August update

Above, left: State Representative Leola C. Robinson-Simpson (District 25 - Greenville County) speaking at our local 50th anniversary celebration of the Civil Rights March, in Greenville's Cleveland Park on Saturday.

Above, right: Traci Fant, event organizer and local activist extraordinaire.

~*~

Back from Texas! (Did yall miss me?) You can see my purty family-photos HERE. My grandchildren (below) are both huge. And my grand-cat Napoleon is almost 9 years old! (as always, you can click all photos to enlarge)



~*~

And hey, I got old cars! (waves to the car-photo lurkers) You knew I would. (below)



I barely managed to get the first photo, as we went zooming by at breakneck pace. (Texans all drive like maniacs, including my beloved daughter.) I have no idea of the make, model or year of first one (it was for sale) or even the exact location--except that I snapped the photo somewhere between Fredericksburg and Kerrville. I am thinking: 60-61 Buick? It has fins!

The second photo, a Monte Carlo (75 or 76?), was taken in back of the Mellow Mushroom after the rally on Saturday.

~*~

Lots going on, as our awful Governor Nikki Haley (spits for emphasis) announced her re-election campaign right here in Greenville yesterday. When in trouble (as Haley certainly is), conservative state politicians ALWAYS run up here to hide amongst the GOP faithful. (As I have said many, many times, this IS the most conservative county in the USA, according to Rick Santorum's former campaign manager, who should know.) Haley's decision to announce here signals that she is in trouble in her own backyard, which is Columbia. (She avoids the coast at all costs.)

At yesterday's event, Texas Stoner Governor Rick Perry was on hand for comedy relief and her other good buddy, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (I mentioned here how chummy they are) was also present, for back-up.

She needed it.

Our own Double A, one of my two dynamite radio co-hosts, attended the demonstration against Haley, and reported on the foofaraw. Other than a few small, brave news outlets, the counter-demonstration was mostly ignored by local media.

~*~

HEAT and TRANS update, all in one

Recently, whilst sitting and baking in the ungodly heat, I have read/seen a good number of young trans men ecstatically bragging that they are post-op (known as "top surgery" i.e. mastectomies) and now, ohhh happy day, they can jump in the pool topless and sit around the house topless and at long last, go without a shirt! As if it is somehow intrinsically impossible to do these things unless one is male. These statements are utterly infuriating, and incidentally, feed the (unpopular and oppressive) radfem perspective that gender IS entirely a social construct (and therefore, they believe, surgical/hormonal transition should be unnecessary, and society itself should change or "transition" instead). Because going shirtless is not an intrinsically male or female activity, but IS entirely socially constructed, as we all learned as children, leafing through National Geographic and seeing photos of topless women in the Amazon or wherever.

The fact that these young trans men do not question their cultural environment, and make a big point of bragging about their newly-acquired social superiority (i.e. they are FINALLY FREE of having to do what those NARROW, CONSTRICTED, REPRESSED, GROSS WOMEN ARE FORCED TO DO: keep their shirts on), is very reactionary, offensive and sexist.

Wanting to shed one's shirt does not make you a man, it makes you conscious of the goddamn heat. Living in the broiler that is summer in South Carolina, I want to take my shirt off every single day. Every. Single. Day. And I am not a man and have never wanted to be one. As regular readers know, this is one of my big FEMINIST ISSUES--that men have this right and women do not, all because the almighty sacred titties are arousing to men and obscenity laws were written by men. (NOTE: This is rightly called PATRIARCHY, since the laws were written by MEN, using men's desires as a guide to what is regarded as obscene; women's desires have not been a factor.) I see no reason why WOMEN should not enjoy these so-called "male" privileges too. Instead, as in THIS VIDEO, it is simply understood that men have this seemingly-God-given right and women do not, period. Consequently, the young trans man brags that he can now, finally, at long last, hallelujah, take off his shirt.

(sigh)

And so, instead of properly fighting for everyone to have this right, it is presented as evidence of manhood (and in this context, transgender feelings), thus preserving the patriarchal status quo. This is backward, not forwards.

