I've never bothered with doing a friday random ten list like all the cool kids, but reading Amanda's today I felt like I might finally jump on this band wagon.
A quick comment on why I never do this and always end up frustrated when I try to do this simplest of all blogging tasks: a good chunk of the music on my computer was copied to it from mix cds sans names and titles, so there are a whole lot of songs which I listen to all the time but don't quite remember the names of. So if one of those songs jumps into the mix, I am just skipping it which sucks since much of the cooler stuff I listen to comes from Mason's uncanny talent for finding obscure, amazing music. What ev, such is the price of laziness.
and one other comment is that I am feeling lazy, so I'm done capitalizing things, so my un capitalized things should not be taken as indicative of ill-will as they can be on other days.
anyway...
1) valentine's day - steve earle
2) love will tear us apart - kiki & herb
*skipped song from "songs for immortals" mix lauren made for me*
3) white chocolate tea - the childballads
4) la vacaloca - manu chao
*skipped song from "lisa's girl mix for mason"*
5) star man - seu jorge
6) independant woman pt.1 - elbow
7) that's what i say - ray charles
8) long vermont roads - levi fuller (magnetic fields cover)
9) glory - liz phair
and finally:
10) heaven's just a sin away - the kendalls
Friday, December 23, 2005
Monday, December 19, 2005
With Democrats like this, who needs republicans?
democratic state sen. r. edward houck of Fredricksburg, VA:'I can't always just vote my conscience and my convictions,'
If you aren't voting your concience or your convictions, you should probably ask yourself what you are voting. Perhaps like so many americans, 51% or so, you vote your bigotries and your fears.
Just go read the story this is linked to.
Get a fucking spine, asshole. You might ask Santa for a heart, too.
If you aren't voting your concience or your convictions, you should probably ask yourself what you are voting. Perhaps like so many americans, 51% or so, you vote your bigotries and your fears.
Just go read the story this is linked to.
Get a fucking spine, asshole. You might ask Santa for a heart, too.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
bloomberg is a fucking prick
So, yeah, it will cost the city a bazillion dollars if the transit workers strike and we will all have to walk everywhere (straight to the bar), but when the mta is raising fares, laying off workers and increasing delays by reducing maintainance crews. So no, I'm not sympathetic to the mta's management and the mayor has pissed me off more than a few times so fuck him.
City Seeks Stiff Fines for Workers And Transit Union if They Strike - New York Times
I want to leave work so I won't get started on bloomberg's sudden war on nightlife since the election. All you bastard hipsters that voted for the jerk remember that's what you voted for when the lights come on and cops enter the bar at your favorite LES/E'Vil watering hole.
City Seeks Stiff Fines for Workers And Transit Union if They Strike - New York Times
I want to leave work so I won't get started on bloomberg's sudden war on nightlife since the election. All you bastard hipsters that voted for the jerk remember that's what you voted for when the lights come on and cops enter the bar at your favorite LES/E'Vil watering hole.
mickey kaus is an idiot
you can tell you are in for some enlightenment when you see this at the top of a web page:Epater Les Breeders - If you don't see "Brokeback Mountain," are you�a bigot? By Mickey�Kaus
Uh, dude, if you don't want to see the movie, don't go see it. Not going to see it doesn't make you a bigot, acting like it is ridiculous to concider that there is a possiblity that the movie can be good enough to appeal to a broad audience without the whole story being about titty-fucking is what makes you a bigot. Don't give us your whole "I'll go see it because I am with it and open minded, I'm just saying I won't like it because I am such a such a heterostud" posturing. You just come across as more of a heterotard instead.
Some one points out the idiocy of his comments gently, so he says more idiotic things and misses the whole point because he is too busy being macho to bother to actually think:
"P.S.: Reader C. E., reacting to an earlier 'Brokeback' post, emails:
"If I follow your logic, I should be genetically repelled from such films as Out of Africa, The Princess Bride, The Notebook, Wuthering Heights, The Big Easy, and basically every Hollywood romance ever made except Brokeback Mountain because I couldn't possibly enjoy a story about people who are not like myself.
"Er, no. If a gay man, say, goes to see 'Wuthering Heights,' there is at least one romantic lead of the sex he's interested in! In 'Brokeback Mountain,' neither of the two romantic leads is of a sex I'm interested in. ... My wild hypothesis is that more people will go see a movie if it features an actor or actress they find attractive! If heterosexual men in heartland America don't flock to see 'Brokeback Mountain' it's not because they're bigoted. It's because they're heterosexual. 'Heterosexuals Attracted to Members of the Opposite Sex'--for those cultural critics wondering what a commerical disappointment for this much-heralded movie will Tell Us About America Today, there's your headline. ..."
One, it is stupid to posit that straight men only go to movies to stare at tits. There are movie made just for that and having someone attractive in a movie always makes it nicer, but the point is stupid. Particularly that if that is his argument, I have a hard time thinking that he won't find Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams attractive, both of whom look amazing and are involved in sex scenes. There is no lack of attractive folks of either sex. If he really wants to go with his "I'm a perv who only goes to the movies to look at the purty girls," he still has no reason based on that arguement to avoid the movie.
If you don't want to see the movie, just don't go. Nobody really cares until you start crowing about how breeders won't like it because straight men can only like something if there are pretty girls to look at and it's not because you are bigotted you just need boobs to look at or why would you go see it since you ain't no fag. The posturing is embarassing and tired.
The movie will do well because it is well done. It is a difficult movie and might be challenging to folks, but that is to its credit. Mickey, if it is so hard for you to understand how you could care about characters whose experience is not identical to yours, then maybe you need to be challenged and ask yourself why you are so resistant to the idea. And yeah, bigotry might be the name for it.
Uh, dude, if you don't want to see the movie, don't go see it. Not going to see it doesn't make you a bigot, acting like it is ridiculous to concider that there is a possiblity that the movie can be good enough to appeal to a broad audience without the whole story being about titty-fucking is what makes you a bigot. Don't give us your whole "I'll go see it because I am with it and open minded, I'm just saying I won't like it because I am such a such a heterostud" posturing. You just come across as more of a heterotard instead.
Some one points out the idiocy of his comments gently, so he says more idiotic things and misses the whole point because he is too busy being macho to bother to actually think:
"P.S.: Reader C. E., reacting to an earlier 'Brokeback' post, emails:
"If I follow your logic, I should be genetically repelled from such films as Out of Africa, The Princess Bride, The Notebook, Wuthering Heights, The Big Easy, and basically every Hollywood romance ever made except Brokeback Mountain because I couldn't possibly enjoy a story about people who are not like myself.
"Er, no. If a gay man, say, goes to see 'Wuthering Heights,' there is at least one romantic lead of the sex he's interested in! In 'Brokeback Mountain,' neither of the two romantic leads is of a sex I'm interested in. ... My wild hypothesis is that more people will go see a movie if it features an actor or actress they find attractive! If heterosexual men in heartland America don't flock to see 'Brokeback Mountain' it's not because they're bigoted. It's because they're heterosexual. 'Heterosexuals Attracted to Members of the Opposite Sex'--for those cultural critics wondering what a commerical disappointment for this much-heralded movie will Tell Us About America Today, there's your headline. ..."
One, it is stupid to posit that straight men only go to movies to stare at tits. There are movie made just for that and having someone attractive in a movie always makes it nicer, but the point is stupid. Particularly that if that is his argument, I have a hard time thinking that he won't find Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams attractive, both of whom look amazing and are involved in sex scenes. There is no lack of attractive folks of either sex. If he really wants to go with his "I'm a perv who only goes to the movies to look at the purty girls," he still has no reason based on that arguement to avoid the movie.
If you don't want to see the movie, just don't go. Nobody really cares until you start crowing about how breeders won't like it because straight men can only like something if there are pretty girls to look at and it's not because you are bigotted you just need boobs to look at or why would you go see it since you ain't no fag. The posturing is embarassing and tired.
The movie will do well because it is well done. It is a difficult movie and might be challenging to folks, but that is to its credit. Mickey, if it is so hard for you to understand how you could care about characters whose experience is not identical to yours, then maybe you need to be challenged and ask yourself why you are so resistant to the idea. And yeah, bigotry might be the name for it.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Go Pam, Go!!!
Being a regular reader of Pandagon, I stumbled over to the home site of one of their contributors a while back: Pam's House Blend. An excellent site with quality commentary. As someone who grumbles quite often at the stupidity of so much commentary the homophobic bigots out there mucking up our public discourse, I'm always happy to find someone else raging against the stupidity without losing their mind or their sense of humor. And I especially love her pictoral history of her hair. And Mason, note that she references her "kitchen area" in the caption of the pic from April 2001. Sometimes forgetting about slang not always translating in different geographic regions/demographic groups, I have often found myself explaining to those around me why I am saying something which sounds crazy to them. Like when Mason asked if he needed a haircut and I told him he needed to clean his kitchen, which makes no sense if you didn't have black girlfriends (not that kind of girlfriend) who would refer to the base of the skull/top of the neck region on the back of your head as your "kitchen." This is one of those things where I think Mason sort of believes me but I still kind of see that vague distrust in his eyes, so I am pointing out the first written reference to this term (feel free to correct me Pam if you mean something different by "kitchen region").
Anyway, I didn't start this post to talk about Pam's hair; I am writing it to suggest you take a moment and go vote for her for to get a Weblog Awards for the Best LGBT Blog.
I haven't heard of most of the other blogs, and the few that I have are mostly ones that make my skin crawl. So even though I would vote for Pam anyway because I've read her long enough to know she's my girl in this game, I'm going to do a first impression run through of the other nominees.
1) gay patriot- ummm, yeah this is one of the ones that I recognized because they kind of make me want to kick someone. Inane political commentary from gay republican. Don't get me started.
2) Queer Visions- had never seen this one before. Seems really good. Well put together, well written. The politics seems (in a very brief perusal) more short commentary and linking to other sources. I'm keeping my endorsement with Pam, but I'll visit these guys again.
3) boi from troy- uh, gay republican sports blog. not as noxious as gaypatriot and sometimes witty, but again, we don't consort with gay repubs around here except to argue and he is throwing his support behind brat boy school who is Pam's closest competitor. I'm sticking with Pam.
4) right side of the rainbow another gay republican. That's about all I got out of it.
5) Gay Orbit- OK-ish. Some interesting commentary but again seemed to lean to the right, which I probably wouldn't have looked far enough into the blog to notice, as it isn't so overt or in your face annoying, but I'm beginning to notice a trend.
6) Shades of Gray- a really good read. Well written and entertaining. Not really overtly political.
7) brat boy school- this is inexplicably Pam's closest competitor. Just kind of boring. Never heard of him before this and don't think I will come back. Politically kind of lame, storytelling lacking that something that would make you want to read on, seemingly trying to affect a sort of diva thing that doesn't seem to quite fit right. Sort of like a poorman's malcontent.
8) Classical Values- writes decently, but is kind of annoying if you slog all the way through one of his posts. I guess I am no one to criticize anyone for longwindedness, but whatev'.
9) Good As You- pretty entertaining, good politics. Still sticking with Pam, but I promise to visit.
10) troubled diva wouldn't load, but 'diva' is one of those words that I feel is rarely well used and usually makes me roll my eyes. Like 'fierce' or when people spell 'boy' as 'boi'.
11) the malcontent- my old friend the malcontent. I'm still pissed at him for being mean to Richard Simmons and his politics are still pretty retarded, but after slogging through all these other blogs, I can at least say he is more entertaining than most. And he does a good job as far as content goes and following through on his goal to focus on providing screen/video captures not found elsewhere. But he is throwing his weight behind the totally lame brat boy school and calling Pam a moonbat.
12) BlogActive great blog; pissed off, take no shit, don't fuck with this faggot politics. They are endorsing Pam too.
13) towleroad- pretty entertaining blog, but they are endorsing the brat boy, so whatev'.
14) Homocon- I am getting exhausted and want to go home an eat. This one seemed less than noxious and looks well put together, so maybe I will check them out another time.
So one last time, go vote for Pam and then do it again tomorrow (you can vote once a day per ip address).
I'm going to get in trouble because M- is cooking goetta tonight and I promised to be home by 9 to try this Cinncinatti delicasy, so I gotsta run.
Anyway, I didn't start this post to talk about Pam's hair; I am writing it to suggest you take a moment and go vote for her for to get a Weblog Awards for the Best LGBT Blog.
I haven't heard of most of the other blogs, and the few that I have are mostly ones that make my skin crawl. So even though I would vote for Pam anyway because I've read her long enough to know she's my girl in this game, I'm going to do a first impression run through of the other nominees.
1) gay patriot- ummm, yeah this is one of the ones that I recognized because they kind of make me want to kick someone. Inane political commentary from gay republican. Don't get me started.
2) Queer Visions- had never seen this one before. Seems really good. Well put together, well written. The politics seems (in a very brief perusal) more short commentary and linking to other sources. I'm keeping my endorsement with Pam, but I'll visit these guys again.
3) boi from troy- uh, gay republican sports blog. not as noxious as gaypatriot and sometimes witty, but again, we don't consort with gay repubs around here except to argue and he is throwing his support behind brat boy school who is Pam's closest competitor. I'm sticking with Pam.
4) right side of the rainbow another gay republican. That's about all I got out of it.
5) Gay Orbit- OK-ish. Some interesting commentary but again seemed to lean to the right, which I probably wouldn't have looked far enough into the blog to notice, as it isn't so overt or in your face annoying, but I'm beginning to notice a trend.
6) Shades of Gray- a really good read. Well written and entertaining. Not really overtly political.
7) brat boy school- this is inexplicably Pam's closest competitor. Just kind of boring. Never heard of him before this and don't think I will come back. Politically kind of lame, storytelling lacking that something that would make you want to read on, seemingly trying to affect a sort of diva thing that doesn't seem to quite fit right. Sort of like a poorman's malcontent.
8) Classical Values- writes decently, but is kind of annoying if you slog all the way through one of his posts. I guess I am no one to criticize anyone for longwindedness, but whatev'.
9) Good As You- pretty entertaining, good politics. Still sticking with Pam, but I promise to visit.
10) troubled diva wouldn't load, but 'diva' is one of those words that I feel is rarely well used and usually makes me roll my eyes. Like 'fierce' or when people spell 'boy' as 'boi'.
11) the malcontent- my old friend the malcontent. I'm still pissed at him for being mean to Richard Simmons and his politics are still pretty retarded, but after slogging through all these other blogs, I can at least say he is more entertaining than most. And he does a good job as far as content goes and following through on his goal to focus on providing screen/video captures not found elsewhere. But he is throwing his weight behind the totally lame brat boy school and calling Pam a moonbat.
12) BlogActive great blog; pissed off, take no shit, don't fuck with this faggot politics. They are endorsing Pam too.
13) towleroad- pretty entertaining blog, but they are endorsing the brat boy, so whatev'.
14) Homocon- I am getting exhausted and want to go home an eat. This one seemed less than noxious and looks well put together, so maybe I will check them out another time.
So one last time, go vote for Pam and then do it again tomorrow (you can vote once a day per ip address).
I'm going to get in trouble because M- is cooking goetta tonight and I promised to be home by 9 to try this Cinncinatti delicasy, so I gotsta run.
Friday, December 09, 2005
larry the cable guy is an idiot
Yeah, David Cross can be fucking annoying at times, but I kind of think that is the point of a lot of his act, and his rabid fans can be just as annoying ("Hey let's watch these Mr. Show episodes that I taped. Again."), but he hits the nail right on the head with this letter to larry the cable guy. Coming from the South, I've got no patience for damn idiots who work hard to perpetuate the idea that southerners are a bunch of slow-ass morons. Plenty are, but so are plenty of folks everywhere and I don't need anyone else hanging that stigma on my birthplace in particular.
One little tidbit about the fellow that sticks in my craw:
"Well, I suppose I've already covered part of that in the above. But you also specifically dumb down your speech while making hundreds of purposefully grammatical errors. How do I know this? It's on page 17 of your book wherein you describe how you would 'Larry' up your commentaries for radio. What does it mean to 'Larry' something up? Take a wild guess. The reason you feel the need to 'Larry' something up? Because you are not that dumb. I mean you, Dan Whitney, the guy who's name the bank account is under. You were born and raised in Nebraska (hardly The South), went to private school and moved to Florida when you were 16. This is when you developed your accent?! Not exactly the developmental years are they? At age 16 that's the kind of thing you have to make a concerted effort to adopt. Did you hire a voice coach? Or were you like one of those people who go to England for a week and come back sounding like an extra from 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels'? As you said yourself in an interview once, 'I can pop in and out of it pretty much whenever I want'. In your book on page 89 you say in reference to the 'gee-shucks' millionaire comment, '...see, to his (David's) mind, bein' well paid means I'm no longer real and I can't be a country boy anymore. It's just an act.' Hey, it's always been an act! That's my fucking point! You admit it yourself so cut the indignation shit."
He's not even fucking southern! If you are going to make a life out of making fun of the South can you at least be fucking southern? Nebraska? I grew up within 30 miles of where I was born. We moved from Mississippi across the state line to where my parents still live when I was about 5 and I switched from a MS school to an AL school when I was in the 4th grade and I was still considered something of a new kid on into highschool. You don't just get a pass at being southern because you move there. And Florida is a lot of things, but if you aren't above I-10, it is NOT the South.
