Archive for June, 2005

The Power of Christ Compels You!!

June 30, 2005

Have I ever mentioned just how hard I “heart” Fafblog? After pie and ice cream, it may well be my favorite thing in the universe. Okay, after pie, ice cream, and sex. Anyway…the only way Fafblog could be better is if the author(s) posted like 8 times every day.

So….CLICK ON THE PICTURE! NOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!


Christ at the Constitutional Convention

Premature Catblogulation

June 30, 2005

It’s not friday, but what the hell…might as well put these up while people are actually looking. This is my darling/monster, Lucky the Cat.

Now 10% Less Lame!

June 29, 2005

Check this shit out:

Thanks to links from blogs that are actually good, like this one and this one, I got more visitors today than…well…ever! Which is pretty funny, considering the extreme smallness of the numbers in question, but I suppose everyone starts somewhere, and I just moved to Blogger a couple of months ago.

To all you visitors who came here from those other, “high quality” blogs, I hope you’ll stop back by from time to time. Though I certainly can’t promise to make it worth your while.

frost with a whipped topping of pure evil!

June 29, 2005

It’s rare to find someone combining my love of snarky food with my love of snarky political and social commentary, but this blogger seems to pull it off rather hilariously.

This is quite serious: 36 years after Stonewall

June 28, 2005

Sheridan Square this weekend, looked like something from a William Burroughs novel as the sudden specter of ‘gay power’ erected its brazen head and spat out a fairy tale the likes of which the area has never seen….”

The Village Voice, July 3, 1969.[1]

American this is quite serious.

Allen Ginsberg, 1596[2]

On Friday, June 27, 1969, shortly before midnight, two detectives from Manhattan’s Sixth Precinct set off with a few other officers to raid the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar on Christopher Street in the heart of Greenwich Village. We can only assume that the officers expected a routine raid. New York was in the midst of a mayoral campaign, always a bad time for the city’s homosexual population. A few weeks earlier the Sixth Precinct had received a new commanding officer who marked his entry into the position by initiating a series of raids on gay bars. The Stonewall Inn must have been an especially inviting target. It was a “dive” by all accounts. The Stonewall was operating without a liquor license. It was reputed to have ties to organized crime, and offering scantily clad go-go boys as entertainment, it brought an unsavory element to the busy Village intersection of Sheridan Square. Patrons of the Stonewall Inn tended to be young and nonwhite, and included a substantial number of drag queens and runaways.

As it happened, the night turned out quite differently from anyone’s expectations. As the police released the bar’s patrons one by one, a crowd formed on the street. The police loaded the bartender, bouncers, and three drag queens into a paddy wagon. When an officer attempted to force a struggling lesbian into a patrol car, the situation exploded into a riot. Village Voice reporter Lucien Truscot IV described the moment when

The scene became explosive. Limp wrists were forgotten. Beer cans and bottles were heaved at the windows and a rain of coins descended on the cops….Almost by signal the crowd erupted into cobblestone and bottle heaving….From nowhere came an uprooted parking meter–used as a battering ram on the Stonewall door. I heard several cries of “let’s get some gas,” but the blaze of flames which appeared in the window of the Stonewall was still a shock[3]

The officers were forced to retreat into the empty bar; they were rescued by reinforcements just as the crowd set fire to the building. Riots continued far into the night. The next night would see clashes between over 400 police officers and a crowd of more than 2000.[4]

By Sunday, the violence on the streets was largely over, but the energy that had been unleashed was flowing in countless new directions. The New York Mattachine Society hastily assembled a special edition of its newsletter, characterizing the events as “The Hairpin Drop Heard Round The World.” This turned out to be no exaggeration. Before the end of July, men and women in New York had formed the Gay Liberation Front to pursue gay politics in a New Left vein. Word of Stonewall and the GLF spread quickly, and within a year, gay liberation groups had sprung up in cities and campuses across America. In June of 1970, nearly 10,000 people commemorated the first anniversary of the riot with a march from Greenwich Village to Central Park. By the second half of the 1970s, Gay Freedom Day events were being held in dozens of cities, with more than half a million Americans participating. Clearly, something had changed at Stonewall.

