Ron Paul on Sexual Harassment

Ron Paul lives in some sort of alternative universe. He's dead wrong on sexual harassment. Sexual harassment creates a workplace that's bad for everyone. Sexual harassment has been a tool, a weapon, so to speak, of keeping women down in the workplace. The sexual harassment segment begins at around 5:33...but his response on Aids and health insurance is astounding as well begins around 3:12

Cupcakes for Men. No, Seriously. Cupcakes for Men.

Cupcakes for Men. No, Seriously. Cupcakes for Men.

Unbelievable. Everything has to be certified masculine (sort of like certified organic) before men can join in.

Pam's House Blend:: Federal Appeals Court: Louisiana Must Recognize Out of State Gay Adoption

Pam's House Blend:: Federal Appeals Court: Louisiana Must Recognize Out of State Gay Adoption

Yes, I seem to remember something from my Constitutional Law class about the "full faith and credit" clause.

What the Hell is Twittter?

Okay, via an Obama myspace page, I clicked on a link that offered to give me updates on Obama's schedule via something called "Twitter." I don't really know what it is, but I joined so I could get the updates on events in real time, often with streaming video.

Today, I got a message at the associated email account saying this guy is "following my updates on Twitter." I don't have any updates on Twitter. I don't even know what it is or how I would update it or what I would say (what the hell, I'm no Barack Obama; where would I be GOING and why would I give anyone regular updates? Do ordinary people do this these days?? My god, I felt guilty because I thought blogging was a bit narcissistic!). And I really think this same guy tried "friending" me on myspace a few months ago, via my page at DailyKos.

I just followed his Twitter thing to his blog and he's pretty conservative, (I think) Christian conservative, definitely very homophobic. He mentions "gay 'marriage,'" with those damn quotation marks around the word marriage, which means he doesn't think there can be real (no quotation marks) gay marriages - right, because all the straight women I know with asshole unfaithtful husbands have the REAL marriages, and it's so helpful and good for one's self-esteem. Then there is his bit about Katy Perry's "I Kissed a Girl:"

This is an alarming trend as the song itself promotes unhealthy relationship between same sex genders especially for easily impressionable young females. Imagine this song becoming the talk of school playgrounds, neighborhood backyards or even at dinner tables. Little girls experimenting among themselves to see whether if the song is true or not. What would you say as a parent if your daughter brings up the content of this song? Is it ok to kiss another girl? Is it normal? Is it natural? Or your daughter telling you... Mom I want to kiss Jennifer or Ann and why not because it should feel good right!!! ??***

My daughter already played it for me because we actually talk like that (otherwise - I must admit - I wouldn't know a thing about it, because I don't listen to much new music - yep, my fortieth birthday will be this Saturday; just think of the song "1985" as my anthem and you've got the picture). Girls are already talking about the Katy Perry song, dope; it's number 9 on the pop charts. So what? And what would I say if my daughter asked me about it? Well, she's kissed a few boys without asking me first, so I doubt she would ask me first if she should kiss Jennifer or Ann. She has talked to me about the couple of boys she's kissed afterwards though. So, if she asked me about Jennifer or Ann, I would ask her if it felt right to her (which is what I've asked her about individual guys she's kissed before - does it feel right?). I would tell my daughter that if kissing Jennifer or Ann feels right to her, then it is okay (although she and I have talked about the popular phenomenon of faux lesbianism among young straight women being used as a way to titillate the straight boys, and we both agree that that's annoying). So I'd be okay with it, Twitter dude.

I don't know why he would be trying to connect with me again via Twitter, as he did before from my myspace page, since I'm the same person on myspace that I am here - as in, definitely no conservative.

