Odds and Sods - last debate edition

A self-defined radical lesbian feminist writer named Julie Bindel has been nominated for a Stonewall award. The problem with this person is her hateful writing against transgendered people. Why has she been nominated? Did they even READ her work first?

I won't link her nastiness here, but Lisa at Questioning Transphobia (previous link) has chronicled it well. She proclaims "a world inhabited just by transsexuals" would look like the set of GREASE. Not sure I get that, but hey, that rhetoric reminds me of various offensive shit I heard growing up. Is the whole world clamoring to transition? We must POLICE the gender-borders to insure people aren't illegally crossing over! She sounds like she believes trans people are a GATEWAY DRUG! Or maybe it's the Domino Theory as applied to gender: First you let them transition and .... the whole world will want to do it!!! And then the whole world will look like GREASE!!!!!!

It's the Cold War all over again.

A Facebook group has been formed expressly for the purpose of protesting Bindel's nomination, and Bindel herself has joined it to "monitor" the "harassment" being directed at her persecuted personage. Yes, she has even barged into the group formed to talk about her, taking it over to defend herself! Some people really do amaze me in their abject cluelessness. A good lesson in how NOT to behave, is yours for free, so go over to Lisa's and read.

Momentary digression: I find Facebook distracting in a way I don't find regular blogs. Maybe it's because my eye is "trained" to read blogs, while Facebook seems like a free-for-all with too much going on. It's like when I used to have penpals and exchange "slam books" by mail in my youth--did anyone else do that, waaaaay before the advent of computers? It was terribly distracting, since I would end up writing book-length letters to people I barely knew...it was a lot like blogging!

And so, my attention is majorly diverted, particularly when there are lots of attractive people around of varying genders, all looking fabulous, as if they are dressed up to go see Iggy Pop. (I'd name names, but that would be rude.) Suffice to say, I end up going over to their blogs, Flickr accounts and suchlike, to see more pics and read about their interesting activities. FUN! But yes, as I said, distracting.

~*~

Christina Hendricks heats up the office on MAD MEN, photo from The Way of the Future.


And speaking of bisexuality (nice segue, yes?), my new celebrity crush is Christina Hendricks of MAD MEN, whom some of my fellow Scifi geeks will recall from the cult-series Firefly. I first saw her in one of those Lifetime TV-movies about anorexia, titled Hunger Point. Admittedly, I really enjoyed the movie, in a daytime-soapsuds sort of way... and then I see her on MAD MEN looking exceedingly VOLUPTUOUS, and I wondered if the movie had any influence on that fact, or was she cast in Hunger Point primarily for that reason?

Christina Hendricks' character is the fabulous Joan Holloway, who sizzles even (especially?) when she is firing some poor, hapless, weeping secretary... I don't mind telling you: I would LOVE to be fired by Joan! ("Hey, no problem, girlfriend, this job sucks. Can we get together for coffee later?") Interestingly and predictably, there is a lot of talk about her weight. Googling her name and the word "weight"--however, I see that there are lots of folks who feel just like I do, starved for a woman with real CURVES on TV. Since MAD MEN is set in 1962, it is completely historically accurate and realistic that a Marilyn-Monroesque woman would be the office diva. (In one episode, Joan and her typing pool sob after learning of Marilyn's death.)

Nonetheless, Christina's ample form has attracted attention from many quarters:

Christina Hendricks as Joan on "Mad Men" could single-handedly bring back hips. Real hips. The kind that will send a skinny man skittering across a dance floor. And I must admit that my jaw still drops when she sashays on screen with a rump as big as a holiday ham. My first reaction is always: She's huge! What a silly reaction to a woman who is probably a size 8 or 10.

Then I realize that most leading women on TV, such as Holly Hunter and Teri Hatcher, are pipe cleaners, and so I never expect to see prime-time zaftig. It's as odd to me as a virgin martini. Frankly, I am so accustomed to seeing protruding hipbones that I have to adjust my own visual definition of what is womanly. That's pretty screwed up, in fact.

