Image from sinkers.org, via Open Left

Goodness.

You’d think that liberals and social progressives would get it by now.

You’d think that they would understand the basic fact that they are simply rubes. Disposable. To be used by the Democratic Party at election time ….and then to be flushed away like used toilet tissue.

So much liberal/progressive space was dedicated to the dawn of the Second New Deal that was coming with the inauguration of Barack Obama as President of these United States; not to mention the death of the New Right.

Well…turns out that the Christian Right might not be so dead after all….and guess who’s lending them a helping hand?

The recent selection of Christian Right activist Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Obama inauguration has stirred deep anger and fury amongst certain progressive sectors of the blogosphere; in particular, it has cast a deep and cold shoulder on GLBT activists still smarting from Obama’s “Rope-a-dope” strategy on Prop (H)8 and his open courting of conservative Black evangelical celebrities (including outright gay baiters like Donnie McClurken).

Unfortunately, it is only the latest in the string of Obama “betrayals” of progressive principles: from his votes for telecom “immunity” and the de-toothing of FISA, to his votes for the bank bailout, to his Clintonesque selections for his Cabinet (the latest being Arne Duncan, administrator of Dubya’s widely hated “No Child Left Behind” policy, to become Secretary of Education and Blue Dog Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado to become Interior Secretary).

But, I have a question for all those liberals feeling “betrayed”: how in the hell can you say that when Obama has been announcing loud and clear that he was no “liberal” to begin with?? It’s not as if he was talking all along like he was that much a social progressive (other than the usual boilerplate about “women’s rights”, that is); he was ALWAYS pandering to the hard social right…like most Democrats running for high office ultimately do to please the pundits and the “Villagers” and get elected. (And once again, for all you Hillary Clinton fans watching this, please spare me the BS; she would have been no better; she was a worse panderer in the primaries than Obama, having had her husband’s experiences.)

“But, but, ‘Dog,” you say, “What about that HUGE stimulus package he’s set to pass?? And didn’t you just say that he is still superior to Dubya??”

Yes, Obama will still be far, far superior to Bush: actually, a potted plant sitting at the Oval Office would be superior to Dubya these days. Problem is, though, that those who were hoping for actual change, even a REVERSAL of the politics of the past 8 years (let alone, the past 30 years), are going to get a real shock of disappointment if you are expecting Obama to fulfill your fantasies. Take away the stimulus package, which is really meant to prime the economy enough to get back to business as usual, not to fundamentally change anything), and you have a typical center-right Democrat using progressive rhetoric to get elected, then presto-changeo, he becomes a typical Democrat once again.

After all, if Barack Obama is good enough for Al From of the old Democratic Leadership Council, that’s reason enough to worry.

More importantly, though….what does that say about the Black evangelicals who make up the base of Obama’s most passionate support? Are they really the building block of the Next New Left….or simply a Trojan horse for the populist wing of the New Right?? Are we seeing simply a switching of the “faith-based” strategy from the White evangelicals of the Bush regime to the Black fundies?? Will T.J. T. D. Jakes and Rick Warren be replacing Jim Dobson and Jerry Falwell as the new Christian Right political kingpins?? And what will this bring for social progressive groups (read that to mean GLBT’s, feminists, radical sexual dissidents, and other socially liberal folk who will be increasingly be left to their own devices if Obama really does follow this trend and moves hard towards the social conservatives??

Be careful of what you ask for, friends….because you just might get it. And have it run right over you.

Oh….and the fact that Joe Lowery is giving the benediction doesn’t change anything…this was an absolutely atrotious political move, and one that will haunt Obama for the rest of his presidency. If he is anything worthy of a progressive, that is.

UPDATE: This comment (scroll down to sixth comment) by Jill Bains in Digby’s blog Hullabaloo says what needs to be said about the Democrats and their treatment of not only sexual dissidents, but all progressives:

“It doesn’t leave much room for liberals, but perhaps that’s a good thing. They are nothing but trouble, defending women’s civil liberties, agitating for gay rights and hectoring the government about not torturing and starting wars and all that.” –(Digby)

–You got it. That’s the plan. A fine posting and one you can assuredly count on being grimly prophetic. This accurate reading of the motivations behind the most recent exemplar of the reactionary trend in American politics has a psychological acuity and prescience.

At this late date it never fails to be shocking that so many haven’t known this all along; these hidebound Democratic party loyalists denounce those who point it out, refuse to disaffect and sever themselves from the stench, and will continue to vote Democratic come hell or high water. Stewing forever in the defeats of bad faith, the Democratic party voter, looks in the mirror, sees a fool– and pretends it is a chimera. Being used reapeatedly a punching bag for so long, progressives go meekly or they don’t go at all. Awash in the unsightly certainty of their capitulation, forever gluttons for punishment, they fail to see that political masochism is no longer chic.

When will the day dawn that the days of reforming the Democratic party from within are so far off in dim memory as to never have actually existed at all.

The Obama reaction is only the beginning of a treachery that has never really went away or abated.

The beginning, Jill?? I thought that Obama’s votes for FISA renewal and telecom “immunity” was the beginning. Silly me.

Tags: Chump Change We Can Believe In, The Audacity of Betrayal

*Because I just had to make a reference to the original Orenthal (aka O. J. Simpson) finally getting his walking papers. Nice seeing ‘ya, OJ…now maybe you will continue your search for Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown’s “real killer”.  I’m guessing that Hell will seem like a resort in comparison to what he will face.

To the original topic, now….the big news that awakened me was that Bill Jefferson, the long time representative of Louisiana’s 2nd US Congressional district, who had been actually convicted of felonies involving, among other things, hiding cash in freezers, and who had been as much a part as anyone else here in the Great Hurricane Katrina Conspiracy….had gotten his ass booted out of his seat by a conservative Republican and attorney named Anh Cao. This would be a big story anyway, but what makes it even bigger is that Jefferson represented a district that was rated at Democratic +28 (which is about as blue as blue can get), and a district that is mostly majority Black and consists primarily of the city of New Orleans, which is even more majority Black than usual (though, due to the virtual ethnic cleansing of the city at large due to Hurricane Katrina, the population has plummeted somewhat in the city; and that the district was reapportioned after the 2000 Census to include more surrounding White suburbs).

There is a part of me that is certainly celebrating this moment, because “Dollar Bill” Jefferson was indeed not only a crook, but a really bad, ineffectual crook who really did next to nothing to benefit the people — especially the poorest folk — in his district.

From the discussion that I’ve been seeing throughout the liberal blogosphere, there is nothing but glee from the usual “progressive” slots about Jefferson’s defeat, and probably hope that enduring a conservative Republican in a heavily Democratic seat will only be temporary, until the Dems can get their act together in 2010.

Problem is, that may be, to use one of Keith Olbermann’s pet phrases, premature joculation, because it ignores what is becoming a trend in Louisiana politics that should frighten genuine progressives and supporters of Black political power.

First off, the district may not even exist after 2010 to begin with: Louisiana is expected to lose a Congressional district due to loss of population in the 2010 Census and the ensuing reapportionment of Congressional seats; and most of the luring eyes are looking to savaging the LA-02 district as a means of balancing population growth in more conservative areas like Acadiana (the Lafayette/New Iberia/St. Martinville/Opelousas area) and exurban Baton Rouge (mostly the Gonzales/Sorrento/Denham Springs/Zachary region). That, combined with Republican control of the Governor’s Mansion (AFAIK, Bobby Jindal will still be Governor) and solid conservative control of the State Legislature (even with a nominal Democratic majority, most White Dems are nearly as conservative as their Republican colleagues, and would probably be increasingly hostle to any demands by Black constuients), will tend to further reduce whatever slim power that Blacks had over the political process.