I did just post some things at DailyKos this weekend - where I have a link to my myspace page - about the difficulties of parenting and protecting our children from toxic culture (but when I say toxic culture, I tend to mean violence and graphic sex and objectifying women, but I don't give a shit about there being a song about a teenage girl kissing another teenager girl at a slumber party, "liking it," and finding that "she tastes just like her cherry chapstick;" as long as you're not homophobic, this is just a cute little song about a frickin' KISS (although the video seems annoyingly designed to titillate the straight boys who like thinking about lesbian kisses, as long as the "girls" involved are hot, pornolicious babes). When it comes to the sexual content that's out there generally, I see this song about a kiss as practically G-rated. So, yeah, I wrote about protecting kids from toxic culture, but I didn't mean that like a conservative thing. I mean, geez, it was at liberal Daily Kos! What's this guy doing there?

I notice too that his blog is FULL of criticism of Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Hannah Montana, and that he calls them "pop tarts" (ah-ha-ha; how about at least coming up with some creative or original misogynistic bullshit, eh?). He worries about little girls not wearing panties to school "just like Britney" (dude, spare me your sick little daydreams - OH shit, I just accidentally typed "daycreams," how totally Freudian!). I don't want Britney to be my daughter's role model either, so I try to provide other models and some conversation about women-as-sex-objects, but I don't insult Britney either, for god's sake. And if he is SO concerned about toxic culture affecting our kids, why doesn't his blog have ANY criticism of any males - like Eminem and all the woman-hating (and gay-bashing) lyrics sung by men that I know my daughter is also hearing? Why are Britney, Paris, and Miley the great pop-culture evil-doers, with no mention on the blog of my new "Twitter buddy" (whatever the hell that is) of any male counterparts?

So, anyway, back to the whole Twitter thing...anyone reading who is younger and hipper than I am - Should I be concerned? Ignore it? Are there any potential consequences of being "followed on Twitter" that I should know about? What can he see about me from that? Can I somehow cancel him as my "Twitter buddy" or should I just cancel the damn account completely?

Thanks in advance,
technologically out of touch old lady who turns 40 this weekend

NOLA radfem turns forty - indulges in some eighties nostalgia

1985 by Bowling For Soup


***I have a longstanding policy of NEVER challenging what's written on someone else's blog here on my blog. I just don't think it seems fair to, you know, borrow someone's words, run back to my own little space, and then trash them. But I've made an exception here because this guy seems to be following me around the intertubes and I wanted some input about it.

Suggestions for a Gay-Bashing Film?

I keep catching my daughter calling things "gay," whether in conversation or on her myspace. I can't seem to get her to stop, even though I have explained several times why it's a problem. Now I'm about to sit the little s**t down and show her something that will get her attention, a film in which violence happens to people because they are "gay."

Any suggestions for what film I might use?

What Even Schoolchildren Know

Even schoolchildren know - the best all-purpose insults involve calling someone homosexual or female.

A study by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers found that the top insult in UK schools is "gay," with 83% of teachers reporting hearing it. The others were Bitch (59%), Slag (45%), Poof (29%), Batty boy (29%), Slut (26%), Queer (26%), Lezzie (24.8%), Homo (22%), Faggot (11%), and Sissy (5%).

So the insults go to gays, women, women, gays, gays, women, gays, gay women, gays, gays, and feminine gays.

I'm noticing a trend.

Of course, the misogynist slurs (bitch, slag, slut) center around women who don't conform to sexual puritanism. The common thread between all of these is that it's an insult to be penetrated or to be accused of liking to be penetrated.

Volumes can and have been written about our culture's anxiety around penetration and hatred of anyone perceived as enjoying it. What's particularly interesting here is that nothing else made the list - not "stupid" or "dumb" or racial slurs. (study)

via "The F-Word again

Mission Accomplished

Back during the South Carolina primary, Bill Clinton tried to marginalize Barack Obama by comparing the latter's victory in that state to Jesse Jackson's decades before.

Most white Americans can not stand Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. I'm sure about this because I'm around white people a lot, what with being white and all. Bill Clinton's putting Obama's name out there with Jackson's was calculated - and despicable.

Bill Clinton is a sharp pol. From what I've read, even direct quotes over the years, the man can calculate electoral percentages quicker than you or I can figure up how much to tip a waitress (Catholics plus X percent of Protestants on this issue, X percent of red state support on that issue). He knows the different demographics and how they will break around various issues. He knows these as well as he knows the insides of his own eyelids. I am certain of it.

