The One...
That's what.
Accomplishments to date:
Bush's Obama's blessing.
Bush's Obama's blessing.
Bush's Obama's blessing.
Bush's Obama's blessing.
Impressive, eh?
Too bad nobody bothered to ask "The One what?"
Americanized Euroweenie journalist Helena Cobban is in full grovelling apology mode over at TPM Café:
Congratulations to my Iraqi friends on the occasion of the significant (if not quite total) withdrawal of US military occupation rule from your cities and towns that took place yesterday according to the November 2008 Withdrawal Agreement between our two governments.
I wish you all the very best as you continue working to reconstruct lives, communities, and a nation that have been harmed very severely indeed by the actions and decisions of my government and its military (as well as by others.)
I am so sorry that we in the peace movement were unable to prevent the disastrous (and lie-based) decision our government took to invade your country in 2003. We tried, but we were not strong enough.
I hope that the rest of the US withdrawal, as mandated in the Withdrawal Agreement, goes ahead smoothly.
I hope, additionally, that we in the US peace movement can work effectively with our fellow citizens here to persuade our government to pay due reparations to your country for the harm we have caused you-- though of course many of these harms can never be adequately "repaired." The 600,000-plus Iraqi citizens killed by and as a result of the US invasion and occupation cannot be brought back to life. I mourn the loss of their lives and send compassion and love to the family members and friends they left behind.
My goodness. That's a boatload of emotions Helena's getting off her chest: We're talkin' guilt, sorrow, weakness, mourning, compassion and love. Whew. Anyone for therapy?
Anyway, Helena goes on to note more occupational cruelness:
As we Americans withdraw our military occupation regime from Iraq, we must equally work to ensure that Israel, a state to which we have given-- and continue to give-- an extraordinary level of all kinds of support, likewise speedily ends the military occupation regime that it has maintained for 42 years over the residents of the non-Israeli territories of the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan; and that it withdraws its troops from those areas back inside its own borders.
The US has committed many bad--indeed, under international law, illegal-- acts during its six years of occupation so far in Iraq. These included the mass detentions and the major abuses in the detention facilities; the complete (and quite illegal) transformation of the political and economic order in the country; use of excessive force in numerous military engagements; and so on.
However, one violation of international law it did not commit was to seek to implant its own citizens as settlers inside Iraq.
That's not entirely true. The Bush Administration was - secretly - in negotiations to swap Detroit for Fallujah, but the Iraqis backed out when they realized Detroit was the less secure of the two cities. That and the fact the Iraqis wouldn't take Kwame Kilpatrick and Monica Conyers for any amount of money. But that's neither here nor there. Helena continues:
During Israel's 42-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza it has committed all or nearly all of the same abuses the US committed in Iraq. (Including, after the free and fair Palestinian election of January 2006, it decided to work to overthrow the results of that election; and outrageously, it received full backing from Washington in that endeavor.) But in addition to all those violations of international law, successive Israeli governments since 1967 have also worked systematically to implant large numbers of their own citizens into the occupied areas.
This has constituted a major and ongoing infraction of the natural rights of the Palestinians and the Golani Syrians to the free use of their own land's resources. It has also made the act of withdrawing from the occupied areas, as international law stipulates must happen, that much harder for any Israeli government to contemplate. But that is the fault of all those Israeli citizens who for 42 years now have participated in, profited from, supported, or condoned the settlers' project. Now, Israelis need to take the settlers back into their own country.
Well, that's the extent of Helena's occupational blame for the ol' U.S. of A.: Iraq and (by proxy) the West Bank and Gaza. But wait...
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that Helena seems to have forgotten that there are more than a few U.S. troops firing ordnance in Afghanistan? Why doesn't that count?
I'd suggest that it's likely that since President Obama is presently pursuing the occupation of Afghanistan with a certain amount of gusto (if, indeed, one can accuse President Obama of possessing gusto at all), Helena has decided that Afghanistan has be erased from current editions of The Progressive's World Atlas.
After all, it is unwritten Progressive/Liberal/Democratic Law that President Obama cannot be criticized when doing his dead-on impersonation of warmonger George W. Bush.
And I'll bet dollars to donuts that Helena probably still can't figure out why the "Peace Movement" (remember them?) is too weak to ever get anything useful done.
Comments are open: Let the excuse-mongering, contextualizing and blame transference begin!
This is Michael Steele's favorite, as it should appeal to the youth vote:
1,463) I can keep my cock in my pocket.
1,462) I walk my cock; my cock does not walk me.
One of the most endearing aspects of today's femnist movement is the joy of watching femnism's leading lights ditch their femnist principles whenever they feel it to be necessary (or convenient). For example...
Feministing's Jessica Valenti spilled barrels of ink and wrote thousands of words denouncing traditional weddings as yet another oppressive contrivance of The Patriarchy... Until, of course, it came time to get married herself. That, it seems, was different. Jessica, it turns out, could have a traditional, by-the-books Patriarchal wedding without compromising herself or her femnist principles. All it took was an slightly off-white wedding dress and providing wedding guests the opportunity to make donations to the politically correct charity of their choice.
Violà! Problem solved.
In a similar vein, Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte can't seem to go more than a day or two without denouncing The Patriarchy for subjecting womyn to all sorts of oppressions, humiliations and degradations. However, when her choice for President - John Edwards - managed to get himself caught fathering a bastard child with some new-age featherhead while his cancer-stricken wife battled for her life, Amanda stuck to her femnist guns and decided that in this case, a man cheating on his terminally ill wife simply wasn't any of her business.
Take that, Patriarchy!
Now along comes Beatrix Campbell, OBE. For those unfamiliar with the British version of the species, Campbell is a femnist. And not just any sort of femnist... She's a communist, lesbian, atheist, revolutionary femnist! And as such, one might be forgiven for thinking Campbell would refuse, with an appropriate show of revolutionary contempt, an offer of becoming an Officer of the British Empire. Right?