Secondly, there is that other Congressional electoral result that took place today: the election in the Fourth US Congressional District in Northwest/West Louisiana to replace the resigned Bill McCrery. As it stands right now, hard right Republican John Fleming has a narrow lead over Blue Dog conservative Democrat Paul Carmouche, and it appears that that will stick. If so, it would be the second blow to hopes for national Democrats in this state that they would be able to sneak victories in usually conservative districts….Don Cazayoux’s loss in LA-06 to Jack Cassidy would be the other blow.  Both Cazayoux and Carmouche had run on typical Blue Dog conservative platforms, differing from the Republicans only in their opposition to Bushian policies and their attempts to recruit Black voters in urban areas based on mostly Bush-hate and pseudo-populism.  The only problem was that most Blacks are not so kind to being taken for granted and — even though they might be prone to appeals to social conservatism — simply will not accept tokenism without real action. (Indeed, in the case of Cazayoux, he faced an independent bolt by Baton Rouge state legislator Michael Jackson, which took a bunch of the urban vote from his campaign, though it still would not have helped him much against Cassidy, who won a slim majority. Carmouche, though, had to battle through a fierce Dem primary.)

In any rate, however, these combined results paint a bitter future for progressives in Louisiana, since it shows that the attempts by conservative Democrats to appeal across racial lines using economic populism hit the same barrier that it has always had: the hard politics of race. Most White conservatives in Louisiana (whether they be registered Democrat or Republican, remain conservative, and will only support a Black or Latino or candidate of color if the latter is shown to BE an unabashed hard conservative (see Bobby Jindal or Anh Cao), especially on social issues.  Otherwise, they will simply vote their ideology and stick with the consistent hardline conservative candidate.  It wasn’t just that Bill Jefferson was a crook who represented the worst of politicians that motivated enough White (and Viet) folk to defeat him; it was the fact that he represented, in the minds of most Whites, the epitome of Black political power in Louisiana, centered in the “corruption” of New Orleans.

Such right-wing populist, not so thinly veiled racialist viewpoints remain pretty strong down here; and basically prove my belief that the Right will not go so gently into the night as some liberals have so blindly opinied, but will reload and redevelop on the backs of the usual anti-Black and anti-liberal resentments.  And as bitterly divided and decentralized as the Democratic Party is in Louisiana, it seems that they really don’t have any means of resolving this issue, and if something — like, say, losing control of the State Legislature — does push them to action, it won’t be to move the state party to the liberal side, but rather, to reconsitiute the old States’ Rights’ code and outflank the Repubs from the far, populist Right.

In short, Blacks and progressives here in Louisiana remain as they were even before The Dawn of Obama: politically isolated, besert of any meaningful allies, and, more than likely, broken as a political power; forced to be mere watchers from the outside as two groups of conservatives divide the fruits of power.

Only some massive intervention from the National Dems on behalf of poor folk, combined with an insurgency from below that can somehow bridge the racial gap with broad based genuine LEFT populist programs of the Huey Long mold will be able to reverse the trend. That, though, would require the National Dems and Obama to actually act like he believed his rhetoric in the campaign and endorse some actual radical change…..and based on his appointment of retreaded Clintonites and corporate war hawks to his administration, there is a lot to be disappointed about.

If there was ever a time for a 21st Century Huey Long to emerge, right now would be a good time. Any takers??  Ralph?? (Ahhh, no.) Cynthia?? Malik??  Bueller???  Bueller???  Ahhhhh….Bueller??????

Remember when I had posted back in May [over at BPPA] on the proposal by the Federal Communications Commission that was originally put forth by an Internet start-up company called M2Z Networks that would offer up a portion of the wireless Internet spectrum to the public for free…but with the caveat that any free access include filtering of adult sexual content???

Well, now, guess what proposal is coming up on the docket of the outgoing FCC hearings this month??

From the online Wall Street Journal, via Raw Story:

Outgoing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is pushing for action in December on a plan to offer free, pornography-free wireless Internet service to all Americans, despite objections from the wireless industry and some consumer groups.

[...]

The free Internet plan is the most controversial issue the agency will tackle in December. Mr. Martin shelved plans to consider a wider variety of sticky issues pending at the agency, including a request by the Hollywood studios to hobble TVs and set-top boxes so studios can offer copy-protected theatrical releases sooner.

The proposal to allow a no-smut, free wireless Internet service is part of a proposal to auction off a chunk of airwaves. The winning bidder would be required to set aside a quarter of the airwaves for a free Internet service. The winner could establish a paid service that would have a fast wireless Internet connection. The free service could be slower and would be required to filter out pornography and other material not suitable for children. The FCC’s proposal mirrors a plan offered by M2Z Networks Inc., a start-up backed by Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partner John Doerr.

Consumer advocates have objected to the FCC’s proposed pornography filter, while the wireless industry has objected to the entire free Internet plan. To address concerns about the filter, the FCC is proposing that adults could opt out and access all Internet sites.

T-Mobile USA, in particular, has raised concerns. The Deutsche Telekom AG unit paid about $4 billion a few years ago for nearby airwaves and has complained that the free wireless Internet plan will likely result in interference for consumers of its new 3G wireless network. The FCC dismissed the company’s interference concerns this fall, although T-Mobile disagreed with that finding.

The main difference between the original M2Z plan and what is being proposed by the FCC now is that there would be a public auction for the spectrum being offered, whereas M2Z wanted to build the spectrum all by themselves.

Naturally, the existing wireless industry majors are all in an uproar about the proposal, mostly because it would basically remove a huge chunk of their profit base. T-Mobile has been especially concerned because of fears that the “free” spectrum would disrupt and interfere with their own wireless spectrum that they use for their commercial service….a charge that has been voriferously denied by M2Z and the plan’s proponents.

Just as naturally, most consumer groups are very much up in arms over the porn filtering requirement (and who says that it won’t be used to go after P2P transfers and use poor Internet users as guinea pigs for other means of government snooping and control, either??), calling it a major breach of First Amendment protections and a priori content censorship. A group of affiliated consumer groups led by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and the excellent Woodhull Freedom Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief expressing their strong opposition to the content filtering (the full brief can be read here — Warning, pdf file).

Strangely enough, though, the plan does have their supporters, especially in Congress; and not just the typical Religious Right social conservative Republicans who would love to see a porn-free Internet. Quoting from an Ars Technica article from last August:

Two prominent Capitol Hill Democrats have written a letter to Federal Communications Commission chair Kevin Martin supporting his proposal for a national smut-free broadband service. Their statement takes on wireless company charges that it will interfere with wireless services in neighboring spectrum areas.

“We agree with you that promoting universal broadband is an urgent national priority,” wrote Edward Markey (D-MA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) on Friday. “However, we are concerned that incumbent wireless carriers are seeking unnecessary and unprecedented testing delays to prevent new innovative competitors from entering the market.”

The letter is the first serious support that Martin’s beleaguered scheme has gotten from Capitol Hill. The FCC wants to auction off the 2155-2180 MHz spectrum region to a bidder who will provide a nationwide broadband service that’s free from both access fees and pornography. This area of the spectrum is also called the Advanced Wireless Services 3 (AWS-3) region. Martin’s plan has come under heavy fire of late, not only from wireless companies and Congressional Republicans, but from public interest groups and trade associations that call it a threat to freedom of speech on the Internet.

[....]

