Doric

New York State passed the gay marriage bill last night.

I feel the kind of embarrassment that any self-aware white person must have felt during the civil rights movement of the 60's: I'm so happy for my gay friends but I know, as a straight person, that I was never the one who was being oppressed. I hope my treasured gays forgive me the small entitlement of my satisfaction.

Still, it makes me miss Doric Wilson. Deeply. I was folded into his inner circle (as part of the ridiculously talented TOSOSII) for a very brief two years or so, until my own personal problems drove me away from many of my then-current social circles. He was one of the original gay rights activists--he never knew that speaking out for people of his sexual predilection was a "thing"--and ended up being part of the Stonewall riots that started this whole ball rolling forty years ago.

Doric died very recently. And I didn't say anything about it at the time because I felt that same entitlement-based embarrassment. But I desperately wish he had been around to see this, to see NYC actually legalize--i.e., normalize--the kind of society that he'd been fighting for since the 50's, before he knew he was fighting for anything other than people not harming other people.

I admit that others--Barry, Mark, Kathleen, Jamie--have way more claim on missing him than I do, but those brief moments of having the sunshine of his attention focused on me have really never faded.

He saw so much during his time on earth; I just wish he'd been around to see this.

Paging Dr. Freud

Actually, this seems like an accurate snapshot of both parties (the hilarious idea of "Republican intervention" aside)....

Suck It Up: Addendum

John Cole concurs:

I am voting for [Obama] in 2012 no matter what, because even though he has many flaws, he will be head and shoulders above whatever swamp thing crawls out of the primordial ooze of lies, homophobia, racial resentment, fearmongering, religious triumphalism, and class warfare that will be the GOP primaries.

Yeah. That's totally what I meant to say too.

Roving Insults

I love this.

I love it because each is correct in his assessment of the other: Rove was Bush ("He Who Shall Not Be Named by the GOP Candidates," to use Sully's delightful moniker), and is a partial owner or greater in all the failures of those eight years. And Trump is a joke candidate, after sprinting so breathlessly into the birther camp in recent days.

To be fair, despite their current differences they both have one thing in common: either now or in the past they've both been completely bankrupt.

Ba-ziiinngg.....

Suck It Up

This seems very right to me. I've been reading variations of this sentiment all over the place lately--"Obama failed to deliver on this, that, or the other, therefore he has not earned my support for his reelection"--and I am immediately put in mind of our world, post-2003.

The Iraq War, a war of choice driven by many cherished neuroses of GWB and the American right, is a war that Al Gore would have never started. Period. And the fact that it was started is the utmost proof that keeping the psychopaths and the willfully stupid out of high office is a righteous goal in itself.

Any sane, left-leaning individual whose disillusionment with Obama may be pushing them to such selfish handwringing should take a look at the Republican field and imagine--just imagine--what any one of those sycophants and extremists would do with the office of President.

And then he or she should get off their fainting couch and pull the lever for another four years of often less-than-inspiring, clearly imperfect sanity...

Lib-ee-duh

So, it seems we've taken military action against Libya.

I remember being around 8 or so, playing with a friend in the creek behind my house, and throwing clumps of mud at something or other, pretending we were bombing Libya. We're talking circa 1986. At the time, I had no idea what "bombing Libya" actually meant, just that it was an American thing to do, since everyone was talking about it at the time.

The more things change, the more they...don't change. Eh?

Elections Matter? (!)

Droopy Dog Joe Lieberman has again caught the scent of blood and conquest in his slack jowls. (I'm imagining him as basset stock, whose sense of smell is improved by what they catch in the folds by their nose. No offense to bassets.)

Yes, let's jump right into Libya. We've learned so much about holding together a tribal nation like Iraq that it'll be a cinch. Just cut 'n paste! Why are we not bombing them already?

Given his history, Bush probably would have jumped at the prospect. I applaud Obama's current restraint. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we go to the voting booth....

A Nativity Scene

God bless Anderson Cooper.