And further, radfems rarely (if ever) mention trans men and these kinds of sexist statements they make... its only when a high-profile individual like Chaz Bono is openly misogynist that anyone speaks up and says WHOA. I am tired of trans women taking all the heat for their choices, as trans men get off the hook, which by the way, perfectly mirrors our cultural sexism. As Julia Serano writes:

[The] media tends not to notice—or to outright ignore—trans men because they are unable to sensationalize them the way they do trans women without bringing masculinity itself into question. And in a world where modern psychology was founded upon the teaching that all young girls suffer from penis envy, most people think striving for masculinity seems like a perfectly reasonable goal. Author and sex educator Pat Califia, who is himself a trans man, addresses this in his 1997 book Sex Changes: The Politics of Transgenderism: “It seems the world is still more titillated by ‘a man who wants to become a woman’ than it is by ‘a woman who wants to become a man.’ The first is scandalous, the latter is taken for granted.

Which brings me to the matter of Wikileaks whistleblower Bradley Manning, now known as Chelsea Manning.

I said most of my piece on the radio yesterday. As I said then, I fully support Chelsea, and I am very proud we have a woman-whistleblower (go team!), which took all kinds of nerve. Although I must admit -- as a blogger, my first thought was, how on earth do I change all the tags on my blog (LOL) to CHELSEA when they already say BRADLEY--including some headlines and photos. Indexing nightmare! I remember the same problem back when I worked in a record store and we had to figure out what to do with Walter/Wendy Carlos. I finally lettered and inked a sign myself, that said Walter/Wendy Carlos, since people would come in asking for both (no internet in those days) and often believed they were a married couple, not the same person.

Speaking of sexism, sometimes classical-music freaks would actually inform me (haughtily and knowingly) that Wendy wasn't nearly as talented as her husband Walter (!), totally unaware that Walter and Wendy were the same person. When I tried to tell them they WERE the same person, they often refused to believe me, since you know, Walter is a serious musician who would NEVER do something crazy like change his sex! I mean, this was the 70s.

In response, I would simply tell them to look it up, since as I said, there was no internet in those days. So it was difficult to prove my assertion, since Wendy was/is a pretty private person. I hung around bisexual-circles even then, and I heard about Walter-to-Wendy through general gossip. And my record-store boss also seemed to know by community-osmosis (wink-wink), so he never argued with me.

In all my time there, only one of the aforementioned snotty classical-music crowd came in to apologize to me and tell me I was right... and come to think of it, I realize now that he was probably gay.

~*~

I am tagging this BRADLEY MANNING until I figure out a new tag. Blogger used to make it fairly easy to change a tag (you could change them all at once), but now, they make you do it one at a time. Ugh.

Does anyone know how the "big blogs" manage this type of situation?

Glad to be back, hope your week is going well too.

Read More

Michigan Womyn's Music Festival: transphobia revisited

Unfortunately, the ongoing brawl over the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (herein known by its nickname, Michfest) continues on for another year.

Each year seems more contentious than the last. Increasingly, there are pro-trans demonstrations at festival, featuring t-shirts emblazoned with "Trans Women Belong Here". QueerFatFemme believes that women should attend specifically to protest the omission of trans women, and believes someday the rules will change, as they eventually evolved to include BDSM and "chem-free space" -- neither of which were initially greeted with kindness. (NOTE: Trans women have attended the festival since its inception, even performing/working there, despite the official rule excluding them. Trans women were already an integral part of Michfest BEFORE the rule became "official" -- so this exclusion can also be viewed as an EXILE.)

This year--in response to a petition--Lisa Vogel, Michfest co-founder/owner of festival land, issued a very confusing statement. She seems to be winking at the presence of trans women, as long as they properly keep their heads down and shut up about it. One might even read the statement as green-lighting the admission of trans women in a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" fashion. Vogel's statement reads, in part:

The Festival, for a single precious week, is intended for womyn who at birth were deemed female, who were raised as girls, and who identify as womyn. I believe that womyn-born womyn (WBW) is a lived experience that constitutes its own distinct gender identity.

As we struggle around the question of inclusion of transwomyn at the festival, we use the word intention very deliberately. Michigan holds this particular lived experience of womanhood as honorable, meaningful, unique and rich. Our intention has always been coupled with the radical commitment to never question any womon's gender. We ask the greater community to respect this intention, and to value the complexity and validity of every gender identity, including that of WBW. The onus is on each individual to choose whether or how to respect that intention.

Huh?

~*~

This whole fiasco seems emblematic of the stand-off between radical feminists and trans women, and it makes my head hurt. We should all be getting along, dammit. I often find trans women to be instinctively feminist, due to their unique experiences, and I want them in our ranks. However, lots of radical feminists don't. Further, the two groups seem singularly obsessed with pissing each other off, creating endless Tumblr pages/blogs dedicated simply to trashing the other side. And these hate-blogs (as Mama Moretti commented here) get TONS of hits, every time they are updated.