Not on your life!
It seems Beatrix Campbell managed to find a way to both accept recognition by the capitalist, heteronormative, Christian empire she's dedicated her life to overthrowing (that is, at least theoretically, what revolutionaries do, you know) and remain true to her femnist (and communist) principles. Her justification, published in The Guardian, is an absolute howl:
Why I accepted my OBE
Being conferred a Queen's honour means my country needs me – a republican with politics rooted in Marxism and feminism
Once upon a time, a long time ago, I was chatted up by an intergalactic film star. "No, No, No," I said. "I love women, not men." "Yes, Yes, Yes," he insisted. It was one of those moments – apparently an offer I couldn't refuse.
I did refuse. But when I told my female friends, they all hollered: "You should have done it! Then you could have told us all about him!"
That moment came to mind recently when I was offered an OBE. This was an offer I didn't refuse. Not that refusal wasn't my first reaction. And I didn't accept it because I wanted to view the inside of a palace or see the shoes of the Queen or because I could give my nearest and dearest a day out and then dine out on it.
The OBE was conferred for service to equal opportunities. A noble reason. But it isn't even this. It's a signifier of something else – that a kind of radicalism is recognised as necessary.
My politics comes from Marxism and feminism; it's republican, it's gay and it's green. It isn't about "good works", but its works are all towards the good of society. And that can't be realised without the most radical transformations. It belongs to networks whose mission is to create ways to empower the most marginalised and to call power to account.
For sure, the political establishment has not adopted a benign tolerance for those who seek its undoing. But there is a recognition that the movements to transform relations between genders and generations and to confront the causes of inequality are indispensable.
This is not self-evident – the ethic of the last three decades of parliamentary politics has promoted the opposite, they are a riposte to the new social movements. And for all the hype about Blair's babes somehow signifying a new era of feminism-friendly governance, in its bones New Labour is misogynistic.
The survival of an honours system clothed in royalism and imperialism is a reproach to New Labour's craven sentiment about pomp and power. It's timidity about reforming the constitution and its indulgent accommodation of the monarchy encourages the belief that these institutions are somehow natural, that radical renewal is too painful – that powerful people's feelings would be hurt.
That creates a contradiction in moments like this. Looking at the community of great feminists who have been "gonged", there is a pattern of unyielding creative challenge. They're not ladies of a certain kind who've mellowed into sweet old girls – they're women who just don't give up, who've deployed their politics and their cleverness to change what can be known, what can be done, who we can be.
These gongs announce: their country needs them!
If there's a crisis about getting gonged, it is because the archaism of our constitution hails values that are inimical to the values being celebrated by the gong.
By clinging to symbols and rituals that belong to a cruel imperial order the government compromises the gonged.
You ask yourself the question: how can I accept anything from this horrible imperial regime?
And yet, getting gonged confers recognition of "citizens" contributions' to a good society – in my case equality – and the gesture affirms our necessity; the radicals – not the royalists – are the best of the British.
Want to know what sort of "radicalism" the capitalist, Christian Patriarchy considers necessary? The safe, self-satisfied, ineffectual sort, of course. In the U.S., Beatrix Campbell would be considered a "Suburban Marxist". I have no idea whether the terms fully translates to English Types; perhaps they have their own special term for the likes of Beatrix Campbell.
It's worth noting that Campbell's justification for taking the OBE has met with widespread derision amongst The Guardian's readership. Here are a few of the more interesting comments, and remember, the typical Guardian reader ain't the British equivalent of your typical Fox News watcher:
Dear God......good thing I haven't eaten in the last hour or two.
The ancient Order of the Brown Nose.
So you have joined an exclusive group for service to equal opportunities. Was the irony lost on you?
Look lady, did you want the OBE or not? You took it so I guess you did. Actions speak louder than words...
You can't be republican and marxist and accept a gong... you just can't! It really really is jaw-droppingly hypocritical... and there's no way you can spin it Bea...
I think I know why you really accepted. The day will come when the government announces some policy you disagree with, and you'll be able to huffily send the OBE back - and write a long, tortured piece for the Guardian about how you owed it to generations of persecuted women to Make A Statement. I predict it right here.
'It's a signifier of something else – that a kind of radicalism is recognised as necessary.' Or perhaps it's just that gay, green, marxist republicans aren't regarded as any real sort of threat to the establishment these days.
More confirmation of own personal maxim: Rebellion is a phase people pass through on their way to becoming traitors.
I never cease to be amazed at the Chinese Circus-style level of ideological contortionism these so-called "progressives" or "radicals" come up with whenever their egos are seduced by titles and honours from the very institutions they purport to reject - sometimes they even use their parents as an excuse, as in "Of course I would not accept such and such honour for myself, but for my mum/dad/nan/great-uncle/pet hamster etc etc...", while others like "Sir" David Hare simply say it was "his friends" who persuaded him to accept a knighthood - but of course darling, of course!
As a marxist and a republican, apols for being boring, there is no damn way can you have accepted this thing. There was a post a couple of months back when people were trying to defend Hobsbawn 'cause the Mail was being beastly about his gongs. Well in that instance (& prob for the only time ever) I actually agreed with the Mail. If Hobsbawn had stayed true to his claimed politics he would have refused the baubles of empire and reaction.
[Note: The commenter above is referring to British Marxist historian (and ardent communist) Eric Hobsbawm, who has never been particularly shy about accepting whatever prizes the capitalist plutocracy and/or empire threw his way, irrespective of his deeply held communist principles.]
Laugh-out-loud funny - we gotta bring da system down from within, innit! Oddly redeemed by Campbell's willingness to subject herself to well-deserved ridicule by penning this disingenuous nonsense in justification. Marxist my arse.
