Archive for September, 2010

I just received this. Sickening. I have no words.

U.S. Strongly Condemns Stoning Of Woman in Orakzai, Pakistan

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
September 28, 2010

We condemn in the strongest possible terms the brutal stoning of a woman in Orakzai, Pakistan, allegedly by members of the Pakistani Taliban, which is depicted in a video circulating on the internet.

This vicious attack, carried out as a crowd of onlookers watched, violates all norms of human decency and is a chilling example of the cowardly disregard violent extremists have for human life. There is no justification for such barbaric and cruel treatment of a fellow human being.

Read Full Post »

Seriously, outside of a minor brushfire over the expense of a haircut,  not the look of the cut itself,  when John Edwards was still a presidential candidate, when have I ever seen such attention paid to an official’s hair? These are headers from my news feed.  I do not have the time nor the impulse to add the links.

  • Oh Hillary, that hairstyle just doesn’t cut it: Mrs Clinton prepares for huge UN meeting with lank locks  By Daily Mail Reporter Clinton-prepares-huge-UN-meeting-lank-locks
  • Hillary Clinton Wears Hair Clip To The UN: ‘Do Or Don’t? (PHOTOS, POLL) – Huffington Post
  • Hillary Clinton lets hair down as profile grows
  • Hillary Clinton unveils new hairdo – Sify
  • Hillary’s Hairdo ‘Doesn’t Cut It’ – mediabistro.com

Read Full Post »

Here is the NYT review of Rebecca Traister’s “Big Girls Don’t Cry: The Election That Changed Everything for American Women.”   Advance word had it that it is very pro-Hillary.  I am posting this without having finished reading the review myself because I want to share it with my Homies ASAP!

*edited to add* Having read the whole review now,  I must remark that Hillary Clinton also appeared on SNL with Amy Poehler playing her and was good sport enough for the joke to be about her laugh,  “Do I REALLY laugh like that?”  She was adorable!

September 16, 2010

Sexual Politics



The Election That Changed Everything for American Women

By Rebecca Traister

336 pp. Free Press. $26

On the morning of Aug. 29, 2008, Denver was swarming with journalists covering the Democratic National Convention. Awaking giddy from the euphoria of Barack Obama’s acceptance of his party’s nomination the night before, I turned on CNN to find John McCain announcing he had chosen a woman — an unknown Alaska governor and mother of five — as his running mate: ­Sarah Palin. “Obama’s just won the election,” I called to my still-slumbering companion. Five minutes later, having taken in Palin’s cocky moxie and Wonder Woman veneer, I shouted: “Get up! You’ve got to see this woman. Maybe McCain will win!”

Read more>>>>

Read Full Post »

This does not require a single comment from me. It speaks for itself. Another zinger from J.c. at Team Hillary Clinton.

Read Full Post »

This WaPo article tells the story.

Judge in California rules on military’s ban on openly gay service members

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 10, 2010; 1:31 AM

A federal judge in California said Thursday that the U.S. military’s ban on openly gay service members violates the Constitution, the most recent in a string of court rulings overturning restrictions on the rights of the country’s gay men and lesbians.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips said the government’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is a violation of due process and First Amendment rights. Instead of being necessary for military readiness, she said, the policy has a “direct and deleterious effect” on the armed services.

Read more>>>>

Suddenly? After all these years? Somebody figured out how/why DADT violates the U.S. Constitution? Really? How many dedicated, well-trained, talented service members have been discharged since DADT went into effect? How hard was it to figure this out? I just saw Dan Choi on MSNBC (with a huge smile) saying that DADT does violate First Amendment rights of some people in some instances. Three little words, he explained, like “I am gay,” or “I love you,” or “I love X” (or Y as the case may be) spoken in the presence of the wrong person are enough to get an otherwise able-bodied service member discharged. How long did it take to figure this out? Where is the Executive Order striking DADT down?