Some people spend all their online-time enumerating why the other side is not just wrong, but EVIL. Some people, frankly, seem driven nearly insane over it.

I recently wrote about the incident at Portland State University during the recent Law and Disorder Conference, in which trans activists attacked a Deep Green Resistance display table for selling literature they deemed transphobic and unacceptable (I still don't know specifically WHICH BOOK they were selling that set everyone off)... and I expressed my disapproval of their tactics, which included destroying books, marking people up with magic-markers and throwing burritos. Even though I have written here (at great length) of my crazy-Yippie past (and similar tactics *I* have engaged in), I wrote that I now know (as a radical living in possibly the reddest state in the South) what it is like to be the hapless person on the other end of that behavior... and I have grown to believe that these types of tactics are NOT very effective, even if they are great fun and feel deliciously self-righteous. I think these tactics may even do HARM to a cause, sometimes even bringing sympathy to those who are attacked and accomplishing the opposite of what we intended.

The excitable gang over at Feministe became very angry with me; they wrote several enthusiastic posts announcing that I am a Bad Person and saying "fuck you"--which I found even more alarming. Obviously, discussing long-term strategies and points of agreement is no longer even considered an acceptable goal; the war has advanced to the point that there can be no efforts at Detente that don't appear to be "pandering" to one side or another. (sigh)

And Lisa Vogel's strange, ambiguous statement certainly did not help the situation.

~*~

Still, I gotta wonder, is Michfest (a throwback to feminism's Golden Era) an event that trans women truly want to attend? Most women *I* know have not even heard of it (or are only peripherally aware of it) and show absolutely no interest when you tell them about it. Why is this such a big deal to trans women--just because its off limits to them? (I no longer want to attend, for instance, although I did attend way back in the aforementioned Golden Era.) Why does THIS PARTICULAR EVENT matter so much, when there are plenty of other places/events that are also off-limits to them?

Why do trans women care so much what radical feminists (specifically) say about them?

Why do radical feminists believe trans women (specifically) are such a threat? (And before you answer, "because they believe they are men!"--keep in mind, they seem FAR more aggravated by trans women than they are by men. Many of these hate-blogs do not even write much about feminist political issues, but only cover an issue like abortion when trans women say critical things, or declare it isn't as important to them as radfems believe it should be.)

I admit: I don't get it. And the longer the war continues, the less I get it. It strikes me as patently bizarre.

Yes, the old hippie is pleading for peace. I fully expect to be pilloried, but blessed are the peacemakers.

Buddha told me this would be rough.

~*~

The newest salvo fired at the radfem faction is THIS rather disturbing 2008 Philadelphia Gay News story by radfem Victoria Brownworth. This is OLD news, so at first, I wondered why the trans faction was dredging it up at this rather late date.

Then I read it.

Ohhhh my goodness.

I confess, I was pretty upset and disgusted. This is bad. Like, really really bad. Cristan Williams writes at TRANSADVOCATE:

The reason I chose to do this article is that Brownworth, a self-identified radical feminist, has written extensively about power, privilege, the need for acceptance, boundaries and the well-being of kids. Yet here – even though she felt it was “creepy,” “wrong” and even though she also felt “anxious” about it – she asked this kid to have access to his genitalia (if you believe what she wrote in 2008).

If the power roles were reversed and it was an adult pre-op transwoman who came across a vulnerable 15/16 year old cisgender girl with an illicitly obtained genital body modification, would RadFems (or anyone for that matter!) view it as being okay if the transwoman gained access to the girl’s genitalia for a peek? What if the transwoman then discribed the girl’s genetalia in detail – down to what her cliterous looked like – in newsprint and/or on the internet? What if the transwoman, five years later, tweets that she felt “creepy/wrong” about it but nevertheless defended her actions by saying that the girl asked the transwoman to do it? What would happen? What would be said about that situation?

Take the trans issue out of this. If this was an adult cisgender woman and a vulnerable 15/16 year old cisgender boy with an illicitly obtained genital piercing or tattoo, we all intuitively understand that it’s inappropriate for an adult to deliberately gawk at the kid’s junk while they’re nude, much less detail what the kid’s genitals looked like in print or the web! Yet because it’s transkid, nobody has said anything for FIVE YEARS!