Bill Clinton knows the demographics - and he knows how to split them too. For instance, remember his infamous Sister Soulja moment? As recently as 2004, he was, we now know, still up to his old tricks:

Clinton Advice Spurned. Looking for a way to pick up swing voters in the Red States, former President Bill Clinton, in a phone call with (John) Kerry, urged the Senator to back local bans on gay marriage. Kerry respectfully listened, then told his aides, "I'm not going to ever do that." (Pam's House Blend).

So, Clinton knows how to split different demographics for political advantage (right - and my next insightful post will be on the imporant topic of "the world is indeed round"). He is willing to throw minority groups under the bus if he sees a potential electoral advantage to doing so.

After spending my Katrina evacuation in Little Rock (which we chose so we could tour Clinton's presidential library...it beats Houston!), I decided to take a detour through Bill Clinton's boyhood home of Hope, touring some of the sites linked to the childhood of the former president.

Truth be told, there wasn't that much to see. There was Clinton's mother's home, his grandparents' home. There was the Blythe/Kelly/Clinton cemetery plot, an unremarkable looking school he attended (long since converted to another purpose). Finally, there was a little train depot that functioned as a museum.

That was it.

Still, I am so glad I took that detour. It was deeply moving, not because any of the designated sites of interest were in any way remarkable, but precisely because none of it was remarkable. As a southerner, once I'd walked around in Hope, Arkansas, I felt I understood some things about our nation's forty-second president. The southerness of the place was palpable. It looked quaint and tidy in places, shabby and unkempt in others. There was no large-scale commerce, no industry. There was poverty. And, to this New Orleans girl, the racial mix of the residents looked like that in my hometown (indeed, census figures show that the town is about 42% white and about 42% black).

From this place came Bill Clinton, this humble place, a president born of working people. I admit that tears came to my eyes because for all that I bitch about what's wrong with my country and engage in activism against the status quo, there is, truly, something right about a country in which a white man so humbly born can become president. (I know, I know. Radical critics are supposed to hate America, right? Well, actually, as Dr. King said, "I criticize America because I love her. I want her to stand as a shining moral example to the world."* No, I'm not an America hater, no matter what my brother-in-law says about me. In truth, I'm a woman whose idea of a great vacation is to go to Washington, D.C, to wander the grounds of Mount Vernon giving thanks for the light rain shower so that no one will notice that I'm crying, to visit the Library of Congress and find that I have to locate a bench on which to rest because standing just on the other side of the glass from Thomas Jefferson's beloved book collection has literally made me lightheaded. I confess to all of that even though, in the context of the rest of this essay, said confession puts me firmly in the camp of white American nationalists I'll be criticizing a few paragraphs hence - just one of the many paradoxes inherent in trying to do antiracism work when you're white like me. Please forgive me my absurdity while I flirt with radical honesty. As Walt Whitman said, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.")

In this place called Hope, Clinton has oft told us, his grandfather taught him to reject the racism that was as much an ordinary part of life for whites as were warm, ripe tomatoes and oversized, iced watermelons. Clinton's grandfather taught him by example to do business with local blacks the same as he did with whites, a habit quite different from other white shopkeepers of the day.

So, I've been to Bill Clinton's hometown. I know he and I share the same roots, roots in a beloved, schizophrenic South - a South of sweet tea and relic slave shacks, of casserole-bearing funeral attendees and still-segregated churches, a South of unfailing manners as well as fierce racism both personal and institutionalized (I've lived up North and out West too, and white people there need not check their mental compasses for due South when they think about racism).

And so I've seen where Bill Clinton grew up. And I know. I know that Bill Clinton knew exactly what he was doing when he made that comparison of Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson. He knew, and for personal gain for himself and his, he was willing to fan those racist flames, always there, always hot, always bright - and denied by whites even if maintaining that denial requires us to stay in our skivvies and wander blindfolded while denying the existence of the fire.

Oh, he knew.

And it isn't just that Clinton compared Obama to Jackson, Jackson is someone most whites don't like, therefore the association could hurt Obama. It is that, but it's also more.

