red hair and black leather

I've had an emotionally sucktastic few days, complete with massive anxiety, catastrophizing, abandonment fears, insomnia, tears, and rage. The knowledge that this is coming to the forefront because of hormones only helps a little bit, because the anxiety is here to stay, at least until November 4th. (And if my hopes come true and the U.S. comes down for Obama, I'm going to be twitchy as fuck, just waiting for one of the racist assholes that have been getting riled up by the Republican campaign to do something monumentally fucking stupid.)

But! I saw this amazing story on Jezebel, and followed it to the original story, and I got over myself. Mostly.

The title of homecoming queen is typically reserved for the head cheerleader or student class president, but not so at one Texas high school where this year's queen saw hundreds of onlookers moved to tears as she was crowned.
Kristin Pass, 18, was named homecoming queen Friday night at her Texas High School, beating two other finalists for the crown.

"There wasn't a dry eye to be seen," said Carolyn Pass, the mother of newly crowned queen Kristin Pass, who was born with Down syndrome 18 years ago.

Read the full story, because it's kind of entirely awesome.

Subject to every doubt that can retard
Or fling it back upon an earlier time.

There are times when I wonder if the U.S. has been dropped through a wormhole into the 1950's.

Seriously. Look at the current craze for pencil skirts and spike heels. It's illegal for perfectly loving couples to be married and to have a child in some states. The charge of "unpatriotic" is levelled against those who dare to criticise the government. Not to mention being embroiled in land wars - plural - that we are fucking up royally whilst rattling our sabres at another country. And finally -

Cross burnings in North Carolina. Fucking hell.

Don't hang back with the brutes, y'all. Just don't.

edit: There also the matter of parents being forbidden to teach their child about Wicca, which happens to be their religion, but I'm inclined to look at that as a poor ruling by an uneducated judge. Either that, or it's a test case to see if this country really can be turned into a de jure theocracy...

"We have to protect people"

President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned. Gary Taylor meets the politician in charge of making it happen ...

An excerpt:

What should we do with US classics like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof or The Color Purple? "Dig a hole," Gerald Allen recommends, "and dump them in it." Don't laugh. Gerald Allen's book-burying opinions are not a joke.

Earlier this week, Allen got a call from Washington. He will be meeting with President Bush on Monday. I asked him if this was his first invitation to the White House. "Oh no," he laughs. "It's my fifth meeting with Mr Bush."

Bush is interested in Allen's opinions because Allen is an elected Republican representative in the Alabama state legislature. He is Bush's base. Last week, Bush's base introduced a bill that would ban the use of state funds to purchase any books or other materials that "promote homosexuality". Allen does not want taxpayers' money to support "positive depictions of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle". That's why Tennessee Williams and Alice Walker have got to go.

Apparently, Bush and Co. aren't happy with denying civil rights to people not "lucky" enough to be het. Now, they seem to want to erase any mention of them onstage. What's next - banning "Will and Grace"?

calligrafiti - A Plan for the Left

pix_kristin - America, Let's Just Be Friends

jmhm - Go Ahead and Feel Rotten

serasempre - A Born-Again Christian Persepective

paperdol - No Time For Whiners

edit

stephl - A Ray of Light

The person under discussion is one of the most beautifully-souled people I know. If we had more Nillys in the world, humanity would be much better off.

And finally, from jonquil - A Parable:

Once upon a time there was a man named John Woolman. He was a Friend, which made him quirky, but even by Friends standards he was odd. John believed with all his heart and soul that God did not approve of slavery, and John lived by his beliefs. He would not wear dyed clothes, because indigo was made by slave labor. He would not wear cotton, because cotton was grown by slaves. Year-round he wore undyed woolen clothes. Think of him as a vegan Birkenstock-wearing radical.

When John Woolman was alive, Quakers as a group were unusually wealthy -- it didn't hurt that going bankrupt could get you read out of Meeting, because it was seen as dishonesty. This meant that some Quakers owned slaves.

Every year Quakers hold a Meeting for Business. Most of the Friends I knew dreaded this meeting. Every Friend who is present and has a leading must be allowed to speak, generally at length. No decision can be reached until the meeting has a consensus, which means that every single person present accepts (or at least will not openly reject) the decision. By the time it's all over, you start wondering if you'd have been happier in a more authoritarian Church.

Every year, for years on end, John Woolman came to Meeting for Business and denounced slavery. There he was in his weird funky clothing, standing up and insisting that slavery was wrong and that the Friends should witness against it. And all the tired cranky Friends listened to him and said, "Oh, there's John again. Can we please close the meeting?"

Eventually, after years of John Woolman, the Friends denounced slavery. After that, the Society of Friends became the heart and soul of the abolitionist movement in America. And eventually slavery was made illegal.

That is the story as they tell it in Richmond, Indiana. Like any good story, it changes in the mouth of each generation. However, there are three things in the story that I know to be true.

There was once a man named John Woolman.
He fought a long and hopeless battle for justice.
He changed the world.

And my thoughts - I sincerely wish we had a viable third party. A Moderate party, drawing from the Left and the Right. But we don't, and we can't for a while. The Right is too powerful and unwilling to let go of many of its constituents. If the Left went along with this plan, it would weaken it so much that the result would effectively be a one-party system. The problem is, it's already happening to an extent. Liberal and progressive thinking are the hallmarks of my party, and that mindset is by definition open to new ideas and in favor of group action over central authority. We have organizational problems built right in.

