Intersectionality ‘Round the Interwebs, No. 26: Milk Thieves, Body Hair, and the Cannibals Within

Tuesday, June 12th, 2012

null

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary: A Powerful Statement

This stunning sculpture by Liu Qiang is an accurate depiction of humanity’s use of, and utter dependence on other animals and, in particular, the savage and bizarre habit of consuming the breast milk from mothers of other species-milk that these mothers have produced for their own babies, babies that we forced them to become pregnant with only to kill shortly after birth so that we can take the bereft mother’s milk, milk that we drink as though we were the children that we murdered.

Live vegan. There is no excuse not to.

Learn about non-violent living
Learn who is spared when you live vegan…
…and who suffers when you choose not to:
Milk Comes from a Grieving Mother
Dairy is a Death Sentence
The “Humane” Animal Farming Myth

29h59’59 by Liu Qiang is on exhibition at the 798 Art District in Beijing, China
Photo by Ng Han Guan

VegNews: June Twitter Chat, Wednesday, June 20 @ 6pm PT/9pm ET

In honor of LGBT Pride Month, we’ll be talking with prominent gay animal-rights activists about the connection between both movements. Never participated in a Twitter Chat before? Don’t worry. We have a handy guide to explain it all. Join us at the hashtag #VegNewsChat. You don’t even need to have a Twitter account to enjoy the discussion.

Kaili Joy Gray @ Daily Kos: Safeway’s general counsel tells hilarious sexist joke at annual shareholder meeting

You can listen to the audio at the link above, but here’s a transcript for the a/v averse:

You know, this is the season when companies and other institutions are interested in enhancing their reputation and their image for the general public, and one of the institutions that’s doing this is the Secret Service, particularly after the calamity in Colombia. And among the instructions given to the Secret Service agents was to try to agree with the president more and support his decisions. And that led to this exchange that took place last week, when the president flew into the White House lawn and an agent greeted him at the helicopter.

The president was carrying two pigs under his arms and the Secret Service agents said, “Nice pigs, sir.”

And the president said, “These are not ordinary pigs, these are genuine Arkansas razorback hogs. I got one for former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and one for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

And the Secret Service agent said, “Excellent trade, sir.”

Women as livestock. Nonhuman animals as items of trade. Sexism and speciesism, the stuff of high comedy. TAKE MY LAWYER, PLEASE!

Fat Girl Posing: Vegans.. I need to talk to you..

This is a year-old piece about fat shaming in the vegan community that recently recirculated on Facebook. h/t to Emelda (I think).

The whole piece is worth a read, but here’s the excerpt I posted on FB:

So here’s your strategy, right? Animal products are full of fat and calories and, therefore, if you stop eating them you’ll lose weight.. so, market veganism as a diet or “lifestyle change” will bring more people to the movement by preying on their low self esteem and body hatred. While the strategy may work initially what do you intend to do when all the newbie veg’s don’t lose weight? Or when they lose it but then gain it back? As a diet, it fails, just like any other, and you’ve lost your pull. More so, you’ve become part of an industry which is cruel to animals.. specifically the human animal.

Word.

(More below the fold…)

You’ve been Post’D!

Thursday, August 6th, 2009

Question: What happens when the spirit of viral video meets journalism?

Answer: Trenchant hilariousness.

First, Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post give it a try:
 


 
Next up, two unnamed everydudes:
 

 

I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather have a beer with the everydudes. I’m not usually a fan of the bathrobed-at-2 PM look (and I write this from the comfort of my couch, in last night’s jammies, at 11 AM), but it sure beats smoking jackets and pipes.

(More below the fold…)

Virus, detected.

Thursday, September 4th, 2008

Last week, after receiving the umpteenth “Obama is a secret Muslim/chain smoker/Communist/reverse racist/serial liar/anti-Christ” from my father – all of which are easily debunked via Snopes, which he claims to do before forwarding to all – I asked him not-so-nicely to please stop with the racist/sexist/homophobic emails already; and, while we’re at it, please to stop sending me anything even remotely political, as we clearly have radically different views, and I’m not even planning to vote Obama anywho, as he’s not progressive enough for my hippie socialist ass.

A few days later, this arrived in my inbox.

—– Original Message —–
To: Kelly Garbato
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: FW: VIRUS WARNING!

—– Forwarded Message —-

Email Warning! –

If you get an e-mail with ‘Nude Photos of Sarah Palin’ in the subject line, do not open it. It might contain a virus.