The smack down he lays on Texas Rep. Leo Berman, over Berman's unshakeable fantasy that Barack Obama is not actually an American citizen, is truly something satisfying to behold. Cooper's approach isn't overly antagonistic or bombastic. Rather, it's the kind of patient, respectful probing that Socrates made famous through Plato. (Different than the kind of probing he practiced with Plato, though I've heard Anderson might not be averse to that line of discourse either.) Cooper simply shows his evidence and asks questions, which--as anyone who's ever desperately wanted to verbally string up an idiot knows--is a monumental show of poise on his part.

As for the birther issue, while I've reflexively rolled my eyes at it for years now, I think I've finally come to terms with the fact that I. Just. Don't. Get. It.

Most liberal bloggers say it's rooted in racism--Barack is black; he can't be an American President! So, the birth certificate issue is, what, the white, rightwing racist dogwhistle for the post-Jim Crow era? The bigots can't say out loud that a black man is unfit to be Commander in Chief--because they'd be ridden out of town--so this is the codeword they've settled on, "birth certificate"?

Look, I grew up in Atlanta, Georgia, within sight of Stone Mountain. (I mean, c'mon.) I think I have a pretty good eye for this brand of hateful lunacy, just from years of exposure, if nothing else. Maybe I've lost my touch after some years here in the North but...I just don't see the racism here.

If I may distinguish one venom from another for a second: the white male supremacist doesn't register foreign blacks in his mythology. I would argue, in some sense, that he prefers them. "Go back to Africa!" and all that. His problem with African-Americans is precisely their American-ness, as it represents a clear threat to the image of his own. (I'm terribly tempted to make a "through a mirror darkly" joke...and I realize I just passive-aggressively did!)

The hubbub over the teleprompters on the other hand, now that I immediately understood. The idea that he couldn't speak so well, so properly, without outside guidance (from white handlers, I would imagine) goes back to the fundamental sneer bigots employ against educated black people being "articulate." Bing, bing, Bubba wins the spittoon!

But Obama being Kenyan, being other. I dunno. No buzzers go off. Which leads me to think that it's more just hopeful thinking on the teabaggers' part--a magical way to get rid of a political enemy. We'll just wish him away, they say. And believe me, I understand the desire. If someone came up to me in 2006 and said that George W. Bush was actually born in Ciudad Juarez because Barbara heard there was cheap formaldehyde down south, well, I'd be awfully tempted to believe it.

But I'd be wrong.

Nudie Pics

This whole TSA bodyscanning issue makes me terribly cross. Cross, I tell you!

Personally, I don't want some random dude/dudette simultaneously looking at me or my wife naked and potentially shortening our lives. I married my lovely wife because I liked the idea that I was the only person who would get to see her naked and because I'm hoping to spend a nice, long life with her. For folks keeping track, those are exact opposites of what the TSA is offering us.

There are many interesting angles to this, but the one that amuses me most is the idea that this may be the first issue of Obama's presidency that crosses ideological lines. As a left-leaner, I don't like it because I find it invasive and unnecessary, only good for conditioning the public to accept more and more outrageous assaults on our liberty and privacy in the name of fear.

However, I also understand a conservative's take on the matter--resisting the unnecessary growth of government; supporting an airport's ability to hire security firms it prefers--as well as that of the fiscal types pointing out the 6% drop in ridership (pdf, first result) that accompanied the rise of this demeaning security theater after 9/11 and are worried about further blows to the economy.

I mean, hell, I think even conservative Christians would nod right along with me when I talk about my disinterest in the woman to whom I made sacred vows being photographed naked by a stranger. And those people are batshit, especially when it comes to questions of a woman's right to her body! And yet, there we'd be, agreeing.

So here we are, Red America and Blue America, sitting at the table of bipartisanship for the first real time since Obama's election. It must be a relief for the President to finally have an issue where the winning side is also the right side, and to stand up with liberals and conservatives alike as our Chief and make clear that we are all the change we've been waiting for.

Sorry? Oh, you say he supports the scans and the pat-downs?

Dammit....

More Bush

Speaking of Bush, I think moving his upcoming memoir, Decision Points, to the True Crime section of your local bookstore is a truly fine idea.

Though seeing as I'm a firm believer in accurate labeling, and since this is Bush we're talking about, I'm torn between that and the ESL shelf...