Hearing about what's happening with Obama's polling numbers beginning to decline now that lots of oh-so inculpable white people have seen film of Obama's pastor speaking his truth, I was thinking today that about how this process, this process of making Obama black enough to make whites consciously uncomfortable, began with Bill Clinton's comment in South Carolina. Now, I'm sure someone - a bunch of someones - would have eventually begun doing that anyway. So this thought came to me: they intended to morph him into "the angry black preacher," to link Obama in the minds of white voters to Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton. It ended up being Reverend Jeremiah Wright instead.

Mission accomplished. Heckuva job, Billy.

And it's no coincidence that in order to morph Obama into those two "angry" black preachers so dreaded by whites, they went through....Obama's preacher.

That was the only way white culture, really, could finally go after Obama.

You see, most white people - and I am a white person - don't know black people. Sometimes, it's overtly racist whites who don't want to know black people. Sometimes, we move to the suburbs, shop at Whole Foods, vote for Democrats, and tell ourselves we just don't have that much opportunity for interracial interaction, but that if we did, you know, we're sure we would be "good" white people who are culturally colorblind. After all, in our reality, race isn't a problem, ergo racism isn't a problem in America.

And even if we know some black people, we don't know black people. How can we, running around the racist bonfire I described above, stripped down to our skivvies and blindfolded so we can deny the heat and the light that are right there? Blindfolded is no way to see. So we don't see.

And when we, blindfolded, hear someone like Jeremiah Wright, ranting apparent madness out there in the beyond, we are shocked. We are appalled. We are angry. We can't imagine why they are being so racist!**

Why don't we know black people? Simply because, to borrow from the boorish Jack Nicholson, we can't handle the truth.

I'll borrow from someone far wiser than I to explain further (his name actually is Tim Wise, but that actually isn't why I consider him a wiseman):

What Jeremiah Wright knows, and told his flock--though make no mistake, they already knew it--is that 9/11 was neither the first, nor worst act of terrorism on American soil. The history of this nation for folks of color, was for generations, nothing less than an intergenerational hate crime, one in which 9/11s were woven into the fabric of everyday life: hundreds of thousands of the enslaved who died from the conditions of their bondage; thousands more who were lynched (as many as 10,000 in the first few years after the Civil War, according to testimony in the Congressional Record at the time); millions of indigenous persons wiped off the face of the Earth. No, to some, the horror of 9/11 was not new. To some it was not on that day that "everything changed." To some, everything changed four hundred years ago, when that first ship landed at what would become Jamestown. To some, everything changed when their ancestors were forced into the hulls of slave ships at Goree Island and brought to a strange land as chattel. To some, everything changed when they were run out of Northern Mexico, only to watch it become the Southwest United States, thanks to a war of annihilation initiated by the U.S. government. To some, being on the receiving end of terrorism has been a way of life. Until recently it was absolutely normal in fact.

But white folks have a hard time hearing these simple truths. We find it almost impossible to listen to an alternative version of reality. Indeed, what seems to bother white people more than anything, whether in the recent episode, or at any other time, is being confronted with the recognition that black people do not, by and large, see the world like we do; that black people, by and large, do not view America as white people view it. We are, in fact, shocked that this should be so, having come to believe, apparently, that the falsehoods to which we cling like a kidney patient clings to a dialysis machine, are equally shared by our darker-skinned compatriots....

Whites are easily shocked by what we see and hear from Pastor Wright and Trinity Church, because what we see and hear so thoroughly challenges our understanding of who we are as a nation. But black people have never, for the most part, believed in the imagery of the "shining city on a hill," for they have never had the option of looking at their nation and ignoring the mountain-sized warts still dotting its face when it comes to race. Black people do not, in the main, get misty eyed at the sight of the flag the way white people do--and this is true even for millions of black veterans--for they understand that the nation for whom that flag waves is still not fully committed to their own equality. They have a harder time singing those tunes that white people seem so eager to belt out, like "God Bless America," for they know that whites sang those words loudly and proudly even as they were enforcing Jim Crow segregation, rioting against blacks who dared move into previously white neighborhoods, throwing rocks at Dr. King and then cheering, as so many did, when they heard the news that he had been assassinated.