If you get an e-mail with ‘Nude Photos of Hillary Clinton,’ do not open it.

It might contain nude photos of Hillary Clinton.

You know, the man has two daughters. I wonder if the thought even crosses his mind that this sort of misogynist garbage – i.e., that a woman’s worth lies solely in her fuckability – applies to us just as much as it does public figures such as Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

Oh, but wait, it’s just Hillary Clinton he has a problem with; I’m sure he doesn’t hate all women. And clearly this was meant as a compliment to the “lovely” Mrs. Palin; in fact, she should be flattered!

Not.

“Thanks for nothing, you phoney!”

Monday, August 4th, 2008

Ugh. Just, ugh.

It seems like another lifetime ago, but remember all the fuss about Michigan and Florida?

After those states held their primaries in violation of Democratic Party rules, the party cracked down on them and said their delegates would not have a voice at the national convention in Denver. Then in May, the rules committee agreed to let their delegates have half a vote each.

Now Senator Barack Obama, the party’s presumptive nominee, has asked the credentials committee to let the two states have full voting rights at the convention after all.

The request is likely to be granted since it comes from the all-but-certain nominee, who now controls the party apparatus. […]

The status of the two states was an explosive issue throughout much of the primary season. Back then, the Obama camp was on the other side, arguing that the two states broke the rules by moving up their primaries and should be punished.

His chief rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, had received more votes in both states but Mr. Obama had taken his name off the ballot in Michigan, and neither campaigned in Florida.

Mrs. Clinton had campaigned fiercely for the delegates in Florida and Michigan to be given full voting status, hoping this would legitimize their primaries, which in turn might bolster her argument that she had won more popular votes than Mr. Obama. Still, she trailed him in delegates, which is the standard by which the nominee is chosen.

What is there to say, really? Clinton’s attempt to seat Florida and Michigan’s delegates after initially agreeing that they wouldn’t count – and after it became clear that she needed them to win – was a huge plate of self-serving hypocrisy. As is Obama’s call to seat the delegates, after initially opposing Clinton’s efforts to do, now that he’s the presumptive nominee.

You know, now that their “votes” don’t. fucking. matter.

Back in January,

Barack Obama’s campaign manager says it seems like Clinton “will do or say anything to win an election.”

Rubber and glue, asshole. Rubber and glue.

Incidentally, it’s becoming harder and harder to paint McCain’s constant flip-flopping as a negative when Obama’s off doing more of the same. Grrrr….

No, this isn’t about Hillary Clinton.

Tuesday, June 10th, 2008

On that point, I think Howard Dean and I can agree. My anger at the Democratic Party has little to do with Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama, for that matter).

Rather, it’s about the misogyny directed at her – and, by extension, all women – from supposedly liberal, progressive and Democratic corners. It’s about the failure of Democrats – laypeople, pundits and politicos alike – to call out and denounce that shit instead of ignoring it at best.

So, fuck that. This is about me – and my place in this country, and in the party. Not just me, either, but all of us vagina-Americans, who had to suffer through the unchecked misogyny of the primaries. All of us shrill, bitchy, she-deviled, ugly, fat, cackling, uppity, emotional, hysterical, castrating Nurse Ratcheds. If that’s what you think of us, then why the fuck should we continue to support you?

Yeah, I know, I know. John McCain. Aboogaboogabooga. That’s a scary monster, right there. Which is probably why I’ll vote for Obama in November. But support your misogynist, opportunistic asses along the way? Fuck that noise.

Seriously, people, this isn’t a hard concept to grasp. If the Democratic Party wants the support of women (and other marginalized groups), then they’d better start acting as though they give a damn. That means treating us like real people with real human rights – not some inconvenient special interest group that must be placated every now and again.

Until then, please to stop sending me these hollow calls for unity? My lady bits can’t take much more prodding and provocation.

Offensive email after the jump; bolded emphasis is mine, underlined emphasis is Mr. Quinn’s.

(More below the fold…)

:: RAGE ::

Thursday, June 5th, 2008

Methinks I need a vacation from the internets. Sigh.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Democrats. com – activist@democrats.com
Date: Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:00 AM
Subject: We Are United For Change – Tell Your Friends!

It’s all over the news: Hillary Clinton will formally endorse Barack Obama on Friday and the campaign for the White House will begin.

This has been an amazing campaign. For the first time in American history, the leading candidates of the nation’s largest party included a woman, an Hispanic, and an African-American. As Democrats, we fully understood the deep prejudices against each, but we smashed those prejudices so we could find the very best candidate to lead our great Nation.

