(More below the fold…)

Update, 1/22/09:

Now that this post is making the rounds (which is to say, a few bloggers have mentioned it – lolz on me!), I want to make the following clarifications:

1) As I said at Change.org, I don’t think Obama is a misogynist. In calling his “girly dog” remark sexist, I’m not grouping him with hardcore misogynists like Ann Coulter, Joe Francis, Rick Warren and the like. Rather, I think that Obama occasionally engages in the sort of casual, softcore sexism that’s all too common among men (and women!) who have been raised in a culture steeped in misogyny. An occasional slip is understandable and excusable – after all, we’re all socialized with certain prejudices, which we have to unlearn – but only if you’re willing to recognize, apologize and learn from it.

Here, Mrs. Obama offered her husband several opportunities to reconsider his comments – and he didn’t. To me, his failure to recognize how this gendered stereotype might offend his wife and daughters is worse than the comments themselves.

2) Upon re-reading the post, I see that I conflated “small dogs” with “girly dogs” – my bad! While I think there’s a strong correlation between a dog’s size and his/her perceived “girly”-ness, there are exceptions. The standard poodle, for example, is a larger breed, but might be considered “girly,” inasmuch as it’s “high maintenance” (i.e., is rather well groomed). “Girly doesn’t necessarily equal “small,” but the two are somewhat related.

Nor do I have a problem with Obama preferring a large dog; indeed, as some have pointed out, large dogs are overrepresented in shelters, at least in some areas of the country, and thus it might do more good for Obama to adopt a large breed. That’s fine by me – but he can do so without denigrating “girly” dogs (and, by extension, actual girls and women).

3) Enumerating the consequences of gender-based stereotypes and insults on human men and women is well beyond the scope of this blog.

However, if you:

a) Don’t understand why the term “girly” might be perceived as an insult, and a gender-based one at that;

b) Don’t see the links between misogyny and homophobia; and/or

c) Don’t recognize the practical, real-world effects of gender stereotypes and gendered slurs on men and women (and girls and boys), or understand how men and women (and girls and boys) receive different, gendered socialization, then

I highly recommend adding some feminist blogs to your reading list. For a primer, start with Finally, a feminism 101 blog. As far as non-AR feminist blogs go, I also like Shakespeare’s Sister and Feministe, both of which are relatively light on speciesism.

If you think I need to “lighten up” or “get over myself,” you really need to do some feminist homework!

4) Finally, I’d like to add that the term “girly dog” also invokes class and race stereotypes. When you think of the quintessential “girly dog” and her “owner,” probably you think of a small, white, yappy, puffy little dog with bows in her perfectly groomed hair. The dog – being a lap dog, as Obama also said – is most likely pictured lounging on the lap of an equally perfectly groomed woman, who is either prissy and “diva”-ish, like Paris Hilton (another blogger’s term and example), or older and regally respectable, like Ms. Walters. Either way, she’s white and upper-class. At least, that’s my take on the term.

—————–

Oy. After months of equivocating on the dog issue, the Obama family has announced that they’ve narrowed their choice down to two breeds: the Labradoodle and the Portuguese Water Dog. Unfortunately, as Adopt-a-Pet.com reports, while these are not the only two “hypoallergenic” breeds available, they are harder to find on animal adoption websites:

You recently signed Adopt-a-Pet.com‘s petition on www.Presidential-Pooch-Pardon.com asking Barack Obama to adopt a shelter dog. He is interested in adopting, but has narrowed his search to uncommon breeds that are difficult to find in a shelter. Now, on the President-Elect’s website, there’s a section where people can vote for their favorite ideas, and the top vote-getting ideas will be directly seen by Obama. One of the animal shelter workers who posts pets for adoption on Adopt-a-Pet.com has posted an idea urging the president to consider finding a mixed breed dog with the right individual traits that meets his family’s needs.

You can make a huge difference by voting one more time here. If this is your first time on the site, you’ll be asked to create an account, which is super simple. After you create your account, click the link above again to locate the suggestion.

Thank you for being part of this non-partisan effort to promote homeless pet adoption please spread the word to your friends!

Indeed, a search of Petfinder for “Labradoodle” currently turns up zero results, while “Portuguese Water Dog” uncovers seven purebred dogs.