Yaawwnnn.....Anything New Happen Lately?

Bullet points with butterfly wings:

Republicans take the House. Sure, it sucks. But Dems didn't really turn out and the GOP once more relied on a constituency that has one foot in the voting booth and one in the grave. We can wait them out. The upshot is that the standard GOP types will now be forced to share their bed with their feral, teabagger cousins, while, conversely, members of the Blue Dog caucus were sent home in droves (which must hurt since they're used to taking their ball and going home when they say so), thus freeing the remaining Dems from at least a portion of their pandering duties.

On that note...Pelosi. She's stated she's interested in running for Minority Leader. Good. When I read comments like this, saying 1) why keep Pelosi? people hate her!, 2) if we have liberals in charge Obama will be caught in the middle, and 3) we should have more conservative leadership while we're in the minority!--I then set a puppy Havanese on fire before blurting 1) we keep her because she's proven good at her job (even now) and because the Republican puke funnel can make many Americans hate anyone, just look at Obama!, 2) well, I know which point of the triangle he should side with if he's pressed, and 3) um...what?

Olbermann is suspended without pay. Again, it sucks. But what I really want to know, given the specifics of MSNBC's rule against political giving, is if they really with-a-straight-face-no-fingers-crossed earnestness believe that Countdown is straight news rather than opinion. But even then, how do they think Olby's personal contributions (which are allowed) negatively affected his job performance, assuming he made clear the money wasn't on behalf of his employer? MSNBC Pres. Phil Griffin: today's most maybe biased, politically tin-eared person...in the world!

Okay, I'm sure I'll have more bullet points soon, probably aimed at your head from a car window (cause life's been a bit stressful lately).

Now go let your auto-correct misspell some tongue. Sorry, something.

The Cart Before The Horse's Ass

I was reading this bit of ridiculousness--wherein the Washington Post hosts a livechat with the not-imitated-enough Dan Savage to discuss the recent spate of gay teen suicides...and then "balances" that with a response by the not-overlooked-enough Tony Perkins (whom I would call a douchebag except Christianists tend to vehemently oppose even the most backwards methods of female reproductive health)--when a particular statement by Mr. Perkins jumped out at me:

"Homosexuals experience higher rates of mental health problems in general, including depression."

Is it too much human empathy to ask of dear Tony to imagine that if, during his formative years, he were told by everyone around him that his sexual orientation was an abomination and an embarrassment and he was even occasionally beaten because of it that he might not be prone to a higher rate of mental health problems, especially fucking depression?

These people literally cannot get shit more backwards.

Random! Random! Read All About It!

Since the theme of the day does appear to be a random firing of neurons based on the stream of my google reader, I will admit that I have long had a soft spot for the gaudy verbal stylings of Wonkette.

I mean, c'mon, any piece of writing that includes this sentence--"Not in this Country, and not under our Dual Jurisdiction of the Declaration of Independence, Social Security, and the Bible."--and ends with a reference to Circuit City, such a piece of prose is like costume jewelry on the long arm of Liberty.

Wonkette : Stephen Colbert, if drinking had ruined his dignified diction...

In Extremis II

I'm not alone...

In Extremis

Kos says the Dems are drowning because they weren't progressive enough. Brendan Nyhan says it's a myth that parties benefit from veering to their respective extremes (left, in the case of the Dems), and that, rather, the Donks are drowning because the economy is weak.

Now, it may be true, as many point out and the teabaggers prove, that pols using red meat (i.e., veering to the extreme) to fire up the base tends to alienate undecideds and so imperil that party's electoral prospects. But I'm just gonna poke my little mouse head up and squeek that the economy remains weak precisely because the buh-Donk-uh-Donks have not pursued a progressive monetary policy. As Atrios continuously points out: we're ruled by people who think 10% unemployment isn't a crisis. That's not level-headed centrism, as I gather Nyhan would think. That's Hoover-ism.

I restate my fervent wish that there was a viable third choice in this country. We have the Party of No and the Party of Not Yet. The party of bullies and the party of co-dependents and sycophants.