Yes, I'd say so.

Well, not me, people! MORE CHRISTINA, MORE CHRISTINA! Christina, 24/7!

~*~

And finally, as everyone knows, the last presidential debate between the two candidates, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, was last night. Working my ass off and preparing for retail inventory, I scurried in only towards the last half, and found myself staying up late to watch the debate rerun on MSNBC.

(When it comes to politics, some of us are just plain junkies.)

I gotta ask: Is there STILL any question who should win? Who isn't ready to bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran? Which person is more thoughtful, careful, cautious? I don't want someone in the Oval Office who is eager to nuke other countries at the drop of a hat, you know? McCain's vengeful, angry, warmongering vibe radiated off the screen, in countless ways.

Barack Obama deserves major credit for not rising to the trash-Sarah-Palin bait...at first I thought he should let her have it, but after various commentators congratulated him on his cool and restraint, I realized, no, his instincts were perfect. (That's just what I would have done.) He is too smooth and smart to cave in to that pettiness.

Just think how EXCELLENT he will be on the world stage.

Novenas in triplicate for my favorite Chicago politician, ascending to heaven as we speak.

More:

Debate III: Edgy McCain sheds no new light (Politico)

Put McCain out of his Misery (Huffington Post)

John McCain: Openly scoffing at your Health (Feministe)

Thank You, Right Wing Pundits (Daily Kos)

So much for McCain's outreach to women voters (Crooks and Liars)

Obama Three for Three: Short Takes on the Final Presidential Debate (AlterNet)

And McCain's "regular American"--Joe the Plumber--presented to us for our ongoing edification? Turns out to be an unlicensed plumber and tax evader.

Well, what did we expect? John McCain has had problems choosing his friends ever since the Keating Five scandal.

"Your eyes in your pocket and your nose on the ground..."

At left: On my way to do my errands today in the pouring rain... and what do I see?

BRIDGE OUT?! Oh dear God. This can't be happening.

And so, I did more driving today than originally intended. At these gas prices, we know more driving is just what the doctor ordered! What was expected to be a couple of hours turned into an entire afternoon. One tarot reading, one rescued parcel from the post office, an oil change and 4 new expensive tires later... here I am!

I had also intended lots of smart, snarky commentary regarding last night's presidential debate, particularly John McCain's nasty term "that one" (for Barack Obama)--but instead, will link what other smart folks are saying today:

That one indeed (Womanist Musings)

"That one" (Fetch Me My Axe)

The worst debate ever (Politico)

McCain’s 'that one' takes off online (Politico)

Too Close to "Boy" for my Taste (Feministe)

The Winner of Debate II? "That one" (Huffington Post)

McCain flip-flops on Mortgage Bailout for Homeowners (Crooks and Liars)

Is This Election the Major Historical Turning Point It Seems to Be? Yes (AlterNet)

I also listened to a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh in the car, as a caller named Amber in Michigan reassured everyone that the polls mean nothing. People say one thing to pollsters, but Amber is confident that when they get in the privacy of the voting booth, they will do the right thing. People will "come to their senses" soon, she told Rush, who replied that you should never underestimate how many stupid people there are. Ohhh, I heartily concur.

The racial subtext and dog-whistling from the callers on Rush's show was so deafening, I had to flip the radio over to something calming, like Tool.

----------------
Listening to: Grateful Dead - I Know You Rider
via FoxyTunes

We Can Build You: the Vice Presidential debate

What did you all think of the Vice Presidential debate?

Amazed, I sat and watched as Stepford Candidate, properly wound up and battery-powered by the GOP, perkily chattered like a Disney-World android. Recalling We Can Build You by Philip K Dick, I wondered if perhaps they had created an android just for the occasion. Better safe than sorry!