Additionally, in selecting a purebred dog, the Obamas are practically inviting greedy breeders to cash in on their (hopefully) compassionate choice by sexually exploiting and selling the “Obama dog.” (Doubly so if they adopt a breed that’s hard to find through adoption routes.) A mixed breed or mutt – particularly one of unknown heritage, which can’t easily be reproduced – would help minimize this risk.

Also on the Obama dog front, Adopt-a-Pet.com has some crazy cute graphics you can download, encouraging the Obamas to adopt a mutt.

They’re available at muttslikeme.adoptapet.com, which is a riff on Obama’s observation that “A lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me.”

(More below the fold…)

In audio clips posted on their website, Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church preaches that, for one Christian to divorce another Christian is a sin – even if one of the so-called Christians is physically abusing his (or her!) partner.

On whether women can divorce an abusive spouse (question #32):

I’d always rather choose a short-term pain and find God’s solution for long-term gain than try and find a short-term solution that’s going to involve long-term pain. … [In scripture] adultery is one [reason for divorce] and abandonment is a second. I wish there were a third in scripture. Having been involved as a pastor in situations of abuse there’s something in me that wishes there was a Bible verse that says if they abuse you in this and such kind of way then you have a right to leave them. … If you’re in this kind of situation I strongly recommend that you take advantage of our lay counseling ministers. Go in and talk to someone and let them minister to you. And the advice that we give is not divorce but separation.

On whether a woman has to stay in a “miserable” marriage (question #31):

The Bible answer is yes. Does God expect me to stay in a miserable marriage, and why would he do that to me? I often say to people when they’re facing this decision, really, you’re choosing your pain in this moment because it’s going to be painful either way. If you stay in your marriage there is the opportunity for reconciliation and for the loss of pain, but there is going to be short-term pain on the way there. … There is lifelong pain in divorce. … I wish there was a way to say there is a choice here where you’re not going to have pain but there is pain in relationships. Now, God understands that… He can be with us in our pain and he can comfort us, he can strengthen us, he can give us perspective. He can also give us wisdom. Does God expect me to live with this pain? No. I think he expects us to ask for wisdom to do the things that would cause the pain to begin to be solved. … The Bible says the husband is to sacrifice for his wife and the wife is to respect her husband and if that doesn’t happen you have the right to keep pushing for that.

According to Warren’s teachings, abused women have no right to divorce their abusers.

(More below the fold…)

Update, 12/21/08: Nina M., guest posting at Reclusive Leftist, has an excellent dissection of Obama’s “talking points” on the Warren issue. Go read now!

—————–

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard that Obama’s chosen the homobigoted, woman-hating pastor Rick Warren to give the Inaugural invocation. Setting aside the issue of whether an invocation, delivered at a government event, is even appropriate, it’s really shitty of Obama to choose Warren, friendship and shared ideologies aside.

As PFAW President Kathryn Kolbert noted,

Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church’s engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right’s big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.

I’m sure that Warren’s supporters will portray his selection as an appeal to unity by a president who is committed to reaching across traditional divides. Others may explain it as a response to Warren inviting then-Senator Obama to speak on AIDS and candidate Obama to appear at a forum, both at his church. But the sad truth is that this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.

The Obama camp’s “leaked talking points,” as reported in HuffPo, are, well, laughable:

At his press conference on Thursday, Barack Obama for the first time addressed the flurry of protest that has erupted over the choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation.

Stressing his own advocacy of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, the president-elect raised a relevant anecdote from his biography as a defense.

“Advocacy of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans”? What the fuck is he smoking? A supporter of “civil unions” – for reasons that basically amount to religion and “tradition” – Obama is a-ok with allowing individual states to decide whether GLBT couples should be granted the same civil rights that heterosexual folks enjoy. How’s that advocating “equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans,” again?