So, the third party is not an option right now. Okay, then what? We focus on 2006. We take back Congress. We become just as loud and just as organized and just as passionately focused as our opposition.

Bruce Springsteen is right: "It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting."

Let us not slide into despair. Rather, let us feel rotten and punch our pillows for a bit, and then get up, dust ourselves off, and plunge back into the fray. Once more into the breach dear friends, once more.

(by way of b.org)

Apparently, some groups in Chile are calling for Bush's arrest when he visits there in November. They are accusing him and his administration of war crimes and violating the Geneva convention, and have taken it to the courts in Santiago. I have no idea if anything will come of it, and I doubt that any paper in the U.S. will pick it up, but it's damn interesting.

People keep saying Bush is going to win on November 2. Even people voting for Kerry are saying that. This needs to stop. Power of positive thinking, folks. If you want Kerry to win, if you honestly believe that we need him to win as the first step toward healing our country, then do the following (courtesy of somewhere in the Democratic Underground forums):

KERRY IN A LANDSLIDE KERRY IN A LANDSLIDE
I'd be the last person to suggest that the election is in the bag and we can just sit back and wait for Bush to be crushed. There's a great deal of work that must be done. But, why NOT approach the closing weeks with a unified confidence? Whenever I hear a jittery Dem concerned about 'polls' I just say: KERRY IN A LANDSLIDE. I could go into an extended explanation of 20th century polling methodology in a 21st century election. I could quote statistics on new and un-polled voters. I could point out that worrying about a NATIONAL poll is utterly pointless. But, I just say: KERRY IN A LANDSLIDE. Enough said. And, as far as kool-ade drinkers go? You can't change a 'mind' that won't engage. Screw 'em! Project unshakable confidence. KERRY IN A LANDSLIDE. Let them sputter. As far as I'm concerned, a Bush win is unworthy of consideration. KERRY IN A LANDSLIDE. Go away. The best they've got is stealing yard signs and Bush is out preaching to his so-called 'base' while real conservatives are attacking. KERRY IN A LANDSLIDE. As I say above, it doesn't mean sitting back and waiting. It does mean going into the final weeks with utter confidence that a MASSIVE TURNOUT will elect Kerry and send the chimp whimpering back to his 'ranch' an even bigger, and more miserable failure than his Poppy.

Liberals (that is NOT a curseword!) have a regrettable tendency to believe reason will triumph over emotion. In such a high-stakes game as this, it is proven not so. It may feel odd to say 'Kerry in a landslide' when the polls show a close race, but we must think positive.

Other tidbits:

Germany would consider deploying troops if 'conditions there change'

Germany might deploy troops in Iraq if conditions there change, Peter Struck, the German defence minister, indicated yesterday in a gesture that appears to provide backing for John Kerry, the US Democratic presidential challenger.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Struck departed from his government's resolve not to send troops to Iraq under any circumstances, saying:"At present I rule out the deployment of German troops in Iraq. In general, however, there is no one who can predict developments in Iraq in such a way that he could make such a binding statement ".

Mr Struck also welcomed Mr Kerry's proposal that, as president, he would convene an international conference on Iraq.

Germany would certainly attend, Mr Struck said. "This is a very sensible proposal. The situation in Iraq can only be cleared up when all those involved sit together at one table. Germany has taken on responsibilities in Iraq, including financial ones; this would naturally justify our involvement in such a conference."

Why conservatives must not vote for Bush

Quite simply, the president, despite his well-choreographed posturing, does not represent traditional conservatism -- a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility. Rather, Bush routinely puts power before principle. As Chris Vance, chairman of Washington state's Republican Party, told the Economist: "George Bush's record is not that conservative ... There's something there for everyone."

Even Bush's conservative sycophants have trouble finding policies to praise. Certainly it cannot be federal spending. In 2000 candidate Bush complained that Al Gore would "throw the budget out of balance." But the big-spending Bush administration and GOP Congress have turned a 10-year budget surplus once estimated at $5.6 trillion into an estimated $5 trillion flood of red ink. This year's deficit will run about $445 billion, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

Lastly:

The anti-Sinclair thread on DU

(And if you do like this stuff, jmhm does it more often and much better.)

California Supreme Court Annuls San Francisco Gay Marriages.

In its decision, the court focused on whether the mayor had the authority to marry gays rather than the broader arguments of whether equal protection under the Constitution must include gay marriage. Briefs in a lawsuit raising the broader issue are expected before a lower court next month.

Dammit.

12 reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never suceed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Marriage is love.

It's from an Tom Paine interview with Chris Hedges, who is the author of the book War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning:

There is a kind of suspension of self-criticism, both as a nation and as a person that takes place in wartime. And that’s part of what removes the anxiety of normal daily living. We’re no longer required to make moral choice. Moral choice has been made for us by the state. And to question the decisions of the state is to be branded, not only a traitor, but to be pushed outside that kind of communal entity within a society that war always creates. And that’s a very difficult, lonely and painful experience.

So most people, not necessarily because they’re bad people in any way, but most people find it emotionally far more convenient, but also far more pleasurable just to go along. The problem is, under poor leadership, or wandering into a war where we shouldn’t be, we can find ourselves in heaps of trouble.

I just wanted to remember that, since that's especially how I feel in this country these days.