Eshoo, in fact, has submitted a bill to the House of Representatives that pretty much proposes what Martin wants. Her Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act of 2008 (H.R. 5846), reserves the same chunk of spectrum (2155-2180 MHz) and requires the service to provide technology that “protects underage users from accessing obscene or indecent material.” The legislation presently awaits debate in Markey’s House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications. It has 14 co-sponsors, mostly Democrats, including Markey.

If this plan gets past big wireless, there is, of course, another hurdle ahead: the constitutionality of a government mandated service that doesn’t just obey the FCC’s legally shaky indecency rules, but has to block (dare we say “censor”?) the indecency in advance.

As Ars has reported, in July, nearly two dozen prominent public interest and civil liberties groups warned the FCC that the filtering part of the scheme could find itself facing a deluge of lawsuits. So far, proponents of the idea seem to have adopted an “We’ll drive off that bridge when we get there” approach to the First Amendment question.

Yep..more of that wonderful change we can believe in. I’m sure that Ernest is smirking reading that.

That particular proposed bill did die in the last Congress…but I’m sure that there will be attempts in the new Obamaized Congress next year to sneak such requirements through.

Thus far, the only bone that the proponents of this “free but porn-free” wireless spectrum have thrown at opponents has been an “opt-out” clause which would allow adults to exit the plan and continue to receive unlimited Internet access through traditional channels….at market rates. In short, you would have a two-tiered system of wireless access where the poor and working class would get “free” but greatly censored wireless Internet access, filtered to fit whatever the government (or the agency who wins the spectrum) decides is “proper speech”; and the rich and those willing to borrow up the wazoo get the full unemcumbered access, but at increased prices to make up for the loss of the “freeloaders”. All that, and still no net neutrality, either.

Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. Martin. I’d much rather a free system with full access and NO censorship at all from the top end (why not just allow end users through their own filters and blocking software to do the censorship for themselves??)…but if I had to choose between “free but filtered” and paying $60-$100 bucks a month for unlimited and uncensored access, well, I’ll just eat the loss and take the latter.

Here’s a novel idea, FCC: Why not stop trying to impose the Religious Right’s morals on the rest of us, and focus your limited attention span on what really matters to us….namely, how to cut down the excessive costs of delivering Internet service across the board (whether through satellite, cable or wireless), while increasing broadband speed for everyone?? How about actually removing the ties between the Big Media companies and Internet providers and allowing ISPs to offer their services through multiple channels?? Orrrr….here’s a even more novel concept: how about just getting the hell out of the way and letting end users decide for themselves what is appropriate for their families to view online?? Just as there is such a thing as the “V-chip” for TV’s (and don’t get me started on the FCC and their approaching shutdown for analog signals for TVs in favor of all-digital), there are numerous software fixes available for those who want to monitor their child’s viewing habits. And there is always the ultimate cure for those who are concerned about too much access to the Internet for children: it’s called “the OFF switch.” And those things called “BOOKS” don’t hurt, either.

And, Kevin Martin should be dumped into the Potomac for this debacle of a proposal…if for no other reason than the fact that he was the Bush Admin’s legal counsel for the Gore-Bush 2000 Presidential Theft. And, for being such a censorious, corporatist hack.

[crossposted also over at BPPA]

Well…it was fun while it lasted.

Perhaps I should have listened to my instincts that told me that Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States would be your typical DLC Democrat in the finest tradition of Bubba Clinton (but with a nice deep tan and without Bubba’s pussy hound instincts).  But, silly, stooopid me being the optimist I am, I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt, being so happy that he and the Democrats would be able to flush the evil, bad Reaganites and Bushites out of Capitol Hill.

And then Rahm Emanuel happened.

As did Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

As did several of Bubba’s cronies started making their way into the transition team.

Then…Tom Daschle as Health and Human Services Secretary. Yeah…THAT Tom Daschle.

Then Obama broke bread with….John McCain?!?!?! Why not invite Sarah Palin as your Interior Secretary then, Senator??

And…Holy Joe Lieberman keeps his plum Homeland Security seat and his “Democratic” Caucus standing, with no less a push from BHO himself. As a Senator’s spokesman parapharsed: “Suck on that one, ‘ya stoopid liberals.”

And now, we have this latest: Eric Holder, who was Janet Reno’s first assistant, is now tagged to become Attorney General.

Wouldn’t be so bad, were it not for the fact that he was a highly paid corporate lawyer for Chiquita, the banana comglomerate who was so busy trying to undercut and undermine native Latin American fruit markets…..while also defending fascist, death squad dictatorships.

And oh, lookee here…..he even seems to have a thing against adult sexual expression, too (from an AVN.com article, h/t to Ernest Greene at BPPA:

While Holder will have to undergo an extensive vetting process before officially being offered the job, he has already generated concern in the adult industry over a decade-old memo he wrote on the topic of obscenity prosecutions.

[...]

Perhaps even more troubling is a letter Holder wrote to Morality In Media founder Paul McGeady on July 2, 1998, which references a meeting apparently attended by Holder, McGeady and representatives of various religio-conservative pro-censorship groups:

“I appreciated having the opportunity to meet with you recently to discuss the prosecution of obscenity cases,” Holder wrote. “Your commitment to this important issue is commendable, and I fully share your concerns about the distribution of obscenity and child pornography, whether it is over the Internet or by more traditional purveyors of such material. I encourage you, and the other organizations with whom I met, to continue working closely with the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Department of Justice as we work aggressively to address this troubling problem. Based on the many insightful comments and observations made by representatives of the various groups who attended our recent meeting, I determined that it was appropriate for me to send a memorandum to all United States Attorneys reminding them of the Department’s policies.”

[...]

Holder’s stance on obscenity drew comments from First Amendment attorney and AVN columnist Clyde DeWitt, who dealt with the “Holder Memo” in his column for AVN’s September, 1998 issue (”Federal Obscenity Prosecutions in General, and the Internet in Particular”.) DeWitt referenced Holder’s stance that U.S. Attorneys should follow the United States Attorneys’ Manual, which at that time still suggested that adult companies could be targeted using a “multiple-prosecution strategy,” where a single company could be indicted in multiple jurisdictions, forcing that company to expend vast resources defending itself, which might bankrupt the company - exactly as the Justice Department intended the tactic to accomplish.

“Perhaps most shocked by the article was Adam & Eve owner Phil Harvey, who had undertaken tireless efforts to have the multiple-prosecution policies of the Department of Justice ruled unconstitutional,” DeWitt later wrote. “Indeed, during the course of the wind-up of the very successful PHE, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice case, Phil’s company received a promise from the Department of Justice at a November, 1993 hearing that, according to Assistant United States Attorney Thomas Millet, it was anticipated that ‘within the near future,’ the Department policy would be changed so as to ‘no longer encourage multiple prosecutions in obscenity cases.’ Accordingly, Phil was to say the least alarmed to find the old policies still in effect.”

“I wrote the first article — this was ‘97, ‘98 — just generally to inform the newly-emerging Internet community, who didn’t remember obscenity prosecutions, of what they were and that it’s out there and it’s serious,” DeWitt recalled. “I mentioned the multiple prosecution strategy, and Phil Harvey called me up or faxed me or something and said, ‘What the hell is this? They changed that because of my lawsuit.’ I said, ‘No, they didn’t. here’s what it says presently,’ and he said, ‘Well, that’s exactly what it said before!’”

Indeed, the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual was not changed until June of ‘98, just after Holder wrote his memorandum - and that change came at the insistence of Harvey, who contacted the Justice Department to demand that it fulfill its promise.