Whatever, make a buck off of being a charicature of the worst backwards ass elements of the country and associate them with the South (where they certainly are, in spades) but shut up about defending them from slander by David Cross et al. Your whole schtick is slandering the region and getting folks to laugh at it.
larry the cable guy is always going to be a second rate clown in Jeff Foxworthy's idiot redneck circus. His momma's got to be proud.
Makes me miss Lewis Grizzard.
(and this is a random side note, but is Jeff Foxworthy gay? Not trying to start anything and I'm not just saying it because he looks gay -which he does- but if you caught any of his celebrity roast, it was the gayest thing I have ever seen. It seemed like an awful lot of the jokes were thinly veiled gay jokes and seemed to hint just a little too at... something. Am I the only person who thought so?)
One little tidbit about the fellow that sticks in my craw:
"Well, I suppose I've already covered part of that in the above. But you also specifically dumb down your speech while making hundreds of purposefully grammatical errors. How do I know this? It's on page 17 of your book wherein you describe how you would 'Larry' up your commentaries for radio. What does it mean to 'Larry' something up? Take a wild guess. The reason you feel the need to 'Larry' something up? Because you are not that dumb. I mean you, Dan Whitney, the guy who's name the bank account is under. You were born and raised in Nebraska (hardly The South), went to private school and moved to Florida when you were 16. This is when you developed your accent?! Not exactly the developmental years are they? At age 16 that's the kind of thing you have to make a concerted effort to adopt. Did you hire a voice coach? Or were you like one of those people who go to England for a week and come back sounding like an extra from 'Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels'? As you said yourself in an interview once, 'I can pop in and out of it pretty much whenever I want'. In your book on page 89 you say in reference to the 'gee-shucks' millionaire comment, '...see, to his (David's) mind, bein' well paid means I'm no longer real and I can't be a country boy anymore. It's just an act.' Hey, it's always been an act! That's my fucking point! You admit it yourself so cut the indignation shit."
He's not even fucking southern! If you are going to make a life out of making fun of the South can you at least be fucking southern? Nebraska? I grew up within 30 miles of where I was born. We moved from Mississippi across the state line to where my parents still live when I was about 5 and I switched from a MS school to an AL school when I was in the 4th grade and I was still considered something of a new kid on into highschool. You don't just get a pass at being southern because you move there. And Florida is a lot of things, but if you aren't above I-10, it is NOT the South.
Whatever, make a buck off of being a charicature of the worst backwards ass elements of the country and associate them with the South (where they certainly are, in spades) but shut up about defending them from slander by David Cross et al. Your whole schtick is slandering the region and getting folks to laugh at it.
larry the cable guy is always going to be a second rate clown in Jeff Foxworthy's idiot redneck circus. His momma's got to be proud.
Makes me miss Lewis Grizzard.
(and this is a random side note, but is Jeff Foxworthy gay? Not trying to start anything and I'm not just saying it because he looks gay -which he does- but if you caught any of his celebrity roast, it was the gayest thing I have ever seen. It seemed like an awful lot of the jokes were thinly veiled gay jokes and seemed to hint just a little too at... something. Am I the only person who thought so?)
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Stick to the praise music, bub, and leave the rockin' and honky tonking to us.
TBogg linked to this:Six Meat Buffet � Rock Songs Conservatives Can Love
I decided to swing by and check out what the rock songs the fellow found to be conservative. Really, sure try and tag some rock music as conservative...actually scratch that. Rock and roll, the blues, and really even a hell of a lot of country music is all about bucking things up and either raging at having no place in the status quo or about just doing your thing despite all the shit going on around you. So no, the conservative, things-used-to-be-tilted-more-in-my-favor-wah-wah-wah folks don't get any of it. They are the stupid bitches running around wishing for some dumb charicature of what they are gullible enough to believe the world used to be like in the 'good old days' (where those niggers and faggots and women knew their places), so no, you don't get to claim rock songs for your agenda. Say their are things in rock songs you relate to, but don't try to drag them up on your idiot bandwagon. You can have praise music and christian rock (if you want it; and note this does not give you permission to mess around with gospel or old school hymns; hands off).
Please, had you stuck to just latterday Eagles, I would posit that the only idiots I have ever known who looked for getting rich out of accidents and bogus liability cry-baby claims tended to be republicans and that it was written lashing out at the me-first culture of reaganites, but I would have left well enough alone and let you enjoy your smarm... but "Revolution"?!?!? You want to claim a Beatles song, one of their most overtly political, anti-war peace songs as a conservative fave? I'm not concerned that you lack an understanding of irony like the rest of Tbogg's folks are; I'm worried that you are stupid.
I decided to swing by and check out what the rock songs the fellow found to be conservative. Really, sure try and tag some rock music as conservative...actually scratch that. Rock and roll, the blues, and really even a hell of a lot of country music is all about bucking things up and either raging at having no place in the status quo or about just doing your thing despite all the shit going on around you. So no, the conservative, things-used-to-be-tilted-more-in-my-favor-wah-wah-wah folks don't get any of it. They are the stupid bitches running around wishing for some dumb charicature of what they are gullible enough to believe the world used to be like in the 'good old days' (where those niggers and faggots and women knew their places), so no, you don't get to claim rock songs for your agenda. Say their are things in rock songs you relate to, but don't try to drag them up on your idiot bandwagon. You can have praise music and christian rock (if you want it; and note this does not give you permission to mess around with gospel or old school hymns; hands off).
Please, had you stuck to just latterday Eagles, I would posit that the only idiots I have ever known who looked for getting rich out of accidents and bogus liability cry-baby claims tended to be republicans and that it was written lashing out at the me-first culture of reaganites, but I would have left well enough alone and let you enjoy your smarm... but "Revolution"?!?!? You want to claim a Beatles song, one of their most overtly political, anti-war peace songs as a conservative fave? I'm not concerned that you lack an understanding of irony like the rest of Tbogg's folks are; I'm worried that you are stupid.
Friday, December 02, 2005
a day late, a few somber thoughts
Tbogg put this post up making fun of racist idiots. I'll leave those particular bigots to him; I couldn't one up his sarcasm if I tried and these jerks don't really merit more attention than the sharp sneer and dismissal he has already dealt. But his post included this picture:
Yesterday was Blogging Against Racism Day. Don't know who decided that, but a few folks whose stuff I regularly read and respect were talking about it and it seems like a fine enough goal. It was also World Aids Day. I didn't find time for blogging yesterday, so I contributed to neither, but given my recurring topics, neither topic is lacking for mention on this blog.
but that picture.
The folks in it. They don't look all that different from pictures of my family members (other than choice of background). Smiling, holding hands.
Though friends here in NYC might joke about me being country and white trash, I don't come from trashy folk back home. You have to be more than just poor and white to be "white trash". Unless just bandied about as a joke, it draws up a specific thing in my head. And we while my family wasn't rolling in money and was probably poorer than many of my friend's families, we came from educated and cultured folks and for that reason, many kids where I went to school at times thought I came from a wealthy family. I couldn't afford to go see a movie on the weekend and my parents both did side work in addition to their main jobs to keep us in the black, but our house was always filled with books, guests always welcome, family always important, and manners strictly enforced. My parents were lax about letting us grow our hair out and dress pretty much as we wanted (within reason), but being polite was non negotiable. To anyone, anywhere, anytime. Black, white, red, yellow, rich, poor, whatever. Please and thank you and yes, sir/ma'am were not optional.
I'm sure my parents could think of a thousand times when each of us has seemed insanely rude to them, but I can't think of very many times they let it pass or of very many times when I have seen one of my numerous siblings being rude to someone unprovoked. Plenty of sarcasm and attitude in my family, but generally delivered with that syrupy southern sweetness that makes it all the more potent.
What is the point? Bear with me.
Growing up in AL/MS, race is right there on the table in everything. In your homes not so much all the time, but in your interaction with your community and the world, it is unavoidable. Those two states are internationally synonymous with racism, and you know it when you grow up there. You see plenty of it, but I also inherited a horror of it. Every chapter in Alabama history is about race relations, from the french and spanish first dealing with the indians straight on up til today. I knew things weren't perfect there growing up, but I also knew that they weren't the same as they once had been or the same as they were still often portrayed. People weren't being lynched, the idea of someone burning a cross in someone's yard was regarded with abject horror by the general populace. You could get angry, seek revenge on someone, but lace it with overt racism and you were dragging all of us and our very tenuous and already fairly bad reputation into it. Black people and white people went to the same schools mostly and the same stores and interacted fairly civilly.
Of course there was still plenty of division and things weren't all hunky dory, but I had the feeling that coming out of our history and having the social turmoil we had had and all the other baggage, for the most part, folks in those two states were doing better than the world seemed to portray and the general populace was pointed in, trying to point in the right direction. Even if folks still weren't quite sure how to shake off old prejudices and it would take a few generations to get there, we were trying.
For the first time in my life, when I went home last Christmas, I didn't feel that anymore. Racist statements weren't just something relegated to the trashy folks that didn't know better. Not that I suddenly started hearing racial epithets slung around, but the atmosphere had somehow changed. Instead of that past history being something that we were trying so dreadfully to escape, to forget, to distance ourselves from, we were clamouring to get back to it. It was palpable. How can any human in this country from almost any community have any illusions about what it means when they say they want to go back to the "good old days"? I know what you are saying and I don't like it. You can say this or that was good, but you can't talk wholesale about the "good old days" without there being an implicit meaning that you want the world to go back to having black people in their place or dead and a power consolidated in the hands of a few community movers and shakers and that horrible communal approval or blanketing smothering silence regulating dissent. I've felt it trying to suffocate me more than a few times and see what happens when it does keep people under and it isn't pretty.
This picture in which I had never imagined my family/community a part of in the past was suddenly something that they were willing to countenance in the future. My mom or dad would be horrified at such hyperbole, and for the most part it is just that, hyperbole. But there was that element of it that glimpsed out from underneath everything.
Why did anyone in this country vote for george bush in the last election? Honestly, name one thing he did right in the previous four years, in his time as governor. One thing that indicated that he was or could one day be a good leader. You can gripe all you want about Kerry, but honestly, if you look at Kerry's record and that of John Edwards, they have done a few things right and both spoke reasonably well in the debates. bush was an absolute buffoon and doesn't hide it very well. Growing up, if we had known him in person, I will bet you a dollar my mother would have gone out of her way not to let us around him. Because he is a liar and obnoxious and mean and self-important and I've seen how she reacts to similar folks. Suffering fools isn't something that happens too often in our family and certainly not with my mother. But put him in control of nuclear weapons and stick him on television promoting an amendment that said her son doesn't matter as much under the law and have him lie pretty blatanly and with little finesse to lead the country into an unnecessary war, and I have to explain to her why I can't understand how anyone could vote for him. I don't know if she did. I don't want to. He ran his whole campaign on dirty tricks to trash his opponent and on folks' bigotries ("let's go blow up brown people and put those faggots in their place!").
and won.
Am I trying to say that he or anyone who voted for him wants to smile and dress up and hold hands with black people swinging from trees in the background? No. Not at all. But I'll argue that those things come from the same place. Those folks smiled beneath that strange fruit for the same reason people voted for bush: because someone was putting 'those people' back in their place. What in the hell is the difference between Guantanamo/Abu Gharaib and that lynching? Torturing someone to death (there have been more than a few deaths in both) is somehow less violent than hanging them? Less racist to beat/shoot/bomb foreign brown people to death because we as a nation feel emasculated by the actions of some other foreign brown folks than lynching some black folks for somehow emasculating some white community through some real or percieved crime? Or it makes you less guilty of the crime to vote for it than to be there?
Watch the republican national convention and tell me again that that wasn't what you voted for if you voted for bush. Why did you vote for him then? The booming economy? The strong dollar? The international goodwill he had fostered? The improvements in our education system? In healthcare? In the environment? His eloquence and the dignity with which he carries himself?
That people voted for bush is one thing; why is another. And the why is what I couldn't stomach. I have never been so happy to be somewhere as I was to get back to New York after the holidays. I had a great time with my family and love them and loved the visit, but it was all somehow different.
I love my older sister, but instead of staying with her again when I flew out of Atlanta, I stayed at a hostel. Because everything we said to each other was laced with politics, even when we tried to keep politics out of it. I don't think my dad voted for bush, and in the end I don't think my mom did, but my sister I am sure did. And for all the wrong reasons. Not because she is racist, but because "He is a Christian." So is Kerry for that matter, but what she meant was "He is one of Us." And in suggesting that Kerry wasn't enough of a Christian she was also not so subtly suggesting that I wasn't either; that I was part of that 'Them' who her beloved 'Us' was called to reign in. Her vote was for me not to be a faggot. I am not so conceited to think that was the long and short of it, no other reasons in the mix, but the message wasn't subtle and it was part of it. And perhaps she doesn't realize that this is implied when one implies such things, but the implication is that there should not be homosexuals at all. 'Quit acting like a fag, boy, or you might not be around any more.' Not my sister's message to me, but it is the one she voted for. The one a majority (however bare a majority, a majority none the less)of this country voted for. So pardon me for feeling a little uncomfortable with a picture of a lynching. Both as someone horrified with the idea that the people who did the lynching were from the same social class and likely a very similar place that I am and as someone being told to get back in line. They didn't hang black people just because they were black. They hung them because they were black and stepped out of line or as a warning for others not to. Were in the wrong part of town, looked at someone wrong, asked the wrong question, refused some indignity, embarassed/challenged some weak whimpy white idiots who had to make themselves feel strong and secure again by exacting a community backed revenge on that ominous 'Other'.
'That'll learn 'em good.'
Anyway, that picture. Dragged up some stuff. Getting close to going back down south, looking forward to seeing my family, but realizing there is still alot of baggage there and not sure how some things will go. That picture is a historical document; not a representation of the South anymore, of America any more. I want to make sure it stays that way. I want to be able to believe again that that is what everyone else wants too.
(Note: I speak about the South in particular because I come from the South, but I have no illusions that only or all southerners voted for bush. And as the malcontent shows, even gay people in NYC can be so callow and self-centered as to vote for these cretins.)
Yesterday was Blogging Against Racism Day. Don't know who decided that, but a few folks whose stuff I regularly read and respect were talking about it and it seems like a fine enough goal. It was also World Aids Day. I didn't find time for blogging yesterday, so I contributed to neither, but given my recurring topics, neither topic is lacking for mention on this blog.
but that picture.
The folks in it. They don't look all that different from pictures of my family members (other than choice of background). Smiling, holding hands.
Though friends here in NYC might joke about me being country and white trash, I don't come from trashy folk back home. You have to be more than just poor and white to be "white trash". Unless just bandied about as a joke, it draws up a specific thing in my head. And we while my family wasn't rolling in money and was probably poorer than many of my friend's families, we came from educated and cultured folks and for that reason, many kids where I went to school at times thought I came from a wealthy family. I couldn't afford to go see a movie on the weekend and my parents both did side work in addition to their main jobs to keep us in the black, but our house was always filled with books, guests always welcome, family always important, and manners strictly enforced. My parents were lax about letting us grow our hair out and dress pretty much as we wanted (within reason), but being polite was non negotiable. To anyone, anywhere, anytime. Black, white, red, yellow, rich, poor, whatever. Please and thank you and yes, sir/ma'am were not optional.
I'm sure my parents could think of a thousand times when each of us has seemed insanely rude to them, but I can't think of very many times they let it pass or of very many times when I have seen one of my numerous siblings being rude to someone unprovoked. Plenty of sarcasm and attitude in my family, but generally delivered with that syrupy southern sweetness that makes it all the more potent.
What is the point? Bear with me.
Growing up in AL/MS, race is right there on the table in everything. In your homes not so much all the time, but in your interaction with your community and the world, it is unavoidable. Those two states are internationally synonymous with racism, and you know it when you grow up there. You see plenty of it, but I also inherited a horror of it. Every chapter in Alabama history is about race relations, from the french and spanish first dealing with the indians straight on up til today. I knew things weren't perfect there growing up, but I also knew that they weren't the same as they once had been or the same as they were still often portrayed. People weren't being lynched, the idea of someone burning a cross in someone's yard was regarded with abject horror by the general populace. You could get angry, seek revenge on someone, but lace it with overt racism and you were dragging all of us and our very tenuous and already fairly bad reputation into it. Black people and white people went to the same schools mostly and the same stores and interacted fairly civilly.
Of course there was still plenty of division and things weren't all hunky dory, but I had the feeling that coming out of our history and having the social turmoil we had had and all the other baggage, for the most part, folks in those two states were doing better than the world seemed to portray and the general populace was pointed in, trying to point in the right direction. Even if folks still weren't quite sure how to shake off old prejudices and it would take a few generations to get there, we were trying.
For the first time in my life, when I went home last Christmas, I didn't feel that anymore. Racist statements weren't just something relegated to the trashy folks that didn't know better. Not that I suddenly started hearing racial epithets slung around, but the atmosphere had somehow changed. Instead of that past history being something that we were trying so dreadfully to escape, to forget, to distance ourselves from, we were clamouring to get back to it. It was palpable. How can any human in this country from almost any community have any illusions about what it means when they say they want to go back to the "good old days"? I know what you are saying and I don't like it. You can say this or that was good, but you can't talk wholesale about the "good old days" without there being an implicit meaning that you want the world to go back to having black people in their place or dead and a power consolidated in the hands of a few community movers and shakers and that horrible communal approval or blanketing smothering silence regulating dissent. I've felt it trying to suffocate me more than a few times and see what happens when it does keep people under and it isn't pretty.
