or herself without cash benefits such as Social Security Income (SSI). Public charge is not a barrier to obtaining citizenships, nor is it an issue for people granted asylum. To determine whether a person will become a public charge, the government looks at a number of factors including age, health, income, family size and education and skills....

Why I've never been that jazzed about the "gay gene" as a political argument, in a nutshell:

This entry from Queer Sighted:

On March 9, I broke an extremely disturbing story on a blog posting by one of this nation's most influential and powerful religious leaders, the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Rev. Mohler praised the opportunity, thanks to advances in genetic science, to root out sin in the womb by altering the gay gene and save souls from the abominable sin and tortured life of homosexuality even before birth.

This QueerSighted post quickly led to a blogosphere and media frenzy culminating in a story in the nation's leading and most influential national newspaper, The New York Times. And the Times got it wrong, missing the real import of the story. In fact, almost no one seems to have understood the true meaning and impact of this story. The Times headline suggests that a leading Evangelical leader has embraced nature over nurture. But the real headline is, "So What?"

...Rev. Mohler's extraordinary and earthshaking point is that the hand of God, the creator, is to be found everywhere--nothing is accidental and everything is by design. Mohler has laid the groundwork for sweeping away any role that science and reason might have played in the education of America and the advance of a humanist and rational society. Science may be right, suggests Mohler, homosexuality is determined genetically along with the inclination to all sin. What science has uncovered is the mechanism that God has used to carry out his punishment of man for the fall, for original sin...

The work of Jesus is to wash away original sin and his followers have the obligation to further that holy mission. Mohler is celebrating science as a potential new tool that can now be used by good Christians to do the work of Jesus and remove sin even in the womb.

...Or to put it another way, the nature vs nurture debate is somewhere between futile and irrelevant. A Mount Sinai of proof that homosexuality is biologically determined changes nothing for Dr. Mohler. God is perfect. God has made homosexuals, but Mohler's point is that God has cursed us with the burden of homosexual temptation as punishment for the sin of Eden and the fall of man. The agony of Child birth and subservience to man is Eve's punishment. Homosexuality is Adam's punishment. Pity the lesbian; God screwed her twice.

...Mohler himself says it best in his latest blog entry, "All manifestations of homosexuality are thus representations of human sinfulness and rebellion against God's express will. Nothing can alter this fact, and no discovery in science or any other human endeavor can change God's verdict."

In other words, God says it's kreplach and God says the hell with it. And with you, too, if you don't get with His Program. Circular argument: see "argument, circular."

But at the same time, it makes perfect sense. The whole point of homophobia as well as fundamentalist zeal is that -it's not rational.- You can't go, aha! I will now prove with infallible logic and reason that you are wrong! Okay, I'm ready for my civil rights now, Mr. De Mille! They don't care. It won't work.

Yeah, of course, a lot of people do understand that the point of this very public argument isn't actually to convince the hardcore bigots (although hope springeth eternal in the bosoms of the scarlet and pink letter'd more often than they let on, i am beginning to suspect); it's about swaying the fence-sitters. And yeah, to an extent, with some people, this seems to have worked, in the sense of: "No, Mom and Dad and various Community Pillars, it isn't just a phase I took up to annoy you; -this is actually who I am.- It's not gonna change, and it's not about you. Please to be dealing with it." At this point I think the general culture has gotten that memo, though, as much as it's probably going to.

The other part of this is predicated on the assumption that people will be more sympathetic to your plight if they realize that it's not something that you can change.

I have always had huge problems with this assumption. The general theme of this last post (and the posts inspiring it) reminded me of why:

Pity. Is implicit in that argument. "Look, I can't help it, okay? It's just who I am. I'd be like you if I could, really. Fuck knows it's preferable to be just like you. I've tried and I've tried. *tears* But I can't. So, lay off, and let me live my life."

First of all, I can't remember: exactly when in any other civil rights struggle was "I was born this way" particularly conducive to melting the hearts of bigots? Or for that matter winning legal battles? It's an honest question: I truly don't know, especially the second part. Maybe there -was- some legal precedent back in the day, and that's why people are pushing this line. Because it works. Short-term at least. Well...okay; but...

But. Even assuming people like Moher don't set the terms for the next phase of the battle. What are the drawbacks to this approach? Who gets left behind? And most of all, what are we sacrificing?

Because me, I always thought

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

was the point. I am pursuing my happiness, not to mention my liberty and indeed life; it is not interfering with yours. The onus is on you, reactionary bigots, to make a case that it is otherwise, and frankly, you've done a piss-poor job of it thus far, and I for one am not interested in more of these stupid red herrings. You don't get to frame the terms. This is not a theocracy.