Awful, just awful. I was genuinely disturbed that Brownworth thought it was ever acceptable to exploit this child in this manner. I hope someone can locate this young person (named Devon, who would now be 20 or 21?) and affirm that he is okay.

Regarding this story, Brownworth's various replies to her critics are ... off. Just off. Strange. A lot like Lisa Vogel's bizarre non-statement. It is as if these radfems don't really believe they are dealing with human beings or something. Brownworth seems actually taken aback that you would ask her about it.

Meanwhile, as we speak, the radfems line up and obediently back up Brownworth, even in an instance when she was OBVIOUSLY very wrong.

(sigh)

It all just makes me so ashamed.

Read More

The sparkle of your china

Just returned from the local March Against Monsanto meeting. This event will be nationwide on May 25th.




Next meeting before the event will be at the Swamp Rabbit Cafe and Grocery, next Thursday at 6pm, yall come. In the meantime, please support Vernon Hugh Bowman in his fight against Monsanto's legal abuse.

~*~

As promised on the air today, here is the link to today's show. I started out a little jumbled, since we had some technical issues (we weren't in our usual studio and the acoustics were somewhat off), but I changed microphones, finally got going and tried to make some sense. Our first subject was the confrontation between trans activists and an anarchist group called Deep Green Resistance, while they were selling feminist books at the Law and Disorder Conference at Portland State University this past weekend. I react pretty strongly to defacing books or otherwise rudely rousting politicos at a table because it has happened to me many times; harassed by bikers at outdoor festivals for lefty literature, jeered at by fundamentalists at Occupy, and so forth and so on (in fact, I wrote about one such incident HERE). So, I asked, what IS hate speech and how should we handle it? One's person's hate speech is another person's Gospel (literally!), so what should we do in a pluralistic society that values the First Amendment?

Aside: I used to warn radical feminists that their eagerness to call everything (such as porn) 'hate speech' would some day come back to bite them in the ass, and here we are.

Increasingly, I am puzzled by trans activists' fixation on radical feminists (whom they call 'radscum'). Why not focus on fundamentalist right wingers who are far more numerous and say the same things? More to the point, the radscum do not seek to deny GLBT equal rights or try to keep folks from transitioning; they just argue (endlessly, relentlessly) about the physiological and social meaning(s) of "woman" and "female". The Christian fundamentalist Republicans think trans people should be forced to use their birth names on their drivers licenses and if they don't, locked up in mental institutions and/or arrested for fraud. Who is worse? And who has more power to enforce their prejudices?

Why not go after the REAL scum?

I'm ready when you are.

~*~

Today's blog post title comes from Steely Dan's excellent album, COUNTDOWN TO ECSTASY (1973).

As I continuously plow through Shantideva's The Way of the Bodhisattva, I just keep thinking of the lyrics.

Bodhisattva
Would you take me by the hand
Bodhisattva
Would you take me by the hand
Can you show me
The shine of your Japan
The sparkle of your china
Can you show me
Bodhisattva, Bodhisattva
I'm gonna sell my house in town
Bodhisattva
I'm gonna sell my house in town
And I'll be there
To shine in your Japan
To sparkle in your China
Yes I'll be there
Bodhisattva, Bodhisattva, Bodhisattva...

Bodhisattva - Steely Dan

Read More

Winding up this year in Blogdonia

I had a lovely New Year's Eve lunch with my Cousin Bethie today. (At left: Me and Cousin Bethie at her son's wedding party in 2009.)




Time to look back at this Mayan year of 2012.

The newest, remarkable thing in Feminist Blogdonia this year, has been the wholesale demise of old-school blogs. Small blogs (one author only) seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur, and only stubborn hold-outs like your plucky narrator remain.

Where'd they go? Well, interesting that you should ask. They have all stampeded to Tumblr, that hip, young, visually-chic new net-destination. No room for grandma on Tumblr... as I said before (see link), I can't even figure out who is saying what. But even if I don't know who is saying what, I CAN read the basic messages... and damn. It's getting ugly over there.