This picture in which I had never imagined my family/community a part of in the past was suddenly something that they were willing to countenance in the future. My mom or dad would be horrified at such hyperbole, and for the most part it is just that, hyperbole. But there was that element of it that glimpsed out from underneath everything.
Why did anyone in this country vote for george bush in the last election? Honestly, name one thing he did right in the previous four years, in his time as governor. One thing that indicated that he was or could one day be a good leader. You can gripe all you want about Kerry, but honestly, if you look at Kerry's record and that of John Edwards, they have done a few things right and both spoke reasonably well in the debates. bush was an absolute buffoon and doesn't hide it very well. Growing up, if we had known him in person, I will bet you a dollar my mother would have gone out of her way not to let us around him. Because he is a liar and obnoxious and mean and self-important and I've seen how she reacts to similar folks. Suffering fools isn't something that happens too often in our family and certainly not with my mother. But put him in control of nuclear weapons and stick him on television promoting an amendment that said her son doesn't matter as much under the law and have him lie pretty blatanly and with little finesse to lead the country into an unnecessary war, and I have to explain to her why I can't understand how anyone could vote for him. I don't know if she did. I don't want to. He ran his whole campaign on dirty tricks to trash his opponent and on folks' bigotries ("let's go blow up brown people and put those faggots in their place!").
and won.
Am I trying to say that he or anyone who voted for him wants to smile and dress up and hold hands with black people swinging from trees in the background? No. Not at all. But I'll argue that those things come from the same place. Those folks smiled beneath that strange fruit for the same reason people voted for bush: because someone was putting 'those people' back in their place. What in the hell is the difference between Guantanamo/Abu Gharaib and that lynching? Torturing someone to death (there have been more than a few deaths in both) is somehow less violent than hanging them? Less racist to beat/shoot/bomb foreign brown people to death because we as a nation feel emasculated by the actions of some other foreign brown folks than lynching some black folks for somehow emasculating some white community through some real or percieved crime? Or it makes you less guilty of the crime to vote for it than to be there?
Watch the republican national convention and tell me again that that wasn't what you voted for if you voted for bush. Why did you vote for him then? The booming economy? The strong dollar? The international goodwill he had fostered? The improvements in our education system? In healthcare? In the environment? His eloquence and the dignity with which he carries himself?
That people voted for bush is one thing; why is another. And the why is what I couldn't stomach. I have never been so happy to be somewhere as I was to get back to New York after the holidays. I had a great time with my family and love them and loved the visit, but it was all somehow different.
I love my older sister, but instead of staying with her again when I flew out of Atlanta, I stayed at a hostel. Because everything we said to each other was laced with politics, even when we tried to keep politics out of it. I don't think my dad voted for bush, and in the end I don't think my mom did, but my sister I am sure did. And for all the wrong reasons. Not because she is racist, but because "He is a Christian." So is Kerry for that matter, but what she meant was "He is one of Us." And in suggesting that Kerry wasn't enough of a Christian she was also not so subtly suggesting that I wasn't either; that I was part of that 'Them' who her beloved 'Us' was called to reign in. Her vote was for me not to be a faggot. I am not so conceited to think that was the long and short of it, no other reasons in the mix, but the message wasn't subtle and it was part of it. And perhaps she doesn't realize that this is implied when one implies such things, but the implication is that there should not be homosexuals at all. 'Quit acting like a fag, boy, or you might not be around any more.' Not my sister's message to me, but it is the one she voted for. The one a majority (however bare a majority, a majority none the less)of this country voted for. So pardon me for feeling a little uncomfortable with a picture of a lynching. Both as someone horrified with the idea that the people who did the lynching were from the same social class and likely a very similar place that I am and as someone being told to get back in line. They didn't hang black people just because they were black. They hung them because they were black and stepped out of line or as a warning for others not to. Were in the wrong part of town, looked at someone wrong, asked the wrong question, refused some indignity, embarassed/challenged some weak whimpy white idiots who had to make themselves feel strong and secure again by exacting a community backed revenge on that ominous 'Other'.
'That'll learn 'em good.'
Anyway, that picture. Dragged up some stuff. Getting close to going back down south, looking forward to seeing my family, but realizing there is still alot of baggage there and not sure how some things will go. That picture is a historical document; not a representation of the South anymore, of America any more. I want to make sure it stays that way. I want to be able to believe again that that is what everyone else wants too.
(Note: I speak about the South in particular because I come from the South, but I have no illusions that only or all southerners voted for bush. And as the malcontent shows, even gay people in NYC can be so callow and self-centered as to vote for these cretins.)
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
He pities the fool; I respect him.
The last half of this article further outlines his past charity work and how it came back to comfort him through his struggle with cancer and the first part is about him planning his comeback.
The Sun Online - Life: Second coming of Mr T
But the middle explains why his comeback will be sans bling:
"Off-screen, Mr T is lending a helping hand to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
The tragedy deeply affected the 53-year-old Christian star, who was so moved by what happened in New Orleans that it convinced him to give up his trademark gold chains.
He said: 'I watched my people, the black people, screaming, begging and crying just for water.
'They didn't want diamond rings or new houses, they just wanted water, and they couldn't get any.
'I knew that soon I would be going around visiting these people in homeless shelters and it would be a sin against God and a sin against humanity to go around there wearing a million-dollars worth of gold chains, rings and diamonds.
'It would be wrong for me to say 'it's going to be alright buddy' and then go about my business. That would be a lie.
'People need to see that Mr T has a heart of gold, not just the gold that drips around my neck.
'That's my wardrobe, my uniform, but I will never wear it again.'"
Wow.
The Sun Online - Life: Second coming of Mr T
But the middle explains why his comeback will be sans bling:
"Off-screen, Mr T is lending a helping hand to the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.
The tragedy deeply affected the 53-year-old Christian star, who was so moved by what happened in New Orleans that it convinced him to give up his trademark gold chains.
He said: 'I watched my people, the black people, screaming, begging and crying just for water.
'They didn't want diamond rings or new houses, they just wanted water, and they couldn't get any.
'I knew that soon I would be going around visiting these people in homeless shelters and it would be a sin against God and a sin against humanity to go around there wearing a million-dollars worth of gold chains, rings and diamonds.
'It would be wrong for me to say 'it's going to be alright buddy' and then go about my business. That would be a lie.
'People need to see that Mr T has a heart of gold, not just the gold that drips around my neck.
'That's my wardrobe, my uniform, but I will never wear it again.'"
Wow.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Smarmy annoying person eases towards sensibility, refuses to drop the smarmy annoyingness.
Yeah, so I did it. I didn't want to, but you know it is kind of like watching a trainwreck. So hard not to take just one more look at the horror of it all. I went back to scott adams' blog to see if he had dabbled in carrying intelligent design's water.
of course he has:
The Dilbert Blog
Again he starts up with his, 'Gee a bunch of crazy people got all worked up because I am so clever and they can't see that I am baiting them' crap. Yeah, we know you are trying to just be cute like some asshole vegan teenager trying to bait the adults into an argument at thanksgiving, but with a large audience who loves you based on your ability to make corporate life seem enlightening in its nilism, you get extra attention, even if it is a stunt and chances are you will never read a word I write. Anyway, the science folks seem to be wearing him down, even if he is still acting like an ass in his capitulation:
"I understand the argument for excluding Intelligent Design from science classes. Most scientists believe it doesn't meet the definition of science. You can't argue with the people who MAKE the definitions. If the vast majority say it doesn't have enough substance to qualify as science, that's okay with me. But I have to wonder if that's the real reason most scientists oppose including it in schools. I would expect scientists to welcome such a clear model of something that is NOT science, as an example of exactly that.
"Kids, astronomy is science and astrology isn't. Here are some more examples of things that aren't science..."
Sure, it might confuse the dumb kids, but they aren't the ones building the spaceships of tomorrow anyway. I learned about not using 'ain't' in English class and that didn't hurt me too much. So it just seems fishy to me that scientists are so worked up about Intelligent Design. Could their true fear be the slippery slope argument? If you let ID in the door, before long we'll all be wearing scraggly beards and beating ourselves with prayer paddles."
"You can't argue with the people who MAKE the definitions." Uh, can we say bitchy and juvenile? Whatever dude, that is the i.d./creationist crowd's modus operandi. The whole point they are trying to make to attack the Enlightenment. They see all teaching that is not squarely rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible to be the enemy. No, not all proponents view the battle as such; there are plenty (some of my relatives surely, shamefully, included in this number) who jump in on the wrong side of this battle simply because they understand it as evolution being true meaning God doesn't exist and haven't thought through the implications of what they are positing. "Does God exist?" is in no danger of disappearing as a philosophical/theological question, but whether or not it has a place as part of a science curriculum has long been settled. Evolution wasn't accepted as the unifying theory in biology because of some nefarious plot by some evil cabal of athiest "darwinist" trying to do satan's work to lead good christian souls off to hell. And that is the gist of the creationism folks.
The side of the mouth disparragement of the folks who MAKE the definitions really boils down to the same thing: an attack on modern inquiry. Scientist don't MAKE definitions out of thin air. The suggestion is that they can't be trusted because they are lording over these arbitratary definitions, keeping out disparate ideas like intelligent design. This isn't just some stupid turf war ('We want to make the rules!' 'No, we get too!'), this is about the fundamental ways that modern knowledge has and continues to progress. If you throw out evolution over religious qualms and try to insert untested/untestable religious dogma into the cannon based on political pressure, you are throwing out the scientific method. You are taking the first step back towards a preindustrial world. You can argue all you want about the troubles that have come along with the modern world, but you throw out all the advances of the last couple of centuries when you start pulling the rug out from under science.
And the 'Golly, why wouldn't scientists want to use it in classes to contrast between real science and fake science?' crap can be dropped right now. If that was the point you were trying to make, you had three other posts to make it but surely in all the research you have done you aren't dumb enought to think that you are representing either side with that suggestion. Teachers already do that plenty. More than a few of my college course made it a point to emphasize being critical and demanding of sources of information and either pointed out or asked us to find examples of pseudo-science and compare and contrast what made it un-scientific. No one on the science side of this argument is arguing against that and that isn't for a second what the i.d. folks are fighting for. They are trying to shove the stuff in to be held up next to the theory of natural selection and have teachers say, 'Or it could have happened this way.'
If in an argument with someone, and it is quickly becoming apparent that you are on the losing side of things, don't do mr. adams half-capitulation well-yeah-of-course-that's-right-I-meant-something-different-see-I'm-still-right-you-are-wrong dance. It ain't cute. Dude, shut up about the debate until you put the holier-than-though attitude down and take a couple of classes and read a few books. You side with the idiots and you are going to get reprimanded just like them.
of course he has:
The Dilbert Blog
Again he starts up with his, 'Gee a bunch of crazy people got all worked up because I am so clever and they can't see that I am baiting them' crap. Yeah, we know you are trying to just be cute like some asshole vegan teenager trying to bait the adults into an argument at thanksgiving, but with a large audience who loves you based on your ability to make corporate life seem enlightening in its nilism, you get extra attention, even if it is a stunt and chances are you will never read a word I write. Anyway, the science folks seem to be wearing him down, even if he is still acting like an ass in his capitulation:
"I understand the argument for excluding Intelligent Design from science classes. Most scientists believe it doesn't meet the definition of science. You can't argue with the people who MAKE the definitions. If the vast majority say it doesn't have enough substance to qualify as science, that's okay with me. But I have to wonder if that's the real reason most scientists oppose including it in schools. I would expect scientists to welcome such a clear model of something that is NOT science, as an example of exactly that.
"Kids, astronomy is science and astrology isn't. Here are some more examples of things that aren't science..."
Sure, it might confuse the dumb kids, but they aren't the ones building the spaceships of tomorrow anyway. I learned about not using 'ain't' in English class and that didn't hurt me too much. So it just seems fishy to me that scientists are so worked up about Intelligent Design. Could their true fear be the slippery slope argument? If you let ID in the door, before long we'll all be wearing scraggly beards and beating ourselves with prayer paddles."
"You can't argue with the people who MAKE the definitions." Uh, can we say bitchy and juvenile? Whatever dude, that is the i.d./creationist crowd's modus operandi. The whole point they are trying to make to attack the Enlightenment. They see all teaching that is not squarely rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible to be the enemy. No, not all proponents view the battle as such; there are plenty (some of my relatives surely, shamefully, included in this number) who jump in on the wrong side of this battle simply because they understand it as evolution being true meaning God doesn't exist and haven't thought through the implications of what they are positing. "Does God exist?" is in no danger of disappearing as a philosophical/theological question, but whether or not it has a place as part of a science curriculum has long been settled. Evolution wasn't accepted as the unifying theory in biology because of some nefarious plot by some evil cabal of athiest "darwinist" trying to do satan's work to lead good christian souls off to hell. And that is the gist of the creationism folks.
The side of the mouth disparragement of the folks who MAKE the definitions really boils down to the same thing: an attack on modern inquiry. Scientist don't MAKE definitions out of thin air. The suggestion is that they can't be trusted because they are lording over these arbitratary definitions, keeping out disparate ideas like intelligent design. This isn't just some stupid turf war ('We want to make the rules!' 'No, we get too!'), this is about the fundamental ways that modern knowledge has and continues to progress. If you throw out evolution over religious qualms and try to insert untested/untestable religious dogma into the cannon based on political pressure, you are throwing out the scientific method. You are taking the first step back towards a preindustrial world. You can argue all you want about the troubles that have come along with the modern world, but you throw out all the advances of the last couple of centuries when you start pulling the rug out from under science.
And the 'Golly, why wouldn't scientists want to use it in classes to contrast between real science and fake science?' crap can be dropped right now. If that was the point you were trying to make, you had three other posts to make it but surely in all the research you have done you aren't dumb enought to think that you are representing either side with that suggestion. Teachers already do that plenty. More than a few of my college course made it a point to emphasize being critical and demanding of sources of information and either pointed out or asked us to find examples of pseudo-science and compare and contrast what made it un-scientific. No one on the science side of this argument is arguing against that and that isn't for a second what the i.d. folks are fighting for. They are trying to shove the stuff in to be held up next to the theory of natural selection and have teachers say, 'Or it could have happened this way.'
If in an argument with someone, and it is quickly becoming apparent that you are on the losing side of things, don't do mr. adams half-capitulation well-yeah-of-course-that's-right-I-meant-something-different-see-I'm-still-right-you-are-wrong dance. It ain't cute. Dude, shut up about the debate until you put the holier-than-though attitude down and take a couple of classes and read a few books. You side with the idiots and you are going to get reprimanded just like them.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Some folks should stick to their medium.
I love reading the funnies, and have a special place in my heart for those most brilliant cartoonists. I owe a huge debt to Bill Waterson (I hate everyone of you fuckers with those stupid Calvin pissing on ford/chevy stickers on your car; way to ruin it for everyone, assholes), Berkely Breathed, Gary Larson, and Gary Trudeau for their role in helping me form my world view. They may seem silly, but read every day and framing current events and human situations in unique and humorous ways helps shape curious little developing minds. I later came to also love Dilbert, The Boondocks, Get Fuzzy, and Non Sequitor. I would read the other ones, even Family Circus and Cathy and I have a strange place in my heart for Prince Valiant, but these are the ones that I look forward to reading, that really seemed to have something to really add to interpretation of the human experience.
Dilbert I relate to perhaps less than the others because I tend to do my best to stay away from beauracracy and corporate life as much as is possible in this modern world of ours, but I still find the strip funny and entertaining. scott adams can write a comic strip. But having just been introduced to his blog, I think I'll do my best to steer clear of it. It comes across as smarmy and obnoxiously know-it-all in a sort of you-can't-trust-anything kind of way that is as useless as it is annoying.
Anyone who knows me knows about how much I like folks jumping into scientific debates without knowing much of anything about what they are talking about. So maybe I would be kinder on mr. adams had I not first found him throwing his hat in with the intelligent design folks:
The Dilbert Blog: Intelligent Design, Part 1
PZ Meyers does a wonderful job of taking apart his arguments piece by piece, so I'll mostly defer to him:
Pharyngula::Scott Adams is a Wally
From reading scott's second post about how uncredible and ridiculous everyone is on either side of the debate, I am certain he would take ofense as me characterizing him as being in cahootze with the i.d.ers, but his post seems mostly aimed at arguing that science is basically untrustworthy and uses their terminology for framing the debate, so pardon me if I take his i'm-neutral posturing as unconvincing.
He then has a third post on the debacle titled "Who Is Credible to Me?" It is no more illuminating and only further makes my heart sink as one more fairly talented person in his main medium comes across as an obnoxious pointless contrarian outside of it.