For gay and gay-affirmative Americans, Stonewall has become more myth than history. I think it’s safe to say that Americans like their myths to have a clean demarcation between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys, a clear moral to the story. With the beatification of the Stonewall riots, there has been a certain sanitizing of the story as well. That’s unfortunate, because much of what has been stripped away in the “standard retelling” provides the details and context that make the story of Stonewall both interesting in its own right and a narrative of “useable history” for gay and lesbian culture.

I believe that the what and why of Stonewall matter a great deal. Within the gay political imagination, Stonewall functions as an important symbol of resistance and awakening. Yet, given the divergent strains of gay political thought, it’s a symbol with multiple valences. For gay and lesbian activists who work in a “civil rights” paradigm, seeking redress of injustices through courts, legislation, and the “education” of the public, Stonewall functions largely as an empty signifier. It marks the beginning of public gay life and inaugurates the concept of “pride” as an organizing principle of gay culture. For queer activists working from within a neo-New Left “liberation” paradigm, the content of the Stonewall event–active, violent resistance on the part of black and Puerto Rican drag queens and butch lesbians–matters a great deal. Because feminine men, working-class people, Black and Hispanic people, drag queens, butch lesbians and young people all occupy marginal positions in gay life relative to the centrality of white, middle-class, “straight acting” gay men, the centrality of those disruptive, marginal people to the story of Stonewall poses important questions about gay life today and in the future. Stonewall functions deconstructively, as both a constituting symbol of gay and lesbian activism, and a disruptive question-mark over the shape of that activism in the post-Stonewall era.

Stonewall also occurred at a critical disjunction in gay American history. The myth of Stonewall holds that it was the “beginning” of the gay and lesbian movement in America. That’s an unfortunate notion, because it obscures a long, brave, and complex history of gay life and work. 1969 is certainly a watershed moment: on the eve of Stonewall, there were roughly 50 homophile associations in the United States. By 1973, there were over 800 gay and lesbian groups, and by 1979 there were thousands.[5]

But the history of gay and lesbian political organizing goes back at least to 1950, when Harry Hay founded the Mattachine Society in Los Angeles. That early flurry of initial activity also resulted in the Daughters of Bilitis, a lesbian women’s organization. Both of these organizations survived the bleak postwar years, and both were in existence in 1969. Those early homophile associations never reached more than a tiny number of gay Americans, however, and they had grown increasingly conservative and accommodationist in their outlooks. Their members were mostly white, of the middle class, and in general not the sort of people who would be caught in a bar raid, beat up police officers, or set things on fire. Most significantly, these venerable associations were peripheral at best to the efflorescence of gay and lesbian activism in the aftermath of Stonewall.

So the picture thus far is one of both continuity and discontinuity: a continuous history of organization and a radical break in the social sources of that organizational impulse in 1969. Any accurate understanding of that discontinuity in the history of modern gay America necessarily begins with Stonewall.


[1] Quoted in Sadownick, Douglas, Sex Between Men: An Intimate History of the Sex Lives of Gay Men, Postwar to Present (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), p. 79.

[2] Ginsberg, Allen, “America”, Collected Poems 1947-1980. New York: Harper & Row, 1984.

[3] Quoted in Sadownick, Douglas, Sex Between Men: An Intimate History of the Sex Lives of Gay Men, Postwar to Present (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), p. 79.

[4] This account is a composit of the information in Sadownick, Sex Between Men, pp. 78-81., and D’Emilio, John, Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities: The Making of a Homosexual Minority in the United States, 1940-1970. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.), pp. 231-237.