Incredibly, we may have realized Dr. Martin Luther King’s once-impossible dream for his children: to “one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

So now the campaign to take back the White House begins. And we will have to work from now until November to persuade the rest of America to join us in voting for change, however difficult that vote will be.

Let’s start today. Please join me in reaching out to 10 friends and relatives who want to end the disastrous Bush-Cheney-McCain era and start a new Democratic era to create good jobs, achieve energy independence, protect our planet, provide health care to all, end illegal torture and wiretapping, and bring our troops safely home.

If we come together as Democrats, progressives, independents, and thoughtful Republicans, we can win a sweeping victory in November and create a better future for ourselves, our children, and generations to come.

This is the most important election of our lives. Please join me today.

http://www.democrats.com/we-are-united-for-change

Bob Fertik

Dear Bob Fertik,

Your blinders, they sound lovely. Please to send me a pair?

Contemptuously,

A Vagina-Person

P.S. Why no mention of repealing the global gag rule, increased contraceptive access, better sex ed., the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, gay marriage, DOMA, Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, etc., in your laundry list of “yes we can”-isms? Is it because you consider women, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons “special interest” blocks to be thrown under the bus at the whim of the Democratic Party? That doesn’t sound much like “unity” to me, mmmmkay.

P.P.S. Courting the “thoughtful Republican” vote now, are ya? Pander to oxymorons much?

You’ve got to be kidding me.

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

Or, to paraphrase the ginormous comment thread over at Shakesville, :: RAGE! ::

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Jim Dean, Democracy for America – info@democracyforamerica.com
Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Subject: Coming together to win

Kelly –

I remember very well what it felt like when my brother Howard didn’t win the Democratic nomination in 2004. It hurt. I was angry. I found myself wondering how I could turn around and support a candidate who I had just spent over a year trying to defeat.

I can tell you, it wasn’t easy.

But as a community, we did it together. We reached out and inspired each other. We didn’t forget the past; we wore it as a badge of honor, and we never stopped working to take back America.

Last night, Barack Obama won the delegates necessary to become the Democratic Nominee. This historic victory is a testament to your hard work and dedication. We’re moving America forward into a new era of progressive leadership. And today, there are supporters of eight other Democratic presidential candidates who need our leadership to help them heal.

We must reach out. We must inspire and respect each other. We will bring the Democratic Party together for a unified victory in November.

Click here to sign the Unity Action Pledge with me. [ed: Will. Not. Link.]

The general election campaign starts today.

I challenge you to find 5 people, who supported a different candidate for the nomination, and bring them into our campaign.

John McCain does not represent the future of our country. He is business as usual in Washington DC. He is guided by special interests over the voters’ interests. He thinks diplomacy is a weakness and military might alone is a sound foreign policy. He stands against health care for all and he wants to continue George Bush’s economic policies.

John McCain will stay the course — the wrong course — in Iraq. That’s not change. That’s more of the same.

This election is bigger than one candidate or one campaign. There is too much at stake to fight against ourselves. Together, we’ll take our country back from failed leadership and insider politics.

Click here to sign the Unity Action Pledge.

Don’t wait another day to take action. We will win in November by working together now.

Thank you for everything you are doing to take our country back.

-Jim

Jim Dean
Chair
Democracy for America

Isn’t that special? Shorter Jim Dean: “We know you ladiez are pissy because your candidate didn’t win (or maybe you’re just all on the rag this week, who knows what wimmin are thinking, it’s not like God sticks instruction manuals in your vaginas!?!), but get in line, bitches!”

(More below the fold…)

Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary – AND ZOMG HER BREASTS!!!!1!!1!

Saturday, May 24th, 2008

You know, I wasn’t going to bother posting my review of Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary here; the book is an anthology of thirty essays, and I find it exceedingly difficult to review an anthology in 3,000 words or less. The “3,000 words or less” guideline is Amazon’s; I usually write my reviews for that site, since it’s actually a really effective way of advertising my blog. But lately they’ve turned into quite the pearl-clutchers. First they rejected my review of Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad because I was too mean to the book’s warmongering neocon author (and, even though I’ve rewritten it several times to their specifications, they have yet to post the fucking thing); then when I tried to submit my review of Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary, the misogynists edited out the word ‘breasts’. No, for real. “Breasts” is a naughty word, dontchaknow!