The Tumblr feminists are identifiably young and post lots of cool graphics, videos and photos. They obviously come from affluent families and have advanced degrees; their education and experience can be quite intimidating. (I would not know what to say to any of them, which hardly ever happens.) I can understand why lots of people resent them. The Amazing Atheist informs me in one of his rants [caution, click that at your own risk; he can be pretty offensive to some folks... okay, most folks] that most of the Tumblr feminists do not seem to be into feminist theory or history or any of that boring, wonky political stuff. They mostly like to fulminate about pop culture, 'rape culture', trans women, men staring at them, and whatever else pops in their heads. (Typhon Blue, prominent female men's rights activist, did a funny bit about them also.) Their feminism seems to be a triumph of style over substance.

Clearly, the Tumblr feminists are on everyone's radar. Us Second-Wave ladies here on Blogspot are yesterday's news, the tired old-guard (yawns for emphasis).

But why have they all stampeded to Tumblr? What is it about the place that draws them? Is it inherently easier to post there than it is to post on Blogspot, Wordpress, Livejournal or Dreamwidth? I don't think it is. I think it's the fact that it's new and has an eye-catching layout (multiple publishing options and templates)... AND the fact that no comments are allowed. You can be as offensive as you wanna be, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. No screaming at you in comments. You do not have to BLOCK people, or babysit threads that threaten to boil over into major flame wars. You can say your piece and be on your way.

But of course, people being what we are, we always find ways to fight. What the Tumblrites do is REBLOG things, and start the fight that way. For example, here is what one such verbal-brawl looks like, an argument via Tumblr reblogging. (See how unclear it is, just who is saying what? Or is it just me?)

The biggest feud in Tumblr Feminist Blogdonia right now, is about transgendered people. I find this fascinating, since I thought the superior young feminists, who have preached to me incessantly since I first started blogging (and have painfully picked apart the comparatively harmless minutiae of my language) knew absolutely everything on the subject of transgender. I was assured they had all that shit settled, and it was only us old fogies who are always wrong every time we open our mouths. And they are still alluding to this, since the label "radfem" (originally designating Second Wave radical feminists; feminists over 40-45) is the word they repeatedly employ to describe women younger than my daughter, who could not possibly have been radfems. This is a creative way to insult young feminists by calling them old hags, without actually saying that... the fact that they might actually insult us older women, by appropriating a term describing us (radfem) and connecting that with something that does not describe our actual political position (transphobia)? Well, who cares, right? (You don't think they actually care about those women who made it possible for them to get those great educations, now do you?) Let's not allow concern over ageism to get in the way of a great feud, amirite?


At left: I finally figured out how to get a photo of my constantly-squirming cat, Cyril. Just in time for New Year's! (see, I can be as narcissistic and off-topic as any of the Tumblr folks)



All joking aside. What I think this tells us: even though the "big feminist blogs" have taken pro-trans positions and have tried to be progressive beacons of equality (and some have failed at that, even so) ... the rank-and-file young feminists have not signed on. Transphobia is rife among young feminists.

This should not surprise anyone. Their politics are mostly undeveloped, since real-life activism is virtually unknown and foreign to the majority of these feminists. They do not do coalition work; they have very little experience in dealing with people in real life who are not of their own social circle and class. Activism is where politics are forged and solidified, and where one quickly learns who one's friends really are.

Sitting around talking, simply isn't where it's at, as we used to say.

And so, on Tumblr, the kidz can air their provincial little prejudices in a safe place. They can raise hell and nobody can comment or object. It makes them feel powerful and it is addicting. Every man a king, as Huey Long famously said... and every woman a queen.

The initial strength of the internet was the free-for-all environment of its countless message boards, chat rooms and blogs... and yet, these seemed to create chaos. They WERE chaos. People became unglued; they got very freaked out and quickly demanded ORDER, and so Facebook and other gated communities came into being, to satisfy the need for cops and babysitters. And so, we now see another desire for chaos... but not GENUINE chaos. The narcissistic, play-acting chaos of yelling your opinions at 96 decibels in an empty room... with no reply and no interruption. The echo sounds nice. The fantasy that you are important is fun. And you can post photos and fancy wallpapers to match your fantasy-self.

And that seems to be where we are right now... or where Tumblr is.

Thanks, but I think I'll stay right here.

Happy New Year, yall.



~*~

PS: Our last podcast of the year! Have a great 2013.

Read More

Five of Wands

Five of Wands: Conflict, competition, discord








The Boy Scouts of America were selling some sugared-up substances outside my local grocery store this weekend... and I really really really wanted to walk right up to them and ask, do you let the transgender scouts in? The Girl Scouts do! But I lacked the nerve; the scout-leaders on duty had that hyper-masculine, super-patriotic Toby Keith vibe going on. I could easily see it all escalating into a heated argument, and possibly culminating in a call to Greenville's finest.