Now…in some defense of Holder, the antiporn zealot groups meeting with him have a slightly different view what took place. Taken from the Concerned Women of America website today (and crossposted by moi to BPPA):

In 1993, the United States began a staggering decline in obscenity prosecutions. During the Clinton administration’s first six years, federal enforcement of obscenity violations plummeted more than 80 percent. In fiscal 1997, only six prosecutions included a lead charge of federal obscenity law violation. In 1998, those cases totaled only eight. Further, no prosecutions against major interstate distributors of hard-core porn have occurred for the past several years, according to a report by Morality in Media, a New York-based decency organization.

The last eight years have been “peaches and cream as far as prosecutions have been concerned,” said Paul Cambria, a “First Amendment” lawyer whose clients include Hustler publisher Larry Flynt. Cambria spoke at a pornography trade show in September. “We’ve had some state prosecutions, but by-and-large no federal prosecutions” under the Clinton administration, he said.

To remedy the situation, pro-family groups, including the National Law Center for Children and Families and Concerned Women for America, pressed for meetings with Justice Department officials. They ignored our requests to meet with U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno for nearly eight months—although we represented millions of children and families. When I pressed inside contacts for the meeting, officials said we did not merit a meeting with Miss Reno and offered us Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder instead.

At that May 1998 meeting, Mr. Holder seemed genuinely concerned with our requests. But he had little understanding of the obscenity industry. Afterwards, he contacted all 93 U.S. attorneys in the states to remind them that the prosecution of obscenity producers and distributors was still a priority, and they were responsible to act.

Still, nothing happened. The porn industry’s trade publications reported the Justice Department had sent this letter, but pornographers obviously didn’t fear prosecution and continued “business as usual.” In 1996, the industry endorsed President Clinton for a second term, stating in AVN, “There have been fewer federal prosecutions of the adult industry under Clinton than under Reagan and Bush. … [W]ith no reason to change his hands-nearly-off porn policy, vote for him.”

The AVN article also mentions some more questionable tactics of Holder, such as the aftformentioned ties to Chiquita and his role in one of Bubba’s final acts of cronyism: the pardoning of financeer Mark Rich.

But if even that isn’t enough to chill your spine, here are two words that should horrify you: Catherine MacKinnon.

That’s right, Clones….the long-time Svengali of antiporn “feminism” has openly endorsed and blessed Obama’s presidency (even explicitly in an editorial in…of all places, The Wall Street Journal), calling him “a family man with two daughters.” You would note that this hasn’t gone too well with the usual Womyn Warrior crowd of radfems; some of them being still in Hillary/PUMA-induced shock and anger (and some even reduced to attempting to mine Sarah Palin as the next great feminist heroine)….but why would such an antiporn  firebrand like MacKinnon make such a public endorsement?? Could it be because one of her closest allies, University of Chicago professor Cass Susstein, just might be headed to the US Supreme Court??? Could it be that Michelle Obama really could be a closeted radical feminist?? Or, at least, be sympathetic to MacKinnon’s theories??

With all that happening, I wouldn’t be surprised if by next week Obama would be doing another presser announcing his plans to reform welfare by increasing work requirements and cutting benefits…oh, wait, he’s already done that, too???

Yup…change we can believe in, indeed. Unfortunately for progressives and the Left, more like chump change left at the bottom of a bag of coal lumps.

Looks like that vote for Cynthia McKinney wasn’t such a waste of mine, doesn’t it???

BONUS: Thanks to Ms. Shag over at Wear Clean Draws for this further example of the rightward influences that are ruling Obama right about now (adopted from here):

[...]  Later Emanuel responded to a question on the Employee Free Choice Act, a measure backed by organized labor but strongly opposed by business, saying, “Let me take your question and go somewhere else.” Instead, he spoke about the need to address falling income among middle class workers.

These days I’ve been trying my best to get away from posting about the contining batshit nuttery that comes from the mouth and keyboard of former Free Soil Party Presidential candidate/Head Womyn Warrior Cheryl Lynn Seelhoff (also known to her friends and allies as “Heart”; though I prefer the gloss “Heart(less)” as a tribute to one of the rock group Heart — that would be Ann and Nancy Wilson’s group — and one of their greatest songs). After all, one can only stand so much of her riffing on on the brutality of the “patriarchy” and how porn and prostitution are the root of all evil committed against women.

Problem is, just as I think that Heart(less) can’t get that much batshittery, she goes and cranks it up two notches.

And now, she’s managed to go completely off the chain.  As in…praising Sarah Palin as a…..FEMINIST. And a victim of…PATRIARCHY.

That’s right, folks…the present Governor of Alaska, the former Vice Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, the woman who basically was the point in the grand smearing of now President-Elect Obama as “Evil Muslim Socialist Gay Redistributor Radical Black Man ANTIAMERICAN!!!!!!1111ONEHUNEDREDELEVEN11!!, all while palling around with Anti-American seccessionists….according to Ms. Seelhoff, is actually just a victim of the male press.

You think I’m kidding you??  Read this quote from Heart(less)’s blog: Women’s Spaces: The Margins, where she first delights on the fantasy of what would have been if Hillary Clinton rather than Joe Biden had been selected as Obama’s Veep, then gives her game away:

But no.  Of the four candidates, the one woman, Palin, is connected with the least favored of the three male candidates and is therefore without the  (patriarchally prescribed) protections she might have had had she been connected with the most highly favored man.  Since she is the only woman of the four,  and since she has been viciously targeted as a woman, she has become the one to frame the discussions so far as issues around sexism and women’s rights.  Had Clinton been Obama’s choice, the feminism of each candidate and the commitment to women’s rights of each would have been front and center, on the table and up for discussion, debate, comparison.  The framing of  issues around women’s rights would be continually under negotiation.  In all likelihood, there would be far fewer displays of sexism, if only because each party would be determined to demonstrate it was less sexist than the other.

As it is the lone woman at the bottom of the hierarchy of male candidates must continually challenge a barrage of misogynist attacks from all corners alone, with the result that her ultimately conservative framings of women’s issues increasingly possess an apparently feminist patina.  And, so many feminists have joined in those misogynist attacks, they no longer have any credibility with which to dull it.

Oh, hold up now….so is Heart saying that Hillary had (or has) no abilities of her own, but was only using Bubba the Clenis’s power as President (and, perhaps, sympathy of her based on his personal history of sexual infidelity) to gain her power?? I may think that a lot of Hillary’s power may come from having Bubba serve in the world’s most powerful office…but even I wouldn’t go so far as to knock her personal capabilities and smarts. (Her political positions and her policies, on the other hand, are more than fair game, as would be any politician, regardless of race or gender.)

But it’s this “Sarah Palin’s being attacked AS A WOMAN” thing that’s getting me. I mean, does Heart(less) really think that calling out the basic fact that Caribou Eva Braun is being used as a point person in the smearing of not only a Black man who is running for the Presidency, but in bringing out the absolute worst, bottom-of-the-barrel, racist emotions of the Far Right “base” is somehow “attacking her as a woman”??? Or…the fact that she seemed to react to media scrutiny like a moose caught in the headlights right before he is run over by the snowmobile?? Or..the fact that Governor Palin just can’t seem to get basic things correct….like, say, what the duties of the office she’s running for actually is??

And all this is Obama’s fault by…..how?? Especially when it is mostly folks associated with McCain and the GOP — you know, the very people who NOMINATED her in the first place — who are slinging the most barbs at her now??