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential candidate, has been sequestered down in Arizona for the week, cramming and studying for her final exam... most reaction shots showed her looking down at her index cards, hurriedly attempting to assemble a rational response. Some replies made sense and some didn't:

On at least 10 occasions, Palin gave answers that were nonspecific, completely generic, pivoted away from the question at hand, or simply ignored it: on global warming, an Iraq exit strategy, Iran and Pakistan, Iranian diplomacy, Israel-Palestine (and a follow-up), the nuclear trigger, interventionism, Cheney's vice presidency and her own greatest weakness.

Asked which is a greater threat, a nuclear Pakistan or a nuclear Iran, Palin seemed to be stalling, or writing a term paper, when she said: “An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider.”

When I didn't look at her, she sounded much dumber than when I looked at the TV and was distracted by her cutesy, winking demeanor (I counted 4 winks, which I found nauseating in the extreme). For example, when not looking at her, I heard her say "the revelations about Wall Street, made aware to the American people"... revelations are made aware to other people? Huh? Grammar, love.

It was all like that. A bunch of blather, strung together from index cards, punctuated by sweet beauty-pageant smiles, winking, and the characteristic Republican mispronunciation of "nuclear." (What IS IT with these people?!?)

I just saw a Republican congresswoman from New Mexico (could not make out the name, don't have my glasses on) talking on the tube about how [Democratic Vice Presidential candidate] Senator Joe Biden was "over the top" in saying that Dick Cheney was the most dangerous vice president in American history--the best applause line of the night.

OVER THE TOP, you mean like FUCKING WINKING like a Playmate of the Year?

Saints preserve us.

Discuss amongst yourselves!

Also see: VP Debate: Biden on McCain: "Maverick, he is not." (Crooks and Liars)

VP Debate: McCain's Big Gamble Comes up Snake Eyes (Huffington Post)

Biden vs. Palin -- Who Won? 6 Short Takes on the VP Debate (AlterNet)

----------------
Listening to: Louis Armstrong - Stardust
via FoxyTunes

Senator Lindsey Graham calls Barack Obama "dangerous"

Did anyone see South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham's hateful interview on FOX NEWS right after the Presidential debate last night? He actually called Barack Obama articulate!

And you know what? It was deliberate as hell.

It would appear that Senator Graham is in charge of Republican racial dog-whistling for the McCain campaign. (Or outright race-baiting, when necessary.) As the southerner, I supposed it's considered his job. And he is happy to fetch and carry water for John McCain, as he has his entire time in the Senate.

In this clip of the interview, you don't hear Graham's "articulate" remark, but you do get the full-impact of the nastiness, complete with accusations that Obama is inciting class warfare, is "naive and dangerous."

Free speech for sex workers!

Left: Renegade Evolution, best sex-worker blogger in all of Blogdonia, ready to debate.

Colleges are known for serious drinking and hardy partying, right? Fraternities hire strippers and varsity athletes hire sex workers for private parties, as we learned during the educational Duke Lacrosse case. Just don't let the stripper come in through the FRONT DOOR.

Octogalore, being all lawyerly, offers these facts:

Our friend Renegade Evolution was asked to speak Monday, April 21st, at 5:30 pm, in the Andrews Building on the Campus of William and Mary College on pornography and sex work, in a debate alongside with Jill Brenneman. Debating Ren and Jill will be John Foubert, a professor at the college, and Samantha Berg, who started and runs genderberg.com.

Read more about it here and here.

Unfortunately, Sam has apparently complained about comments Ren made and is attempting to get her disinvited. While these comments were clearly dramatic and not at all serious, Sam is attempting to piggyback on them to hide other, less sympathetic reasons for stifling the First Amendment...

(Read more of Octo's smart-lawyer comments here.)