There are just a few little things about his arguments that I want to question before I wash my hands of this whole mess. In the first post, he opines:
"First of all, you’d be hard pressed to find a useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design, of the sort that you could use to form your own opinion. I can’t find one, and I’ve looked. What you have instead is each side misrepresenting the other’s position and then making a good argument for why the misrepresentation is wrong. (If you don’t believe me, just watch the comments I get to this post.)"
and
"The Intelligent Design people have a not-so-kooky argument against the idea of trusting 90%+ of scientists. They point out that evolution is supported by different branches of science (paleontologists, microbiologists, etc.) and those folks are specialists who only understand their own field. That’s no problem, you think, because each scientist validates Darwinism from his or her own specialty, then they all compare notes, and everything fits. Right?
"Here’s where it gets interesting. The Intelligent Design people allege that some experts within each narrow field are NOT convinced that the evidence within their specialty is a slam-dunk support of Darwin. Each branch of science, they say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the “good stuff.”
"Is that possible? I have no way of knowing."
Please, mr. scott, where have you looked? I really honestly want to know what you have read about biology. Have you taken a college level biology course, have you read _On the Origin of the Species_ or any of the more modern books on the subject? I wouldn't start with Richard Dawkins if you are new to science, but Stephen J. Gould wrote expansively and skillfully for a popular audience as has E. O. Wilson. Really, what texts are you basing your arguments on? Where does you understanding of science come from? Your arguments sound like someone who read one book on intelligent design and a couple of articles written for Time or the Washington Post about the controversy instead of actually reading about science.
And as to the idea that specialists understand only their little field and are assuming other branches hold the real evidence for evolution, please tell me you are kidding. For my undergraduate degree in marine biology, we had to take a broad range of biology classes in addition to physics classes, general and organic chemistry classes, geology, and oceanography. Functioning in biology requires a broad understanding of sciences in general and while scientists may have pet specializations, they have to have an abilty to put their work in a larger frame work for it to be very useful. It isn't a bunch of isolated, near-sighted hermits carving out these tiny little pieces of knowledge that are then cobbled together willy-nilly based on some assuptions about other folks over the way knowing something that makes their version work.
One more little peeve, the suggestion that it is ridiculous to lump the i.d. folks in with the creationist folks. When we talk about intelligent design, we aren't talking about biologists who believe in god. A scientist religious beliefs are irrelavent if they don't taint his work. The folks promoting i.d. are promoting it for religious/political reasons. Dig into who is backing the i.d. stuff and where the i.d. curriculums are coming from. It still wouldn't be included as science even if it was just what folks say it is; what are you going to test for? How does it become anything other than an anecdotal argument ("Look at how beautiful and wonderful everything is? Kind of makes you believe there is someone out there. You can see god's hand in nature's beauty and function.") and if it isn't, then why are people trying to insert it into curricula? It is being promoted as an assault on science and an attempt to sow doubt in the public sphere about biology and evolution because these are used to argue against folks' uncritical acceptance of religious dogma. I saw Julia Sweeney's one-woman show "Letting Go of God" last week and a particularly amusing part was about dating a fellow that was into intelligent design. (if you can go see the show, i highly recommend it.)
Anyway, whatever. scott adams never was really that high in the pantheon of comic strip artists and this really can be left separate from appreciation of his little cartoon world which is so enjoyable, so I can just turn away from the annoying blog and be done with it. I really hope he does take the time to read more about science though. For the uninnitiated, I really do recommend Stephen J. Gould as a good starting point. All of his books are excellent and often collections of stand-alone essays so they don't necessary require cover to cover reading to take something useful away (though reading cover to cover is still encouraged).
Dilbert I relate to perhaps less than the others because I tend to do my best to stay away from beauracracy and corporate life as much as is possible in this modern world of ours, but I still find the strip funny and entertaining. scott adams can write a comic strip. But having just been introduced to his blog, I think I'll do my best to steer clear of it. It comes across as smarmy and obnoxiously know-it-all in a sort of you-can't-trust-anything kind of way that is as useless as it is annoying.
Anyone who knows me knows about how much I like folks jumping into scientific debates without knowing much of anything about what they are talking about. So maybe I would be kinder on mr. adams had I not first found him throwing his hat in with the intelligent design folks:
The Dilbert Blog: Intelligent Design, Part 1
PZ Meyers does a wonderful job of taking apart his arguments piece by piece, so I'll mostly defer to him:
Pharyngula::Scott Adams is a Wally
From reading scott's second post about how uncredible and ridiculous everyone is on either side of the debate, I am certain he would take ofense as me characterizing him as being in cahootze with the i.d.ers, but his post seems mostly aimed at arguing that science is basically untrustworthy and uses their terminology for framing the debate, so pardon me if I take his i'm-neutral posturing as unconvincing.
He then has a third post on the debacle titled "Who Is Credible to Me?" It is no more illuminating and only further makes my heart sink as one more fairly talented person in his main medium comes across as an obnoxious pointless contrarian outside of it.
There are just a few little things about his arguments that I want to question before I wash my hands of this whole mess. In the first post, he opines:
"First of all, you’d be hard pressed to find a useful debate about Darwinism and Intelligent Design, of the sort that you could use to form your own opinion. I can’t find one, and I’ve looked. What you have instead is each side misrepresenting the other’s position and then making a good argument for why the misrepresentation is wrong. (If you don’t believe me, just watch the comments I get to this post.)"
and
"The Intelligent Design people have a not-so-kooky argument against the idea of trusting 90%+ of scientists. They point out that evolution is supported by different branches of science (paleontologists, microbiologists, etc.) and those folks are specialists who only understand their own field. That’s no problem, you think, because each scientist validates Darwinism from his or her own specialty, then they all compare notes, and everything fits. Right?
"Here’s where it gets interesting. The Intelligent Design people allege that some experts within each narrow field are NOT convinced that the evidence within their specialty is a slam-dunk support of Darwin. Each branch of science, they say, has pro-Darwinists who acknowledge that while they assume the other branches of science have more solid evidence for Darwinism, their own branch is lacking in that high level of certainty. In other words, the scientists are in a weird peer pressure, herd mentality loop where they think that the other guy must have the “good stuff.”
"Is that possible? I have no way of knowing."
Please, mr. scott, where have you looked? I really honestly want to know what you have read about biology. Have you taken a college level biology course, have you read _On the Origin of the Species_ or any of the more modern books on the subject? I wouldn't start with Richard Dawkins if you are new to science, but Stephen J. Gould wrote expansively and skillfully for a popular audience as has E. O. Wilson. Really, what texts are you basing your arguments on? Where does you understanding of science come from? Your arguments sound like someone who read one book on intelligent design and a couple of articles written for Time or the Washington Post about the controversy instead of actually reading about science.
And as to the idea that specialists understand only their little field and are assuming other branches hold the real evidence for evolution, please tell me you are kidding. For my undergraduate degree in marine biology, we had to take a broad range of biology classes in addition to physics classes, general and organic chemistry classes, geology, and oceanography. Functioning in biology requires a broad understanding of sciences in general and while scientists may have pet specializations, they have to have an abilty to put their work in a larger frame work for it to be very useful. It isn't a bunch of isolated, near-sighted hermits carving out these tiny little pieces of knowledge that are then cobbled together willy-nilly based on some assuptions about other folks over the way knowing something that makes their version work.
One more little peeve, the suggestion that it is ridiculous to lump the i.d. folks in with the creationist folks. When we talk about intelligent design, we aren't talking about biologists who believe in god. A scientist religious beliefs are irrelavent if they don't taint his work. The folks promoting i.d. are promoting it for religious/political reasons. Dig into who is backing the i.d. stuff and where the i.d. curriculums are coming from. It still wouldn't be included as science even if it was just what folks say it is; what are you going to test for? How does it become anything other than an anecdotal argument ("Look at how beautiful and wonderful everything is? Kind of makes you believe there is someone out there. You can see god's hand in nature's beauty and function.") and if it isn't, then why are people trying to insert it into curricula? It is being promoted as an assault on science and an attempt to sow doubt in the public sphere about biology and evolution because these are used to argue against folks' uncritical acceptance of religious dogma. I saw Julia Sweeney's one-woman show "Letting Go of God" last week and a particularly amusing part was about dating a fellow that was into intelligent design. (if you can go see the show, i highly recommend it.)
Anyway, whatever. scott adams never was really that high in the pantheon of comic strip artists and this really can be left separate from appreciation of his little cartoon world which is so enjoyable, so I can just turn away from the annoying blog and be done with it. I really hope he does take the time to read more about science though. For the uninnitiated, I really do recommend Stephen J. Gould as a good starting point. All of his books are excellent and often collections of stand-alone essays so they don't necessary require cover to cover reading to take something useful away (though reading cover to cover is still encouraged).
Off-handed sexism and such...
I haven't been reading Atrios as much lately as I used to, so I really am in no position to really jump into this argument with Ann Althouse over feminism or the lack thereof, except to say that I have read the blog for a long time and find the commentary to be generally agreeable.
So I am not going to comment on their particular argument. They can sort that out. I usually don't read comments on the big sites unless really compelled, so I certainly don't care to hop in a pissing war over who has worse commentors. Whatev', yo.
But I read a few of Ann's comments and this one jumped out at me:
"Ann,
Off handed sexism is alive and well among liberal men. So is incredibly insesitive comments related to gays and lesbians. In fact, the only group they really seem to be mostly politically correct about are African Americans.
What does that say about the actual state of affairs in this country?"
Huh? Sexism alive and well amongst men and insensitive comments about gays and lesbians? Yup, it happens in right here in America, folks. That some liberal men are sometimes off-handedly sexist is shocking and damning how? (stay with me for a minute before getting all in a huff)
The difference is that part and parcel to liberal play of the game is examining and facing down our own prejudices as we also look at those in society as a whole. Folks claiming to be liberal aren't claiming to be perfect and free from taint and baggage. I deal with mine everyday and will be til I die, but I'm working hard to deal with what I find and always further challenge myself to base my views on sex/race/gender/etc. on an ever deepening understanding. I want to approach and deal with my prejudices with discernment and work towards moving them to a more realistic and nuanced place rather than bemoan the world changing from a framework in which my set (white males) could have our pet prejudices and expound on them with impunity. This is the conservative mind set. Why can't things be rolled back to the place where we could be openly racist/sexist/homophobic like the way they used to be? I hardly think such open nostalgia for cultural hedgemony is the same thing as liberals not yet having rid sexism/racism/homophobia completely from their ranks. Its all in where you are aiming folks. The right is aiming at putting blacks/gays/women/po'folks back in their place; the left is aiming at making this country a place for everyone equally. The whiney right critics can kiss my happy ass. Mess with my splinters after you deal with your planks.
I've more to say about this subject, wanting to address directly misogyny amongst gay men, but that will have to wait for now.
So I am not going to comment on their particular argument. They can sort that out. I usually don't read comments on the big sites unless really compelled, so I certainly don't care to hop in a pissing war over who has worse commentors. Whatev', yo.
But I read a few of Ann's comments and this one jumped out at me:
"Ann,
Off handed sexism is alive and well among liberal men. So is incredibly insesitive comments related to gays and lesbians. In fact, the only group they really seem to be mostly politically correct about are African Americans.
What does that say about the actual state of affairs in this country?"
Huh? Sexism alive and well amongst men and insensitive comments about gays and lesbians? Yup, it happens in right here in America, folks. That some liberal men are sometimes off-handedly sexist is shocking and damning how? (stay with me for a minute before getting all in a huff)
The difference is that part and parcel to liberal play of the game is examining and facing down our own prejudices as we also look at those in society as a whole. Folks claiming to be liberal aren't claiming to be perfect and free from taint and baggage. I deal with mine everyday and will be til I die, but I'm working hard to deal with what I find and always further challenge myself to base my views on sex/race/gender/etc. on an ever deepening understanding. I want to approach and deal with my prejudices with discernment and work towards moving them to a more realistic and nuanced place rather than bemoan the world changing from a framework in which my set (white males) could have our pet prejudices and expound on them with impunity. This is the conservative mind set. Why can't things be rolled back to the place where we could be openly racist/sexist/homophobic like the way they used to be? I hardly think such open nostalgia for cultural hedgemony is the same thing as liberals not yet having rid sexism/racism/homophobia completely from their ranks. Its all in where you are aiming folks. The right is aiming at putting blacks/gays/women/po'folks back in their place; the left is aiming at making this country a place for everyone equally. The whiney right critics can kiss my happy ass. Mess with my splinters after you deal with your planks.
I've more to say about this subject, wanting to address directly misogyny amongst gay men, but that will have to wait for now.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Recognition is funny
I'm not going to link to the post, because I generally don't link to blogs which seem to be written for an audience of close friends unless I know said person well and they have said they don't mind being linked to, but I was looking through one of my friend's friends posts on livejournal trying to see if I could figure out who any of the other folks were (since we have many mutual friends) and came across a couple of posts which mentioned a party we recently had. It is always interesting to get folks impressions of you, particularly when they have no idea that you may ever read/hear what they have said.
We have color parties, as did some of our friends when we lived in Charleston. Now, as then, we go a little crazy with decking out the house in whatever color (we have done orange, blue, pink, and most recently brown) and are pretty militant about anyone coming to the party wearing at least some amount of whatever color. The nice and somewhat overwhelming thing about New York is that if you do something fun, it takes no time whatsoever for word to spread and for it to reach capacity. There are at least ten of us here in NYC who used to frequent the Charleston color parties, and each person invites a few, and BAM! you have some serious party momentum.
It is fun seeing how each color affects the mood of people at the party and the feel of the room. Orange was kind of boisterous and really happy; blue was strangely lascivious, with everyone just feeling kind of skeezy and with the mood just feeling like we were in the creepy, but not scary part of some fairytale; pink was like walking into a giant vagina, a bit heavier feeling than one might expect but upbeat and fun and people acting silly; brown was fun and kind of felt like being in a forest, but strangely the word that I heard more than a few people use to describe the feel of the room and the decorations was 'masculine'. Yes, with three of the five roommates being gay boys, there were a lot of men there, but I don't think that is what was meant by it, and generally a room full of homosexuals, even with lots of bearded brooklyn 'mos, doesn't generally elicit the adjective 'masculine' off the bat and the room was decorated with frilly cut brown paper hanging from the ceiling. But I kind of got what they meant. Surrounding yourself in one main color changes the mood of a crowd in interesting ways.
Anyway, as folks have spread the word about the party, there is a larger chunk of folks that attended the party that I know only peripherally or not at all. It has been kind of nice weird the last couple of weeks since the party having folks that I didn't even realize made it to the party or don't even recognize at all come up and start talking to me about the party or hearing someone talking about it not realizing I was one of the hosts.
Looking through the blogs of friends of my friend trying to figure out who was who, since the north brooklyn gay boy community is pretty interconnected, I came across a couple of posts about the party. More interesting than the actual posts was the comments section of a post from the day before where my friend C- was inviting his other friend to the party. So the invitee, trying to figure out who was throwing the party asked "is this the same d- with the icky moustache?"
The answer to which is, of course, "Yes" though I will argue with that icky part. I find it funnier than I find it insulting though. C- diplomatically confirmed "yeah, the boy with the mustache."
I'm leaving out bits of the dialogue, but this is my blog so only the parts about me are going to be discussed, so we continue:
"maybe i should start being nice to the boy with the moustache, but the reason i'm not is sort of silly. we see eachother everywhere and have mutual friends but he gives me bad looks and never says hi or has even introduced himself to me!!! !!! ! ! ! !"
I'm not sure who this is. There weren't enough details to tease out exactly which friend of friends this was who came to the party and I often run into out and about, so maybe I am actually mean to him and just can't think of who it is, but I imagine it is probably unintentional. I don't tend to snub folks intentionally unless I have a reason to, but I wonder how many folks I come across as aloof to? I am more used to people trying to steer clear of me because they think I am too forward rather than too unfriendly. I go to the same damn places over and over (I like my habitual ways; that was not meant as lament) and talk to about anyone who isn't rude and doesn't run away, but maybe I can come across as a big bruesque at times. Maybe that is why I like C- so much. He is way too hyper and enthusiastic and often scares the shit out of people with his complete lack of qualms about introducing himself to new people combined with his tendency to get louder and abruptly confessional when nervous. But he is upfront and fun to hang out with and serious about his silliness and doesn't beat around the bush, which sometimes rubs other folks the wrong way. Which I guess I also do sometimes.
Still, it strikes me as ridiculous to dislike someone else for never having introduced themselves if you haven't introduced yourself to them. Why should I be the initiator? Which C- points out:
"that is silly. you are so funny, how it is the other person's responsibility to introduce themselves, get rid of that way of thinking. and just say hi. he is a really nice, southern boy - so friendly. "
which seems to make sense to this mystery peep:
"it's his responsibility because i'm shy and stupid! but okay, i'll try harder. i'm from the south too sort of, so i can pretend to know what chitlins are for the sake of mustachioed-friendship."
While I do know what chitlins are, I've never eaten them, so no need to front. Anyway, this is probably the most boring post I have ever put up, but thought the whole thing was funny and what is the point of finding folks talking about you in cyberspace if you can't talk back a little?
We have color parties, as did some of our friends when we lived in Charleston. Now, as then, we go a little crazy with decking out the house in whatever color (we have done orange, blue, pink, and most recently brown) and are pretty militant about anyone coming to the party wearing at least some amount of whatever color. The nice and somewhat overwhelming thing about New York is that if you do something fun, it takes no time whatsoever for word to spread and for it to reach capacity. There are at least ten of us here in NYC who used to frequent the Charleston color parties, and each person invites a few, and BAM! you have some serious party momentum.