Whites refuse to remember (or perhaps have never learned) that which black folks cannot afford to forget. I've seen white people stunned to the point of paralysis when they learn the truth about lynchings in this country--when they discover that such events were not just a couple of good old boys with a truck and a rope hauling some black guy out to the tree, hanging him, and letting him swing there. They were never told the truth: that lynchings were often community events, advertised in papers as "Negro Barbecues," involving hundreds or even thousands of whites, who would join in the fun, eat chicken salad and drink sweet tea, all while the black victims of their depravity were being hung, then shot, then burned, and then having their body parts cut off, to be handed out to onlookers. They are stunned to learn that postcards of the events were traded as souvenirs, and that very few whites, including members of their own families did or said anything to stop it.

Rather than knowing about and confronting the ugliness of our past, whites take steps to excise the less flattering aspects of our history so that we need not be bothered with them. So, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, for example, site of an orgy of violence against the black community in 1921, city officials literally went into the town library and removed all reference to the mass killings in the Greenwood district from the papers with a razor blade--an excising of truth and an assault on memory that would remain unchanged for over seventy years.

Most white people desire, or perhaps even require the propagation of lies when it comes to our history. Surely we prefer the lies to anything resembling, even remotely, the truth. Our version of history, of our national past, simply cannot allow for the intrusion of fact into a worldview so thoroughly identified with fiction. But that white version of America is not only extraordinarily incomplete, in that it so favors the white experience to the exclusion of others; it is more than that; it is actually a slap in the face to people of color, a re-injury, a reminder that they are essentially irrelevant, their concerns trivial, their lives unworthy of being taken seriously. (please for the love of god please read the rest of this***)

So, there it is. We don't know black people and Tim Wise has explained why we don't.

And what happens when we don't know or know them? Well, apparently the best we can do is to rely on what we've seen.

What have we seen? Well, each of us has been provided through American culture with a rather limited range of black archetypes. There is what Spike Lee calls "the magical negro, there is "Mammy" (yep, still), there is "the driver" a la Morgan Freeman in "Driving Miss Daisy" - those are the classic archetypes.****

In addition to archetypes, whites commonly hold stereotypes of blacks and despite our being supposedly oh-so postracial, surveys show the list hasn't change much in the last sixty years.

In 1933, the top ten stereotypes of blacks were "superstitious, lazy/slovenly, happy-go-lucky, ignorant, musical, ostentatious, very religious, physically dirty, naive and unreliable."

In 1995, the top ten were "athletic, rhythmic/musical, unintelligent/ignorant/stupid, poor, loud, criminal, hostile, very religious, disloyal to family, and physically dirty." (source)

So I submit that whites individually, mainstream culture, and the media have been struggling to find a category - an archetype or stereotype, something for heaven's sake, it's all so disorienting - a hole into which we whites could peg Barack Obama because, once again, we rely on racist cultural shorthand since we don't really know black people (and we really can't recognize that we don't know because the whole system of white privilege is so invisible to us).

For months, Barack Obama was broadcasting to white America as an individual (well, who doesn't, really) and seemed to be being received as such. He wasn't Mammy (or, to be gender precise, Uncle Peter), the driver, Sambo, "the magical negro" (although some have attempted to link him to the latter). He is clearly not, to return to the list of top ten stereotypes, unintelligent/ignorant/stupid, poor, loud, criminal, hostile, disloyal to family, or physically dirty.

He is athletic, and the media has treated us to a number of "Barack plays basketball" stories, but I think white voters were also seeing in those stories the Obama who is competitive and a fighter, who is focused, who is young and vigorous (although I heard some time back that, should he be the nominee, Republicans will run campaign ads that show him playing basketball).

He did joke during one of the debates about his dancing abilities versus Bill Clinton's, and he also danced on the Ellen show.

I offer these last two items with tongue-in-cheek. The point is that I believe whites and our media have been working down a list of "black people we think we know" to try to know Obama.