But then again, you have to understand Heart(less)’s root ideology: if you happen to be a woman who is close to sharing her personal ideology about the evil of men (and especially, the evil of men using sex to allegedly oppress women), then you get a free pass from her….your actual policies being against feminism nonwithstanding. And of course, the more women in positions of power (evil sex pozzies and male rapist enablers excluded, of course), the better to promote “radicalfeminist” ideology.

Oh, but it gets so much better with Heart(less)….in the very next post there at Women’s Spaces, she further elaborates on Palin’s “victimhood”, and conjures up another fantasy: a Clinton-Palin ticket (Vagina Unity!!!!):

[...] But I can’t help but consider what might have happened if we’d had a 2008 Presidential Election something like this.  What might have happened had Clinton and Palin worked together negotiating their divergent views of feminism and women’s issues?  How might Obama and McCain have responded?  Would women have supported women or men?  How many men would have supported an all-woman ticket?

Yeah, a neoliberal Democrat and an ultra-conservative Republican joining forces to save womanhood from the evil men. I’m sure that the majority of women would have loved to support that ticket on shared clit worship alone.  Right…and how would my family react if my aunt got a sex change operation and became my uncle???

The yang to all this yin love of Sarah the Blossoming Radicalfeminist is the continuing assault on Obama for simply (1) having a penis; (2) raining on Hillary’s assent to the political mountain by actually beating her fair and square; and (2) not being sufficiently radicalfeminist for Heart(less)’s sake. Obviously, Heart’s not alone among raging PUMAs who are still bitter about Hillary being stoned out of the Dem nomination, but all this nonsense about Obama being a total “misogynist” while praising Palin as a closet radfem seems to be a bit off key to reality, ‘ya think??

To give yet another example: here’s Heart ripping and roaring about a presser that Palin did in October in Las Vegas, where she attempted to mine the PUMA/Raging Feminist/Hillary Got Screwed meme to her advantage, essentially calling out Obama as a “faux feminist” while pimping the GOP as more….feminist?!?!?!

The Caucus, the New York Times Political Blog, blogged yesterday about a speech Sarah Palin gave in Las Vegas. She was described as having been flanked by women who were members of the Democratic Platform Committee and of NOW and is reported to have strongly criticized Obama’s record so far as women’s rights, criticizing him for not choosing  Hillary Clinton as his running mate and for paying women on his staff less money than he paid the men.   I went poking around and learned that this latter was actually news about a month ago, although I missed it, which is unsurprising, since I am sick and tired of these campaigns and can barely bring myself to check in to find out the latest.

Now, this occurred right after the “$15K clothing budget” snafu was revealed…but let’s not go there right now. The point for the moment is that Heart is so willing to take the side of a right-winger who would more than likely, if given the keys to the highest office, do more to harm real women than even the supposedly “misogynist”  Democratic candidate would.

Oh..but that doesn’t mean that Heart won’t be completely down on BHO…she does give him credit for….well….being Black:

None of this is or should be surprising.  It’s become more and more clear with each passing day that if Obama becomes President — and it is almost certain he will — there will likely be little to no substantive change in the works for women as women.  I’ve often written about the significance of having a black/biracial President and his family in the White House; I stand by what I’ve written about that.  Black and biracial girls and boys, men and women, and ultimately all Americans will benefit from an Obama Presidency because of what it means for persons of color, black people especially.  I will be intentionally focusing on that and feeling that when Obama is inaugurated, as I believe he will be.  I will cry, I will be extremely moved, I will hug my kids and feel so grateful that this particular glass ceiling of race has been shattered.

And at the same time I will mourn, and grieve, and rage — you better believe it, I will rage and feel tremendous, gut-wrenching resentment – over the truth I’ve known and observed all along:  that women will continue to suffer under an Obama presidency, just as women have suffered under ALL previous presidencies.  Here is a guy who doesn’t even KNOW his woman staff members earn less money than his male staff members and who hasn’t even considered how few women staff members he has compared with McCain.

Where men have the power, women will suffer.  Doesn’t matter that they identify as Democrats or liberals or progressives; in fact, we are more likely to suffer under these latter, given our lengthy and all-too-dependable history of betrayal at the hands of such men.  They spout off about women’s rights, expect to be believed, and ARE believed.  In fact, it is unlikely that they will meaningfully change the reality of women as women in the world.  It simply will cost them too much and they know that.

Notice that she says “doesn’t matter if they are liberals or progressives“; I guess that conservatives or reactionaries who happen to be men shouldn’t be judged as harshly as leftie/liberal men for their “misogyny”, as long as they put more antiporn/radicalfeminist women in position of power??

Yup…this be fine radical feminism, indeed. Radical RIGHT feminism.

If Sarah Palin gets stoned out of the Republican nomination in 2012, perhaps Heart would like to step aside and give her a home at the Free Soil Party?? Just askin’…

Congratulations, Heart(less)…you’ve finally gone and done it: you’ve become the first ever Feminist Wingnut.  Enjoy with pride.

Tags: One Obama Nation Under a Groove, Radfem wingnuttery

For all the celebration of the Greatest American Political Ass-Kicking that was Election Day 2008, and the ultimate defeat of the Bush/Cheney/DeLay/Limbaugh/Rove School of Advanced Right-Wing Political Shenanigans, not everything ended up so well for progressive causes last night.

The most baffling political event that took place was in California, the very state whose 55 electoral votes put Obama over the top. Yet, that same supposedly progressive state decided to pass, by a 52-48% margin, one of the most reactionary bits of legislation ever invented: Proposition Eight, which placed in the California Constitution an outright ban on gay/lesbian marriages.

Now, Cali wasn’t the only place where anti-gay prejudice took political form — Arkansas and Florida also passed anti-gay resolutions concerning adoptions and gay marriage — but it was the Cali results that absolutely floored me as well as any other decent progressive out there.

And even worse is the fact that much of the support for Proposition Eight came from one portion of the electorate there that you would least expect to embrace bigotry: the Black and Brown community. According to exit polls, referenced by Pam Spaulding over at Pandagon, 70% of Blacks who voted in the proposition voted FOR this gay marriage ban…and up to 74% of Black women.

Of course, this would be a bit less surprising given the high degree or religiousity traditionally involved in the Black community as a whole….but you would think and hope that Black folk would be a bit less blind to discrimination, having suffered so much of it themselves.

But still, all in all, it is a bitter taste that Black folk who have done so much and achieved the ultimate victory would go ahead and simply stab the backs of other people who are suffering the same kind of discrimination.

Perhaps it’s just the fact that Black folk have been down so far and for so long and have had to travel so far to get to this point that they are simply tone deaf to the suffering of others. Or, perhaps, right-wing religion and its inborn sexual and social conservatism is such a powerful force that even putative progressives are not quite so immune to its pressure.

Whatever the case may be, the issue of social conservatism still being powerful amongst Black and Brown communities is creating a real and genuine rift amongst the progressive/liberal/Left diaspora which could potentially tear the newly-formed coalition that allowed for Obama’s big day yesterday wide open. Already, not a few gay/lesbian activists are lashing out at Blacks and Latin@s for what they see as political treason and abandonment, and some have even fixed their guns on Obama for not making a genuine effort to seriously oppose Prop. 8, if not actively support it tacitly. (Obama had made a statement restating the classic “Marriage should be between a man and a woman” meme, but he also did tacitly oppose the measure, albeit in silence. The pro-Prop 8 folks had released an ad purporting to show Obama supporting their measure, but it was proven to be a lie.) In response, some Black evangelicals who supported Prop. 8 have made the usual statements about how gay/lesbian activists are basically mooching off the cracked bones and efforts of the Civil Rights Movement to sell a “social” right that means nothing to anyone but an “cultural elite”.