It is fun seeing how each color affects the mood of people at the party and the feel of the room. Orange was kind of boisterous and really happy; blue was strangely lascivious, with everyone just feeling kind of skeezy and with the mood just feeling like we were in the creepy, but not scary part of some fairytale; pink was like walking into a giant vagina, a bit heavier feeling than one might expect but upbeat and fun and people acting silly; brown was fun and kind of felt like being in a forest, but strangely the word that I heard more than a few people use to describe the feel of the room and the decorations was 'masculine'. Yes, with three of the five roommates being gay boys, there were a lot of men there, but I don't think that is what was meant by it, and generally a room full of homosexuals, even with lots of bearded brooklyn 'mos, doesn't generally elicit the adjective 'masculine' off the bat and the room was decorated with frilly cut brown paper hanging from the ceiling. But I kind of got what they meant. Surrounding yourself in one main color changes the mood of a crowd in interesting ways.
Anyway, as folks have spread the word about the party, there is a larger chunk of folks that attended the party that I know only peripherally or not at all. It has been kind of nice weird the last couple of weeks since the party having folks that I didn't even realize made it to the party or don't even recognize at all come up and start talking to me about the party or hearing someone talking about it not realizing I was one of the hosts.
Looking through the blogs of friends of my friend trying to figure out who was who, since the north brooklyn gay boy community is pretty interconnected, I came across a couple of posts about the party. More interesting than the actual posts was the comments section of a post from the day before where my friend C- was inviting his other friend to the party. So the invitee, trying to figure out who was throwing the party asked "is this the same d- with the icky moustache?"
The answer to which is, of course, "Yes" though I will argue with that icky part. I find it funnier than I find it insulting though. C- diplomatically confirmed "yeah, the boy with the mustache."
I'm leaving out bits of the dialogue, but this is my blog so only the parts about me are going to be discussed, so we continue:
"maybe i should start being nice to the boy with the moustache, but the reason i'm not is sort of silly. we see eachother everywhere and have mutual friends but he gives me bad looks and never says hi or has even introduced himself to me!!! !!! ! ! ! !"
I'm not sure who this is. There weren't enough details to tease out exactly which friend of friends this was who came to the party and I often run into out and about, so maybe I am actually mean to him and just can't think of who it is, but I imagine it is probably unintentional. I don't tend to snub folks intentionally unless I have a reason to, but I wonder how many folks I come across as aloof to? I am more used to people trying to steer clear of me because they think I am too forward rather than too unfriendly. I go to the same damn places over and over (I like my habitual ways; that was not meant as lament) and talk to about anyone who isn't rude and doesn't run away, but maybe I can come across as a big bruesque at times. Maybe that is why I like C- so much. He is way too hyper and enthusiastic and often scares the shit out of people with his complete lack of qualms about introducing himself to new people combined with his tendency to get louder and abruptly confessional when nervous. But he is upfront and fun to hang out with and serious about his silliness and doesn't beat around the bush, which sometimes rubs other folks the wrong way. Which I guess I also do sometimes.
Still, it strikes me as ridiculous to dislike someone else for never having introduced themselves if you haven't introduced yourself to them. Why should I be the initiator? Which C- points out:
"that is silly. you are so funny, how it is the other person's responsibility to introduce themselves, get rid of that way of thinking. and just say hi. he is a really nice, southern boy - so friendly. "
which seems to make sense to this mystery peep:
"it's his responsibility because i'm shy and stupid! but okay, i'll try harder. i'm from the south too sort of, so i can pretend to know what chitlins are for the sake of mustachioed-friendship."
While I do know what chitlins are, I've never eaten them, so no need to front. Anyway, this is probably the most boring post I have ever put up, but thought the whole thing was funny and what is the point of finding folks talking about you in cyberspace if you can't talk back a little?
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Is bush a faggot?
I've railed more than a few times against bigotted idiot assumptions about sterotypes of the relationships that homos have with their parents. Maybe though since Spongedob and pals have such fun with hanging their idiot shit on us and trying to make our parents feel guilty to further alienate us and damage relationships, lets play this game in reverse:
Pandagon: 'Bush rarely speaks to father, family is split'
So bush is an emotional sissy who lashes out when criticized, has a history of abusing substances and partying, was a cheerleader in college, the pampered son of an over-doting mother who is now only talking to the mommy figures in his life and has long had a tense and distant relationship with his father, with whom he is practically no longer speaking. By everything that dobson and his ilk have told us, the kingpin retard should have grown up to be a big ole fag. Boys who are too close to their mothers become homos. Boys who have distant fathers become queer. Boys who aren't steered into macho sports become a little light in the loafers. So why shouldn't we believe that dear leader isn't some faggy-ass closet case just like so many other republican tools?
Because the idiots that promote that shit are idiots and assholes and my dad could have no more turned me into some paragon of heterosexuality by taking me hunting and forcing me to sign up for the football team than bush could have been made gay by his creepy dad favoring the fat asshole brother currently fucking up florida or by babs being delighted to have him as her little imperious, entitled, smart-ass clone sans pearls. You breeders can keep the fucker.
Pandagon: 'Bush rarely speaks to father, family is split'
So bush is an emotional sissy who lashes out when criticized, has a history of abusing substances and partying, was a cheerleader in college, the pampered son of an over-doting mother who is now only talking to the mommy figures in his life and has long had a tense and distant relationship with his father, with whom he is practically no longer speaking. By everything that dobson and his ilk have told us, the kingpin retard should have grown up to be a big ole fag. Boys who are too close to their mothers become homos. Boys who have distant fathers become queer. Boys who aren't steered into macho sports become a little light in the loafers. So why shouldn't we believe that dear leader isn't some faggy-ass closet case just like so many other republican tools?
Because the idiots that promote that shit are idiots and assholes and my dad could have no more turned me into some paragon of heterosexuality by taking me hunting and forcing me to sign up for the football team than bush could have been made gay by his creepy dad favoring the fat asshole brother currently fucking up florida or by babs being delighted to have him as her little imperious, entitled, smart-ass clone sans pearls. You breeders can keep the fucker.
Monday, November 14, 2005
I don't have words for this.
This is one woman's story of sorting through the wreckage of her father and aunt's home with her family and finding their bodies left there despite the assurance that the home had been searched.
Robert Lindsay: The Horror, the Horror: A Katrina Tale
I hope her experience is unique; I am fairly certain it isn't.
Robert Lindsay: The Horror, the Horror: A Katrina Tale
I hope her experience is unique; I am fairly certain it isn't.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Huh?
It's no secret I am big country music fan. So I figure I could read the article the Times had today about a songwriter who is up for an award:
He Writes the Songs, Out of the Spotlight - New York Times
Ummmm, and then I remember why I generally skip over their music reviews:
"The country music industry is really two industries, divided between the music publishing companies that sell songs and the record companies that sell singers to the public. It was a music publishing company, Acuff-Rose, that helped establish Nashville as the capital of country music. And while rock fans expect their singers to be songwriters, too, country fans have grown comfortable with the division of labor; some of the most respected country singers, like George Strait, pride themselves on being interpreters, not composers. "
Yeah, in country music, one person writes the songs, someone else does the singing unlike rock with its singer-songwriters. Uh, what? So yeah Nashville has profession songwriters who write songs for other people; since when did rock bands not have songwriters? Yeah, the back street boys and ashlee simpson write all their own music. What, you don't concider them very rock, more pop? Well, I feel the same way about much of the music they are talking about coming out of Nashvegas. It is just country pop, and you have a bunch of pretty singing faces getting pegged to sell the songs just like you have with so many friggin' rock/whatever bands. If they sing well and I like them as a performer, I really don't care, but you always have to have a special place for singer/songwriters. I just find it kind of stupid to set this out in an article like rock is all about the singer/songwriters and country is about putting words in pretty hillbillies' mouths to make a buck. How cute, they take pride in singing well, even if they can't write too. How fucking patronizing can you get? I don't mean to dis any artist out there who mostly sing songs written by other people, but this wholesale sort of stereotyping is annoying. Especially since so many country stars do also write, either for themselves or for other folks. And more than a few rock stars don't.
One more dumb journalist grasping at an angle and making his argument patronizing and pointless. The unsung stars behind the hits: is there a story to be found there? Sure, but make it interesting instead of moronic and simplistic and write about the story there instead of stretching your current event over a lame stereotype.
He Writes the Songs, Out of the Spotlight - New York Times
Ummmm, and then I remember why I generally skip over their music reviews:
"The country music industry is really two industries, divided between the music publishing companies that sell songs and the record companies that sell singers to the public. It was a music publishing company, Acuff-Rose, that helped establish Nashville as the capital of country music. And while rock fans expect their singers to be songwriters, too, country fans have grown comfortable with the division of labor; some of the most respected country singers, like George Strait, pride themselves on being interpreters, not composers. "
Yeah, in country music, one person writes the songs, someone else does the singing unlike rock with its singer-songwriters. Uh, what? So yeah Nashville has profession songwriters who write songs for other people; since when did rock bands not have songwriters? Yeah, the back street boys and ashlee simpson write all their own music. What, you don't concider them very rock, more pop? Well, I feel the same way about much of the music they are talking about coming out of Nashvegas. It is just country pop, and you have a bunch of pretty singing faces getting pegged to sell the songs just like you have with so many friggin' rock/whatever bands. If they sing well and I like them as a performer, I really don't care, but you always have to have a special place for singer/songwriters. I just find it kind of stupid to set this out in an article like rock is all about the singer/songwriters and country is about putting words in pretty hillbillies' mouths to make a buck. How cute, they take pride in singing well, even if they can't write too. How fucking patronizing can you get? I don't mean to dis any artist out there who mostly sing songs written by other people, but this wholesale sort of stereotyping is annoying. Especially since so many country stars do also write, either for themselves or for other folks. And more than a few rock stars don't.
One more dumb journalist grasping at an angle and making his argument patronizing and pointless. The unsung stars behind the hits: is there a story to be found there? Sure, but make it interesting instead of moronic and simplistic and write about the story there instead of stretching your current event over a lame stereotype.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
"I'd like to see you try it!"
What are you doing Sunday night?
New York Gypsy Festival
If you know me very well, you know I'm a huge Gogol Bordello fan. Gogol Bordello is easily the best live band in the city. Before I had even gotten to New York, my brother was already preaching their gospel to me in preparation. They have been central to my NYC experience and one more chance to see them is welcome. We used to go dance to frontman Eugene Hutz's djing every friday night, first at the Ukrainian National Center and then at Luxx (r.i.p.). I haven't been a devoted acolyte to the party at Bulgarian Bar as it is just slightly further out of my normal path and on Thursday night, but still sneak down there from time to time to get a little fix.
I love going to see live music and am a person who likes to move my feet when I do, but I get frustrated by the crowds watching raucus music and standing there like stumps and when the crowd dampens the dancey vibe, its hard to keep your boogie going, even if the band is doing there part. Gogol Bordello doesn't have this problem. Their loyal fan base likes to stompy-dance and ain't shy about it. First note of the first song and the whole room is in motion. You had better wear strong shoes and be ready for a workout.
Gogol Bordello is at the top of a short list of bands/performers that I will go out of my way to see anytime they play in the city:
Gogol Bordello
Hidden Cameras
Old Crow Medicine Show
Kiki & Herb
They play; I go. Any venue; almost any price. The Scissor Sisters used to be on this list, but now that they have gotten big, they tend to either be out of my price range or sell out before I get around to buying a ticket. The last show of theirs I saw was at Bowery Ballroom just as they were breaking through and if their performances are to be temporarily relegated to memory, that was a good show to be remembered by til I can see them live again.
There are many other musicians who I would go see despite almost any hurdle, but who don't come often and/or are generally out of my price range to justify keeping them on a list: Dolly Parton, Willie Nelson, Raul Malo, the Indigo Girls, Emmylou Harris, Steve Earl, Robert Earl Keen Jr., Yakuza Dance Mob, Iron & Wine, etc.
Anyway, we were gonna have another hootenanny Sunday as part of a little baby step towards perhaps me and the boys starting our own little band, but I think perhaps the evening would be better spent being inspired than in practice. I'll see you at the Gypsy Music Festival at the Roxy Sunday night. I'll be the one with the curly moustache, right down front, dancing like a maniac. I wish my bro were still in town to fight the crowds with me, but hey, I can dance for both of us since he is busy in the down South representing at backwoods Sunday-night bootlegger live blues dance romps.
New York Gypsy Festival
If you know me very well, you know I'm a huge Gogol Bordello fan. Gogol Bordello is easily the best live band in the city. Before I had even gotten to New York, my brother was already preaching their gospel to me in preparation. They have been central to my NYC experience and one more chance to see them is welcome. We used to go dance to frontman Eugene Hutz's djing every friday night, first at the Ukrainian National Center and then at Luxx (r.i.p.). I haven't been a devoted acolyte to the party at Bulgarian Bar as it is just slightly further out of my normal path and on Thursday night, but still sneak down there from time to time to get a little fix.
I love going to see live music and am a person who likes to move my feet when I do, but I get frustrated by the crowds watching raucus music and standing there like stumps and when the crowd dampens the dancey vibe, its hard to keep your boogie going, even if the band is doing there part. Gogol Bordello doesn't have this problem. Their loyal fan base likes to stompy-dance and ain't shy about it. First note of the first song and the whole room is in motion. You had better wear strong shoes and be ready for a workout.
Gogol Bordello is at the top of a short list of bands/performers that I will go out of my way to see anytime they play in the city:
Gogol Bordello
Hidden Cameras
Old Crow Medicine Show
Kiki & Herb
They play; I go. Any venue; almost any price. The Scissor Sisters used to be on this list, but now that they have gotten big, they tend to either be out of my price range or sell out before I get around to buying a ticket. The last show of theirs I saw was at Bowery Ballroom just as they were breaking through and if their performances are to be temporarily relegated to memory, that was a good show to be remembered by til I can see them live again.
There are many other musicians who I would go see despite almost any hurdle, but who don't come often and/or are generally out of my price range to justify keeping them on a list: Dolly Parton, Willie Nelson, Raul Malo, the Indigo Girls, Emmylou Harris, Steve Earl, Robert Earl Keen Jr., Yakuza Dance Mob, Iron & Wine, etc.
Anyway, we were gonna have another hootenanny Sunday as part of a little baby step towards perhaps me and the boys starting our own little band, but I think perhaps the evening would be better spent being inspired than in practice. I'll see you at the Gypsy Music Festival at the Roxy Sunday night. I'll be the one with the curly moustache, right down front, dancing like a maniac. I wish my bro were still in town to fight the crowds with me, but hey, I can dance for both of us since he is busy in the down South representing at backwoods Sunday-night bootlegger live blues dance romps.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Don't you fucking dare...
Via Pandagon and Pam's House Blend I ended up reading this lovely little quote:
"'The whole point of the CD is to develop a heart for the homosexual,' said Bennett. 'While it is critical for churches to resist the effort to normalize homosexuality in our society, it is equally important for the church to reach out to these hurting, broken people.'"
Some more schmucks are selling their dignity for dollars, starting a radio show about ex-gay crap and have developed more products to sell to religious bigots who want to fix the people in their family/congregation/neighborhood who don't fit their butch/fem charicature of ideal humanity and drive more kids to suicide and self immolation. I won't swallow a drop of your stupid 'be nice about it and they will listen to you' bile and don't you dare say this is about churches reaching "out to these hurt broken people." I'm not interested in you being nice or arguing the Bible with you. I don't doubt for a second that you are being sincere in what you are doing (actually, I do, but I'll extend the benefit of the doubt for the time being) and I know exactly what kind of fucked up contortions a politically christian mindset will go through to try to grab hold of those first feelings of finally being mainstream and less of an anathema to the general populace and I know how the status quo enforcers will support and encourage your capitulation to their world view. I can imagine a gay person who can't get past the idea that being gay is nothing more than having sex with men might never develop anything more than a sexualized understanding of their homosexuality and see promiscuity as analogous to homosexuality rather than a part of how they themselves are approaching it and thus find retreat into a woman's arms something of a welcome escape. You may love your wife and you are married now and that is all good and well and I wouldn't begrudge you your hard won 'normalcy', but don't you fucking dare step out and end a sentence in the first half of which you iterate the importance of churches trying to make life worse, more difficult and more marginal for gay people with patronizingly calling us "hurt, broken people."
Yeah, asshole, there are a lot of hurt broken people out there and a lot of hurt, broken gay people, but do you ever stop and think about why gay folks tend to be more likely to commit suicide? Assholes like you trying to reinforce the idea that their innate feelings are evil and deranged and abbhorrant. You aren't going to fuck with those of us who made it out on the otherside of dealing with our demons and have made peace with the the-way-it-is-supposed-to-be shit we were force fed to internalize, but your crap hurts the folks who haven't made it and you are trying to make sure they don't. Because you didn't.
One more holy asshole out to make a buck off of other folks pain. Make sure you are getting a decent cut of the profit, because you better believe they are using your ex gay ass to make a dollar. Bigotry sells, and nothing makes it go down smoother than some turncoat willing to sell the idea that it is a noble cause. you deciding you want to spend your life with a woman and have a family, fine. You marketing that desicion as a device for mass marketing bigotry, go fuck yourself.