This is the funniest thing I have read in the GUARDIAN in YEARS!! Probably you really accepted the gong because on some perhaps subconscious level you realize how much monarchy and empire have done for you, yours, and the rest of the planet . . . not the least is your establishment's comparatively benign attitude toward its adversaries. Millions, nay, billions, would be ecstatic to live under a cruel imperial order like yours ...
Being of a leftist persuasion myself, nothing makes me angrier than those who 'fight the power' until the 'power' dangles a ribbon and medal in front of them. Go on Beatrix, if you feel you need to be validated by the bourgeois state, feel free, but you have completely sold out. Did you know that amongst those who have refused an OBE is that well known marxist-feminist revolutionary Nigella Lawson? How come the daughter of a Conservative Chancellor can knock it back but you can't? Nothing worse than a left wing hypocrite.
Finally, there is this comment, quoting poet Benjamin Zephaniah - who refused the OBE when offered - which hits the nail on the head perfectly:
What Benjamin Zephaniah wrote in the Guardian rings even more true now:
There are many black writers who love OBEs, it makes them feel like they have made it. When it suits them, they embrace the struggle against the ruling class and the oppression they visit upon us, but then they join the oppressors' club. They are so easily seduced into the great house of Babylon known as the palace. For them, a wonderful time is meeting the Queen and bowing before her presence.
I was shocked to see how many of my fellow writers jumped at the opportunity to go to Buckingham Palace when the Queen had her "meet the writers day" on July 9 2002, and I laughed at the pathetic excuses writers gave for going. "I did it for my mum"; "I did it for my kids"; "I did it for the school"; "I did it for the people", etc. I have even heard black writers who have collected OBEs saying that it is "symbolic of how far we have come". Oh yes, I say, we've struggled so hard just to get a minute with the Queen and we are so very grateful - not.
I've never heard of a holder of the OBE openly criticising the monarchy. They are officially friends, and that's what this cool Britannia project is about. It gives OBEs to cool rock stars, successful businesswomen and blacks who would be militant in order to give the impression that it is inclusive. Then these rock stars, successful women, and ex-militants write to me with the OBE after their name as if I should be impressed.
One thing is clear, whether she be an American Third Wave or Classic British Lesbian Lefty, if you value your life, never stand between a femnist and what she wants for herself.
Ever.
Wow. Over at Feministing, we have Amanda Marcotte's long lost sister (or so you would think) writing about the similarities between femnism and animal rights. It's the sort of thing you can't make up:
I'll admit, this is a subject that I have been craving to post for quite some time now. Let me start off by introducing myself, this is my first post, although a true fan of feministing and an avid supporter of all things feminist, my interest and concentration in graduate school is more along the lines of animal rights, sociology of animals and ecofeminism, I have been a feminist probably since high school and an animal rightest since undergrad. It is only within the last few years that I started to really develop an passion in ecofeminism and the relationship between women's rights and animal rights. I write this post, because the more I learn about feminism and animal rights, it is obvious to me that a profound and deep correlation exists between both, although some feminists may argue otherwise.
Jesus. Another bimbo in grad school.
I wonder what an animal rightest is. Could it be an animal that has decided to become an anti-abortion neo-nazi skinhead? You can't get much righter than that, you know.
I write this entry because it is my passion to begin a deeper conversation with feminists [and others] about women's rights, animal rights and the interrelationship between the two. I am vegan and believe that my passion for "rights" in general encompasses all individuals, including those that are non-human or nature for that matter.
Nature is an individual? Who knew?
So is there a difference between us (women) and them (nonhuman animals)? This leading question is a profound cornerstone in many philosophical and social conversations. As a very proud feminist and vegan, it was always clear to me that there was a distinct connection between both feminism and vegetarianism. Throughout my career as a social activist, it has become increasingly fascinating that there are many feminists who are not vegetarian and vegetarians who are not feminists. In addition, there are many women who are part of the feminist movement, but not part of the animal rights movement and vice versa. Although, some individuals are not simultaneously part of both movements, the objective for both feminism and vegetarianism works to create a society that is equal for all living beings [and the environment], that is not oppressive and exploitative.
You know, I read the above paragraph and wonder just how much difference there is between a femnist and a cherrystone clam... At least in terms of higher brain functions.
Vegetarianism is deeply connected to the Women's Suffrage Movement. This connection illustrates a long desire for social equality for all (Leneman 1997). Many leaders in the Women's Suffragist Movement were vegetarian and advocates for other progressive movements (Leneman 1997) (George 1994). Vegetarianism is deeply connected to the Women's Suffrage Movement. This connection illustrates a long desire for social equality for all (Leneman 1997). Many leaders in the Women's Suffragist Movement were vegetarian and advocates for other progressive movements (Leneman 1997) (George 1994). Many women during this era made the connection between the killing of animals for food and the killing for fur. One woman, Maude Arncliffe- Sennett (1913) remarked on an advertisement of a model wearing a fur coat: "these women all seem to me hateful - they represent so much killing!"
"Many women during this era made the connection between the killing of animals for food and the killing for fur..." So did the neanderthals, sweetie, so I'm not sure it constitutes a bragging point.
Margaret Cousins was a woman heavily involved in the Vegetarian Movement and the Women's Suffrage Movement. When addressing the Vegetarian Society in 1907 she stressed that women should adopt a simple diet of grains/fruits/nuts to reduce the amount of time spent in the kitchen in preparing meat meals (Leneman 1997). Cousins declared that if women switched to a meatless diet they would have more time to think about social problems and use their intellectualism (Leneman 1997).
"Cousins declared that if women switched to a meatless diet they would have more time to think about social problems and use their intellectualism..."And it takes 100+ years of thinking about social problems and using their "intellectualism" to end up in grad school writing blogs about the interrelationship between womyn's rights and animal rights. How'd that work out, eh?