And, mind you, it’s not as though I was even attempting to use the word as a slur. Nor was it unrelated to the review: one of the essays in the book is titled “The Road to Cleavagegate: What Do We Want Female Power to Look Like?” By, erm, Robin Givhan. Yeah, that Robin Givhan. So the word “breasts”? Totally appropriate. But any mention of dirty lady bits is off-limits to Amazon. Sigh.

As I mentioned in a comment to my own review (let’s see how long it takes them to delete it),

In all their infinite wisdom (or should I say ‘pearl-clutching reactionism’?), the Amazon censors saw fit to edit out the word ‘breasts’. In a review of a book written by women, about a woman (and yes, her body parts), the word ‘breasts’ is apparently taboo, a naughty word. As a woman with breasts, I find it highly offensive that Amazon considers my anatomy to be a slur, even when the word isn’t used in such a manner. And to encounter such sexism in relation to a book about sexism? Ironic, that.

So here’s the review, unedited and followed by my comments. I think I’m pretty much done trying to write to their Puritanical standards. Maybe I’ll just start posting any future reviews here and we can play a nice game of “What will send the prudes at Amazon to their fainting couches next?”

I’d also like to point out that Library Thing never edits my reviews.

Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary

(More below the fold…)

Book Review: Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflections by Women Writers, Susan Morrison, ed. (2008)

Friday, May 23rd, 2008

The Pantsuit Makes the Woman?

four out of five stars

Whether you love Hillary or hate her, no doubt you’ve got a strong opinion about the woman. But the emotions evoked in you by Hillary Clinton probably speak less to Hillary’s character than to your underlying attitudes about strong, independent, self-reliant women. So goes the premise of THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY: REFLECTIONS BY WOMEN WRITERS. (And, um, pretty much anyone who’s been overwhelmed by the misogyny and racism permeating this year’s election cycle, natch.)

In THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY, thirty prominent female journalistas wax poetic on what Hillary means to them. No aspect of Hillary’s life and character is too mundane or sacrosanct: everything from Hillary’s infamous pantsuits to her marriage to Bill (or “secret pact,” as some paranoid pundits might call it) and her every-changing coif goes under the microscope. As a result, some of the pieces are rather fluffy (Mimi Sheraton’s “How Hungry is Hillary?: Reading the Culinary Clues” and Susan Orlean’s “Political Animals: Is Hillary a Cat Person or a Dog Person?” spring to mind), but it’s all in good fun. In this vein, Patricia Marx’s satirical “From the 1965 Eyrie Yearbook” is especially entertaining; it reads like a transcript of an SNL segment. (Hello, Amy Polar!)

Most of the thirty essays, while entertaining, are far from frivolous. While many of the writers tackle seemingly trivial topics (pantsuits, hairstyles and surnames, oh my!), these are usually circuitous routes to grander points; the way in which changes in Hillary’s wardrobe correspond to her increasingly moderate (pandering?) political positions, for example, or what Hillary’s favorite books reveal about her child- and adulthood. The pieces of Hillary expounded upon by each individual author also say a great deal about that author; in “Hello, My Name Is…,” Cristina (no “H”!) Henriquez speaks eloquently about her conflicting identities as an Panamanian woman born and raised in America.

While I expected that most of the thirty essays would touch upon the misogyny that’s colored this campaign season, not all of the writers deal explicitly with the anti-woman backlash that Hillary inspires in so many men (and not a few women). However, there are a few great pieces on the subject, including an essay by the always-awesome Katha Pollitt (“Hillary Rotten: Sexist Sticks and Stones”) and must-read from Leslie Bennetts (“Beyond Gender: The Revenge of the Postmenopausal Woman”). Though I’m not familiar with all of the contributors, most seem somewhat feminist-minded, with the sole exception of Robin Givhan (“The Road to Cleavagegate: What Do We Want Female Power to Look Like?”). Givhan, you might recall, is the Washington Post reporter who “broke” the Cleavagegate “story.” (Scare quotes because it’s neither breaking nor a story. “This just in! Hillary Clinton, the female Senator from New York, HAS BREASTS! More on this shocking development at nine!”) She spends much of her essay defending her own misogyny, arguing that it’s perfectly a-ok to judge Hillary – and, by extension, all women – on her physical appearance. What’s next, repenting to the Fashion Gods for wearing scrunchies and headbands after 1991? I don’t agree wholeheartedly with every sentiment expressed in THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY, but Givhan’s was the only essay that truly strikes me as out of place.