Read Full Post »

They are all there In Sean Wilentz’s Bringing It All Back Home

The title caught my eye, as it would have anyone who grew up when and where I did.  Any of us would have recognized the title of that album.  I still have it – in vinyl – the original.  Even now I find it a bit exciting that I live only blocks from where Allen Ginsberg grew up and where he and he crew of “beats” would come home to roost in his parents’ parlor.   My friends and I would take the bus to NYC and haunt The Eighth Street Bookstore, The Cafe Wha, Cafe Au-Go-Go.   But I am getting ahead of myself.  It was this book review by Christopher Shea in The Chronicle of Higher Education that grabbed me.

Sean Wilentz, Bringing It All Back Home

With a new book on Bob Dylan, the historian again defies expectations

Clintonistas will remember Wilentz for his loyal defense of President Clinton during impeachment proceedings as well as for his support of our Head Homegirl Hillary during the 2008  Primary Season.  Yep, Sean is one of  the Homeboys.  That being the case, and having found Shea’s review entertaining and informative, I thought I would give both Shea’s review and Homeboy Sean’s new book a shout-out here.  I am posting a few of the snips I found salient or just plain entertaining here.

This first one comes under the heading of “stuff we should not forget.”

Respected and yet also contentious, as anyone who followed the last presidential election closely will recall. Wilentz, a supporter of Hillary Clinton during her 2008 campaign, enraged a number of supporters of Barack Obama with his harsh attacks on the candidate, in both The New Republic, Wilentz’s longtime outlet, and Newsweek. In February 2008, after some Obama supporters accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of having injected race into the campaign by comparing Obama’s South Carolina victory to Jesse Jackson’s eventually inconsequential ones there, in 1984 and 1988, Wilentz turned the tables with a vengeance. By framing the Clintons as “race baiters,” he wrote, the Obama campaign had “purposely polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.”

As late as that August, when Obama had all but sewn up the nomination, Wilentz was still writing, in Newsweek, that “millions of … Democrats still find his appeals wispy and unconvincing,” and slamming liberal intellectuals for having “abdicated their responsibility to provide unblinking and rigorous analysis instead of paeans to Obama’s image.” Rigorous analysis of what? Among other things, “Obama’s rationalizations of his relationship with his pastor.”


This one I am including for the sheer hilarity of the interdepartmental territoriality of it.  I LOLed.

“One would have to be blind not to see all the connections that bind this mood and the new Lincoln boom to the rise of Barack Obama.” He even jabbed at interlopers into history from English departments—”To say that Lincoln ‘became what his language made him’ is an English department conceit”—and decried “the balefully influential works of Howard Zinn,” guilty of leftist oversimplification.

*wipes away tears of laughter* “…an English Department conceit.” Will English professors ever get any respect?

Lastly, there is this very serious issue which served as a basis for Hillary supporters to be shouted down (loudly and regularly).

He casts his writings about Obama as a question of principle. “I very much knew that I was in the minority, but because I have the ability to get this stuff published and printed, I thought it was all the more important to get it out there, even if only as a historical record.” Two issues stood out for him: “the ways in which intellectuals were just enraptured by a political figure,” one they knew little about, and “the way race drives people crazy,” shutting down critical thought.

Corollary to this, I only recently saw a comment by a Hillary supporter, I think on Facebook, who remembers and resents that we were called “low information voters.” Hillary’s Army, more than any group of people I have ever encountered, knew information, did the research, got the facts (many from Hillary herself – you cannot listen to her without learning – if you don’t want to know stuff, don’t listen to Hillary). Note: We are still together,  and we know even more stuff now!

Of course the book itself is not about Hillary or Bill, it is about Bob Dylan, and yes, I was AT that concert at Philharmonic Hall in 1964, so was my sister and a bunch of our friends. It was far out!

I encourage you to read the whole review. It might even make you want to read the book.


Read Full Post »

For the record, Hillary Clinton has not “turned over the state of Arizona to the U.N.”  She has merely stated, very accurately,  a fact.  Here is the “offending paragraph.”

95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

Here is the whole Report of the United States of America Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights In Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review.

I have read the whole report.  I encourage you to as well.  Now, without further ado, here,  new from Team Hillary Clinton:  ARIZONA GOV JAN BREWER FIERCELY ATTACKS SECY HILLARY CLINTON & THEN FIERCELY FREAKS OUT AT A DEBATE

Read Full Post »