Personally, I consider all that to be utter bullshit myself, since I happen to have no opposition to either gay marriage or gay adoption or recognition of alternative kinship arrangements. My position on all this is plain and simple: Gay and lesbian people are human beings more than capable of raising and adopting children with the utmost of care and respect; and the law should just get the hell out of the way and allow them the same rights and responsibilities that any other arrangement has.

I don’t believe this because I’m gay, and it wouldn’t matter one damn bit if I was, either.  I believe it because it’s the moral, right, humane way to believe….and because I am a progressive human being.

Having said all that, however…I do think that among not a few White, liberal people, there is this basic assumption to believe Black and Brown people to be a monolith, and to assume that because they happen to mostly support liberal economics, they will automatically flock to other social liberal positions automatically….and when it turns out otherwise, they openly pout about how “betrayed” they are about Black folk becoming heatedly reactionary. This is almost the equivalent of the “elitist” attack on poor and working-class Whites who cross the aisle in favor of right-wing Republicans or right-wing populist Democrats as ignorant and innate robe-and-hood wearing Klansmen, except with the usual liberal guilt of not being accused of innate racism.

Such generalizations have be overcome by White liberals and progressives as strongly as the Black evangelical community has to deal with, confront, and overcome their homophobia. Left untreated and unexposed, this could kill even the strongest unity movement faster than bubolic plague through an old, untreated grain elevator filled with rabid rats.

Battling the Right — even a Right much less powerful than it was even 48 hours ago — will require so much more of our attention. We can’t afford wasting our ammo firing on each other.

[Dedicated to Aspasia over at LaLibertine's Salon, who first motivated me to write on this topic]

Just over 240 hours to go before the 2008 election season reaches its close, gangstas and gangstrices.

Remember those heady days last February when  the matchup was assumed to be Hillary Clinton versus Rudolph Giuliani in a New York-style Battle Royal???

Seems like a decade ago, doesn’t it??

Almost as long ago as the predictions of a John McCain rout thanks to the nomination of Sarah Palin as his XO (executive officer, Navy term), the seeming hostility of the Hillary groupies towards Barack Obama’s historic campaign, and the usual Republican advantages in voter fixing and voter suppression.

How prophetic do those predictions seem right about now??  Like…not very???

That is the current (October 27th) Presidential Electoral College map courtesy of Electoral-Vote.com. which uses an averaging system of current and most recent polls for each state to reach a current count on where the candidates stand. Red is for McCain and blue is for Obama; white *as in Montana and North Dakota) is a state that is seen as a tie; and the darker the shading, the more solid the state’s voting is for that particular candidate. States with borders reflect close “leaner” states only slightly favoring the candidate colored in the border (Florida and North Carolina leaning for Obama; Arizona and Georgia leaning McCain).

For those who wish for a numerical summary of that map, it converts into Obama/Biden having 375 electoral votes, McCain/Palin ending up with 157, and 6 EV’s still up for grabs as “tied”.

Whoa.  Seriously….WHOA.

And how about this map for your viewing pleasure??

That map is from a different but equally badass Electoral College prediction site, FiveThirtyEight.com, which uses a fundamentally different formula using statisical regression analysis and poll breakdown for predicting what will happen on November 4th. Their formula does have a slightly less routy final solution for Obama, but pretty damn healthy nevertheless.

“But..oh, come on, ‘Dog,” you say..”don’t those sites have a somewhat LIBERAL bias??? What are the conservatives saying about this election?? Surely, McCain must have enough support to make this an election close enough to steal….errrrrrrr, pull out??”

Well, Clones, I give you this map from a solidly conservative site, Election Projection.com:

Their final numbers, based on the map above: Obama 375, McCain 173.

So much for the Bradley Effect.

In fact, just to show in what stout shape Obama is looking right about now, check out the daily update of all the Electoral College mapping sites all amalgamated here at the Three Blue Dudes Election Projection Database site. Notice that only ONE of the over 80 sites they list predict an Obama victory….and most of them are well within landslide territory of at  least 340 EV’s or more. (The single holdout is a wingnut site that basically retreads National Review talking points….and even they can get McCain no higher than 273 EV’s, barely a majority.)

But, you know….Hillary would be approaching 430 EV’s by now, right???  There’s still time for Obama to do the right thing and back out and allow the real candidate to step forward and save him from certain defeat, you know???  Heh.

Of course, an ass-kicking like this will have its benefits…like the prospect of a monster majority of Democrats in Congress like Tip O’Neill used to enjoy (most predictions are that the Dems could turn at least 20-30 Repub seats, with the not-so-outside shot at 35-40); a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (most predictions favor a gain of at least 7 Senate seats, getting them 57 total, not including independents Lieberman (CT) and Sanders (VT), which would put them just one vote shy of the magic number), and a huge mandate to enact real changes without much obstruction from the circular firing squad that will become the Republican Party.

Now, the “glass-is-always-half-empty” folk will remind us at about this time that it’s still a week away from the actual election, and anything that could change the dynamics could happen.  Early voting, which has mostly favored Democrats due to a record Black registration/GOTV turnout, could end up not being as strong as predicted. The Repubs might convince a few “working class Democrats…White Democrats” that Obama really is the Antichrist who’s masking his inner Wright/Ayers/bin Laden White-hating, America-hating terrorist. Diebold and the Vote Cagers could still attempt a mass strike to suppress and throw out Dem votes.  And remember..these are DEMOCRATS, who are historic with blowing away opportunities when given the chance.

On the other hand, though…not even the usual Dem ineptitude and Joe Biden’s mouth can even come close to topping the degree of EPIC FAIL that the Repubs have fallen themselves into.  Between JohnnyMac’s numerous “senior moments”, Caribou Eva Braun’s loose lips (the ones on her face, Clones….damn, get Lisa Ann off your brains!!!) and Leona Helmsley-like satorial tastes , the gross incompetence of the Repub dirty tricks machine and propaganda (from “Joe the Plumber” to Ashley Hill’s attempted Susan Smith fraud) and the continuing tanking of the economy, there’s more than enough to conclude that even the magic of Karl Rove could save them.

Or….maybe it’s just because the Dems finally got it right this time and nominated a man who fits the modern world so perfectly. Can’t beat a guy who is so frugal that he soles his own shoes. And a woman as his wife who actually seems like…..a classy and normal First Lady.

Being the recalitrant leftie that I am, I still think BHO will be too much of a centrist for my taste, and I still plan on casting my vote for Cynthia McKinney and the Greens just for the sake of protest; and to further the effort of an independent Left opposition to the Democrats. But, I guess that when Barack Obama steps up to the victory celebration after Virginia or Colorado or some other state seals the deal and the networks officially make the call for him as the Next President of the United States, there will be more than a few not-so-dry eyes in the house….and two of them will probably be mine. Leftie or not, that moment would be 400 years overdue….and not just for getting rid of Dubya and the neo-CONS, either.

But..let’s seal the deal one week from tomorrow, first. Get out and vote; make sure your vote isn’t stolen from you…and most of all: Kick. Their.  ASSES.  (The right way..with your votes.)

I would be derelict in my duty without adding yet another chapter in the everlasting Feminist Sex/Porn Wars between the Sex Positives/Sex Workers/Pro-Porn Meanies and their ancient rivals the Radical Feminists/GenderBorg Collective.

The latest bomb being thrown into the debate is a “documentary” titled The Price of Pleasure that was produced by Dr. Chyng Sun and Robert Wosnitzer; which claims to give an “honest and nonjudgmental” look at the porn industry and its effects on the treatment of women.