Nyhan is right about the symptoms, but Kos is right about the cause. Kos is right because progressivism isn't running to the left, it's running to the true center of this country. And if Dems ever get that through their cowardly skulls we'll see a blossoming of the wise left the likes of which followed WWII.

Commence holding of breath in 3...2...1...

9/11 (2)

Okay, this day also reminds me of something else that I only rarely think about. Whatever logic underlies this memory goes against how I view the world now in almost every way--and not just because it came from the Discovery Channel.

I remember distinctly being maybe ten or eleven, and watching a program on Nostradamus in the living room. One of the predictions they were discussing was that in the year 2001, a man in a turban would launch a great fire from the sky, bringing chaos (or whatever the language was they used back in 1988-ish) to the precise latitude and longitude of Manhattan.

At the time, 2001 was very far in the future, meaning it was still in grown-up land--the land of money and mobility and doing what one pleases. Since the idea of growing up and living elsewhere was still unfathomable to me, I instead worried about the nearest adult. My mother was cooking dinner at the time, so I ran into the kitchen and asked whether she had any intention of being in New York City in 2001. She looked confused and admitted that she didn't. Relieved, I went back to watching TV.

Being generally skeptical of prophets of any stripe, I share this little reminiscence without comment...

9/11

Happy 9/11, everyone!

Of all the many vivid memories I have of that day nine years ago, one in particular stands out to me today.

After the attacks, I joined a massive crowd walking across the 59th St. bridge back into Queens from Manhattan, all of us alternating between watching the road beneath our feet and looking at the epic plume of black smoke rising from the southern tip of the island. As I got to the end of the bridge and turned left into Astoria (where I lived at the time), a man I was walking beside turned to me and asked me what I thought would happen next.

Now, I had given two flips about politics in any form up until that morning. I had had the vague awareness that Bush was a total tool, but couldn't find the energy to get worked up about it. And I had had even less interest, if it were possible, in matters of international policy.

But the first thing that popped out of my mouth, almost before I'd had the chance to think it, was: "our government will go after revenge instead of justice and the whole thing will get worse."

And then Bush's (and Cheney's) real presidency started.

In a way, with the Koran burnings and the Park51 nonsense and Obama's lies about our role in Iraq, the truly onerous parts of Bush's administration are ongoing. And the very first political thought my young mind had ever formulated has proved distressingly spot-on.

BBQ, anyone?

Option C? ...Please?

Looking at the Dems' tanking numbers and the Repubs' rising star prior to the mid-term elections, I admit that I desperately wish there were a viable third party in American politics.

The voters (myself included) are rightfully dissatisfied with the tepid action the Democrats have taken regarding the economy--and job creation in particular--and want the bums out. But the only people they can replace the bums with are Republican cranks who would inarguably make the entire economic situation worse.

If votes were bullets, the electorate right now is angrily aiming at its own feet for lack of a third, better target.

Helluva sitch here, eh....

Le Sigh...

I said in a previous post that I'm most disappointed in the things Obama hasn't done: closing Gitmo; repealing by executive order (a swipe of the pen!) the silliness that is DADT; and now...ending the war in Iraq.

I voted for Obama not just because Chuckles McCain was a shambling shell of a man who'd have trouble being consistent about his own birth date, but because the talent Obama exhibited running his campaign for the Senate and then his nigh flawless run for President led me to believe that the man could get shit done, that if we made him the executive he would execute some proper MF'ing policy.

And he has, of course. Stopping a global economic meltdown counts, as does the momentous health care reform bill. And yet, several huge issues remain inexplicably fuddled. Like Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have so many of our soldiers coming home (after how many stop-loss orders?), but 50K left standing is no small commitment--potentially for a decade, mind you--and the idea that these are entirely support units is ridiculous.

I guess I'm disappointed because the man is usually so very good at calling a situation what it is. To have him say that combat operations in Iraq are over, that the war is over, is simply absurd.

And I really wanted to leave such bald-faced absurdity back in the Bush years where it belongs...

Will He Please Just Stop?

When will Carter finally admit that he's the worst American of all time? C'mon, he's actually talking to the North Koreans! Doesn't he know this simply gives their regime legitimacy?

His downward spiral is just getting too hard to watch....