Women that were activists in the Vegetarian Movement also became advocates for the Anti-Vivisection Movement. Women were identifying the victimization of women and victimization of animals. "It [anti-vivisection movement] taught that if there is this kinship physically between all living creatures, surely responsibility rests upon us to see that these creatures, who have nerves as we have, who are made of the same flesh and blood as we are, who have minds differing from ours not in kind but in degree, should be protected, as far as in our power lies, from ill-treatment, cruelty, and abuse of every kind" (Louise Lind-af-Hageby 1913).
Where womyn being victimized by vivisectionists in 1913?
This historical connection is only one example regarding the interrelationship between woman and animals. There are other significant cultural influences that suggest a gendered relationship between these two populations. Carol J. Adams, author of "Sexual Politics of Meat" and "Pornography of Meat" illustrates this example better then I ever could ever explain, her works are a powerful resource to connect this relationship. She discusses that our language is a precursor to exploitation of women and animals.
God, you just knew she'd have to drag Carol Adams into this brainfart, didn't you?
Adams (1990) suggests a popular example when a woman has been victimized by a man, "I felt like a piece of meat" (Adams 1990: 53). The aforementioned phrase is used frequently by battered women and illustrates that they do not want to be treated in the terrible fashion that animals are treated. Women that are victimized by men experience feelings of exploitation and objectification. Using phrases as the latter indicate that animals are treated poorly and that women do not want to be treated in the same way. In regard to the victimization of women, they express that the killing experience for animals is equitable to the experience of rape or violence against women (Adams 1990).
The above paragraph qualifies as some of the worst writing I have ever seen out of anyone not named Amanda Marcotte. It takes a special sort of talent to fuck up a paraphrase of Carol Adams.
Finally, the feminist movement and animal rights movement signify the values of equality, justice, and rights. However, I write this piece because it is continuously perplexing to me that these movements do not come together in "mainstream" activism (albeit ecofeminism does this). This "joint movement" could assist in creating an equal society for all oppressed individuals.
What sort of value, exactly, is a right?
The purpose of this entry was a small sample of one my interests, in which I hope to begin a positive conversation about this subject with the feministing community. My questions to the community are: Do you believe that feminists should be vegetarian? Do you think that there is a strong interrelationship between women and animals?
And my questions to the community are as follows:
"Transparency? We don' need no steekin' transparency!"
"Um, what he said..."
Comments are open, so...
LET THE EXCUSE MONGERING BEGIN!!!
From the bowels of examiner.com (San Fransisco, of course, via Cleveland) comes this bit of dreck:
And you know what? Enviroweenies deserve the sort of wedding guest Patti Lew suggests you should be. Here's all you have to do...
1) Avoid snail mail. RSVP online or via phone if you can. This will save another piece of mail having to go through the system of being trucked and flown across the country and releasing carbon emissions.
Wedding invitations release carbon emissions? Who knew?
2) Try not to buy a gift off-registry. You want to make sure the wedding couple will truly enjoy and use the gift you give them, so pick from what you know they already want.
Especially if they want things like fireplace tool sets, large outdoor grills or a bolt-on turbo kit for their 4x4 monster truck.
3) Opt out of the extra gift wrapping if you’re having the wedding gift shipped. Not only will it save you an extra $5, the wedding couple will appreciate not having to deal with tossing out yet another box and spool of ribbon. Just think, most items already come in their own store packaging. If you get it gift wrapped, they’ll stick that into a gift box, and then stick the gift box into yet another box for shipping. Why ship one item in three boxes?
Nothing says thoughtfulness like sending that his-and-hers sex toy gift pack in the original packaging.
4) Give Green. Donate to a charity that’s meaningful to the couple, in their name. Or give a micro-loan through Kiva. You can make a loan in their name to the country they’ll be honeymooning in, or give them the power to change lives themselves with a Kiva gift certificate. Not only will the couple get the funds back to spend on something they like later — or use it to re-lend to someone else in need — but you’ll also be giving an impoverished entrepreneur a chance to succeed.
Nothing says "I'm a sanctimonious twat" like passing up buying someone a useable gift so you can send money to Al Gore so he can fly around the world 28 times this year. And didn't you just say not to buy off the registry?
5) Travel light. Carpool with other guests to the wedding site. (This is also great for arranging a designated driver.) If traveling, share a rental car, and don’t forget to choose a hybrid if you can.
Sure, rent a Toyota Prius and then try jamming four people and some luggage into it. That ought to guarantee everyone being in a pleasant mood upon arrival.
6) Stay in a green hotel. You can find listings for sustainable hotels at the Green Hotels Association and Environmentally Friendly Hotels sites.
Why not put a pup-tent in your Prius?
7) Hold onto your wine glass or drinking glass throughout the event and reuse it. If you’re going to have another round of the same drink, ask the bartender to just give you a refill instead of a brand new glass that they’ll have to wash. Also consider using the same glass for the champagne toast.
I dare anyone to suggest the above as a way of being "green" to a group of strangers. I'll lay out cold hard cash that you can't do it and either (a) keep a straight face, or (b) have at least one of the strangers laugh in your face.
8) Eat green. Pick the vegetarian option for your entree. According to the United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, meat is the number one cause of global warming. Raising animals for food generates more greenhouse-gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined — that includes all cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes in the world.
And if there isn't a vegetarian option, bring a pb&J sandwich and some carrot sticks so you can wave off the entree and show everyone what kind of enviroweenie you really are. Better yet, bring a casserole dish of organic tofu surpise so you can share...
9) Purchase carbon offsets for your transportation and lodging, and for your footprint at the wedding event itself. San Francisco based TerraPass and CarbonFund.org both have wedding specific carbon footprint calculators that you can use for you and whoever is in tow.