And the foundations of a genuine democracy are not rooted in pity.

Jerry Lewis sucks. But seriously, folks...

There was this great blogswarm the other day, the "Protest Pity" anti-Telethon marathon. Really an eye-opener if you, like me, hadn't given this particular matter much thought before beyond something like "well, I'd rather stick flaming hot needles in my eyes than watch or listen to Jerry Lewis for five seconds in -any- circumstances, and I expect he probably is icky and mawkish about it, but I suppose it's all for a good cause."

For example, to pick one entry (of many) at random, New Mobility highlights some classic Lewis quotage:

This quote is from a May 20, 2001 interview on CBS News Sunday Morning.

"If it's pity we'll get some money. I'm just giving you the facts. Pity ... if you don't want to be pitied for being a cripple in a wheelchair, don't come out of the house."

The following quotes, archived on Cripcommentary.com, come from Leslie Bennetts' article, "Jerry v. the Kids," Vanity Fair, September 1993:

About activists who criticize him for using pity to raise money:

"It just kills me to think about these people getting publicity. These people are leeches. They all glommed on to being Jerry-bashers. What did they have before that? They're disabled people who are so bitter at the bad hand they've been dealt that they have to take down somebody who's doing good. There's 19 of them, but these people can hurt what I have built for 45 years. There's a million and a half people who depend on what I do! I've raised one billion three hundred million dollars.

These 19 people don't want me to do that. They want me to stop now? [censored] them. Do it in caps. [censored] THEM."

...During the 1991 MDA Telethon, Lewis said that if a person is diagnosed with the disability called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis:

"You might as well put a gun in your mouth."

I liked the way Rettdevil's Rants put it, also, focusing on the infantilization of PWD in general as well as the exploitation of the actual children:

Raising kids to believe that who they are is less than satisfactory really sucks, people. In fact, it'd be abuse if they were typical children. Then putting them on TV to talk about how their lives are sooooo miserable because they're defective? Or videoing them or interviewing their families to talk about how their condition makes their lives soooo impossible? HELLO!...

...It's also interesting to note that children are the only ones they ever ask about things, and parents. It is easier to get children to agree that they are sick and damaged I suppose. Plus adults just aren't as cute on the posters for the most part. It isn't like we die off in vast swathes for most conditions (MD isn't usually deadly, mito can be but often isn't IDed till adulthood even, autism isn't deadly unless your parents off you, Rett only has a slightly increased risk of death, et cetera et cetera...). Adults just don't bring in the money.

Why not make disability something that socially IS instead? We're all going to be disabled someday unless we are struck by a truck or lightening or a flying gymnast who was previously invisible (oh wait. my foot won't let me do that anymore. THAT risk is taken care of...). Making issues medical that aren't makes people feel defective when they aren't-they're just different. It also takes financial advantage of vulnerable populations, and takes up resources from actual medical issues.

Treat medical problems medically. Treat social issues socially. Being different isn't medical. It really is that simple.

On the medical side, cripcommentary notes about the fundraising organization itself:

Let's start with the money. Does it help? Doesn't it make the stereotypes, the appeals to pity, the obnoxious on-air begging worth putting up with?

Yes, the money does help -- some people, with some things. We are talking about a lot of money here. MDA Executive Director Robert Ross asserts that during its 26-year history, the telethon has raised over $600 million. In 1996, the telethon raised $49.1 million.

With all this money coming in, I would expect the direct services provided to people with neuromuscular diseases to be much more extensive, and more relevant, than they actually are. I would expect, for example, that when a person develops a condition which begins to limit his or her mobility, that MDA might come through with some money for access modifications to the home, so that the family wouldn't have to choose between moving to an accessible house (which are hard to find), or hauling the person up and down stairs all day. I would expect some support services for independent living -- someone to assist with personal and household needs, training in things like cooking and cleaning from a wheelchair, and help with transportation. I would expect MDA to provide a motorized wheelchair for anyone who wants one. Such a chair can boost a disabled person's quality of life enormously. Instead, MDA has very restrictive criteria for determining who receives a motorized wheelchair.

Far be it from me to advise a multimillion-dollar agency on how to spend its money. But when the telethon tells viewers that by donating money to MDA, they are answering the prayers of people with MD -- offering them a friend to turn to in times of need -- it exaggerates.