"'The whole point of the CD is to develop a heart for the homosexual,' said Bennett. 'While it is critical for churches to resist the effort to normalize homosexuality in our society, it is equally important for the church to reach out to these hurting, broken people.'"
Some more schmucks are selling their dignity for dollars, starting a radio show about ex-gay crap and have developed more products to sell to religious bigots who want to fix the people in their family/congregation/neighborhood who don't fit their butch/fem charicature of ideal humanity and drive more kids to suicide and self immolation. I won't swallow a drop of your stupid 'be nice about it and they will listen to you' bile and don't you dare say this is about churches reaching "out to these hurt broken people." I'm not interested in you being nice or arguing the Bible with you. I don't doubt for a second that you are being sincere in what you are doing (actually, I do, but I'll extend the benefit of the doubt for the time being) and I know exactly what kind of fucked up contortions a politically christian mindset will go through to try to grab hold of those first feelings of finally being mainstream and less of an anathema to the general populace and I know how the status quo enforcers will support and encourage your capitulation to their world view. I can imagine a gay person who can't get past the idea that being gay is nothing more than having sex with men might never develop anything more than a sexualized understanding of their homosexuality and see promiscuity as analogous to homosexuality rather than a part of how they themselves are approaching it and thus find retreat into a woman's arms something of a welcome escape. You may love your wife and you are married now and that is all good and well and I wouldn't begrudge you your hard won 'normalcy', but don't you fucking dare step out and end a sentence in the first half of which you iterate the importance of churches trying to make life worse, more difficult and more marginal for gay people with patronizingly calling us "hurt, broken people."
Yeah, asshole, there are a lot of hurt broken people out there and a lot of hurt, broken gay people, but do you ever stop and think about why gay folks tend to be more likely to commit suicide? Assholes like you trying to reinforce the idea that their innate feelings are evil and deranged and abbhorrant. You aren't going to fuck with those of us who made it out on the otherside of dealing with our demons and have made peace with the the-way-it-is-supposed-to-be shit we were force fed to internalize, but your crap hurts the folks who haven't made it and you are trying to make sure they don't. Because you didn't.
One more holy asshole out to make a buck off of other folks pain. Make sure you are getting a decent cut of the profit, because you better believe they are using your ex gay ass to make a dollar. Bigotry sells, and nothing makes it go down smoother than some turncoat willing to sell the idea that it is a noble cause. you deciding you want to spend your life with a woman and have a family, fine. You marketing that desicion as a device for mass marketing bigotry, go fuck yourself.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
baking is painful
Ok, so not really the baking part is that painful. Trying to bake my odd little apple pie for Enid's annual apple pie baking contest tired and hung over from the ridiculousness of last night while morning the loss of my beloved cell phone is painful. So the cooking was slow going and now it is down to the wire and I am going to have to snatch my pie out of the oven and take the piping hot thing straight down to the contest. Mason was more focused (only slightly so) and has already finished his and isn't pulling his hair out stressing over whether or not his pie is going to come out alright. Anyway, just wasting a little time while it bakes.
My phone decided to leave me at some point last night at Jake Shears' halloween party. Fun party, but my competitive instinct took over and for some reason decided that I was in some kind of drinking race with no one and was unintenionally downing beers at a much faster clip than necessary so some elements of the night are hazy but I just know that I lost my cane (part of costume), my phone, and my metrocard (thankfully that one not until I got on the subway). Upon calling my number this morning I discovered that it had been found/stolen by someone who then proceeded to sell for 20 bucks to some schmuck in the Bronx. Who hung up on me and quit answering the phone. So I reported it stolen and morned the loss of all the damn phone numbers that I have never written down and the many which I have no idea how to replace. So if you are reading this and I should have your phone number, be a sweety and email it to me or call me in a couple of days when I get my new one.
Ok, I gotta go check on the pie.
My phone decided to leave me at some point last night at Jake Shears' halloween party. Fun party, but my competitive instinct took over and for some reason decided that I was in some kind of drinking race with no one and was unintenionally downing beers at a much faster clip than necessary so some elements of the night are hazy but I just know that I lost my cane (part of costume), my phone, and my metrocard (thankfully that one not until I got on the subway). Upon calling my number this morning I discovered that it had been found/stolen by someone who then proceeded to sell for 20 bucks to some schmuck in the Bronx. Who hung up on me and quit answering the phone. So I reported it stolen and morned the loss of all the damn phone numbers that I have never written down and the many which I have no idea how to replace. So if you are reading this and I should have your phone number, be a sweety and email it to me or call me in a couple of days when I get my new one.
Ok, I gotta go check on the pie.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Why go on?
This has to be short, because I have a long commute ahead of me and have to get back to brooklyn in time to catch America's Next Top Model. But really, why bother? I totally don't care anymore now that Coryn is gone. Now who is going to call Lisa an alcoholic bitch? Can we pause for a moment to note how stupid that little staged "let's talk about our vices" un-intervention was last week? Ok, so yeah, any excuse to get Tyra to talk about twinkies is worth it, but really the set up was so lame and staged that I made me want to avert my eyes.
I was suggesting I might not bother watching anymore since I really don't care what happens now that Stumbles, Coryn, and Don't-get-it-twisted! are all off the show and it is just going to be a long protracted farce til they give it to that annoying geena davis looking girl with pale skin, but C- quickly set me straight:
Me: "Why bother watching?"
C-: "There's still Lisa to hate."
I was suggesting I might not bother watching anymore since I really don't care what happens now that Stumbles, Coryn, and Don't-get-it-twisted! are all off the show and it is just going to be a long protracted farce til they give it to that annoying geena davis looking girl with pale skin, but C- quickly set me straight:
Me: "Why bother watching?"
C-: "There's still Lisa to hate."
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
thoughts on inside/outside: stay in your place boy...
I just read an article by Eugene Robinson about condoleeza rice over at Steve Gilliard and Jen'sNEWS BLOG which really struck me, both the article and Steve's commentary. From Robinson:
"As we were flying to Alabama, Rice said an interesting thing. She was talking about the history of the civil rights movement, and she said, 'If you read Frederick Douglass, he was not petitioning from outside of the institutions but rather demanding that the institutions live up to what they said they were. If you read Martin Luther King, he was not petitioning from outside, he was petitioning from inside the principles and the institutions, and challenging America to be what America said that it was.'"
What the fuck? In a very literal way perhaps that is true, but only if you are talking about our national institutions and the raceless egalitarian language found in them. Yes, they were calling for us all to live up to what are ostensibly our guiding principles, but that meant destroying and dismantling the institutions which were in opposition to that. Like slavery. Or jim crow.
Those were institutions in our nation once upon a time and the exclusion of blacks from public office was institutional throughout much of our country until not so long ago. It was aggressively opposing the institutional racism in this country, particularly in the south, that the civil rights movement in the 60's was about. That blacks were required to move to the back of the bus was not some quaint notion that folks had just fallen into. It was enforced by local government institutions.
But really this is nitpicking: what is her damn point? Douglass and King were both inextricably a part of their times and they didn't withdraw and take a circuitous route through it. They fought injustice head-on and pointed flat out what was wrong instead of accepting things as they were, but that didn't mean they joined up with the shit that was going wrong in the country. Did you see King or Parks (peace be with her today) applying to be bus drivers? No, the bus system was fucked up so they boycotted it, they didn't join it. The reason I say this is because, and perhaps I am drawing conclusions as there is not a whole lot of surrounding context with that quote, dr. rice seems to be defending herself for throwing her lot in with republicans.
Which sounds a lot like the damn log cabin republicans.
Or best little boy in the world syndrome.
Which brings me to Steve's point:
"But what I think Robinson misses and is clear is that Rice has always been the special girl. Her parents made her special, her mentors made her special. At no time was she obligated to help or assist anyone behind her. Because she was special. Everything is all about her. Rice also has benefitted from the approval of her elders. Why challenge those who help you along and praise your manners?
"Her parents raised her with the idea that achievement was good enough. If she was cultured and smart enough, it would be a sign that she could compete with whites and that was important. The problem was that Rice is blind to the fact that her position was only possible by the sacrifice of others. So while Rice played her piano, other kids were being beaten by the local police. She has never thought she owed them anything, despite her success."
Again, "She has never thought she owed them anything, despite her success." Maybe with the republicans IS where she belongs. This idea of I-got-mine crap is what pisses me off about republicans in general, but gay republicans in particular. It seems to also be what gets Steve Gilliard and so many other black people pissed off at black republicans. The idea that making it yourself is enough. The idea that others aren't left behind, didn't help you get there, that you are where you are because you just chose to take care of things and if you did it, why didn't all those other miserable people do it? If some folks don't like getting targeted by the police, why aren't they just more careful? Why do they think they should get special treatment? If they want to go to college, why don't they get a job or a scholarship or something? I DID IT, WHY CAN'T YOU? And why should I care if you don't, as long as you stay in your place, boy?
Because that is what the republicans say to black people and it is what they say to gay people. Just do what you're supposed to and everything will be alright. There is a remarkable difference, in that (most) gay people can 'pass'. We can pretend to be something other what we are and pay that price internally. So sometimes we have an option to hide our otherness when confronted with bigotry. And when our families don't reject us, many of us who are white and gay have the backing of families which have been integrated into the local power structures for generations and come from well-educated backgrounds and are expected and encouraged to go to college (not to say that there aren't black families with all these things, but not the same percentage, which is exactly the disparity that affirmative action is meant to address). I come from a middle-class family that I could depend on protecting and sheltering me and that I could retreat into when my being different was dangerous for me during my developmental years. Which I guess is much like condoleeza. Her family provided her with that retreat and protection, which is what families are supposed to supply for their children, but what of her choice to stay in a bubble as an adult? Which is what she has done. She has hidden in the patronage of the neocons and bushes, and never looked out to those who didn't have the same shelter she did. She was friends with one of the girls killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church? How does this not haunt her?
Really, and perhaps I am getting too telling here, but I remember those who didn't make it out on the other side. I don't mean folks just getting killed, but getting crushed. Watching folks struggling to get the hell out of the mess they had been told was their place and not making it. I don't just mean gay folks, though I certainly do include some in this number, and I don't mean just a geographic escape though sometimes that is what it takes. How do you turn your back on those you could have been? I could have easily, very easily been a junkie or a hustler or beat the fuck up for being gay or have contracted HIV/syphilis/hepatitus before I knew how the hell to protect myself. Before I knew that I was worth protecting, because even though, thankfully I was blessed with a family that told me everyday that I was loved and that I mattered, the world out there was telling me that I didn't and that my family wouldn't think so either if they knew the truth about me. I was valuable, but not if I was gay. I would catch AIDS and die and I would DESERVE TO. Don't for a second tell me that wasn't the republican message in the eighties. I was young, I wasn't blind or stupid. And I dare you to say that isn't their message to gay kids now. It isn't accidental. It is on purpose and it is institutional. Bigotry and greedy self interest are the right's biggest selling points.
How do gay republicans not see themselves when they look back at highschool kids today? There are plenty of kids who are coming out and being more accepted today than ever, but high school is still a very dramatic and traumatic time and we have a president and his party who control both house's of congress passing laws prohibiting educators from teaching anything about condoms except to stress failure rates. That is tantamount to an attempt to kill kids, particularly gay kids, and I'm sorry, but if you are in your late twenties/early thirties and gay and not HIV+, you owe a hell of a debt to public education about safe sex. Democrats aren't perfect, but you will never see a democratic candidate trying to keep youth educators from teaching teens the importance of wearing condoms.
This is what conservativism is about: keeping people in their places and reinforcing consequences to punish those who step outside of those bounds. That is what the abstenance ed is about: making kids who don't wait until marriage more likely to contract a disease or get pregnant. It isn't about protecting kids, it is about making them stay in the societal bounds that some assholes want them to and making them pay if they don't. Be the best little boy/girl in the world or else you deserve what you get. Fags and whores get what they deserve.
This is what racial profiling is about: making visibility more precarious for black people. If a black person gets pulled over by a cop in this country, more often than not his car is going to be searched. Even if he is polite, even if he has registration, liscense, no record, so if (s)he is breaking even a minor law, they are more likely to be caught. Adding consequence to black people stepping out of line. Be the best little boy/girl in the world or else you deserve what you get. N****rs that don't stay in their place get what they deserve.
I guess that is the same purpose of the new bankrupcy/credit guidlines. Best little or else. Po folks get what they deserve.
Keep them faggots/n****rs/po folks running. I deserved what I got, they deserve what they'll get.
I come from AL, too. My dad saw dr. rice's motorcade go rolling by last week. I could have easily been Scotty Joe Weaver or Billy Jack Gaither and she could have been Denise McNair, but circumstance and chance and family protected us both from that. The difference is that I don't work for people who play to the people who wouldn't have cared if either of us had ended up that way. I didn't spend the day shoe shopping while a whole hell of a lot of the people I could have been (and was in a position to help) were left to die.
"As we were flying to Alabama, Rice said an interesting thing. She was talking about the history of the civil rights movement, and she said, 'If you read Frederick Douglass, he was not petitioning from outside of the institutions but rather demanding that the institutions live up to what they said they were. If you read Martin Luther King, he was not petitioning from outside, he was petitioning from inside the principles and the institutions, and challenging America to be what America said that it was.'"
What the fuck? In a very literal way perhaps that is true, but only if you are talking about our national institutions and the raceless egalitarian language found in them. Yes, they were calling for us all to live up to what are ostensibly our guiding principles, but that meant destroying and dismantling the institutions which were in opposition to that. Like slavery. Or jim crow.
Those were institutions in our nation once upon a time and the exclusion of blacks from public office was institutional throughout much of our country until not so long ago. It was aggressively opposing the institutional racism in this country, particularly in the south, that the civil rights movement in the 60's was about. That blacks were required to move to the back of the bus was not some quaint notion that folks had just fallen into. It was enforced by local government institutions.
But really this is nitpicking: what is her damn point? Douglass and King were both inextricably a part of their times and they didn't withdraw and take a circuitous route through it. They fought injustice head-on and pointed flat out what was wrong instead of accepting things as they were, but that didn't mean they joined up with the shit that was going wrong in the country. Did you see King or Parks (peace be with her today) applying to be bus drivers? No, the bus system was fucked up so they boycotted it, they didn't join it. The reason I say this is because, and perhaps I am drawing conclusions as there is not a whole lot of surrounding context with that quote, dr. rice seems to be defending herself for throwing her lot in with republicans.
Which sounds a lot like the damn log cabin republicans.
Or best little boy in the world syndrome.
Which brings me to Steve's point:
"But what I think Robinson misses and is clear is that Rice has always been the special girl. Her parents made her special, her mentors made her special. At no time was she obligated to help or assist anyone behind her. Because she was special. Everything is all about her. Rice also has benefitted from the approval of her elders. Why challenge those who help you along and praise your manners?
"Her parents raised her with the idea that achievement was good enough. If she was cultured and smart enough, it would be a sign that she could compete with whites and that was important. The problem was that Rice is blind to the fact that her position was only possible by the sacrifice of others. So while Rice played her piano, other kids were being beaten by the local police. She has never thought she owed them anything, despite her success."
Again, "She has never thought she owed them anything, despite her success." Maybe with the republicans IS where she belongs. This idea of I-got-mine crap is what pisses me off about republicans in general, but gay republicans in particular. It seems to also be what gets Steve Gilliard and so many other black people pissed off at black republicans. The idea that making it yourself is enough. The idea that others aren't left behind, didn't help you get there, that you are where you are because you just chose to take care of things and if you did it, why didn't all those other miserable people do it? If some folks don't like getting targeted by the police, why aren't they just more careful? Why do they think they should get special treatment? If they want to go to college, why don't they get a job or a scholarship or something? I DID IT, WHY CAN'T YOU? And why should I care if you don't, as long as you stay in your place, boy?
Because that is what the republicans say to black people and it is what they say to gay people. Just do what you're supposed to and everything will be alright. There is a remarkable difference, in that (most) gay people can 'pass'. We can pretend to be something other what we are and pay that price internally. So sometimes we have an option to hide our otherness when confronted with bigotry. And when our families don't reject us, many of us who are white and gay have the backing of families which have been integrated into the local power structures for generations and come from well-educated backgrounds and are expected and encouraged to go to college (not to say that there aren't black families with all these things, but not the same percentage, which is exactly the disparity that affirmative action is meant to address). I come from a middle-class family that I could depend on protecting and sheltering me and that I could retreat into when my being different was dangerous for me during my developmental years. Which I guess is much like condoleeza. Her family provided her with that retreat and protection, which is what families are supposed to supply for their children, but what of her choice to stay in a bubble as an adult? Which is what she has done. She has hidden in the patronage of the neocons and bushes, and never looked out to those who didn't have the same shelter she did. She was friends with one of the girls killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church? How does this not haunt her?