A reader at HuffPo said it best:

I was very enthusiastic to have Obama as my president for the most part but I always had reservations about his commitment to GBLT issues and this is more than disappointing. I wonder if people would be saying, “it’s not that big of a deal, give him some slack” if someone of the ilk of David Duke or a virulent Holocaust deny-er was invited to give the invocation, you know, in the spirit of unity and to be open and inclusive. Why is it ok for a spokesperson of the anti-gay movement to be included and not recognized as a step too far into so-called post partisanship ? Why is Warren’s AIDS work supposed to mollify angry GBLT voters? Is AIDS still only erroneously considered a gay thing in America, so if you are doing work for that you are, by default working for the gay community? Why can’t even progressives understand what a stinging slap in the face to the GBLT community it is to have a vocal, active, and powerful homophobe given a platform no matter how large or small that platform may be?

Somehow, I doubt it.

* Bah, it isn’t even “change.”

—————–

Tagged: barack obama rick warren glbt homophobia homophobe misogyny misogynist abortion reproductive rights inauguration

Via Joselle @ Vegans of Color, an interesting article in The New York Times about the origins of the term “maverick” – and how the descendants of the original consummate maverick feel about McCain’s (McSame’s?) co-opting of the term:

But to those who know the history of the word, applying it to Mr. McCain is a bit of a stretch — and to one Texas family in particular it is even a bit offensive.

“I’m just enraged that McCain calls himself a maverick,” said Terrellita Maverick, 82, a San Antonio native who proudly carries the name of a family that has been known for its progressive politics since the 1600s, when an early ancestor in Boston got into trouble with the law over his agitation for the rights of indentured servants.

In the 1800s, Samuel Augustus Maverick went to Texas and became known for not branding his cattle. He was more interested in keeping track of the land he owned than the livestock on it, Ms. Maverick said; unbranded cattle, then, were called “Maverick’s.” The name came to mean anyone who didn’t bear another’s brand.

Sam Maverick’s grandson, Fontaine Maury Maverick, was a two-term congressman and a mayor of San Antonio who lost his mayoral re-election bid when conservatives labeled him a Communist. He served in the Roosevelt administration on the Smaller War Plants Corporation and is best known for another coinage. He came up with the term “gobbledygook” in frustration at the convoluted language of bureaucrats.

This Maverick’s son, Maury Jr., was a firebrand civil libertarian and lawyer who defended draft resisters, atheists and others scorned by society. He served in the Texas Legislature during the McCarthy era and wrote fiery columns for The San Antonio Express-News. His final column, published on Feb. 2, 2003, just after he died at 82, was an attack on the coming war in Iraq.

Terrellita Maverick, sister of Maury Jr., is a member emeritus of the board of the San Antonio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

Considering the family’s long history of association with liberalism and progressive ideals, it should come as no surprise that Ms. Maverick insists that John McCain, who has voted so often with his party, “is in no way a maverick, in uppercase or lowercase.”

“It’s just incredible — the nerve! — to suggest that he’s not part of that Republican herd. Every time we hear it, all my children and I and all my family shrink a little and say, ‘Oh, my God, he said it again.’ ”

“He’s a Republican,” she said. “He’s branded.”

(That’s all but the first paragraph of the article; it was just too doggone good to pick and choose excerpts.)

The delicious irony in McCain appropriating a term coined on the ideals of a progressive, civil liberty-heartin, atheist-defending, draft resister-hugging, ACLU card carrying lefties is not lost on this progressive vegan atheist terra-ist.

Man, what a fucknut.

———————–

Tagged: 2008 elections john mccain sarah palin maverick language politics

A 26-year ban on offshore oil drilling will be dropped as part of a year-end spending bill, said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey.

Eliminating the ban will allow the measure, which funds government operations through March 6, to get through Congress and be signed into law by President George W. Bush, Obey said.

“At least temporarily, the moratorium is lifted,” Obey told reporters. “This next election will decide what our drilling policy is going to be.”

Ah, right. “Just elect Obama, and then we’ll reinstate the ban. Trust us.”

Because the Dems have been all about wish fulfillment and promises kept. I mean, look at how well y’all have served the base since your 2006 mandate!

Not to mention, Obama’s a big flip flippity flip flopper on the issue:

The bill would end a months-long fight over the drilling moratorium. The push to end the ban picked up in July as the price of oil hit a record $147.27 per barrel and the average pump price of gasoline topped out at $4.11 per gallon. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both altered their positions on the matter, saying they would support new offshore drilling.