The other twenty-nine essays, on the other hand, represent a diverse and enjoyable read. At the end of the book, I found myself wistful for ’70s Hillary, in all her radfem blamer glory. 2008 Hillary, not so much.

Full disclosure: I voted for Kucinich in the primaries. I’m not crazy about Hillary or Barack, but I’ll most likely vote for the Democratic nominee in November. Unless it comes out that Barack eats puppies or Hillary is a closet Ann Coulter fan. And, for the record, I’m disgusted with the misogyny and racism emanating from either side of the Dem aisle.

P.S. Dear Mimi Sheraton – If your Boca Burgers resemble “miserably limp, grassy-tasting little disks that might be produced by Rubbermaid,” then you’re doing it wrong. Unless you’re rubbing defrosted Boca Burgers on your lawn, ain’t no way they come out tasting like grass. As for the so-called “limpness,” the only time I’ve cooked up a limp Boca Burger is by over- or under-cooking it in the microwave. Grilling and pan-frying them, not so much. So stop hating on the Boca Burgers when it’s clearly the cook’s fault. (Yeah, I’m a vegan. What of it?)

(This review was originally published on Amazon and Library Thing, and is also available on Goodreads. Please click through and vote it helpful if you think it so!)

Give me "limp grass" over E. coli and downer cows any day.

Sunday, May 18th, 2008

Currently on my reading list is Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary, among other titles. I’m about halfway through the 30 essays, and it’s a fairly interesting collection – all by women writers – reflecting on the juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton. There are a few pieces I don’t agree wholeheartedly with, but nothing patently offensive. That is, until I stumbled upon this throwaway bit of anti-veg*n sentiment. Or maybe it’s just culinary ignorance. Either way, it annoyed the craps outta me.

In “How Hungry is Hillary?: Reading the Culinary Cues,” Mimi Sheraton tries to nail down the “real Hillary” based on her food choices. Maybe it’s a silly exercise, but no less fluffy than Susan Orlean’s attempt to define Hillary vis-à-vis her choice of pets companion animals in child- and adulthood (“Political Animals: Is Hillary a Cat Person or a Dog Person?”). Some of the essays are like that. Anyway, it’s all fun and games until she hates on Boca Burgers.

Next I interviewed Walter Scheib, who worked as the White House chef for the Clintons (and, briefly, for the second Bushes). Scheib recently published a cookbook memoir, White House Chef, which offers many clues to Hillary’s preferences. Had she ever asked for an olive burger or a Hillary burger, I asked?

“No, but I always kept Boca Burgers in the freezer,” he said, referring to a brand of soy protein patties. “She liked them for snacking.” When I obtained some Boca Burgers and pan-grilled them, as directed, they turned out to be miserably limp, grassy-tasting little disks that might be produced by Rubbermaid. Asked what he thought of them, Scheib replied, “I and my cooks figured they’d be okay if you added lots of cheese and bacon.” Not to mention a half-bottle of ketchup and maybe a soupçon of Dijon.

OK, firstly, I love how she feels the need to explain what a Boca Burger is, as though it’s some weird new pseudo-product à la Hufu. I mean, I thought that surely “Boca Burgers” had entered the American lexicon years ago, along with Tofurky, soy milk and the like. And then there’s the whole matter of hunting them down, as though they’re not available, um, everywhere. Seriously, we buy econo-packs at Sam’s Club, ferchrissakes!

Finally, the criticism: miserably limp, grassy-tasting little disks that might be produced by Rubbermaid. Unless she’s rubbing defrosted Boca Burgers on her lawn, ain’t no way they come out tasting like grass. As for the so-called “limpness,” the only time I’ve cooked up a limp Boca Burger is by over- or under-cooking it in the microwave. Grilling and pan-frying them, not so much.

And, erm, do I really need to point out how counterproductive it is to garnish Boca Burgers with bacon and cheese? St00pid.

Then again, Sheraton later quotes Ann Althouse in an approving manner, so I really shouldn’t be all that surprised.

In short, if you find yourself reading Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary, particularly Mimi Sheraton’s “How Hungry is Hillary?: Reading the Culinary Cues,” do not believe the omni talking points! Boca Burgers are awesomely yummy, life-sustaining foodstuffs. They protect against global warming, antibiotic resistance, BSE, E. coli, cancer, heart disease, human cruelty and indifference, and deforestation. They are peace on a plate and I love them, usually to the tune of one a day.

Did I also mention that I am a super-lazy cook?