Ren's actual post (that Sam is currently yowling about) was something along the lines of, I wish Sam would fall under a truck. Sam is hyperventilating that the mean stripper might hurt her and push her under a moving vehicle. She is pretending that the Blogdonia hyperbole of several "fuck-yous" exchanged on blogs in the past, is the equivalent to a real threat.

Indeed, this sums up Sam.

If you've ever read Sam's pedal-to-the-metal hysterical writing (she refers to our kind of feminism as "spreademism"--do I need to say more?), you know that she is given to major hyperbole also. But even more than that, she seems to believe that pornography is "real"--that simulated rape-movies are actual rape, that all women who perform in pornography are hoodwinked, ignorant gals who blundered into it, just as most of the flimsy story-lines would have you believe. Sam has blurred the line between fantasy and reality for so long in her politics, she seems to have forgotten that things we say online are quite often not "serious"--thus, "fall under a truck" translates as "I think what you are saying is pernicious and you have bad politics"... but alas, puritan hysteria and censorship are Sam's stock and trade.

And so, we see which side favors freedom of speech and open debate, and which side would shut it down.

Not for one second do I believe that Sam is truly physically "afraid" of lil ole 5'2" Ren. What I believe she is afraid of is not being able to debate her. And she has every reason to be afraid, because Ren will clean the clock of ANY puritan censor, particularly one disguised as a feminist.

If Sam IS afraid of Ren, all I can say is, she ain't gonna be much for taking on the REAL patriarchs, you know, the big boys with guns? Yeah, the patriarchy must be a-quakin in their boots, when they see Sam approach!

Other folks have written about this situation, too. Galling Galla asks "Who is feminism for, anyway?" and ties this incident to other recent skirmishes in Feminist Blogdonia, and rightly so:

when [feminists] engage in the silencing tactics that they have against sex workers, exactly how are these “radical feminists” any different from religious fundamentalists?

Good question. Any takers?

----------------
Listening to: Sugar - A Good Idea
via FoxyTunes

Iowa caucus debates: Adventures in Snoozeville

Left: Alan Keyes, from Race 4 2008.




Will someone tell me why Alan Keyes was allowed to participate in the Iowa caucus Republican debate, but Dennis Kucinich was not permitted to participate in the Democratic debate? Certainly, their numbers are about equal; Kucinich might even have a larger percentage than Keyes. True, they are both way out on the wings of their party, but so what?

Am I to understand that the Republicans are more inclusive than the Democrats?

Nope, according to The Campaign Spot at right-wing National Review Online, it's all the Des Moines Register's fault:


Des Moines Register Weeds Out Only the Democratic Fringe

Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are not participating in this week's Des Moines Register debate. The newspaper's standards for participation include at least 1% in its statewide poll and an office and paid staff in Iowa.

Kucinich's state office works out of his home. Yeah, that's why they're keeping Smeagol out.

Alan Keyes is participating. Alan Keyes has paid staff in Iowa? He has an office? He's past 1 percent?

There's no good reason for Keyes to participate, and I say that as a guy who likes Keyes. The only reason one would include Keyes at this point is because he's just about guaranteed to declare the rest of the field "inauthentic conservatives." (Perhaps he'll declare Vice President Cheney's daughter a "selfish hedonist" as well.) The one percent standard is way too low. We've had nine Republican debates so far, and fifteen Democratic ones. If you haven't broken out past the margin of error by now, it's not gonna happen.

A debate time that already gives about one-eighth to Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo is now going to be split nine ways. This is a disservice to the other candidates who actually have a shot of getting more than an asterisk's worth in the caucuses.

In a year of lousy debates, this one is set up to be a train wreck on par with CNN's YouTube debate for the Republicans.

I'll say. It was terrible. Even worse, it was boring. I'll admit, Alan Keyes isn't boring, as Kucinich wouldn't be either. As usual, Ron Paul tried to liven up the proceedings, but when the other candidates started yammering, it lapsed back to somnambulism.