[5] D’Emilio. Sexual Politics, pp. 237-8

Shorter George W. Bush: I Will Say ANYTHING

June 28, 2005


American President George W. Bush

First of all, 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11. Hang on a sec, while I wrap myself in my trusty Bloody Flag. Hopefully, if I continue to act as if there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, some of you rubes will buy it. You liberal traitors can keep your fancy “facts”.

Okay, now: we invaded Iraq to defeat the terrorists that came to Iraq after we invaded it. Or, you don’t like that one, we can be there to help build a democracy and make a friend in the War on Terror. Whatever floats your boat, but if you question me, those terrorists are 100% guaranteed to win. Oh, and…all that stuff about WMDs? We’re totally not talking about that anymore.

Now, I’d like to mention the January Iraqi elections 16 or 18 times.

And don’t forget that terror terror terror. Terror terror terrorism. Terrorists, terror terror TERROR freedom terror terrorism. Freedom liberty, terror terror. Elections terror. Schools terror. Terror political track terrorist. Terror military track freedom terror.

To those who question the wisdom of this course, I would ask this: why do you hate our men and women in uniform?

The rest of you…you know, the good Americans…get out there and support the men and women who are fighting for our freedom! Starting with me.

Okay, here, let me tie a yellow ribbon around my cock and stroke it with some militaristic bloviating for a minute. Oh yeah, that’s good.

Okay, one last mention of 9/11. And don’t you remember when I told you I was gonna do all this shit? You don’t? Huh.

Anyway….goodnight, and
OBEY!

Shorter Supreme Court of the United States:

June 28, 2005

All your private property are belong to us!

They’ll enforce the law…when they damn well feel like it, bitches!

111989223728914859

June 27, 2005

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

My pro-lynching senator

June 25, 2005

This:

is Kay Bailey Hutchison, one of the two Senators who embarrass represent me and my fellow Texans in Congress.

Kay has degraded distinguished herself in my eyes twice in the past week or so.

First, she initially joined up with the GOP Lynch-Mob who proudly refused to co-sponsor a resolution apologizing for the Senate’s failure to pass anti-lynching legislation during the heyday of lynching in the Klan-dominated deep South. She was originally one of over 20 (yes, Kathy, that is more than one-third of the all-white GOP Senators!) who failed to sign on. Co-sponsorship became such a large issue because Bill Frist had threatened to table the resolution indefinitely unless the vote was held at night and without a rollcall. Which seemed odd, as many of us would have assumed that being against lynching is a pretty non-controversial stance in 2005. But many of us apparently don’t know the modern Republican Party very well. Anyway, since there was no rollcall vote, the only way anyone can know who supported the bill is to look at who co-sponsored it. And the great thing about co-sponsorship is that Senators can sign on even after the legislation has passed!

Which Kay eventually did, after her offices were flooded with calls from outraged Texans. But she noted that while she is generously opposed to lynching, “you don’t have to cosponsor everything that you are in favor of.”

Which, I suppose, is true. Unfortunately, it seems that Kay sponsors a lot of trivial dumbass legislation. John Aravosis, a well-known studmonkey blogger, noted the following in his recent column in Radar Magazine:

Senators Hutchison and Cornyn, both of Texas, cosponsored a resolution “commending the Lady Bears of Baylor University for winning the 2005 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women’s Basketball Championship.” Alexander, Cochran, and Gregg (NH) cosponsored “National Airborne Day.” Thomas and Enzi cosponsored “The National Day of the American Cowboy.” Bennett (UT), Gregg, Lott, Sununu (NH), and Thomas cosponsored a resolution designating March 25, 2005, “Greek Independence Day.” Smith authored a resolution for the “victims of communism.” And just in time for Father’s Day, Alexander, Bennett, Cochran, Cornyn, and Lott took time out to cosponsor a Hallmark-ready resolution “protecting, promoting, and celebrating fatherhood.” Perhaps they would have cosponsored the lynching resolution if the victims had been Greek airborne cowboys or Cuban refugees.