Boca Burgers don’t judge, either.

What Barack said.

Monday, May 5th, 2008

Campaigning in Durham, North Carolina this morning, Obama p0wned Hillary re: her parroting of McCain’s supercilious “gas tax holiday” idea:

Senator McCain was the first one to propose a gas tax holiday. And then Senator Clinton immediately said, “Me, too.” And most of you probably have been reading the reports, if we suspended the gas tax for three months, as they propose, the most you could hope for would be a 30-cent-a-day savings for a grand total of $28 for the entire summer. That would be the savings best case scenario that you would get. But the fact is we tried this back in Illinois, back in 2000, and it’s been proposed in the past. And other states have done it. And typically, what happens is you eliminate the gas tax, and the oil companies simply make up the difference. They fill the gap. They stop up whatever perceived savings the consumers might have.

You’re paying the same amount of gas except now we no longer have the money going into the highway trust fund that builds our roads and our bridges, keeps us safe and puts thousands of people here in North Carolina to work. It’s a shell game.

Seriously, Hills, wtf are you thinking?!

Related: The green Democrat’s choice; Obama or Clinton: who’s greener? on Grist

(Crossposted from.)

——————–

Tagged:

Dear peoples, including but not limited to Hillary Clinton:

Saturday, April 26th, 2008

Hunting is not “fun” or “enjoyable“, nor is it a “sport”;

If hunting was just about honing your shooting skills – challenging yourself, your aim, steadiness and sight – and hitting a target (stationary or not), then you could shoot at non-sentient targets – pieces of paper, bottles, clay discs.

If hunting was just about the joy of tracking, finding and surprising an animal in its natural habitat, you could shoot your targets with a camera.

But it’s not, so you don’t.

Hunting is about asserting your power over the less powerful, about dominating “others”, about getting your rocks off through sadism, in a legally and culturally sanctioned way.

It’s about taking your lack of power out on creatures less powerful than yourself. What better way to relax at the end of a long workweek than to gun down unsuspecting woodland creatures, all the while pushing thoughts of the abuses inflicted on you by the evil megatheocorporatocracy to the back of your mind.

Hunting isn’t about “having a good time”; it’s about exerting control when you might otherwise have none (or less so) at the expense of others. It’s about lashing out at those with less voice than your own, much like so many forms of human-on-human violence that we abhor today.

But Hillary, you’re right when you say that hunting is “part of culture…part of a way of life.”

Spousal abuse, child abuse, hate crimes against racial, ethnic, and sexual/gender minorities; all used to be “part of [our] culture…part of [the American] way of life”, yet time has proven(or perhaps more accurately, is proving) them barbaric, inhumane, unacceptable.

Like these, hunting will one day be seen as the patriarchal pathology it is.

That is all.

(Crossposted on.)

———————

Tagged:

It’s like the bitch read my mind.

Monday, April 14th, 2008

Or perhaps we’re just of the same mind, seeing as we both have cooters and all.

Either way, I’m not alone in sensing some overt misogyny in all this Hillary bashing:

Dana Lossia, a 29-year-old labor lawyer in Brooklyn, describes herself as a “pretty big Obama supporter. ” She worked for a year at Michelle Obama’s Public Allies Chicago, where she met Barack a few times. She called him “the most inspiring, amazing person, a different kind of politician.” Of Hillary Clinton, whom Lossia supported in her Senate runs, Lossia said, “I just think she’s acted badly during this campaign.”

And yet, as Lossia wrote in a recent e-mail, “I’ve been really bothered by what I perceive as sexism [among some male Obama supporters] and have spent hours defending [Clinton] … A lot of guys just can’t stand Hillary, and it’s the intensity of their irritation with her that disturbs me more than their devotion to Obama.”

I tried explaining this to the libertarian douchebag the other night, and it devolved into a three-hour argument. Which is part of the reason I’m henceforth referring to him as “the libertarian douchebag” rather than “Shane”. (Ahem.)

Rebecca Traister writes,

I began reporting this story in part because, as a 32-year-old woman who is more liberal than either candidate, and who was quite torn until Super Tuesday, I had found myself increasingly defensive of Clinton in the face of the Obama worship that rules the mostly white, liberal, well-educated circles in which I work and travel. I was confused by the saucer-eyed, unquestioning devotion shown by my formerly cynical cohorts, especially when it was accompanied, as it often was, by a sharp renunciation of Hillary Clinton, whose policies are so similar to her opponent’s. I was horrified by the frequent proclamations that if Obama did not win the nomination, his supporters would abstain from voting in the general election, or even vote for John McCain. […]

One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she’d had with a politically progressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton’s policies before adding that when he hears the senator’s voice, he’s overcome by an urge to punch her in the face.