Okay, say the defenders of the telethon, so maybe the money doesn't help people now as much as it should. Isn't it still laudable that the telethon raises so much money to help find a cure?

Ah, the cure. That's the promise that keeps people sending in those checks. That's what keeps this humiliation going year after year. We're getting closer all the time! Jerry Lewis assures us frenetically. He's been saying it for four decades...

*******

Much more at the blogswarm HQ.

What strikes me is how diverse the crowd talking about this is--there are people coming at this making parallels with autism, with deafness, with all manner of conditions. It occurs to me, looking at all this, that while the issues may be different there's a note that's rather eerily familiar to me as well:

The word of the day is objectification, brethren and cistern.

Here on this blog, and at linked conversations elsewhere, we've been talking a lot about the various blind spots of people who supposedly know all about what this means (feminists, progressives) and how that affects various people who don't fit into slot A -or- B. And how goddam frustrating the whole thing is. It's not all about sex, people. It's about -dehumanizing.- Seeing someone as a cardboard cutout rather than a full three-dimensional being with agency and an inner life of hir own, thanks very much. And -one- of the methods for that is, ayup, pity. (Which is to be distinguished from empathy). And no, I don't guess it IS all that harmless: Look at some of those Jerry Lewis quotes. Look at the extraordinary selfishness and callousness revealed there: It's not about the people he's supposed to be helping, it's about his image of -himself- as a great and bountiful Savior. Compare and contrast with...well, regular readers may have an inkling of where I'm going with this.

The way some professionals behave toward their supposed protegés. What happens when someone who -should- fit the to-be-pitied demographic doesn't follow the script. Who isn't properly -grateful-.

Then, oh then, do the fangs come out. And in defense of what, exactly? All those other poor helpless cases that the bad ungrateful freak anomaly is clearly out to harm? Or the suggestion that in fact more of the poor helpless dollies and poster children and pillow angels might not in fact be all that helpless or passive after all?

And while I'm thinking of that, I'm reminded, funnily enough, of this great and hilarious post of Kim's: Poor Li'l Loveblossom. Seriously, I can't possibly do it justice: you'll just have to see for yourself. At the end of it though, she makes this observation:

In this way, maybe Ol' Vanilla Girl me gets the BDSM thing somewhat. There is something visceral in the need to rescue, to nurture after hurting.

This is very astute. Yep, absolutely: there IS a power dynamic here. What I love about Kim is that she cops to this, doesn't necessarily see it as a -bad- thing, that surreptitious toppiness in the "rescuer" role. Because, look, it isn't. It's just part of the human condition, as are all power dynamics. If you're conscious of it, you can do terrific things with it: You can rescue the people or creatures or situtations who genuinely -want- and -need- to be rescued. You can do it as a career; you can do it as a (consensual) game, you can do it in all sorts of ways.

What ISN'T cool is when you -don't- cop to it. When you've convinced yourself that it's -only- about your selfless, selfless, self-sacrifices for all the poor poor poor things who just -couldn't make it- without -your help.-

How you know the difference is, how pissed off it makes you when some of 'em start showing signs that they CAN make it without your help.

Or, in another context, as the woman says:

Because we are NOT the world’s special case, or pet issue.

We are not to be recruited, convinced, or calmed down. We are not here to be enlightened, uplifted or “bettered”.

We want to live. And it’s not about cool or fun or hip . It’s about

Our lives ,Our rights, Our terms.

h/t Arthritic Young Thing and Sly Civilian for the reminder

x-posted at SM Feminists

Kactus is fuckin' rad.

Even if, amazingly enough, she, like many of us who simply DGAS about all of it except "couldja PLEASE consider not being such a gratutiously invasive and condescending choad already, kthxbai", is not in fact a dead ringer for this person, this person, these people, or even these people. Aesthetically -or- ideologically. 'K?

"Whatever our other aims may have been, no one in the feminist movement ever thought you are what you wear. The only coherent fashion statement I can recall from the entire movement was that Mrs. Cleaver, Beaver's mom, would on the whole have been a happier woman had she not persisted in vacuuming while wearing high heels. This, I still believe."

--Molly Ivins

A message from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force regarding Prop 2257

The Department of Justice is proposing regulations to implement a
federal law designed to combat child pornography, known as Section
2257. The law was first enacted in 1998 and was amended in 2006 and
significantly expanded to include regulation of the Internet.

While many of the regulations pertain to companies that produce adult
entertainment magazines and videos (and are extremely burdensome), they
would also affect anyone who uses an adult social-networking site.