Lots of enviroweenies seem to have ungodly amounts of time on their hands. You have to think up this sort of nonsense.
10) _____________. Tip number ten is up to you. Share ways that you’ve been a green wedding guest by emailing patti@greenereverafter.com. The top ideas will be compiled and posted in a future Green Weddings article.
It would seem to me that number 10 could simply be that one skips the wedding altogether. Of course, if anyone tries out a couple of Patti's suggestions, there's an excellent chance they'll never be invited to a wedding again anyway. Problem solved!
Sentence #1:
It seems like this is the most obvious reason to someone like me, who lives in a town where there’s an endless array of quality, independent restaurants that offer the same medium-level prices and mixed drinks as the casual dining chains, but don’t suck so bad that you feel like you just had sex against a dumpster with your sworn enemy after you eat there.
66 words. Evidently Amanda has experience in the matter of having sex with a sworn enemy against a dumpster after either (a) eating at a casual dining chain restaurant, or (b) eating in the dumpster she was having sex against. The sentence isn't real clear on the matter, and as I wouldn't put either event past her, you'll have to decide for yourself.
Sentence #2:
I experimented with a review of Against Love by Laura Kipnis by putting the polemic up against a couple pop culture expressions of the widespread American resentment of marital monogamy---the fascination with the Obama marriage and bro comedies that work with the incorrect assumption that marital drudgery is something imposed on men by the all-powerful matriarchy.
58 or so words. How is fascination with the Obama marriage a manifestation of "widespread American resentment of marital monogamy"? The last time I checked the marriage there was only Barack and Michelle involved, and neither was complaining about the arrangement. Is everyone pissed off that they can't have Barack or Michelle for themselves, or what?
This Week's Special Grand Jury Prize For The Clearest Possible Expression Of The Virtual Certainty That Amanda's Best Chance For A Meaningful Long-Term Relationship Will Be With A Divorce Lawyer:
But the reality of American life is we aren’t encouraged to view marriage as we do any other relationship. With marriage, we’re told that you should live to hold the relationship together, and put endless amounts of time and effort into it, and the success of the relationship is gauged by whether you hold it together, not really whether it makes you happy.
This Week's Special Grand Jury Prize For The Second Clearest Possible Expression Of The Virtual Certainty That Amanda's Best Chance For A Meaningful Long-Term Relationship Will Be With A Divorce Lawyer:
The thread turned into a long digression about the concept that “marriages are hard work”, which I agreed with Kipnis is a depressing idea that, since it’s so widely believed across the country, is a major factor in why people rebel against marriage, primarily through cheating.
This Week's Special Grand Jury Prize For The Third Clearest Possible Expression Of The Virtual Certainty That Amanda's Best Chance For A Meaningful Long-Term Relationship Will Be With A Divorce Lawyer:
But in reality, Date Night is pushed not as a selfish pleasure you demand for yourself, but as something you must do for the good of the marriage. Because marriages are hard work. It’s a miserable contradiction, because Date Night sounds fun, but if you’re contextualizing it with work metaphors, it’s not so much fun. In addition, it’s undeniable that there’s so much pressure out there to work on your marriages because it’s considered an objectively horrible thing if marriages break up left and right.
Sentence #3:
Completely dumping the concept of monogamous relationships is probably beyond a lot of people, including myself, because there are a lot of benefits if you play your cards right.
29 words. "Play your cards right"? Warmth, thy name is Amanda.
This Week's Special Grand Jury Prize For The Most Bizarre Manifestation Of Amanda Marcotte's "I've Read Way Too Much Ann Landers" Induced Paranoia:
For instance, the Relationships Take Work mentality fucks people in two different directions. One, people are encouraged to stay with people who are obviously bad fits, because they think that all the problems that keep cropping up can be massaged out with more and more work. Two, we’re encouraged to negotiate on every little thing, because of both the Relationships Take Work mentality and the police state mentality.
"Police state mentality"? As an aside, at some point you'd think Amanda might twig onto the idea that if one actually put a bit of work into a relationship, one would discover those "obviously bad fits" prior to marriage...
Sentence #4:
After a week of reading wingnuts go into faux conniptions about the horror of feminists who are too occupied with domestic terrorism and real assaults on women’s rights to care about real issues, such as someone said something nasty about Michelle Malkin---something that is fine and downright clever when said about women who are ass-sucking anti-feminists, but of course is a grave violation of the foundation of feminism when said about a woman who hates other women---I thought it would be nice to honor the new levels of bad faith reached by wingnuts with a Friday Genius Ten.
101 words! Bingo!!! "Ass-sucking anti-feminists"?
Sentence #5:
Hard as it may be to believe, but the wingnut sense of entitlement reached new levels this week.
18 words. Has any other writer in the history of writing been more deserving of a cadre of very patient editors?
This Week's Grand Jury Prize For That Extra Special Touch Of Class We've Come To Expect From Amanda:
I’m not comfortable putting women who allow semen near their nethers without submitting to marriage or childbirth in the same category as adulterers.
That's a relief.
Sentence #6:
But it’s true that I think lying, and sleazing around like a pervert whose desire to control and whose voyeurism slide seamlessly into each other should not be banned by the government until that point where your voyeurism/control issues create a situation where you directly try to control a woman by stalking, harassment, or violence.
56 words. Try to make sense out of that hummer. I dare ya...
Sentence #7:
So, a mix of bitter men with personality issues that made it hard for them to charm a woman into sexual and domestic service, and they blame feminism for making it hard to nail someone down after a drunken mistake, naive kids, and people who’ve sold out their own selves to a strict patriarchy and resent anyone who hasn’t.
59 words. Mix it all together and what do you get? Another hummer, another dare.