Yeah, no misogyny there. You bitches be crazy, yo!

Go read the whole thing, then skip on over to Shakespeare’s Sister for a great piece by Kate, detailing the many ways in which Obama is Not! A! Fucking! Progressive!

I went out of my way not to watch CNN’s dreadful Compassion Forum last night, but the one clip I did see rerun today was a question on when life begins.

First up is Obama; the CNN reruns apparently represent his answer in its entirety, judging from the transcripts:

MEACHAM: Senator, do you personally believe that life begins at conception? And if not, when does it begin?

OBAMA: This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question. What I know, as I’ve said before, is that there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that that has a moral weight to it that we take into consideration when we’re having these debates.

Bah. I am not impressed. At best, his answer sounds like pandering; however, given what the man has said about the anti-choice position (see Kate’s piece, linked above), Obama sounds like he’s willing to trade women’s bodily autonomy for moderate support come general election time. And beyond, Dog help us. Shudder.

Now for Clinton, whose explanation is much longer. Consequently, the CNN clip I saw only included the first two-three paragraphs, below.

(More below the fold…)

I’d rather be an elitist than a sadist.*

Monday, April 14th, 2008

One of my least favorite things about presidential elections – aside from the bitter partisanship, the misogyny and racism, the fear of additional conservative Supreme Court Justices, and the loss of my very personhood, of course – is all the dogdamn pandering to the redneck hunting lobby. (C’mon, like anyone took this seriously. Pffft!)

This cycle, it’s Hillary who’s selling out her humanity for the “sportsmen’s” murderer’s vote. Clinton’s comments of this morning, made in response to Obama’s comments of April 6, are what set me off, but in searching for the exact quote on teh internets, I found quite a few references to her Duck Hunter days. (See, I can condemn the misogyny directed at Hillary without blindly throwing her my vagina vote. Nay, nay, nay boiz!)

Here’s Clinton on February 18:

“I’ve hunted. My father taught me how to shoot,” she told a crowd at the Labor Temple in rural northern Wisconsin. “I remember standing in the cold water. It was so cold, you know, at first light. I was with a bunch of my friends, all men.

“And they all were playing a trick on me, and said, ‘We’re not going to shoot, you shoot,’ ’cause you know what they wanted to do. They wanted to embarrass me.

“So the pressure was on. So I shot, and I shot a banded duck.”

Awww! Isn’t that special. I think I’ll vote for her, because she’s snuffed out at least one life in the name of sport. She’ll be perfect to take over the war in Iraq!

(More below the fold…)

Book Review: Hillarious: The Wacky Wit, Wisdom and Wonderment of Hillary Rodham-Clinton, George Grant (1992)

Sunday, March 2nd, 2008

Retro Right Wing LOLZ: Not So LOL-y.

one out of five stars

HILLARIOUS: THE WACKY WIT, WISDOM & WONDERMENT OF HILLARY RODHAM-CLINTON sure is hilarious, though probably not in the way “author” George Grant intended. Rather than lol-ing over Ms. Clinton’s “wackiness”, I found myself laughing over the effort Grant boasts he put into this sad attempt at right wing humor.

To wit: “‘It is crucial that we be able to find humor in the doings of the modern world,’ the great wag G.K. Chesterton once remarked. ‘It is a profound testament to our confidence in providence that we be able to acknowledge the sheer absurdity in the things of fallen creation. This is not a spirit of meanness, rather it is a sober-minded recognition that if a thing is not right, it is silly as well as wicked…this is our apologia, not our apology.’ I must confess that I never fully understood what he meant by that remarkable epistemological quip until I experienced the wild ride of this project. Thankfully, I had a number of kind-hearted souls who helped me see the lighter side of these dark and dire days – and thus made this book possible.

“Several friends – old and new – scoured the countryside to help me gather the necessary research and pull together the necessary resources. Mary Jane Morris, Jerry and Linda Bowyer, Bruce Tippery, Bob Pambianco, Michael Skaggs, John Gissy, and Clark Eberly selflessly combed the files, manned the phones, loaded the faxes, scanned the microfiche, and ran the copiers – all gratis and at a furious pace. Stacy and Coby Owens dropped everything and performed yeoman’s duty for me by excavating sundry arcane and esoteric absurdia on a moment’s notice.” (And on and on and on.)