Here's how:

• The regulations would require the people running a site to get and
maintain personal information from every user (that means you) who
posts a "sexually explicit" photo, including your photo ID (driver's
license, passport, or military ID).

• The regulations would allow the Attorney General to conduct warrantless searches at will on the sites' records, including your
personal information.

• There are few safeguards over what the FBI can do with the
information it obtains.

• If a site operator fails to comply with the regulations, he or she
would face a prison sentence of up to 5 years.

• For more detailed information on Sec. 2257 [and instructions on what you can do], go here.


Why We're Involved

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Inc. is involved in this fight
because we believe sexual freedom is a fundamental human right and we
don't think the government has any place in relations between
consenting adults. These regulations are part of our government's
hypocritical and punitive views about sex, sexuality, and reproductive
rights. All of this – from abstinence-only sex education programs to
the elimination of funding for accurate and explicit HIV prevention
programs – fall hardest on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
people.

For more information about the organizing, advocacy, and public
education work of the Task Force, visit The Task Force.

...

Anyone concerned to about governmental attempts at internet censorship through 2257 and other measures should really log onto the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom's website and if possible contribute time or funds. The NCSF has really been perhaps the main organization leading the fight against this horrific measure (2257)-the Task Force just took on this issues (which is great), but the NCSF has been out there on a limb on this issue for a long long time. You can find the NCSF here.

***********

This is the money quote as far as I'm concerned:

These regulations are part of our government's
hypocritical and punitive views about sex, sexuality, and reproductive
rights. All of this – from abstinence-only sex education programs to
the elimination of funding for accurate and explicit HIV prevention
programs – fall hardest on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
people.

You know why? Because, although the last U.S. anti-sodomy laws were struck down a whole four years ago,
oddly enough, the impulse toward State regulation of queer or "perverted" (consensual) sex hasn't melted away along with it. This would be what's known as, well? An attempt at backdoor regulation. (Sorry). There's a lot of that about. Glee over the Larry Craig business aside, consider: when's the last time you remember a scandal about someone being caught in (unpaid for) heterosexual public sex? Hint: It's not because it never happens.


In other news from the Task Force's website, work on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act continues. Here is an interesting and handy timeline of its history.

Also, apparently James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries died.

Though not as well known to the broader public as the late Rev. Jerry Falwell or the Rev. Pat Robertson, Mr. Kennedy provided much of the theology that attracted millions of Christians into the camp of the religious right, said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“He was absolutely relentless in his criticism of everything on the left,” Mr. Lynn said. “He was a formidable creator of an opposition to what people like I believe.”

Mr. Kennedy stayed largely in the background as men like Mr. Falwell, Mr. Robertson and James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family spoke to Americans about the need to curtail abortion rights, gay rights and the teaching of evolution. But over the last decade, he, too, grew more openly active, creating the Center for Reclaiming America for Christ, which held conferences that taught people to how to get involved in the political process. The center closed in April [BUT...].

("People like I?...")

(embedded hyperlinks in NYT excerpt my addition)

Do what, now?

Gee, I guess he isn't dead. (Again? Still? Perhaps?) Color me shocked. Now if we could only remember who this fellow was exactly...

peekies

Bad blogger, no biscuit

Just to let y'all know: I'm still around, have a bunch of half-finished posts that may or may not ever get finished. and am aware I made some promises to some people to post about certain things, and never followed through. I'm sorry about that. I'm not demoralized by blogwars or nuffin' (some people were asking) but RL wise I'm a bit tired at the moment, and I have some other projects going as well. Eventually I hope to get some more regular content back up again.

I laughed, I cried, I hurled

"Feminist Acres."

h/t KZ

A belated Labor Day message of pride and patriotism

On a related note: the Carnival of Radical Action, Back to School Edition

at Having Read the Fine Print, and it's a terrific wealth of links and inspiration. From the always awesome BA's intro:

Forget saviors

We need teachers. We need them from the places we have never thought to have gotten them before

We need scarred forearms ,split tongues, bowed heads, nappy roots , and raised fists.

gender queers, drag queens, bois, grrrrrrrrrls ,nerds, jocks, fierce women ,dangerous young men, single mothers, grad students, auto didactics, blind to the seeing world , brave in the face of danger, scared in the night, way too loud in the library, too big for the Gap, too small for your pants ,

but most of all we NEED each other.

And because we need you there are things we need you to know.

So this Carnival is meant to be only the beginning of our education.

Because we are NOT the world’s special case, or pet issue.

We are not to be recruited, convinced, or calmed down. We are not here to be enlightened, uplifted or “bettered”.