One item remains on the list of top ten stereotypes - it's "extremely religious." Somehow, the (white) public has very quickly begun morphing Obama into his minister (even as the Clintons previously tried with Reverend Jesse Jackson). And if the (white) public can successfully do that, can think "angry black minister" when they think of Obama, then we will have finally, after these long months of bumbling around, found one of our holes into which he can be fitted. "Angry black minister." Then maybe Obama too is "angry." And then maybe he hates us. In fact, maybe he can't be trusted; maybe he's acting nice around us and hating us behind our backs and plotting against us (these were the big fears during slavery, obviously, and I think we still fear these things today). AND, Hillary is here to explain to us that he isn't even qualified for the job he seeks - she will give that much to the likes of John McCain, experienced political whore in more ways than I care to list at the moment, and not to Barack Obama. I notice too that the red phone ad has lots of racist fearmongering potential - nighttime, white kids sleeping sweetly all snug in their beds while visions of sugar plums dance in their heads - virtuous white women of America, can you entrust this man with your precious children? (NY Times noticed too).

THERE! I think that'll do it. Yep, he's finally fitting in that hole! Whew, what a relief, my white brothers and sisters. Life as we understand it can now continue! We now return to your regularly scheduled oblivion.

Enjoy your recession. Buy a bikini to celebrate global warming. Keep those kids safe and send them to America's fine institutions of learning; McCain says we'll be needing them in Iraq years from now. Keep a month's supply of, well, everything in case there is a levee breach near you (yeah, you, non-Louisianians, I AM talking to you too; check out the links). Stock up on the duct tape because it looks like for the indefinite future they will be hating us for freedoms (apparently "they" haven't heard that our freedoms ain't what they used to be).

Submission accomplished. Barack who?

UPDATE: A WHITE FRIEND WHO READ THIS SAYS HE HAS A BLACK FRIEND WHOM HE BELIEVES HE REALLY KNOWS. WHEN I WROTE THAT WHITES DON'T KNOW BLACK PEOPLE, I GUESS I WAS THINKING PRIMARILY IN BROADER, CULTURAL TERMS. WHEN IT COMES TO INDIVIDUAL FRIENDSHIPS, I CONCEDE THAT I MAY HAVE OVERSTATED THE CASE. I GUESS I WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO HIS FRIEND, WHOM I ALSO KNOW, AND ASK HIM WHAT HE THINKS.

* Tim Wise's essays don't seem to have individual URLs, so I can't link to them directly. All I can get is the URL to his homepage. From there, click on "essays" and then "A Dream Distorted: Reflections on the Hijacking of Martin Luther King Jr."

** from the link, click on "essays" and then "Another Batch of White Whine:
Obama, Black Voters and the Myth of Reverse Racism"

*** from the link, click on "essays" and then "Of National Lies and Racial Amnesia:
Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama, and the Audacity of Truth"

**** It occurs to me that in each of those examples, African-Americans are defined strictly according to their utility to white people - mammy, driver, "magic negro." This is also the case with female archetypes - wife (in relationship with a man), mother (in relation to a child), virgin (not yet penetrated by man), slut/whore (penetrated by too many men), femme fatale (man can't resist), damsel in distress (needs protection from or rescue by a man), and so on. This tendency toward what I'm calling for the moment the archetype-in-relation illustrates the extent to which women and people of color are still viewed through the lens of the dominant culture (women as seen by men, people of color as seen by whites).

Gay Scientists Isolate the Christian Gene

Ha!

Hat tip The F Word.

The other day this New Orleans talk radio program did a whole show on Obama's pastor and some of McCain's buddies (Haggee?) and about what people thought. So, on the topic of some people's religious views, this woman called in and said that in the aftermath of Katrina, she worked sorting food donations that were coming in from around the country. The donors apparently didn't realize that the food bank would break packages down into the smallest possible units (I guess to get widest possible distribution). Time and time again, when this woman opened the packages, she found that people had tucked notes inside their food donations, notes telling the already devastated recipient that Katrina was the wrath of god visited upon a sinful people.