Heh, yeah, right. I’ll trust Obama. About as much as I’ll trust the guy to defend my civil liberties or maintain that pesky wall separating church and state. Which is to say, not at all.

The announcement was hailed by Republicans. “House Republicans have fought for months to lift these outdated bans on American energy production, and the capitulation by Democrats today is a big victory for working families, seniors, and small businesses struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner, of Ohio.

Capitulation? Totally. Victory for working families? Eh, not so much.

And now that the goal post’s been moved, I guess it’s onward to ANWR for the asses and their Republican overlords.

———————–

Tagged: offshore oil drilling oil drilling republicans democrats environment wtf 2008 elections

As part of this week’s Countering the Right assignment, I had to sit through this “trailer” for the Family Research Council’s 2008 Values Voter Summit. Before I embedden the vid, let me just note that the featured speakers include Stephen Baldwin, Michele Bachmann, “independent” Lou Dobbs, Gary Bauer, Phyllis Schlafly, Sean Hannity, and – well, you get the idea. They bring the loony, is what I’m sayin’:

First of all: Sunday, Sunday, SUNDAY!? What are they doing, advertising a monster truck show? Ahem. Anywho.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but – isn’t that Coldplay’s “Viva la Vida” playing in the background?

(Word to the wise: listen to this video, don’t watch it. It’s absolute dreck.)

Like, WTF FRC / VV08?

I’m not a big Colplay fan, but I do lurve this particular song. (Maybe because it reminds me of Lost, what with the British accents, fallen Catholics and wanna-be island kings. But that’s neither here nor there.)

And it doesn’t take a music critic to detect its anti-establishment undertones. Just check the lyrics:

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy’s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing
“Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!”

One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can’t explain
Once you go there was never
Never an honest word
And that was when I ruled the world

It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn’t believe what I’d become

Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string
Oh who would ever want to be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

I hear Jerusalem bells are ringing
Roman Cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field

For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter won’t call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

Ostensibly, it’s about a corrupt, fallen king whose reign on earth has been so tainted by sin that, upon death, he’s not fit to cross the gates of Heaven. No?

Yes, explains bassist Guy Berryman:

It’s a story about a king who’s lost his kingdom, and all the album’s artwork is based on the idea of revolutionaries and guerrillas. There’s this slightly anti-authoritarian viewpoint that’s crept into some of the lyrics and it’s some of the pay-off between being surrounded by governments on one side, but also we’re human beings with emotions and we’re all going to die and the stupidity of what we have to put up with every day. Hence the album title.

And, while I don’t claim or even care to know much about Coldplay’s politics, singer Chris Martin is married to Gwyneth Paltrow – who, along with her mother Blythe Danner, has campaigned on behalf of Planned Parenthood (in a Mother’s Day fundraising push that threw the anti-choicers into quite the tizzy). So I very much doubt that the guys in Coldplay consider themselves “Values Voters” – or rather, they don’t share the “values” of the evangelical crowd. (Hey, just because I don’t swing right, doesn’t mean I don’t have “values.”)

And yet the Family Research Council, with all their woman-hating, gay-bashing, war-mongering, nation-building, stone-throwing authoritarian spitefulness, chose this song to promote their “Values Votes” Summit. Oh, sweet irony!

I wonder if Coldplay will have the dubious honor of inclusion on the Reich Wing’s next conservative song roundup? (Fortified with unintentional irony, natch!)

———————

Tagged: frc family research council vv values voter values voter summit 2008 elections coldplay Viva la Vida music video youtube irony conservative right wing uncool evangelical pop culture

Want to have some crazy nightmares tonight? Watch this video:

*shudder*

By the by, how did the phrases “safe sodomy subsidies” & “the Homosexual Gestapo” never catch on? Pure nutbag awesomeness, those are!

Via PFAW, whose YP4 / PAO Countering the Right course I’m currently enrolled in.

——————-

Tagged: youtube video religious right countering the right pfaw people for the american way pf4 pao progressive academy online godbags politics first amendment

I know I’m late to the party on this one, but I’m totally burnt out on politics and have only gotten around to watching clips from the DNC this week. (Seriously – the most political show I watched last week was E!’s 15 Hottest Political Scandals.)