We want to live. And it’s not about cool or fun or hip . It’s about

Our lives ,Our rights, Our terms.

Fighting governments, fighting confusion , fighting for our lives

I have this incredibly odd belief.

WE CAN SPEAK FOR OURSELVES.

And one more

WE SHOULD BE AND ARE SPEAKING TO EACH OTHER...

check it out.

WHITE FLOUR!!!

This is fucking awesome:

"Clowns Disrupt Racist Rally Without Throwing a Single Cream Pie"

(originating link here)

Saturday May 26th the VNN Vanguard Nazi/KKK group attempted to host a hate rally to try to take advantage of the brutal murder of a white couple for media and recruitment purposes. http://www.volunteertv.com/special

Unfortunately for them the 100th ARA (Anti Racist Action) clown block came and handed them their asses by making them appear like the asses they were.

Alex Linder the founder of VNN and the lead organizer of the rally kicked off events by rushing the clowns in a fit of rage, and was promptly arrested by 4 Knoxville police officers who dropped him to the ground when he resisted and dragged him off past the red shiny shoes of the clowns. http://www.volunteertv.com/home/headlines/7704982.html

“White Power!” the Nazi’s shouted, “White Flour?” the clowns yelled back running in circles throwing flour in the air and raising separate letters which spelt “White Flour”.

“White Power!” the Nazi’s angrily shouted once more, “White flowers?” the clowns cheers and threw white flowers in the air and danced about merrily.

“White Power!” the Nazi’s tried once again in a doomed and somewhat funny attempt to clarify their message, “ohhhhhh!” the clowns yelled “Tight Shower!” and held a solar shower in the air and all tried to crowd under to get clean as per the Klan’s directions...

The white supremacist rally, btw, was apparently spearheaded by Hal Turner.

and by the by the way, after having become a bit more familiar with the 'chan boards, ED and so on in the wake of these last raids, I thought this was...interesting, considering the source, regarding the previous raid on Turner.

http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=10075

("National Socialist" board link, says it was a coordinated publicity stunt between Turner and one of the 'chan boards. who the hell knows at this point, but: ew).

"Tearoom trade"

Off the Larry Craig scandal (it just keeps going! and going! and), an interesting short piece on the etiology of bathroom cruising at the L.A. Times.

On June 28, 1969, when New York's far-from-fashionable Stonewall Inn was raided, the patrons responded by fighting the cops. Although gays and lesbians had resisted before (often right here in Los Angeles), this Manhattan uprising served to jump-start the modern phase of the gay rights movement.

That movement, with its defiant insistence on being free to be as gay as all-get-out, quickly left the likes of Walter Jenkins and, if the cops were right, Larry Craig in the dust. They're part of a subculture within a subculture that was memorably identified by the daring sociologist Laud Humphreys in a landmark sociological study titled "Tearoom Trade."

Taking his cue from Kinsey, Humphreys was fascinated with married-with-children men who didn't self-identify as gay or bisexual, yet still sought clandestine sex with other men on the side. Humphreys, when he began his research, was one of these I'm-not-gay(s) himself, though he eventually came out.

Published in 1970, "Tearoom Trade" is full of useful information about foot tapping, shoe touching, hand signaling and all the other rituals those so inclined use to make contact with one another in such places. Clearly no media outlet should be without a copy -- especially Slate.com, whose editors revealed their cluelessness on the subject this week in a "real time conversation" rife with unintentional hilarity: "I can't believe it's a crime to tap your foot." "Can someone explain the mechanics of how two people are supposed to commit a sex act in a stall where legs are visible from the knee down?"

As for the less blinkered among us, in the age of Ellen DeGeneres, Neil Patrick Harris, "Brokeback Mountain" and the smooching gay teens on "As the World Turns," bathroom cruisers seem almost antique. Today's gays want to get married, and an airport men's room is no place to propose.

Moreover, if what you're "proposing" falls well short of marriage, there's always the Internet. Larry Craig, meet Craigslist. In short, never has the admonition "Get a room!" seemed more apropos. It's up to the I'm-not-gay(s) to discover the real freedoms fought for and won by the people they so fiercely claim they're not.

h/t Todd and in Charge, via a comment at fastlad.