Alan Keyes would make a great Shakespearean actor, with his rhetorical flourishes and first-class command of language; indeed, it would seem talk radio was made for him. (And he has had several radio and TV shows.) Instead, for some inexplicable reason, he keeps running for president over and over. It is interesting to remember that he was a hired gun for the GOP, and moved to Illinois simply to run for the Senate in 2004 against Barack Obama, whom it was thought no one could beat. And alas, no one could.


Photo of Senator Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey (left) from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The Democratic debate wasn't much better. The CNN-talking-heads consensus is that Senator Hillary Clinton is now trying to "humanize" herself with references to weight loss, Chelsea, her mother, "eating her way across Iowa," etc. Her poll numbers have dropped alarmingly in the face of Barack Obama's incursions, courtesy of Oprah Winfrey joining him on the campaign trail, and filling Williams-Brice stadium here in South Carolina. (The last person I can remember doing that was Pope John Paul II.)

For his part, Senator John Edwards sounded great and highly focused, as Hillary and Obama took veiled digs at each other. There is also a mild scandal trying mightily to develop: it appears Obama may have taken a toke as a teenager. OMG! (I doubt this story will go anywhere, but you never know about things like that.)

Who will take the Iowa caucus? Stay tuned, sports fans!

----------------
Listening to: Sleater-Kinney - Off With Your Head
via FoxyTunes

CNN YouTube debate: White guys talk politics

The GOP debate crackled with intensity, as Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani (in CNN photo at left) looked ready to take swings at each other. Will they slit the other's throat? became the main event, for me at least. Giuliani was accused by one questioner of running New York City as a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants, and Rudy shot back that Mitt was running a "sanctuary mansion" by hiring illegals to work in his own house. Direct hit!

Rudy deftly fielded an inquiry from Anderson Cooper about the story currently dominating Politico.com, charging him with having billed various New York City agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in phony security expenses, whilst trysting with Judith Nathan in the Hamptons. (At the time, he was still married to second wife, Donna Hanover.) Nonetheless, it doesn't look like that story is going away any time soon.

When asked a question about continuing the space program (!), Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee made a joke about sending Hillary to Mars. Afterwards, David Gergen and various other commentators agreed that fundamentalist Huckabee had suddenly seemed so warm, funny and "human." Huh? Did I miss something?

Meanwhile, John McCain (just back from Iraq), accused Ron Paul of being the kind of leader who would allow Hitler free reign (apparently, he hasn't heard of Godwin's Law, and thereby forfeited the argument outright). Boos from the audience, many of whom had obviously heard of Godwin's Law. Ron Paul unabashedly and unreservedly rocked it once again, saying the best thing we can do for the Iraqi people is to give their country back:

Asked which government programs they would cut, Paul said bringing the troops home from Iraq would save "a trillion dollars."

McCain said: "It's that kind of isolationism that caused World War II," which drew some hoots from the crowd.

Paul replied: "The real question you have to ask is why do I get the most money from active duty officers and military personnel?"

If he keeps on like this, I might have to vote for him in the primary, just to mess up the omnipresent South Carolina Mitt Romney fundie faction.

The YouTube debate questions were chosen from 5000 submissions, and apparently, these were overwhelmingly from white men, because that's who dominated the debate; white men's issues, concerns, agenda. No mention of pharmaceutical drugs or Medicaid, for example; not their problem. This being TV, whimsical presentations and flashy animations took precedence--and this favored participants with internet savvy and know-how. One question from a Pittsburgh mom about lead-based Chinese toys, brought forth a lot of meaningless jabber about free-trade, showing that these guys, clearly, have NO CLUE about ANYTHING in the real lives of most folks.

My summary: Vote for Ron in the GOP primary, then vote Democratic in the general election. Unless, of course, Ron keeps on delivering the unequivocal straight talk about Iraq... and then he could actually win.

Bring them home now.

----------------
Listening to: Yo La Tengo - Autumn Sweater
via FoxyTunes