I really do hope those gay scientists, now that they've isolated the gene, can find the cure.

(with apologies to any REAL Christians out there; I get so frustrated with the other kind)

Al Gore is for Freedom to Marry

Video.

Transcript:

I think it’s wrong for the government to discriminate against people because of that person’s sexual orientation.

I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women, to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage, and I don’t understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians.

Shouldn’t we be promoting that kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one’s partner regardless of sexual orientation? Because if you don’t do that then to that extent you are promoting promiscuity and you are promoting all the problems that can result from promiscuity.

And the loyalty and love that two people feel for one another when they fall in love ought to be celebrated and encouraged, and shouldn’t be prevented by any form of discrimination in the law.

Well, yeah, I'm for marriage for whoever wants it, of course, but I have to point out, President Gore, that marriage hasn't kept my straight ass husband so loyal. Not that I'm bitter or anything - just sayin'

Whackos at WBC to Protest Ledger Funeral

Chez at the Huffington Post takes aim at the lunatic homophobes in Westboro and their plan to protest the dead 'Brokeback Mountain' actor.

read more digg story

First their god meant to f**k up New Orleans via Hurricane Katrina, yet their god somehow managed to instead destroy the areas where ordinary folks live and leave the French Quarter scene intact. Now their god meant to kill a gay guy but accidentally picked on a guy who just pretends to be gay in movies. Either it's time for these nuts admit that they do not, in fact, know the divine's preferences and plan or else they should just admit that their god is an idiot.

John Kerry: Swiftboating

John Kerry has a blog up at Huffington Post. No reichwing "Swiftboating" this time:

I support Barack Obama because he doesn't seek to perfect the politics of Swiftboating -- he seeks to end it. This is personal for me, and for a whole lot of Americans who lived through the 2004 election.

Then he comments on this stuff:

In the New York Times the Republican narrative was first introduced:
"Another Bush adviser said of Mr. Kerry, 'He looks French.'
In the same article, anonymous Republicans described John Edwards as the 'Breck Girl.'"

read more digg story

God, it's embarrassing that candidates for president have to even hear such foolishness. A guy looks French or he looks like a girl - those are the Repukes' best plays, eh? What a country!

Two Days to the "Stop Porn Culture" Conference

Or I guess technically a day and a half, at this late hour.

The Jefferson Parish Council today voted to block hotels in the parish from renting out rooms by the hour. I know they're trying to cut down on hourly rentals to johns and drug users, but I don't know - I still feel some nostalgia for those places from when I was a teenager (well, it was better than parking at the lakefront and plus those places weren't quite as sleazy back then as they are now - or maybe I've just gotten old). Hat tip to Gentilly Girl, who points out that this will likely just send the criminal activity across the parish line.

Heavens, I love this po-boy and Barq's photo from YatPundit.

This story from Heart - "The Padlocked Vagina - Rape as Torture in the Congo" - is beyond words, so I won't say anything other than that it's graphic and you should still see it. Be sure to follow the link to the letter to Ken Burns about his failure to include women's realities in his "The War: An Intimate History." An intimate his-story...

On second thought, maybe I will say something else, the same thing I end up saying practically every day: "Why do men hate us so much?"

"A nation is not conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground. Then it is done, no matter how strong the weapons, or how brave the warriors."
(Ines' Hernandez-Avila. "In Praise of Insubordination," Transforming a Rape Culture.)

Finally, check out these two articles from ladoctorita at her blog "unconventional beauty."
Part I: "Hear no Evil" about no one listening to women's concerns about other women or about men threatening them.
Part II: "Nobody Listens to Women" about Julie Jensen, whose 1998 death was initiailly ruled a suicide but whose husband is now on trial for murdering her - which makes sense since she left a note with her neighbor twelve days before she died basically saying, "If I should die, he probably killed me."

I'll end with a video that seems apropos and that's probably it until after Austin. Guess I'd better get packing (everything at the last possible minute as usual).

Jackson Katz in "Tough Guise: Violence, Media, and the Crisis in Masculinity:"