****

Well, it's a -bit- apples and oranges there; not everyone does want to get married, and while sure, "there's always the Internet," Craigslist isn't necessarily any safer or even more "private" than the good ol'fashioned backroom. ("You: blue shirt, in the phone booth at the corner, sucking my cock. Fifteen minutes.") It is a bit more straightforward, to be sure; but see the trouble with being a Public Figure is that it's -dangerous- to be too straightforward. You never know who'll track you down from that personal ad; and as for gay marriage, why, Craig is happily--happily, I say--married to his wife; he's hardly for gay marriage. In fact, he's strongly agin' it:

Strongly Opposes topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits

YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage
NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation
NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation
NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes:
YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage

Good thing the guy in the next stall didn't decide to beat the crap out of him; or, well, hey, I'm sure if he -had- been gay-bashed as well as humilated, had Craig, it would've all been okay: either the guy would've put down the broken beer bottle or baseball bat and backed off, saying, "why, I recognize you! YOU'RE not gay! You're a straight upstanding pillar of the community! 'Scuse me, my apologies, good day to you, sir;" or else Craig would've suffered his lumps and accepted whatever punishment the State cared to dole out to the other gentleman who was just, well, what was it, defending himself from the creepy pervert.

You know, Mera Terrha Pakistan brought up the question of internalized homophobia recently--specifically, whether it was still relevant for those of us in the U.S. (among others). I'd say this is a textbook example of--well, don't take my word for it:

Bilerico:

So we're left with a gay man who was picked up for soliciting public sex. The whole thing is sad - from the fact that he has spent a lifetime with his wife trying to maintain a public image of heterosexuality, including voting for anti-gay legislation, to the internalized homophobia that fueled his guilt and guilty plea instead of trying to fight the system, to the fact that he has a criminal record and might just lose his family, a family who I'm sure he loves, because of our fucked up culture that imagines swarms of men having sex in public, no, forcing men, not just men but children as well, to have sex in public so much so that the police is instructed to go into those public spaces, encourage that type of behavior, and then divine someone's motivations from a few gestures. If I were a bigger person, I might stop making fun of him.

commenters at PrideDepot, focusing on the peculiar institution that is Log Cabin Republicans (openly gay members of the more conservative of the two main U.S. political parties, i.e. Craig's party):

by: Alan

"...but what is it then that makes someone work for and support a group of people that revile them?"

Idaho what it is is their economic insulation protects them from the actual people who revile them. These are not generally the people they meet in the course of their daily lives. The people they meet are socially, economically and probably even religiously copies of themselves. People who they think of as friends, colleagues and equals [the ones who disappear when the knocking on doors begins]. Unless they're into rough trade they don't generally run into people who are not like them.

Another problem here is that we all paint with too broad a brush. There are millions of moderate Republicans who do not revile homosexuals. Many in the libertarian branch of the party fully support gay rights and even gay marriage.

Unfortunately the Republican Party hierarchy has decided to suck up to that portion of the party that does revile us - something that comes from a lack of education, which the LCRs have in spades, and because of the very existence of the LCRs - they don't ever have to be in the company of those who revile them at party meetings because they have separate meetings. Consequently it's a question of their considering the revilers as an other, not their kind of Republican - the kind that lives for tax cuts so they can keep their wealth and doesn't think bad things will happen to them because they "happen" to be gay.

...


by: Idaho Queer

Well said Alan. The thing LCR's say is that they are trying to change the system from within. Bullshit! Why not do that from within Democratic Party with issues that are typically conservative republican. That would be an easier swim upstream than gay acceptance from right wing neo-cons. This has always seemed rather masochistic to me.

In my humble opinion, what we are really talking about here is huge denial mixed in with self loathing and internalized homophobia acting out the need to accepted by those who revile us.

Perhaps our Republican Queers should start first by working out and resolving within themselves their issues of acceptance within their own families of origin. This is WAY more complex that just about fiscal responsibility, family values and gun laws.

However in the meantime while gay republicans are, or are not, figuring this out, they are helping the homophobes use us for political purposes and exposing HATE, making it harder, not better, for the rest of us. How could anyone support such an agenda and be in their right mind.