This Week's Special "What The Fuck?" Moment Courtesy Of Amanda Marcotte:
Men and women’s interests dovetail pretty nicely on the subject of whether or not it’s moral for a woman to risk bearing a child every time she has sex.And both genders resoundingly believe that it is moral, even if they’re more afraid to say it quite like that then they are to praise pot-smoking as a fine way to spend their time.
This Week's Grand Jury Prize For This Week's Amanda Marcotte Deep Thought:
As far as pleasures go, sex should top the list of morality. True, like most things, it can be abused, but most of the time it’s a pleasure that doesn’t do anything bad to the environment, doesn’t hurt anyone else (and practiced correctly, improves at least one other person’s day), and, in the grand American tradition, is a healthful practice that should have a veneer of morality just for that, especially since conservatives and liberals agree that reaching your target heart rate on a regular basis is a valuable practice, if difficult to maintain in our sedentary society.
There you are, kids. Vote early, vote often. No prize this week, on account of Somali pirates brazenly hijacking a cargo ship full of genuine (made in China) Pandagon Vagina O' Death Combination Nail File and Bottle Openers off the wind-swept coast of Ohio.
This sort of thing could only happen in George W. Bush's Amerikkka, except that it didn't:
The Supreme Court today declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, a move that could effectively leave it to the Obama administration to resolve the long-controversial issue.
...........
In the "don't ask, don't tell" case, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration, which had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though Obama is on record as opposing it. The court thus spared the administration from having to defend in court a policy that the president eventually wants to abolish pending a review by the Pentagon.
The Obama Administration had to defend that particular policy? Really?
Pending a "review by the Pentagon"? Really?
Bullshit. Bull.Shit.
Had the Obama Administration wanted to, it could have sided with Capt. Pietrangelo and asked the court to declare it unconstitutional.
Or *gasp* Barack Obama could have actually ended DADT months ago, had he actually (a) a real commitment to the issue, and (b) a spine.
And...
The Pentagon began reviewing that policy during Bill Clinton's first term. There's nothing left to review, folks. Nothing! It's been fucking reviewed out the blow hole!
Honest.
And just how much attention did this development get from progressive/liberal/Democratic bloggers? How many of those same bloggers roundly condemned the President for his administration's actions in this case? On both counts, virtually none.
Yeah, I was shocked too.
"Hey, there's always next term... I guess."
Comments are open. Let the excuse mongering begin!
Why, dare we ask, would President Barack Obama nominate Phillip Mudd as intelligence chief for the Department of Homeland Security...
While at the same time running around the Middle East apologizing to anyone who will listen for "torture" committed during the Bush Administration?
Monday's Other Really Big Question Of The Day: Does anyone besides me wonder if General McChrystal enjoyed the Cairo speech?
If I seem less than completely enthusiastic about the Obama Administration's economic policies, it just might be because I have my doubts about Timmy Geithner.
The fact guy who's running Treasury, much of the banking industry, and large parts of the auto industry can easily be mistaken for...
Henry Spencer of Eraserhead doesn't instill much confidence in yours truly. The fact that he can't keep his taxes straight doesn't help.
First Da Raj ran out and hired himself Joe the Plumber, thinking this is the sort of thing people would cough up money for. What we discovered was this: A background in plumbing probably doesn't develop much of the skill set a successful journalist needs.
Then Da Raj ran out and hired him a negro to make fun of Barack Obama, thinking this is the sort of content people would pay for (especially once the Joe the Plumber craze died). What we discovered was this: Alfonzo Rachel is to comedy what Joe the Plumber was to journalism.
Now Da Raj is foisting some boob named Steven Crowder on the unsuspecting, in hopes of getting them to part with their hard-earned cash. What you will discover here is this: Steven Crowder is even more unfunny than Alfonzo Rachel, which is saying something.
What seems clear is this: It's time to buy Da Raj some paper slippers, a dribble cup and a lobster bib, 'cause he's out of it. Really out of it.
From Richard Murphy at Tax Research UK:
Do turkies vote for Chrsitmas?
We may never know if turkies vote from Chrsitmas, but we have confirmed that at least one turkey can't figure out how to use his blogging software's spelling checker.
From Jed Lewison at DailyKOS:
Sean Hannity once again proves that he's the guy who put the 'a' in moron, this time by pushing the bizarre myth that earlier this week President Obama called the U.S. "a Muslim nation."
Now Jed here uses a spelling checker - he calls it a dictionary - but unfortunately for him it was written by Joe Biden.
From Pam Geller at Atlas Shrugs:
Little did America know that Obama's objective would be a conversion of this nation to "the largest Muslim country in the world"
Do you get the sense that this earth shattering secret would have gone undiscovered if Pammycakes had been picked to be on Real Housewives of New York City?
From Paul Mirengoff at Powerline:
In her thesis, Sotomayor punctuated her radical nationalism by referring to the United States Congress as the "North American Congress" or the "mainland Congress."
Horrors. Next, Paul reveals that it was Sonia Sotomayor (hey, I spelled it right!) - not Tony - who killed Bernardo at the dance...
From Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish:
It's a wrenching testimony to the ordeal so many bi-national gay couples deal with - and to the bigotry and fear which conspire to tear so many families apart.
So who does he criticize? The Democratic President who's gone completely spineless on every major GLBT issue out there? Of course not... He raps Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, who never supported GLBT issues in the first place. Duh.
Sentence #1:
Because fuckheads who don’t know what they’re talking about are beginning to blather about how they think they know better than actual doctors about the realities of late term abortion, I thought I’d put up a video that we made explaining the facts.
43 words. If nothing else, Amanda once again demonstrates she is n if not restrained, respectful and tolerant. You really do have to wonder why the New York Times passed up the chance to pay money to print sentences such as the one above.