Trouble is, though, that moniker of “honest and nonjudgmental” becomes as factual in describing the real documentary as Fox News Channel calling itself “fair and balanced”. In reality, TPOP is nothing more than reconstituted antipornfeminist agitprop, rehashing all the old and tired libels, slanders, and just-so stories about how pornography innately degrades and humiliates ALL women, even those who will never see a naked breast of an exposed clit or the sight of a erect penis entering a butthole.

Indeed, considering all the parlor tricks and manipulation of facts to suit their ideology, as well as the total manufacturing of and distortion of (if not outright silencing of) porn performers, producers, and consumers alike, this film is far closer to the traditional antiporn agitprop of the fundamentalist Right than to any supposed “progressive” critique…..and this despite the attempts to invoke some leading progressive figures (such as Noam Chomsky with his now notorious YouTube interview inveighing against “The Hustler” (sic)) to add a shiny “leftist” patina to mask the fundamentally reactionary agenda.

Now other folk like Ren Ev and Chris Hall and Iamcuriousblue (here and here) and Ernest Greene (who appeared in the “documentary” only as a foil for antiporn bashing) have already done their part to dissect the premise and the execution behind this travesty…and there are countless others who have also done so from their own perspectives. Some have managed to see the entire film, while most have only seen the trailer or the pre-release publicity. For my part, I will base my opinion on the trailer which was released prior to release of the actual documentary; though the whole film won’t be public until later this year, I believe that considering the public opinions of the creators and main advocates of TPOP, and the nature and the severity of the distortions put out by the trailer, there is more than enough information available for a strong critique of this film.

Basically, this is an updated version of the classic antiporn agitprop film Not A Love Story, which purported to reveal the “true story” of Linda Boreman (aka Linda Lee Tracy; more notorious as porn starlet Linda Lovelace of Deep Throat fame), whom at that time was the ultimate symbol of the degeneracy and degradation of pornography during the 1980s.  (Lovelace was actually physically abused severely by her then husband/producer Chuck Traynor; but such abuse was more the byproduct of their hellish marriage; no one within the industry other than Traynor was even involved in any abuse of Lovelace.  In the latter years, just prior to her death in 1990 in a tragic auto accident, Lovelace was repudiating all the charges of porn abuse, and even charging her then antiporn allies of misrepresenting her positions and experiences….and of not compensating her for her sacrifices in promoting their ideology.) And just like Not a Love Story, The Price of Pleasure resorts to the same denial and misrepresentation of the actual experiences of porn performers and their genre…except this time, there is no useful symbol of abuse to wave around like a bloody flag.

Also similar in cinematic style to NALS — and dangerously close to the more common traditional antiporn propaganda of the Christian Right — is the means in which TPOP uses the placing of highly manipulative scenes of purported abuse and
extreme expressions of sexuality, counterposed with highly redacted and entirely incontextual quotes from various “representatives” of porn (mostly male producers and a couple of fans visiting the 2005 and 2007 AEE conventions, along with a couple of female performers) to sell their base ideology. The result leans more towards a piece of propaganda than a “nonjudgmental and unbiased” documentary. Considering that this “documentary” took about 3 years to be produced and supposedly relied on reams of on-site interviews and research about the depth and breadth of the adult industry, the absolute display of a total lack of understanding about how the industry actually is composed is simply breathtaking.

And it is hardly a surprise, knowing the history of how antipornradicalfeminists have a way of twisting data to fit their ideology, that they manage to take liberties with the information they obtained.  Ernest Greene, for example, was interviewed for more than two to three hours by Chyng Sun in 2005 as part of her “research”: for this film, and Gail Dines had some follow up last year (more like, she ambushed Ernest and Nina Hartley and the girls from Abby Winters.com in an attempt to pigeonhole them to fit her biases).  Yet, the most that they could give him was a 15 second blurb about how proud he was of his work….followed by an image of him placing a collar on a woman’s neck, allegedly to seal the impression of him as a simple sadist and woman-hater. (Had they managed to actually interview the woman in question, porn starlet Chloe Nichelle, who at the time happened to be Ernest’s SO (before he met and married Nina Hartley), they would have had a much different impression of that particular scene.)

In another part of the trailer, Joanna Angel — seen as the preimenent representative of “alt.porn”, is quoted rather loosely as not caring about how porn supposedly degrades women….while images of her being slapped and tied up are shown in the background. (Obviously, she’s a deluided and sick slut who needs to be “saved” by antiporn ideologists, just as gay men who apparently do nothing other than dress in leather chaps and Peter of Finland cock rings and cruise gay bars for “joyless” bareback sex need the “healing power” of ex-gay Christian ministries to save them from their own baser instincts.) In juxtaposition to this, antipornradfem converts such as Sarah Katherine Lewis (who, while her experiences as a sex worker and stripper should be respected, is highly questionable as an self-asserted expert on the porn industry) and Rebecca Mott (and even fundamentalist Christian converts like Shelley Lubben), as well as the usual run of antiporn demonologists such as Gail Dines, Robert Jensen, Nikki Craft, and the like, are given free reign to wax eloquent about the fundamental threat of pornography to women’s bodily and physiological integrity, as well as it’s supposedly toxic effects on human relationships.

But at least Ernest Greene and Joanna Angel get their publicity’s worth…that is far more than the many sex workers and porn performers who are effectively silenced and rendered invisible to serve the ideology of TPOP. For all their emphasis on “gonzo” porn as the foundation of porn’s economic success, they ignore the basic fact that the predominant form of adult sexual media remains the Internet, where most sex acts  consist of  basic vanilla sex between couples, girl/girl sex, or solo sex featuring  women performing masturbation. Not to mention the fact that some of the most edgy forms of gonzo are being produced by women (and in many cases, all-girl flicks; see Kylie Ireland’s Slutzwerks Productions…and in particular her latest project Upload, or the Shane’s World series, or Tristan Taormino’s Chemistry and House of Ass series).  And I need not mention a woman named Nina, should I???

Also, why do a documentary that claims to be unbiased about porn and conveniently ignore actual female porn performers??  You know….Tera Patrick, Shyla Stylez, Gina Lynn, Ava Devine, Lisa Sparxxx, Melissa Lauren, Eva Lawerence, Sara Jay, Lanny Barbie….that list could go on ad infinitum.  Then there is that group of women who are NOT neccessarily full-time professional porn starlets who make out in the San Fernando Valley full time, but who may make porn at their own pace with their home-made websites:  Vicky Vette, Naughty Allie, Emma Starr, Wifey, et.  al. OL…and how about some interviews with some old school performers from the early days:  Cara Lott, Ginger Lynn, Amber Lynn, Keisha, Christy Canyon….that should be good for starters.  And then you have the few women who have parlayed their success into upper positions of production (Lisa Ann, who happens to run a highly successful adult talent agency, Lisa Ann’s Talent Management, while still managing  to remain relevant as a performer), Christie Hefner of Playboy, Alana Flynt of HUSTLER (who pretty much runs the day-to-day work there in her father’s absence)….surely any “unbiased and nonjudgmental” documentary would have made time to include these women as much as they tried to stack the deck with victimologists and erotophobes.

Nope….any claim to be fair and balanced with this ‘”documentary” would be utterly diminished with the first word and the first image.