Only in the mind of a fundie Christian conservative would a hundred page book consisting mostly of quotes be considered a “wild ride.” Man the phones? Load the faxes? Scan the microfiche? Yeah, compiling quotes from Newsweek is one tough job. Lawdy knows how the fearless George Grant survived that crazy week in July 1992! I bet the man – now surely a first-class chickenhawk – still has nightmares about the ordeal.

In all seriousness, Grant wrote just 30 pages of original text (set in 12-point font, mind you) for this book, while the rest of the volume consists of supposedly silly, hypocritical, or downright stupid Hillary Clinton quotes. One per page (or maybe two, for the lengthier ones). Set in 14-point font. I put more work into my HIGH SCHOOL senior thesis.

The Hillary Clinton quotes Grant chooses to include have me wishing for the days when Clinton was a true, non-pandering, unabashed liberal. Perhaps then I’d be more excited about her 2008 presidential campaign. (I voted for Dennis Kucinch in the Democratic primary.)

At least half of the quotes concern Hillary’s support for children’s rights; given that Grant opens each chapter with a Biblical verse, this fixation probably stems from his paranoid fear that Planned Parenthood wants to force abortions on the daughters of God-fearing Republicans. I wonder whether parents such as these – i.e., Christians who think they ought to be able to force their pregnant daughters to give birth against their will – also hold the “rights” of religious minorities in such high regard. Should Christian Scientists be able to refuse medical treatment for their children, even if the consequence is death? Is it the Mormon father’s right to marry his girls off to much older polygamist men? Is it ok for Muslim fathers to kill daughters who have dishonored the family? All of this happens routinely, both in the United States and elsewhere, and is exactly why children’s rights laws, such as those envision by Ms. Clinton, are a good effin’ idea. Daddy doesn’t always know best, nor does he always act with his children’s best interests in mind.

The rest of HILLARIOUS follows this same line of logic: Feminists are out to destroy the family! ZOMG, working women are destroying the family! The liberals want to steal your kids and destroy your family! These crazy socialists want to steal your money, give it to brown people, and destroy your family! The American family is under attack! Oh noes!

HILLARIOUS is at once both hilarious and sad: hilarious in that such progressive ideas send Grant to his fainting couch in a tizzy, and sad inasmuch as, 16 years later, Hillary is more Republican lite than radical liberal progressive.

Oh, and the pictures kick it. Hill was one groovy hippie back in the day.

By way of a disclaimer, I should note that I picked this up at a library book sale ages ago, and started flipping through it the other day while loafing ’round the house with nothing better to do. It occupied me for about 20 minutes, half of which was spent writing this review. Don’t pay more than 5 cents for a copy, is what I’m saying.

(This review was originally published on Amazon and Library Thing, and is also available on Goodreads. Please click through and vote it helpful if you think it so!)

Remembering Molly Ivins

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

I will not support Hillary Clinton for president
January 20, 2006

AUSTIN, Texas — I’d like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

The recent death of Gene McCarthy reminded me of a lesson I spent a long, long time unlearning, so now I have to re-learn it. It’s about political courage and heroes, and when a country is desperate for leadership. There are times when regular politics will not do, and this is one of those times. There are times a country is so tired of bull that only the truth can provide relief.

If no one in conventional-wisdom politics has the courage to speak up and say what needs to be said, then you go out and find some obscure junior senator from Minnesota with the guts to do it. In 1968, Gene McCarthy was the little boy who said out loud, “Look, the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.” Bobby Kennedy — rough, tough Bobby Kennedy — didn’t do it. Just this quiet man trained by Benedictines who liked to quote poetry.

What kind of courage does it take, for mercy’s sake? The majority of the American people (55 percent) think the war in Iraq is a mistake and that we should get out. The majority (65 percent) of the American people want single-payer health care and are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The majority (86 percent) of the American people favor raising the minimum wage. The majority of the American people (60 percent) favor repealing Bush’s tax cuts, or at least those that go only to the rich. The majority (66 percent) wants to reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending, but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

The majority (77 percent) thinks we should do “whatever it takes” to protect the environment. The majority (87 percent) thinks big oil companies are gouging consumers and would support a windfall profits tax. That is the center, you fools. WHO ARE YOU AFRAID OF?

Go read the whole thing here. Tributes abound ’round the internets; try here, and here, and here.