In many ways it is not much different than a Jew working for Hitler.

by: Alan

As I have said many times to the former head of the local Log Cabin Republicans - when they coming knocking at your door screaming "Hey Faggot" they won't care about your party affiliation. Gay Republican is not an oxymoron - just an ordinary moron, usually with enough money that they think they will be somehow protected.

the Liberty Post, with a slightly different take:

I'm sure as the press digests the Craig scandal, you'll hear a lot about "hypocrisy," "repressed homosexuality" and "internalized homophobia." Good enough, I suppose, for making a somewhat cheap political point and sweeping these undeniably creepy, tragic guys back into the Brokeback Mountain days from whence they apparently came. But I wonder if the GOP's burgeoning "bathroom problem" isn't reflective of something larger than just a bunch of conservative dudes who couldn't come out of the closet. There's something palpably sad to me about what happened to Allen and Craig too, something oddly touching about their misplaced faith in the fading world of secret, anonymous gay sex. That world--once found in bathrooms, parks, piers and adult bookstores; the furtive refuges of adventuresome queers, married men, the curious--has been swept away by so many police raids, privatization schemes, quality of life campaigns and internet dating services. But mostly, it's fallen away as gays have become increasingly integrated into the mainstream, and also, paradoxically, more marked than ever. "You're either gay or you're not" seems to be the equation.

Until someone like Craig, Allen, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard or Jim McGreevey shows up to ripple momentarily the waters of public discourse on sex. These guys have problems, no doubt. But we might also pause to wonder if there's some cultural knot that gay liberation--despite its original and best intentions--has left in place. At the very least the link between public power and domestic heterosexuality--with all the fetishistic displays of family life that entails--has yet to be completely severed. Just ask Rudy Guiliani, or Hillary Clinton! Moreover, that knot, perhaps best described as sexual propriety, is what fuels the moral campaigns against homosexuality that have become one of the Republican Party's identifying causes--loyally supported by the likes of Craig, Haggard, Foley, et. al. It's also what leads Bob Allen to the stunning and revealing calculation that it would be better to be seen in the public eye as an avowed racist than as someone who likes to have sex with men sometimes.

******

Which opens up an interesting set of questions: if one has indeed "internalized homophobia," what is it, exactly, that one has internalized?

x-posted at Big Queer Blog

Read -before- wringing hands, next time, o Kossack types (and many, many others of Us).

brownfemipower, guesting at Zuky, explains it as plainly as you're ever going to get.

Contrary to popular opinion, communities of color have not sat about for the last few years wringing our hands wondering how we can get those white folks to pay more attention to us. Our communities are flourishing and full of intellectual diversity. Most of the more progressive/radical bloggers are blogging about grassroots social justice issues that directly affect their communities. I almost never read mainstream news sources any more — I link through my favorite bloggers of color to find out what’s going on with people of color who live in Greece, Mexico, Australia and the U.S. I read comments to find out what other people of color are thinking about events. Through the “colored” blogging community, I have become more connected to other people like me than I have probably ever been in my life.

Which is not to say there are no problems. I’ve seen significant tensions between heterosexual bloggers of color and queers, rich or more well off bloggers and not so rich or poverty stricken bloggers, male and female bloggers, trans bloggers and cis bloggers, Latin@, Black, Asian, Arab, Indian etc bloggers. I could go on and on. Every type of fight between bloggers of color has happened, which exposes exactly how much work our communities have to do with each other.

So when we have so much work to do between ourselves and within our own communities, there better be a very good reason to attend a mostly white conference that is expensive as hell, largely has no interest in anything bloggers of color are doing outside of the conference, has gone to some lengths to even kick bloggers of color out of their community, and pretty much means almost the opposite of what bloggers of color mean when it says “create change”.

But as of today, I have not read or heard a single reason for white bloggers’ interest in “diversity” or “inclusion” that was not in some way connected to “We don’t want to look like we’re just a bunch of old white guys. It’s not like that. We swear. We mean well and all want the same thing. We need to work together.”

But the first thing almost every blogger of color I read (and granted, I’m in the more progressive/radical community) would say to this argument is, “We want the same thing? Who knew?”

And white folks don't limit themselves to assuming that “we all want the same thing”. Some of the more popular assumptions are as follows:

1. Bloggers of color means “black”.
2. Bloggers of color are poor.
3. Bloggers of color hold mostly menial labor jobs (hence the lack of time or willingness to do something “educated” like blog).
4. Bloggers of color haven’t been educated at elite universities.
5. Bloggers of color don’t have their own thriving communities.
6. Bloggers of color didn’t create those communities as a direct result of the neglect and/or outright racism of white bloggers.
7. Bloggers of color are standing outside the Doors of the Elite and staring balefully through the windows, longing with all our hearts to be invited in.
8. Bloggers of color need white folks.
9. Bloggers of color don’t have a very real existing and standing critique of white leftists and their organizing strategies.
10. Bloggers of color have not made the deliberate choice to not be involved in the organizing efforts of white led/centered groups.