That this film will be represented as “the feminist and progressive voice” on the subject of pornography is a lie that almost rivals the “Saddam Hussein = WMDs” fallacy….in the absence of a serious vetting of its distortions and lies and outright falsehoods and slanders of innocent people by genuine feminists and leftists and progressives who take equality, diversity, pluralism, and free self-expression more seriously than just a roll of toliet paper, unfortunately, it is likely that such a travesty will take hold.  The Left is not nearly as immune to cranks and irresponsible, mean-spirited ideologues as they think, and the antipornfeminist movement is certainly an opening for not-so-progressive beliefs to take hold and consume even the most well meaning of activists. All the more reason to rise up and oppose this documentary while it is still in its infancy.

There may be a price for pleasure…but freedom shouldn’t be one to give away.  Some pleasures should not be sold out under any circumstances.

Usually, this is right about the time come political season where the Democrats perform their usual swan dive into the empty pool and hand the election to the Republicans on a silver platter.

And two weeks ago, it seemed like we would be facing deja vu all over again.

But, my, my, my…what a difference two weeks can make. It seems that the Republicans this year (similar to what happened in the 2006 Congressional debacle) have been infested with the usualy Democratic virus of shooting themselves in the foot, and mouth, and both hips. And if they are not careful, they may end up risking more sensitive organs…other than the ass kicking that they just might finally recieve come November 4th.

Remember when all the rage was about the brilliant, game-changing selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s Vice Presidental pick?? How in one fell swoop, McBush/Reagan/Hoover/Harding had not only co-opted the Dems by beating them to the “I Am Woman, Watch Me Roar” card and gaining the “Hillary Was Screwed” vote from disgruntled feminists (Mrs Right-Wing Anti-MILF Hockey Mom’s actual far-right antifeminist voting record not withstanding); while simultaneously bringing in the evangelical Right base of the GOP back into line??

Unfortunately for Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain, not everybody was awash in creative fake Palin MILF porn; some in the media actually managed to earn their pay and actually check out her voting record…and compared it to her own propaganda. Like being against the “Bridge to Nowhere”, a pet pork-barrel project in her home state….right after she was for it to begin with, and only joining the opposition after it was assured that the project would be killed….and still fighting for the road leading to that particular bridge.

Then there was this thing about forcing rape victims to pay for their rape kits…you know, the treatments that they are supposed to receive in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy?  Apparantly, Senator Palin believes that not even rape should stand in the way of the beauty of conception….even when unwanted.

And then there was her local church, which had some interesting beliefs about witch hunting and curing homosexuals of their “lifestyle”….not exactly a good foundation to work with when you are attempting to bust Barack Obama upside his head with Jeremiah Wright.

Oh, and then there was that disasterous series of interviews where Senator Quayle Palin exposed her wonderfully creative lack of knowledge of foreign policy (I mean, it would make sense if you are going to defend “The Bush Doctrine” to actually know what the hell it actually is!!!)…covering it all up with the usual screams of “It’s all Bill Clinton’s/the Democrats/the liberals fault!!!”

But it’s one thing for the presumptive Vice Presidential candidate to lay eggs publically.  It becomes another thing entirely, however, when the man at the head of the freakin’ ticket starts to free fall into lunacy.

But let it suffice to say that it hasn’t been a good couple of weeks for poor John McCain, either.

First, the Palin bounce that should have jet-propelled him into the stratosphere and made the election close enough for the GOP to steal via voter caging and other Karl Rove dirty tricks has eventually melted into nothingness, thanks in large part to the really sucky economic news….and a small matter of a bank meltdown. It’s one thing when a local bank gets hit with a run on their finances and goes kaput; but when giants like AIG, Countrywide, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers go belly up, and have to get help from the FDIC just to stay afloat, then you are talking BIG, BIG trouble.

And it can’t get much bigger than a $750 BILLION bailout.

OOPS…I’m sooooo sorry….make that a $1.5 TRILLION bailout. Paid for by the taxpayers of the United States of America….as in, you and me.

Oh….and haven’t you heard???  That bailout is going only to the BIG BOYS who ran these gargantuan banks, not a few of them the very ones who profited BIG TIME from the whole sub-prime debacle. The rest of us???  No soup for you….unless it’s in a soup line.  In Galveston.

Needless to say, the GOP as a whole is taking it in the chin.  Dubya’s approval ratings are steadily approachng single digits; one national poll released revealed that they could find NO ONE who believed that the economy was improving; and what was once a steady McCain momentum has now reversed itself into a even steadier Obama rout.

Which probably explains McSame’s latest gambit of ”suspending” his campaign and asking Obama and the Dems to meet him and the GOP halfway on the issue….and his attempt to move down the date for his first presidential debate (and the lone VP debate between Palin and Joe Biden as well).

Nice try, Senator….but apparently, Senator Obama is a bit wiser to that; he immediately (with all the coolness that makes him Obama) turned down McCain’s request to delay the debates. 

And, lookee here…could it be that the Democrats are finally growing what could be called a spine and actually — gasp — OPPOSING a Bush initiative?  Naaaaah, maybe just a dream…but maybe not.

Could it be that the nation is finally waking up and realizing the damage done by the Reagan/Bush/Bush/Cheney policies, and the continuation of them by Bush/Quayle….ahhhh, I mean, McCain/Palin??? Maybe that light at the end of the tunnel actually might not be the oncoming train collision, but actual sunshine and clean air???

Oh, but let’s hope so.  Right now, I’m still for McKinney; but if the Dems come correct and play it right, it could get fun again. 

And after 20 years of unbridled fascism, wouldn’t that be great??

Nice going once again, Dimocrats.

And just when I thought that you were finally going to cast the yoke of Bush-McCain policies from your brow, your distinguished leaders Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid decide to hand Dubya and McCain a blank check and the power to tap Americans for whatever reason…not to mention the virtual pardon for telecom companies who basically broke the law.

I thought that the main idea of putting your party into office was to overthrow and oppose the Republicans, not cave in to them and keep giving them everything they wanted.

OK…so there are the “Blue Dogs” and the Lieberman Democrats (that is, Republicans who cloak as Democrats for fun) who would cross the aisle to support Dubya and his political protection plan.  But they aren’t even the majority of Democrats, and they weren’t the ones who put your sorry asses into the majority.

But hey…I guess that the Dem leadership is still scared of Karl Rove throwing the “cut-and-run” smack at them, so who cares about the Fifth Amendment, or the will of the majority of their own damn party??

And as for you, Senator Obama: what the hell is your problem??

How in the HELL can you with a straight face attack McCain for being a Bush clone, then back off and support one of Bush’s main policies of wrecking FISA??

And I’m not accepting your “I’ll support the FISA bill, but will do my best to remove the retroactive telecom immunity when I become President” meme, either.  Sounds too much like Bubba Clinton supporting the GOP welfare “reform” bill while screaming about “fixing it”, which he never quite got to.

Change we can believe in.  Yeah, right.

Oh..and anyone hoping that the mighty Obama will make any radical changes in foreign policy should take a gander at the list of folks on his foreign policy advisory team.  Sam (”Me no like queers or liberals”) Nunn??  Madeline {”A million dead Iraqis are worth it”) Albright??? Lee Hamilton??  Richard Lugar???? Yeah, maybe not the loony neocons of Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Bolton….but hardly pacifist either.

The funny thing is that Obama is still worlds above Bush and McCain, and would be a definite improvement over the past 8 years.

The really tragic and frustrating thing, though, is that the improvement wouldn’t matter much in the long run.

Way to drive your bus under your entire base, Dimocrats…..if McCain snatches victory from this in November, this will be the main reason.

Oh…and memo to Dennis Kucinich: why are you still a Democrat after all this??? Why aren’t you meeting with Cynthia McKinney about a joint Green Party ticket of resistance???

Just saying….

Tags: Spinless Dimocrats