Sentence #2:
But you definitely see this situation with other MRAs, and in fact the fantasy of the submissive “foreign bride” (Which is the official term MRAs try to use when talking to feminists, in a weak attempt to blur the difference between mail order bride companies and just happening to meet and fall in love with someone of another nationality. But as the Baldwin joke shows, when MRAs feel like they’re in like-minded company, the old-fashioned terminology “mail order bride” comes right out.) has so much power precisely because the crippling bitterness is interfering with their social lives and their ability to get along with women at all.
108 words. If you substitute "Men's Rights Activists" for MRAs, it's 117. Yeah, I know she threw a period in there behind the parenthesis, but punctuation is about where Amanda's creativity ends. Besides, the sentence within the sentence isn't actually a complete sentence in and of itself... So it's a 100 worder according to both the rule book and the judges. It's been a long time since we've had one of these beauties, and personally, I'm hoping her expansionist tendencies continue.
Sentence #3:
Of course, it’s hard for those of us who deal with MRAs to muster up compassion, because their bitterness comes directly from having massive entitlement issues in the first place.
30 words. As opposed to femnists like Amanda, who are neither bitter nor burdened by feelings of entitlement...
Sentence #4:
The common element throughout MRA narratives is that they never even saw the divorce crumbling, and they feel like they had something taken from them without even getting a chance to make it right.
34 words. 37 with the MRA thingy. The embittered MRAs are embittered because they "never even saw the divorce crumbling"? Does this mean they are trapped in a loveless divorce? One devoid of meaning? Or does it mean the MRA and wife have remarried, thus ruining a perfectly happy divorce before counseling and therapy could make it right? Or could it just be that proofreading is the enemy?
This Week's Special Grand Jury Prize For The Obligatory Weekly Amanda Reference To The Male Member:
What’s interesting to me about this huge panic attack over Sotomayor, like Limbaugh claiming she’s a “racist” for daring to believe that she can be good at her job despite the lack of the pale-skinned penis in her pants, is how it’s blatantly predicated on the idea that there is no such thing as an intelligent Latina.
I don't recall Rush Limbaugh putting it quite that way...
Sentence #5:
My natural reaction is that someone who has never been considered anything less than a beauty has so much privilege that she needs to shut the fuck up about it and let the rest of womankind glory in the moral superiority of having once had braces or frizzy hair or a big ass or whatever.
55 words. Is Amanda guilty of "looks-ism" here? I thought judging womyn purely on the basis was the sole domain of The Patriarchy...
This Week's Special Grand Jury Prize For Insensitive Age-ism Combined With Spectacular Stupidity:
Being a stunner her whole life has concealed from Wurtzel the basic fact that everyone fucks, including those of us who aren’t eligible to be fashion models. Okay, that’s a little unfair---she does seem to also allow that if you lure a man into commitment with your beauty, he’ll hang around and keep on pronging you into your middle age, I guess silently suffering your fading looks. Though I honestly fail to see why said man would stick around. Truth is, many people stay sexually active well into their 80s. That’s a lot of fucking over a lifetime, and I’m more shocked that people don’t get bored and move onto new hobbies more than I am that they can still find each other attractive and exciting into their old age.
Nobody gets stupid in quite the same way as Amanda does.
Sentence #6:
For a long time, the conservative argument has been, “Vote for us and we’ll protect you from the rising tide of intellectuals, non-white people, gays, and women who don’t know their place. We know that you often feel small and unmanned just because you’re ignorant and fearful of difference, but we’re here to tell you that being ignorant and fearful are the marks of True Manhood. As proof, we have George Bush, who will show you the outline of his cock through a fighter pilot uniform, to show that he has one.”
93 words. Amanda seems quite penis-centric this week. Beyond that, just which conservatives made this particular argument?
Sentence #7:
Remember that a lot of Bush’s appeal was that he came from West Texas, which is supposed to be the heartland on acid.
23 words. The "heartland on acid" has a lot of appeal for Republicans? Who knew?
Sentence #8:
You’d think that sort of premise would have a narrow following, but it turns out that if you cobble together people who felt left out of the sexual revolution, the proudly stupid, the racists, and men who live in constant fear that someone’s going to find out that they’re actual pussies, you had enough to put together a coalition that won elections.
63 or so words. Lots of those very same people voted for Bush, Amanda... Then voted for Obama.
Sentence #9:
Conservative outrage over the article is unhelpful, since they aren’t in the habit of distinguishing between consensual sex and rape themselves, and often aggressively try to blur the distinction, which means they’re easily confused on the subject, even when they know they’re supposed to know the difference, because a cheap partisan gain is on the line.
56 words. Got that?
Sentence #10:
I didn’t see the [Playboy] piece when it came out, because I just wasn’t really in the mood, and less so when some wingnut on Twitter informed me that I needed to quit worrying about minor issues like murder and domestic terrorism, because someone said something nasty about Michelle Malkin, and since Michelle has helpfully tried to ruin my reputation and get me fired in the past, I need to drop everything I’m doing and attend to her defense immediately.
79 words. Actually, Amanda, it was a bit more than saying "something nasty". It had to do with raping ("hatefuck" was the precise term) women when men find them disagreeable on political issues. It would seem to me that if you were in the habit of properly distinguishing between consensual sex and rape, you'd know the difference and be less confused than you appear to be. But then again, cheap partisan gain is on the line, isn't it?
Sentence #10-A:
And by the way there, Lil Missy, if you had half a brain, you'd have realized half of what you write at Pandagon on any given day would get you blacklisted and/or fired by any halfway reputable political organization and/or mainstream media outlet, and you would have never taken the job with the Edwards campaign in the first place. Duh.
Sentence #10-B:
One more question for ya, Mandy: Given the fact that you write about blowjobs on a weekly basis and are in the habit of calling your political opponents "fuckhead", just what sort of reputation do you think you have to ruin?