Really, and perhaps I am getting too telling here, but I remember those who didn't make it out on the other side. I don't mean folks just getting killed, but getting crushed. Watching folks struggling to get the hell out of the mess they had been told was their place and not making it. I don't just mean gay folks, though I certainly do include some in this number, and I don't mean just a geographic escape though sometimes that is what it takes. How do you turn your back on those you could have been? I could have easily, very easily been a junkie or a hustler or beat the fuck up for being gay or have contracted HIV/syphilis/hepatitus before I knew how the hell to protect myself. Before I knew that I was worth protecting, because even though, thankfully I was blessed with a family that told me everyday that I was loved and that I mattered, the world out there was telling me that I didn't and that my family wouldn't think so either if they knew the truth about me. I was valuable, but not if I was gay. I would catch AIDS and die and I would DESERVE TO. Don't for a second tell me that wasn't the republican message in the eighties. I was young, I wasn't blind or stupid. And I dare you to say that isn't their message to gay kids now. It isn't accidental. It is on purpose and it is institutional. Bigotry and greedy self interest are the right's biggest selling points.
How do gay republicans not see themselves when they look back at highschool kids today? There are plenty of kids who are coming out and being more accepted today than ever, but high school is still a very dramatic and traumatic time and we have a president and his party who control both house's of congress passing laws prohibiting educators from teaching anything about condoms except to stress failure rates. That is tantamount to an attempt to kill kids, particularly gay kids, and I'm sorry, but if you are in your late twenties/early thirties and gay and not HIV+, you owe a hell of a debt to public education about safe sex. Democrats aren't perfect, but you will never see a democratic candidate trying to keep youth educators from teaching teens the importance of wearing condoms.
This is what conservativism is about: keeping people in their places and reinforcing consequences to punish those who step outside of those bounds. That is what the abstenance ed is about: making kids who don't wait until marriage more likely to contract a disease or get pregnant. It isn't about protecting kids, it is about making them stay in the societal bounds that some assholes want them to and making them pay if they don't. Be the best little boy/girl in the world or else you deserve what you get. Fags and whores get what they deserve.
This is what racial profiling is about: making visibility more precarious for black people. If a black person gets pulled over by a cop in this country, more often than not his car is going to be searched. Even if he is polite, even if he has registration, liscense, no record, so if (s)he is breaking even a minor law, they are more likely to be caught. Adding consequence to black people stepping out of line. Be the best little boy/girl in the world or else you deserve what you get. N****rs that don't stay in their place get what they deserve.
I guess that is the same purpose of the new bankrupcy/credit guidlines. Best little or else. Po folks get what they deserve.
Keep them faggots/n****rs/po folks running. I deserved what I got, they deserve what they'll get.
I come from AL, too. My dad saw dr. rice's motorcade go rolling by last week. I could have easily been Scotty Joe Weaver or Billy Jack Gaither and she could have been Denise McNair, but circumstance and chance and family protected us both from that. The difference is that I don't work for people who play to the people who wouldn't have cared if either of us had ended up that way. I didn't spend the day shoe shopping while a whole hell of a lot of the people I could have been (and was in a position to help) were left to die.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Rotnee, your leash is too long...
So I decided to wander over to a Magnetic Fields cover website:
:..:::.:: Our Love is Meaningless::.:::..:
I needed some new music and I love covers (even bad ones) and the Mag Fields, so why not see what new stuff they have (even if Stephin did make a frowny face instead of answering the question when I asked him if he knew about the site)? So I bop on over and who happens to have sent an mp3 for our enjoyment?
Yakuza Dance Mob!!!
Who just so happened to be the band that headlined at my annual New Year's extravaganza down in the Southland home base (awareness is painful: Hit it til it breaks!!!!). The Dance Mobbing Yakuzatrons are a lovely and insane bunch who are fun to have around, on stage or off, and who in some form or another have helped me start my year for as long as I care to think back. Perhaps one of the best stage performances I have ever seen in my life was one of the Mob's members, Rotnee went with a crew of us to a local coffee shop/bar and performed a set at an open mike night. I can't begin to describe that performance and probably shouldn't, but a mixture of unintentional slap stick with absolute sincerity and lack of self-consciousness in front of a crowd of middle-aged local drunks who just want to hear classic rock covers is a pleasure to watch.
:..:::.:: Our Love is Meaningless::.:::..:
I needed some new music and I love covers (even bad ones) and the Mag Fields, so why not see what new stuff they have (even if Stephin did make a frowny face instead of answering the question when I asked him if he knew about the site)? So I bop on over and who happens to have sent an mp3 for our enjoyment?
Yakuza Dance Mob!!!
Who just so happened to be the band that headlined at my annual New Year's extravaganza down in the Southland home base (awareness is painful: Hit it til it breaks!!!!). The Dance Mobbing Yakuzatrons are a lovely and insane bunch who are fun to have around, on stage or off, and who in some form or another have helped me start my year for as long as I care to think back. Perhaps one of the best stage performances I have ever seen in my life was one of the Mob's members, Rotnee went with a crew of us to a local coffee shop/bar and performed a set at an open mike night. I can't begin to describe that performance and probably shouldn't, but a mixture of unintentional slap stick with absolute sincerity and lack of self-consciousness in front of a crowd of middle-aged local drunks who just want to hear classic rock covers is a pleasure to watch.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
He makes it sound so fun, don't he?
Via Pandagon, I found myself reading this nauseating pile of shit.
"Is motherhood instinctive or learned behavior? Both religion and science tell us that it is instinctive, much to the distaste of the feminist ideologists, who have never been overburdened by a solid grasp on either. But one need only watch the way in which a young girl mothers her stuffed animals to see the maternal instinct at work."
Really, the first paragraph tells you enough to stop right there. The snide, queeny tone delivering a patronizing dismissal of assumed objections is enough to make you laugh, but religitards wielding science to bolster their bigoted-ass claims always raise my ire. Dude, keep your grimey hands off my science and honestly, keep it off my Bible too. If you want to base your opinion of women on dirty jokes told in middle school, sci-fi novel sex scenes, and crude anecdotes told by drunk men at the bar or hunting lodge; do that, but don't try to dress it up as religion and science. You put down and carefully back away from your agenda of framing women as servile bitches that need a big strong stud to swoop them away and help them fulfill their baby factory potential, and we'll discuss instincts and human behavior in relation to evolutionary theory and studies in animal behavior and how that reinforces or contradicts the presentation of gender roles in religious texts. Til then, back away from the religion/science and just say "this is what I think" instead of using the higher power/post-Enlightenment scholarship schtick to try and dress up your dumb ideas.
Anyway, if you want to read volxwagon puppy's how-to-list for ladies to not ruin their life by becoming indepentant strong-willed tramps, you will have to follow the link. I will share this one last little chunk which is just unrivalled for its what-the-fuck factor:
"As for the likelihood that the technological future will eventually solve such problems, it is worth noting that no society that possesses artificial wombs, robot sex dolls, multiplayer video games and 24-hour sports networks is one in which men are likely to show a tremendous amount of interest in relationships or the opposite sex."
Uhmmm... yeah, this is definitely someone who has a strong and clear grasp of interpersonal relationships. This is the fellow I am going to from now on to help me figure out quandries about the kind of future I want and how to get there. Really now, we have 24 sports networks and multiplayer video games and some pretty realistic sex dolls, but do you see most fellows choosing those things over getting laid or thinking of them as substitutes for a relationship? Maybe there are a few fellows that do, just like there are some guys who choose the bottle or a hit over a girl, but technology is hardly leading to this mass exodus of guys from the arms of women into the loving embrace of a PS2 and a silicone vagina.
I went to his blog and read around for a while, but the dude basically just seems kind of crazy, like he doesn't have a whole lot of real interaction with adults. I don't know how old he is, but there is something pretty adolescent pervy about the way he talks about women. Hints in his blog suggest that he isn't in middle school, but his brain still seems to be.
(Amanda, I don't link to Pandagon near often enough, but a general thanks to you for the excellent writing. Keep fighting the good fight.)
"Is motherhood instinctive or learned behavior? Both religion and science tell us that it is instinctive, much to the distaste of the feminist ideologists, who have never been overburdened by a solid grasp on either. But one need only watch the way in which a young girl mothers her stuffed animals to see the maternal instinct at work."
Really, the first paragraph tells you enough to stop right there. The snide, queeny tone delivering a patronizing dismissal of assumed objections is enough to make you laugh, but religitards wielding science to bolster their bigoted-ass claims always raise my ire. Dude, keep your grimey hands off my science and honestly, keep it off my Bible too. If you want to base your opinion of women on dirty jokes told in middle school, sci-fi novel sex scenes, and crude anecdotes told by drunk men at the bar or hunting lodge; do that, but don't try to dress it up as religion and science. You put down and carefully back away from your agenda of framing women as servile bitches that need a big strong stud to swoop them away and help them fulfill their baby factory potential, and we'll discuss instincts and human behavior in relation to evolutionary theory and studies in animal behavior and how that reinforces or contradicts the presentation of gender roles in religious texts. Til then, back away from the religion/science and just say "this is what I think" instead of using the higher power/post-Enlightenment scholarship schtick to try and dress up your dumb ideas.
Anyway, if you want to read volxwagon puppy's how-to-list for ladies to not ruin their life by becoming indepentant strong-willed tramps, you will have to follow the link. I will share this one last little chunk which is just unrivalled for its what-the-fuck factor:
"As for the likelihood that the technological future will eventually solve such problems, it is worth noting that no society that possesses artificial wombs, robot sex dolls, multiplayer video games and 24-hour sports networks is one in which men are likely to show a tremendous amount of interest in relationships or the opposite sex."
Uhmmm... yeah, this is definitely someone who has a strong and clear grasp of interpersonal relationships. This is the fellow I am going to from now on to help me figure out quandries about the kind of future I want and how to get there. Really now, we have 24 sports networks and multiplayer video games and some pretty realistic sex dolls, but do you see most fellows choosing those things over getting laid or thinking of them as substitutes for a relationship? Maybe there are a few fellows that do, just like there are some guys who choose the bottle or a hit over a girl, but technology is hardly leading to this mass exodus of guys from the arms of women into the loving embrace of a PS2 and a silicone vagina.
I went to his blog and read around for a while, but the dude basically just seems kind of crazy, like he doesn't have a whole lot of real interaction with adults. I don't know how old he is, but there is something pretty adolescent pervy about the way he talks about women. Hints in his blog suggest that he isn't in middle school, but his brain still seems to be.
(Amanda, I don't link to Pandagon near often enough, but a general thanks to you for the excellent writing. Keep fighting the good fight.)
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Thanks a lot, Spongedob Stickypants.
now look at how people are finding there way here:
dads taking a shower with there son - Google Search
It should say something that THAT search leads you to commentary on the fundy dummies and their retarded parenting advice. And this is the first google search that I have seen that turns me up as the top link that doesn't actually include "awareness is painful" in the search. Just my luck. You write angry missives about the bush administration, radical religious idiots, and the stupidity of gay republicans for a year or so and suddenly you are the top online stop for either sheepish yuppie parents trying to figure out if they are going to scar their toddlers by letting their kids shower with them or incest fetishists. I guess that always has been my target audience.
dads taking a shower with there son - Google Search
It should say something that THAT search leads you to commentary on the fundy dummies and their retarded parenting advice. And this is the first google search that I have seen that turns me up as the top link that doesn't actually include "awareness is painful" in the search. Just my luck. You write angry missives about the bush administration, radical religious idiots, and the stupidity of gay republicans for a year or so and suddenly you are the top online stop for either sheepish yuppie parents trying to figure out if they are going to scar their toddlers by letting their kids shower with them or incest fetishists. I guess that always has been my target audience.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Not if you do it right, honey.
I don't have all that much traffic on this blog, but it is amusing looking through and seeing how folks find their way here. The Altercation link was the biggest spike in traffic followed by the fights with homo republicans (thanks, malcontent/prismwarden) and then maybe friendster and a few from the couple of folks who link to me, but the most fun are the completely random searches that lead people here. People who I am fairly certain were not looking for an angry twenty-something bitching about politics. Having used the words "gay" and "sex" and "porn", amongst a few other choice words that my mother would disapprove of, I get the smut seekers on occasion. I have trouble imagining someone sitting at their computer, planning on whacking off and then seeing and choosing "Awareness is painful" from the list of choices in Google from their search for "hot men cock porn fucking" or whatever. But hey, everybody's welcome here. I'll take the hornballs over the gay republicans anyday.
My favorite are the ones where you can tell someone is looking for the answer to a question, although they often involve the word "painful" and kind of make me cringe. Here's the most recent example:
MSN Search: painful after using cock ring
Another truth-seeker asked "Is gay sex painful?" Maybe I should start treating this like an accidental advice column, answering these random quandries for these folks who likely will never stumble back across my site again. I guess I shouldn't start sharing my volunteered expertise with a quandry about cock rings, since I've never used one, but I'm guessing that if it hurts, you might want to try a different size.
I guess that sort of goes for the other question too.
My favorite are the ones where you can tell someone is looking for the answer to a question, although they often involve the word "painful" and kind of make me cringe. Here's the most recent example:
MSN Search: painful after using cock ring
Another truth-seeker asked "Is gay sex painful?" Maybe I should start treating this like an accidental advice column, answering these random quandries for these folks who likely will never stumble back across my site again. I guess I shouldn't start sharing my volunteered expertise with a quandry about cock rings, since I've never used one, but I'm guessing that if it hurts, you might want to try a different size.
I guess that sort of goes for the other question too.
"the best of America"
condi is going on a photo-op hunt with a diplomat down to Alabama? Give me a fucking break.
But hey, Alabama is synonymous internationally with racism and so is the bush administration, so what the hell?
But hey, Alabama is synonymous internationally with racism and so is the bush administration, so what the hell?
Friday, October 14, 2005
The Apprentice: Hillbilly Edition
So I have allowed myself two guilty tv pleasures which I count as only one because they are watched in rapid succession: America's Next Top Model and Martha Stewart's Apprentice. I never really liked the normal trumpified Apprentice, but originally I thought that was because I have always, ALWAYS found Donald Trump to be insanely annoying. I was wrong; it is because the contestants are insanely annoying. Sure, some of them aren't, and they aren't on the screen as much. The keep the retards front and center and you have to watch these freaks go on and on and on about whatever the hell stupid idea they came up with. L- was watching the show while I was eating dinner last night so I go sucked into most of last night's episode where I learned that they seemingly recruited everyone at shopping malls in the suburban south. The ladies' team was terrorized by a gaggle of those horrible medium sized perky blonde 'popular' harpy bitches that make everyone look back at highschool with horror. I don't mind a good southern accent; I have something of a drawl myself, but there is this certain kind of trailer park bark that perky evil sorority girls get that makes me wish someone were scraping their nails across a blackboard instead. Don't get me wrong, there are good perky southern girls and evil ones. There are four or five (they are hard to tell apart) of the evil ones on this season's apprentice. They spent last night ganging up on the brown girl to try and shove her in a costume that they knew she hated while they kind of tolerated/ignored the brunette, the black girl, and the much taller and reasonbly sane blonde former pageant queen. Those weird little clicks from hell are one of the things that I am happiest to not have to interact with in NYC. The hipsters can get annoying, but they don't quite have the same herd instict and appetite for blood and destruction that the southern deb squads do. If you want to see what is wrong with America, watch last night's episode and know that we are currently treating those people like they are anything other than selfish manipulative monsters.
On the boys team, there seemed to be a couple of sane people, who didn't get to say much and instead we were treated to a despotic southern closet case with another horrible trailer park accent and a napoleon complex. We get him going on and on to the camera about how he is regulating and making everything work, while they come up with a lame ass idea for some stupid genie thing which is just a thinly veiled excuse for him to talk about women and suggest that the character (to be used to convince children to eat icecream) have big breasts so he can pretend he ain't a 'mo. Yeah, fooled us there, killer. The other conspicuous southerner on the team was a somewhat cute but vapid Kentucky good ol' boy. Seemed nice enough, his accent wasn't as caustic as the other southtards, but why they let him talk into the camera about how wild it was for him to put on a costume that made him into a she. And gotta love how they managed to show as many shots as possible of him in just the skin suit that he put on beneath the costume with him teenie peenie poking out as the closet boy points out his bulge and suggest ducktape. Course country boy don't mind doing drag so long as he can let his pokey little puppy prove its really a man beneath the "big boobs", so he wants none of the duct tape extravaganza.
I was getting ready to go out and try to drink away all memory of this episode, so I missed some in the middle where basically the boys won, the girls lost hard core with their stupid ideas and super clique act. The boys went to play baseball and the girls preened in the suite getting ready to go to the boardroom and leader of this project (and the evil blonde clique) suddenly begins to realize that she was supposed to do something in this assignment besides try and humiliate and boss around the 'deeefrint' girls and that the other girls realized that they lost because the costume sucked and they basically spent the whole episode trying to put the uppity colored girl in her place.
I had all I could take and left so I don't know if the evil minions of hell prevailed and managed to get rid of the little brown thorn in their blond sides or if there is a God in the apprentice and one of them was sent home as a lesson to the other idiots that this is a business challenge, not middle school.