Sigh. Blurb.

I fucking love this guy. I wish I could put him in my pocket and carry him everywhere. We could all use a little more Kucinich.

America, why is he not the Democratic nominee?

And DNC, why does your convention resemble a game show set?

—————-

Tagged: dennis kucinich wake up america dnc democratic national convention politics 2008 elections video youtube

True, 5% isn’t exactly shooting for the stars, but Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney explains how garnering just five percent of the national vote can help the Green Party “Return power to the people”:

The goal of this effort is to put another seat at the table. Right now public policy is made at a real table. In 1992 when I was running for Congress, the slogan was ‘we want our seat at the table’ because that was the year of the woman. Women all over the country were running for the Congress and we wanted our seat at the table. When I got to Washington, D.C., I saw that there really is a table and that table is inside a room and that room has a door and a window. The window is for the people. They can look in and they can see public policy being made. The door however has a lock on it, and so not everybody can come and go at will. Somebody is already in that room and there are only two entities in that room, Democrats and Republicans. They gave the special interests (groups) a key so that they could come inside that room anytime they wanted. As a result of the special interest (groups) being able to lobby and press their wishes at will, the American people can vote for peace and get war and occupation. [...] By receiving five percent of the national vote, the Green Party can pull a seat up at that table of public policymaking. We can put a chair in that room that reflects our values and I can guarantee you that the public policy resulting because we are there will be more reflective of the values of those who actually go to the polls and vote. Five percent.

Of her split with the Democratic Party, McKinney says:

The reason that I am no longer a Democrat is because the leadership of the Democratic Party has pressed the Democratic Party in ways that are not consistent, nor reflective any longer of my values. So for example, the Democratic majority in Congress presented an agenda for its first 100 days. Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita were nowhere on that agenda. They also pressed for the continuation of spending for war and occupation. Peace is my value not complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of torture and crimes against the peace.

Also one of the values that I think that is important for us to protect is the Bill of Rights. We must be able to live in a society that both claims itself to be a free one, it really ought to be free. The recent demonstration of the Democratic leadership, no longer reflecting the value of protecting human rights at home, is the fact that now, telecommunication companies get retroactive immunity granted to them by the Democratic majority in the Congress to spy illegally on innocent Americans. This is outrageous, aside from the fact that it’s well past time that we stop spending $720,000,000 every day for war; that we ought to have a budget for this country that reflects human needs. That we ought to provide a single payer health care system for people in this country and a livable wage for workers in this country. It is insufficient for the Democratic majority to merely talk about raising the minimum wage. People must go to work now and when they go to work they should not remain beneath the poverty level.

While I don’t have any illusions that McKinney/Clemente will take office in ’09 (just as I didn’t expect Kucinich to sweep the primaries), neither Obama’s seemingly impending victory nor the specter of a McCain presidency can compel me to vote against my fundamental values. A vote for McKinney (and, in the grander scheme of things, the Green Party; grander still, an end to the two-party system) is not a waste of my vote. Quite the contrary – my vote would be truly be wasted if I allowed those who feel that they are entitled to it to take it without actually earning it.

So if you’re a Democrat, a liberal, or a progressive; are less than thrilled with Obama; and/or would like to stick it to the Democratic Party, consider the Green Party. Since the Democratic establishment considers the Green Party candidates “spoilers” – and a vote for a Green the same as a vote for the Republicans – don’t violate your values by casting a vote in favor of McCain. You can have your tree and hug it, too.

Cast a vote against Obama, against McCain, against the Democrats and Republicans, against the two party system, against politics as usual. Vote for McKinney and Clemente. Or, hell, any third party for that matter. But just as you won’t vote for the lesser of two evils (Obama), please don’t vote for the worse of the pair (McCain). Because, really, the Democratic Party isn’t fixin’ to change any time soon. So the question becomes, just how sustainable is this strategy of voting Republican?

Seriously, people, five percent. Surely there are more marginalized voters angry with the Democratic Party (and the “democratic” process) than that?

————————-

Tagged: 2008 elections two party system Cynthia McKinney Green Party Rosa Clemente Barack Obama John McCain Democrats Republicans politics