Perhaps. Though they could be all of those things and still be black, so I doubt it.

Why, you ask? Of the 55 Republican Senators and the 231 Republican Representatives in Congress, guess how many are black? That’s right, Kathy! Zero!

Let’s play again. Of the 3,643 Republicans currently seated in America’s state legislatures, how many do you think are non-white? Well, Kathy, it’s a little more than 0, but not much. 44. And yeah, that is 1.2% of the total.

So perhaps the next time the braying pieholes of the “news” media decide to publicly stroke themselves to climax over the latest manufactured OUTRAGE!!, as they did over Howard Dean’s remark that the GOP is pretty much a “white Christian party”, they should check in with reality and look at the facts.

But back to my piss-stained coward of a Senator, Kay. Tapped, the blog of American Prospect magazine, reports that Kay’s staff says that she agrees with Karl Rove’s recent remarks to the effect that liberals wanted to give therapy and understanding to the 9/11 attackers, because we are motivated by a hatred of America’s troops.

Now, you can look below to read my thoughts about Mr. Rove’s constant provision of oral service to the Radical Right, but I want to offer the following to Sen. Kay from one of her constituents.

On supporting our troops

June 25, 2005

To the Democratic leadership in Congress:

Consider the following statements from your Republican colleagues.

“You can support the troops but not the president”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“[The] President…is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

These statements were all made in the context of the 1999 U.S. interventions to stop the genocide in Kosovo. As you can see, the Republican class of 1999 had absolutely no interest in the sort of fanatical “support our troops” rhetoric in which they so love to wallow today. Was the news media of 1999 full of SCANDLE!!! and OUTRAGE!!! over Tom Delay’s inappropriate questioning of the president in the middle of a war, or over the Republican leadership’s complete and utter failure to “support our troops”? Was Republican disloyalty the big story of 1999?

To borrow a phrase from one of my favorite blogs: Sadly, no. In 1999, our “liberal media” were extremely busy. They had spent several years already working closely with the right wing OUTRAGE!!! machine to take down a popular second-term president in a journalism-major circle-jerk of unimaginable proportions, culminating in the president’s acquittal in his impeachment trial. As Sally Quinn’s November 1998 editorial in the Washington Post (entitled “Not in Their Back Yard”) made perfectly clear, the Washington politico-journalistic establishment regarded the Clintons as low-class hillbilly interlopers in their genteel and rarified world. They needed to make an example of these crackers, lest the great unwashed west of the Potomac get the notion that just anybody can come to Washington. They were defending their class interests, and had no time at all for silly distractions like supporting America’s troops.

My, how the times have changed.

Here’s my point: Stop depending on the approval of the major news media outlets. Institutions like the Washington Post and the New York Times have openly and brazenly declared their loyalty to this administration and their hostility to any Democrat left of Joe Lieberman. The press corps as a whole stand revealed as a clique of middlebrow “cool kids” more interested in access and popularity than in stodgy, old-fashioned concepts like “truth” and “investigation”.

More crucially: Never forget that the men of the Republican Leadership don’t give a tinker’s damn about our troops. They didn’t give a damn in 1999, and they don’t give a damn today. They let our lunatic president send thousands of them to their deaths in a war with no good plan, no clear goal, no exit strategy, and no price tag. They have allowed him to underfund and overextend our armed forces to the point that we can only pray that an actual war doesn’t break out somewhere. Every time they open their braying cry-holes to howl and screech about patriotism and supporting our troops, it is nothing but a cynical ploy to distract the people from the gross incompetence and open corruption of this Republican government.

STOP PLAYING THEIR GAMES.

Every time they start cranking up the OUTRAGE!!! machine, remind them of Tom Delay’s words:

“You can support the troops but not the president”

Stop letting them punk you. Stand up, fight back, fight hard, and don’t stop fighting until we’ve taken this country back from this gaggle of cut-rate cleptocrats who have brought nothing but dishonor to our great nation.