On the boys team, there seemed to be a couple of sane people, who didn't get to say much and instead we were treated to a despotic southern closet case with another horrible trailer park accent and a napoleon complex. We get him going on and on to the camera about how he is regulating and making everything work, while they come up with a lame ass idea for some stupid genie thing which is just a thinly veiled excuse for him to talk about women and suggest that the character (to be used to convince children to eat icecream) have big breasts so he can pretend he ain't a 'mo. Yeah, fooled us there, killer. The other conspicuous southerner on the team was a somewhat cute but vapid Kentucky good ol' boy. Seemed nice enough, his accent wasn't as caustic as the other southtards, but why they let him talk into the camera about how wild it was for him to put on a costume that made him into a she. And gotta love how they managed to show as many shots as possible of him in just the skin suit that he put on beneath the costume with him teenie peenie poking out as the closet boy points out his bulge and suggest ducktape. Course country boy don't mind doing drag so long as he can let his pokey little puppy prove its really a man beneath the "big boobs", so he wants none of the duct tape extravaganza.
I was getting ready to go out and try to drink away all memory of this episode, so I missed some in the middle where basically the boys won, the girls lost hard core with their stupid ideas and super clique act. The boys went to play baseball and the girls preened in the suite getting ready to go to the boardroom and leader of this project (and the evil blonde clique) suddenly begins to realize that she was supposed to do something in this assignment besides try and humiliate and boss around the 'deeefrint' girls and that the other girls realized that they lost because the costume sucked and they basically spent the whole episode trying to put the uppity colored girl in her place.
I had all I could take and left so I don't know if the evil minions of hell prevailed and managed to get rid of the little brown thorn in their blond sides or if there is a God in the apprentice and one of them was sent home as a lesson to the other idiots that this is a business challenge, not middle school.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Make a joyful noise...
My computer has been troubled and is getting fixed by an insanely kind and wonderful friend and our internet is kind of fucked up at home right now anyway, so I am not able to write as often as I would like these days. That said, we had an amazing weekend in our lovely greenpoint mansion.
There is something cathartic about the weather finally breaking and giving us a little cool and wet. Sunday felt like Christmas, waking up with the "family" and cooking a big meal together (for which one of my roommates made the nastiest smelling cheese grits ever) and watching movies and having friends over and just relaxing. Monday, Mason and I had a few friends over to have a little hootenanny. Our normal music making buddy C came over, but we also added a lovely new addition in A who brought with him an autoharp and a bass voice. It took a little while to get us all going and sometime figuring out songs which everyone knew, but it was nice.
That was followed up with heading off to the secret Kiki and Herb show at Joe's Pub. The show was amazing and I really can't do a proper review of it at the moment, so I will refrain from further comment, except to comment that turning the Scissor Sister's "Take Your Momma Out Tonight" into an emotively explosive, biting protest song is no small accomplishment.
I have to escape the computer now and hurry off to watch America's Next Top Model and Martha's Apprentice. You should too.
There is something cathartic about the weather finally breaking and giving us a little cool and wet. Sunday felt like Christmas, waking up with the "family" and cooking a big meal together (for which one of my roommates made the nastiest smelling cheese grits ever) and watching movies and having friends over and just relaxing. Monday, Mason and I had a few friends over to have a little hootenanny. Our normal music making buddy C came over, but we also added a lovely new addition in A who brought with him an autoharp and a bass voice. It took a little while to get us all going and sometime figuring out songs which everyone knew, but it was nice.
That was followed up with heading off to the secret Kiki and Herb show at Joe's Pub. The show was amazing and I really can't do a proper review of it at the moment, so I will refrain from further comment, except to comment that turning the Scissor Sister's "Take Your Momma Out Tonight" into an emotively explosive, biting protest song is no small accomplishment.
I have to escape the computer now and hurry off to watch America's Next Top Model and Martha's Apprentice. You should too.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Suddenly Riley seems progressive.
That idiot roy moore wants to run for governor of AL now.
Just fucking great. He won't win, but do the morons always have to find their way into the spotlight to further reinforce the idea that Alabama is the most backwards-ass place on the planet? He can't beat Riley, who to his credit could have been a really good governor if he hadn't let the national republicans advise him to make a racist veto right out of the gate. Some of his ideas seemed good and how he handled Katrina and the surge of evacuees to the state impressed me. He obviously thinks and cares about the job and the state. moore just wants attention. If he could get as many tv cameras pointed at him and as much congradulation from his moron neighbors by doing the pee-pee dance in his underwear with a bullfrog on his head, he would.
I don't know anything about the Lt. Gov. who is running for the democratic nomination, but siegelman is a fucking joke. He had plenty of people who were against him before he went into office and managed to piss off most of his supporter too. He needs to just go hide somewhere and leave the state the hell alone. Maybe he could just go hang out with moore.
(thanks Steve)
Just fucking great. He won't win, but do the morons always have to find their way into the spotlight to further reinforce the idea that Alabama is the most backwards-ass place on the planet? He can't beat Riley, who to his credit could have been a really good governor if he hadn't let the national republicans advise him to make a racist veto right out of the gate. Some of his ideas seemed good and how he handled Katrina and the surge of evacuees to the state impressed me. He obviously thinks and cares about the job and the state. moore just wants attention. If he could get as many tv cameras pointed at him and as much congradulation from his moron neighbors by doing the pee-pee dance in his underwear with a bullfrog on his head, he would.
I don't know anything about the Lt. Gov. who is running for the democratic nomination, but siegelman is a fucking joke. He had plenty of people who were against him before he went into office and managed to piss off most of his supporter too. He needs to just go hide somewhere and leave the state the hell alone. Maybe he could just go hang out with moore.
(thanks Steve)
Monday, October 03, 2005
Anonymous friendster viewing is for pussies
So friendster quietly snuck in its fun new little feature where it shows you who has looked at your profile in the last month. Some folks seem to be annoyed by this new little feature, but I totally love it. It is kind of fun to have some idea of who has looked at you and try to figure out how and why. Unlike everyone else that I have seen blogging about this so far, I don't instantly assume that everyone who looks at my friendster profile does so because they want to bone me. I don't have crushes on all the people I look at on friendster; why assume everyone who looks at me does? Half the time I look at someone on friendster it is because I want an email from them and haven't gotten one in a few days and looking at friendster tells me when they were last on and I can either say to myself "oh, they haven't had time to check friendster; they must be pretty busy and will write when they get the chance," or "Sure, they have time to piddle around on friendster but writing me a little letter is such a huge chore. Asshole, I didn't want a letter anyway."
Anyway, so maybe the anonymous viewing thing might have its occasional applications, like when you are interviewing prospective new roommates who you found on craigslist and don't want them to realize that your decision not to let them move in might have something to do with their 1000 word 'about me' description or the fact that they only have three friends who all seem like dorks. Really though, can't we all just let folks know that we looked at them and not assume that they are suddenly going to think we are in love with them or stalking them. Isn't the whole point of friendster that we can get these little glimpses of folks connected to us and the folks around us with really having to dive in too deep?
And maybe this makes for a subtle way for someone to gets the elusive someone's attention. My roommate has in the past used the 'bookmark' feature to great effect in that respect, but I didn't even know what the hell 'bookmarks' were until he started talking about it and it could never really be that useful for getting people's attention if people didn't really pay attention to it.
Anyway, at least they aren't showing how many times or when we look at folks profiles. That would really call out the stalkers amongst us.
Anyway, so maybe the anonymous viewing thing might have its occasional applications, like when you are interviewing prospective new roommates who you found on craigslist and don't want them to realize that your decision not to let them move in might have something to do with their 1000 word 'about me' description or the fact that they only have three friends who all seem like dorks. Really though, can't we all just let folks know that we looked at them and not assume that they are suddenly going to think we are in love with them or stalking them. Isn't the whole point of friendster that we can get these little glimpses of folks connected to us and the folks around us with really having to dive in too deep?
And maybe this makes for a subtle way for someone to gets the elusive someone's attention. My roommate has in the past used the 'bookmark' feature to great effect in that respect, but I didn't even know what the hell 'bookmarks' were until he started talking about it and it could never really be that useful for getting people's attention if people didn't really pay attention to it.
Anyway, at least they aren't showing how many times or when we look at folks profiles. That would really call out the stalkers amongst us.
Push coming to shove...
Since we have been talking about political outings lately, I can't help but link to this post
questioning the sexuality of vehemently anti-gay black ministers.
Funny the way the self-loathing pricks who are trying to deny their sexuality are always the meanest bastards to other homos. Men who are truly comfortable in their sexuality really just don't give a damn what another man does in bed so long as nobody is being forced. It is the uptight, guilt-fetishizers who get so worked up and are so repressed that the only way they can imagine connecting to their desires is to condemn it. It is the only way they can think to get near the subject without exposing themselves.
Well, if they feel so compelled to get near the subject, they better find a less vindictive way about it or folks are going to expose them. Keith Boykin and Jasmyne Cannick, go get 'em.
questioning the sexuality of vehemently anti-gay black ministers.
Funny the way the self-loathing pricks who are trying to deny their sexuality are always the meanest bastards to other homos. Men who are truly comfortable in their sexuality really just don't give a damn what another man does in bed so long as nobody is being forced. It is the uptight, guilt-fetishizers who get so worked up and are so repressed that the only way they can imagine connecting to their desires is to condemn it. It is the only way they can think to get near the subject without exposing themselves.
Well, if they feel so compelled to get near the subject, they better find a less vindictive way about it or folks are going to expose them. Keith Boykin and Jasmyne Cannick, go get 'em.
Friday, September 30, 2005
this is just to say...
We have just passed 1000 visitors here at awareness is painful. Perhaps that is not quite accurate as it was close to a year into this that I finally put a counter on the site, so we probably passed the real mark quite sometime ago. Of course 1000 visitors isn't really all that impressive to most bloggers and I won't really be throwing a party over it either, but for something that started with not much more of an intended audience than a couple of folks I'll take 1000 as a nice mile-marker.
thanks to everyone who has stopped by (even the homo-republicans). Hope to see you here again.
thanks to everyone who has stopped by (even the homo-republicans). Hope to see you here again.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
An Index to Creationist Claims
Here is a handy and comprehensive resource when you need to refute an enemy of the state: An Index to Creationist Claims
Wow. This is the most exhaustive rundown I have seen.
Wow. This is the most exhaustive rundown I have seen.
Homo say what?
Via the always charming TBogg I discovered that Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly posted this lovely piece:
"WHISPERING CAMPAIGN....Is every single liberal blog in the world planning to post a sniggering, wink-wink-nudge-nudge mention that David Dreier is rumored to be gay? Pardon me while I throw up.
"And spare me the drivel about the "principled" case for outing gay politicians. I'm not buying, and there's nothing principled going on here in any case. It's just childish nonsense that perpetuates the notion that there's something sordid about being gay. Conservatives were wrong to conduct a decade long witch hunt against Bill Clinton's sex life, and liberals are wrong to join in when the shoe is on the other foot.
"(Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm living in the past. Sigh.)"
I don't regularly read Kevin Drum, so I don't know a whole lot about him or his angle on things, but this annoyed me so I'll comment a little bit.
I will spare you the principled case for outing gay republicans; this has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with consequences. Any public figure who is gay and doesn't care to talk about being gay should tread very softly on gay topics and be very aware that how they vote on issues which effect gay people is not going to go unnoticed. If you are going to bash gay folks (and that damn gay marriage amendment had everything to do with gay bashing; its whole point was giving the GOP a public excuse for saying "we don't like gay people either" to the garner the bigot vote and try to put in the fucking constitution that gay people matter less under the law), you better believe we are going to come back swinging. No, we don't think there is a damn thing shameful about being gay, but if you are going to act like it is a dirty little secret and publically attack gay people, we are going to ask you why as a gay person you are doing it.
I can think of at least one prominent Republican senator who is gay and closeted whose sexuality is damn near never mentioned because he wouldn't touch anti gay legislation with a ten foot pole. And honestly, I don't really think it is because he is all that progressive, but a southern homosexual don't get so far if he doesn't understand a little bit of delicate quid pro quo. He wants to keep his sexuality quiet and keep from riling the bigot vote back home but he also knows better than to try and rally them by backing anti-gay shit. Why does drier think he can do that without incurring a backlash?
This is not the 1950's. Gay people don't just stay in their place and do what they are told. You can't treat us like trash and pretend you aren't one of us and expect us to shut the hell up. Homo say what?
Kevin's got comments and I want to comment on two of them:
"I generally agree with you, and I'm against outing under any circumstances. That said, the fact that the Republicans get a lot of support by fanning the flames of the worst sort of homophobia, while simultaneously tolerating gays in high-level positions within the party, constitutes such revolting and rank hypocrisy that it begs to be mentioned."
Why are you against outing under any circumstances? and if you are, why are you saying you are sort of for them?
and another commentor:
"Sorry, Kevin - gotta depart with you on this one.
It's one thing for a gay to be in the closet and just not think his sexuality is anyone's business. (Anderson Cooper springs to mind.)..."
Ok, this Anderson Cooper shit is annoying as hell. I'm tired of Michael Musto constantly picking at him to publicize him sexuality and all these other folks calling for him to come out. Where in the hell is he going to come out from? The man is out. He doesn't hide his sexuality, he doesn't sneak around with closet cases in secret backrooms, he doesn't strut around with a beard; he's out in gay bars, at parties, all over new york, but he doesn't have a serious partner (or hasn't for too long if he does now) so why in the hell would he talk about who he is dating publicly? Do other single newscasters bring up their dating life publicly? There is a difference between trying to keep the private out of your public life as a celebrity and being a closet case. Leave the man the hell alone and just let him be a reporter. He's been doing a pretty good job at that lately and we need every decent reporter we can get these days.
But yeah, if kenneth melhman and david drier and whoever the hell else want to push anti-gay public policy and use homophobic rhetoric to fluff the bigot vote they better find an ex-gay program that works (good luck) and start munching cooter or they are damn well going to have their cock loving ways shoved down their self-loathing throats.
"WHISPERING CAMPAIGN....Is every single liberal blog in the world planning to post a sniggering, wink-wink-nudge-nudge mention that David Dreier is rumored to be gay? Pardon me while I throw up.
"And spare me the drivel about the "principled" case for outing gay politicians. I'm not buying, and there's nothing principled going on here in any case. It's just childish nonsense that perpetuates the notion that there's something sordid about being gay. Conservatives were wrong to conduct a decade long witch hunt against Bill Clinton's sex life, and liberals are wrong to join in when the shoe is on the other foot.
"(Yeah, yeah, I know. I'm living in the past. Sigh.)"
I don't regularly read Kevin Drum, so I don't know a whole lot about him or his angle on things, but this annoyed me so I'll comment a little bit.
I will spare you the principled case for outing gay republicans; this has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with consequences. Any public figure who is gay and doesn't care to talk about being gay should tread very softly on gay topics and be very aware that how they vote on issues which effect gay people is not going to go unnoticed. If you are going to bash gay folks (and that damn gay marriage amendment had everything to do with gay bashing; its whole point was giving the GOP a public excuse for saying "we don't like gay people either" to the garner the bigot vote and try to put in the fucking constitution that gay people matter less under the law), you better believe we are going to come back swinging. No, we don't think there is a damn thing shameful about being gay, but if you are going to act like it is a dirty little secret and publically attack gay people, we are going to ask you why as a gay person you are doing it.
I can think of at least one prominent Republican senator who is gay and closeted whose sexuality is damn near never mentioned because he wouldn't touch anti gay legislation with a ten foot pole. And honestly, I don't really think it is because he is all that progressive, but a southern homosexual don't get so far if he doesn't understand a little bit of delicate quid pro quo. He wants to keep his sexuality quiet and keep from riling the bigot vote back home but he also knows better than to try and rally them by backing anti-gay shit. Why does drier think he can do that without incurring a backlash?
This is not the 1950's. Gay people don't just stay in their place and do what they are told. You can't treat us like trash and pretend you aren't one of us and expect us to shut the hell up. Homo say what?
Kevin's got comments and I want to comment on two of them:
"I generally agree with you, and I'm against outing under any circumstances. That said, the fact that the Republicans get a lot of support by fanning the flames of the worst sort of homophobia, while simultaneously tolerating gays in high-level positions within the party, constitutes such revolting and rank hypocrisy that it begs to be mentioned."
Why are you against outing under any circumstances? and if you are, why are you saying you are sort of for them?
and another commentor:
"Sorry, Kevin - gotta depart with you on this one.
It's one thing for a gay to be in the closet and just not think his sexuality is anyone's business. (Anderson Cooper springs to mind.)..."
Ok, this Anderson Cooper shit is annoying as hell. I'm tired of Michael Musto constantly picking at him to publicize him sexuality and all these other folks calling for him to come out. Where in the hell is he going to come out from? The man is out. He doesn't hide his sexuality, he doesn't sneak around with closet cases in secret backrooms, he doesn't strut around with a beard; he's out in gay bars, at parties, all over new york, but he doesn't have a serious partner (or hasn't for too long if he does now) so why in the hell would he talk about who he is dating publicly? Do other single newscasters bring up their dating life publicly? There is a difference between trying to keep the private out of your public life as a celebrity and being a closet case. Leave the man the hell alone and just let him be a reporter. He's been doing a pretty good job at that lately and we need every decent reporter we can get these days.
But yeah, if kenneth melhman and david drier and whoever the hell else want to push anti-gay public policy and use homophobic rhetoric to fluff the bigot vote they better find an ex-gay program that works (good luck) and start munching cooter or they are damn well going to have their cock loving ways shoved down their self-loathing throats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