This Week's Grand Jury Prize For Identification Of Super-Interesting Material One Can't Be Bothered To Read Much Of Because It's Super-Duper Long At 113 Pages And There Aren't Any Pictures And It's Full Of Bible Stuff And It Would Take Too Long To Scan Especially Because Battlestar Gallactica Is Coming On In Twenty Minutes...
A couple of weeks ago, I got my hands on the training manual for the courses that anti-choice group Justice For All uses in its courses. It’s 113 pages, so I only scanned in about a dozen, because there are only so many hours in the day, and most of the book is workbook stuff and scriptures. But it’s super-interesting stuff, and I wrote about what’s in it in the context of the assassination of Dr. Tiller.
Given just how important this instance of domestic terrorism was, you'd think Amanda could put in the time to reproduce the document in full, wouldn't you?
Sentence #11:
From watching them extensively (they set up their tables near where I live), I get the strong impression that they like targeting colleges because the women on college are who they believe their target audience to be---young, nubile girls whose young nubility is of utmost importance to anti-choicers, as Jessica Valenti has chronicled in The Purity Myth.
59 words. "Nubility"?
This Week's Grand Jury Prize For Complete Cluelessness...
The flaw in the first analogy should be obvious. Pinning the 9/11 attack on all Muslims is actually like pinning Roeder on all Christians. No one is doing this. What we are doing is looking directly at the movement he’s in, and holding them accountable. This is much closer to holding the Taliban responsible for 9/11. They may not have directly killed people, but they inculcated a specific ideology, set up training camps, built up a culture of violence, and shielded people who openly wanted to be terrorists.
Actually, there are a couple of flaws with Amanda's flaw. First of all, lots of people have spent the last 8 or so years trying to pin 9/11 on allMuslims. Ever heard of Robert Spencer? Pamela Geller? Charles Johnson? Roger L. Simon? Michelle Malkin? David Horowitz? Need I go on? Secondly, I think the appropriate organization for you to be mentioning in terms of responsibility for 9/11 is al-Qaeda, not the Taliban. But then again, that conclusion came from the 9/11 Commission, and what the Hell do they know, eh?
Vote early, vote often. This week's winner will receive a genuine autographed replica of the very easy to grow at home Andrew Sullivan Undulating Venus Bushtrap!
"Mmm... Nubile nubility..."
Here's Andrew Sullivan's post, in full, regarding the detainee suicide at Guantanamo earlier this week:
Another Suicide At Gitmo
By someone detained there since 2002. It's Obama's first on his watch. Five others have killed themselves. Countless more have gone on hunger strike only to be force-fed.
Anyone else struck by what is missing from this post?
Andrew Sullivan's increasingly desperate attempts to keep the fiction alive:
Christian Brose praises a New Republic profile of U.S. Ambassador Dan Fried, the man tasked with finding homes for Gitmo detainees. Brose then goes on:
What is dawning on the Obama administration is that, in the moral interest of closing Guantanamo, they'll have to cut some moral corners elsewhere. This is not a new idea, and it's what makes the prison dilemma so hard. Maybe those "assurances" and "monitoring mechanisms" will hold up. But it's very possible they won't, and to some degree the administration will just have to look the other way, or else Guantanamo will be open forever. Other moral corner-cutting might (and likely will) include holding more detainees in Bagram Air Base, or just killing more of them preemptively on the battlefield so as to avoid the whole problem of detention altogether, as Jack Goldsmith suggested this weekend in the Washington Post. There is no easy or morally straightforward answer.And this is the direct responsibility of the Bush administration. If they had made Gitmo a decent POW camp, instead of a torture factory, it would not have the ugly and dangerous symbolism it now has. Whatever moral corners Obama has to cut to remove this terrorist-recruiter and alliance-destroyer should be placed squarely at the feet of Cheney.
This is really pathetic.
First of all, why would this sort of thing be "dawning" on the Obama Administration at this late date? That's about as lame as it gets. None of the aforementioned problems requiring "moral" corner cutting are either new or obscure. Nor is there obscurity or surprise associated with the problems that have popped up with ending tribunals and indefinite detention, closing Guantanamo or moving/releasing detainees over the past month or so.
So just what is it that is going on here?
Well, the first thing that needs be mentioned is that President Obama has shown a spinelessness that in no way can be justified by the facts. Presidents are elected to lead. That often involves making tough decisions and taking political hits. The president hasn't shown he's willing to do either. And please, spare me the whole "the Republicans are scaremongering" thingy. Of course they are.
But you know what?
If Barack Obama had balls it wouldn't matter, now would it? He'd stand up, do the right thing, and take the hit like a man. That's what presidents are supposed to do. And the ugly truth is that's exactly why Dick Cheney is winning the argument on the issue of torture... He's shown that he has the balls to stand up for what he believes is right, irrespective of whether he actually is right.
But noticing out loud that President Obama has the backbone of an eclair simply isn't on the table for folks like Andrew Sullivan. He's too emotionally invested in the fiction that Barack Obama is still on the path to becoming The One. And for those of you who remember, this is exactly the manner Sullivan reacted back in the first two or so years of the Bush Administration. Back when Andy's mancrush was on W., he always found a way to excuse Bush breaking every pledge and promise he ever made. Now he's doing the same thing for Obama.
At what point to the President's supporters actually start holding him accountable? How long do progressives/leftists/Democrats think they can give Obama a pass before a certain percentage of the citizenry stops taking their positions on these issues seriously?
From Brian Williams, professional journalist and NBC anchor:
To be in the hallway when the president walks by with a handful of M&Ms, popping them in his mouth as he goes to visit his chief of staff -- it was unbelievable.
Christ, it's a good thing Mr. Obama eating twinkies or Brian would have required a change of underwear.
Why doesn't NBC just hire Miley Cyrus to do the news and be done with it.