What many white folks haven’t figured out yet is that their very assumptions and speculations are what's wrong with “inclusivity”. The assumptions and speculations white folks have about everything from what action needs to be taken, to who are the actual people they are working with, hides the reality of a particular situation to the point that white people often aren’t aware that they are the only person in the room.

(more)

The part about -assumptions- is particularly key. This in particular:

But if “inclusivity” is only important in theory when building the most important part of any organization (the base), why on earth would inclusivity naturally flow out of something where it didn’t exist to begin with?

This is a great point. It ties back into the basic problem of, lookit guys, we're talking about -structural- change. That means the macro society and it also means looking at the micro structuring of the -relationships-, the dynamics of institutions you're/we're a part of -right now.- It doesn't just mean "by the time it's codified into law."

And what you don't realize, sometimes, till you try to change 'em: organizations take on a life of their own that's more than the sum of their individual parts.

Which, yep, could go for something even as relatively new as Yearly Kos. How's the thing set up? Who's running it? What exactly were you trying to accomplish with it?

I know that Lorde quote has been done to death and often misused, so I apologize for using a "house" analogy, but: it's a lot easier to change something at the foundation stage than after you've already constructed the whole building and moved in and everything. Yeah, you can look at it after it's done and go, y'know, maybe it wasn't such a hot idea to put that right at the edge of that cliff over looking the ocean, what with soil erosion and the increased likelihood of tidal waves and all. And, oh yeah: asbestos. Oopsie. But, what the hell, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere -right this second.- Just, maybe some occasional guests and neighbors are starting to complain about this, that, and the other thing (your sweage runs right back down the hill and into the backyards of the people who built sensibly but less glamorously at the base of the cliff, say). And there was a little blurb in the paper about how overdevelopment is ruining the beauty and natural wildlife of the cliffside, plus haha, stupid people forgot the last time they tried to build right there....

but, see, you already sank millions of dollars into this little endeavor, you LIVE there, nothing terrible has happened (to you) yet; and dammit, it LOOKS terrific. Maybe if we just reroute the plumbing lines; but hell, even that's a lot more trouble than making a lot of pretty words about how we Value Our Neighborhood, want to know how we can be Better Neighbors, please drop it in this suggestion box, and finally, O.K., here's a crappy fence for you lot that's butt-ugly and doesn't really solve the sewage runoff problem, but it'll actually keep us from SEEING you being inundated by our sewage. Meanwhile--uh-oh, seismic shifts or bunnies or something mean that the whole place keeps slanting oddly,and yesterday half the living room abruptly caved in, and WHY O WHY DOES NO ONE CARE OR HAVE SYMPATHY, HUH?...

(anyone who's looking at this and opening their mouth to object about the logistical nonsequiters and metaphorical excesses in that analogy: bite me. xox)

Sudy, who btw has also just posted a letter to white feminists that's another damn good read, comments (back at bfp's post):

(in response to another commenter)

White folks must recognize they’ve had it all wrong — they are the problem. It is they who must change, not people of color."

Yeah, that's gonna work. Change, white people, change!!!

Which, well: yes, there is that. (also feel free to insert: Change, men, change! Change, straight people, change! Change, rich people, change! Change, US-ians, change!...) On the other hand: hell, you could say the same thing about the whole damn human race, say, from the perspective of y'know, nuclear weapons global warming oil crunch tipping point yadda yadda we're really maybe about to wipe our whole sorry selves off the map. At a certain point it becomes about, "no, it's not 'change in order to please some stranger and assuage some vague guilty feelings.' It's, CHANGE OR DIE, because the current model is NOT WORKING."

Of course, even if it really is so dire that the house is about to crumble right nto the sea--and let's face it, it's also human nature to get cynical after one too many Chicken Littlesque The House Is Falling! and it actually doesn't--

--but even so, we don't want to change. We don't -like- change. As Sudy astutely notes in her letter:

“The possibility of change is so fearful that most will stay with what is familiar to them, even if it is hell. The unknown is that daunting.”

...and again, really, read the whole damn thing, please.

On a related note, also see: Nanette's killer post at Feministe last week, "The Benefit of the Doubt" and this post of Black Amazon's, "Of Myths and Monsters."

"Sublimation"

As per a comment here: (waves merrily)

Dear tayefeth, whoever the hell you are:

HEY LADY! YA WANNA FUCK?!?!?!

I mean, only as a ruse to take your MAY-UN, of course.

Oh, wait --I already was a lesbian. Dunno about the sublimation. Sounds kinky, though.

And you, well, YOU'RE a genius.

xoxoxo, babes! keep digging, and drop us all a postcard when you get to China, will you?