Those guys love cops. Some of them ARE cops.

I used to relish that sort of thing, but now I get weary and tired just thinking about it. (sigh) Do we get less radical as we age, or just more sensible? I mean, it would all be a huge waste of time, and could get me locked up besides.

Then again, IS it a waste of time? Could one of those unassuming, plucky little boy scouts be gay or transgender and therefore: silently cheering me on? Could I make a good impression by accident? (I know I have in the past, but I usually only find that out years later.)

Well, I'll never know now. I passed them by and pretended not to hear them when they politely addressed me as ma'am and asked me to buy their sugar-treats. If I had stopped, even for a second, the argumentative questions WOULD have tumbled right out of my mouth. I am old enough now, to Know Thyself well.

Therefore, I know when to keep on walking... unless I have the strength and wherewithal to deal with the various Toby-Keithesque-characters of upstate South Carolina. And at that time and place, I just didn't.

I hope some brave young person, with energy and time to burn, does.

One of those little scouts needs to hear you speak up.

~*~

We watched the whole first season of HOMELAND on DVDs, which was terribly enjoyable but politically disturbing.

Is the CIA really this much of a mess? I shudder to think.

And do we accept this fact without question, just to have some mind-twisting entertainment? Are government-sanctioned, covered-up drone attacks on masses of children now just another plot development?

Saints preserve us.

As when I watched Standard Operating Procedure, I had nightmares after one of the episodes, the one about the drone attacks.

Observations: Nobody plays crazy as well as Claire Danes. Her stream-of-consciousness mania/complaining about not being able to find a green pen (Not blue!) was fantastic. I highly recommend the show for sheer class and talent on display, and yet... I resent the fact of the war, the tortures, the devastation they are dramatizing. But of course, that is all some genuinely high-stakes stuff, isn't it? This makes for some honestly gut-wrenching drama and challenges to the moral sensibility. One's conscience is suddenly thrown into high gear, and how many TV shows can manage to do that?

On the other hand, the danger is that horrifying, harrowing military realities are reduced to the status of a Tom Clancy thriller. I find this disorienting. It leaves a decidedly-unpleasant taste in the mouth. More psychologically sophisticated than John Wayne in Sands of Iwo Jima, to be sure... but still presented as entertainment. And is there any way the CIA does NOT come off as a glamorous occupation, with Claire Danes madly running around risking her life to save the unsuspecting populace? Or, as Peter O'Toole noted in that obscure cult movie, The Stunt Man: "I know a man who made an anti-war movie; a good one. When it was shown in his home town, army enlistment went up six hundred percent."

Is it possible to portray something, anything, in movies and TV without somehow making it interesting and cool?

On the political flip-side, conservatives have often asked this same question about drug abuse. How can one properly dramatize drug abuse and its accompanying devastation, without inadvertently glamorizing drug use as dangerous and edgy?

Because it if weren't, on some level, we wouldn't bother watching.

We don't get the Showtime network, so I will probably not see the second season of HOMELAND in its entirety until it comes out on DVD. (I hope I can resist Googling the spoilers, as I have been known to do.) If the second season can keep up the dramatic tension, it should be excellent. The second season will debut on Showtime at the end of this month.

The nasty snipes at Dick Cheney are obvious, at least. And well-deserved.

~*~

Saturday's radio show podcast is online. Hope you will give us a listen.

Speaking of radio... Bob Jones University has sold their radio station, which had the cutesy call letters of WMUU: World's Most Unusual University. (Nobody ever argued with that.) It will now be converted into still another conservative talk-radio station here in town. Certainly, we know that is a DIRE NEED here in the upstate! (snark)

Swimming upstream, but we are still afloat. One slim hour of lefty-radio in a sea of constant and endless right-wing blather.

It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

Read More

Tales from the Vinyl Vault

At left, Andy the Doorbum (center) at the Bohemian Cafe in Greenville today, part of RECORD STORE DAY at Horizon Records.

One CD he has recorded is titled "Art is Shit"--and who could argue?

~*~

It appears that the late Andrew Breitbart did NOT have cocaine in his system when he died. The coroner has declared his cause-of-death was a garden-variety heart attack. I STAND CORRECTED! (See, when I am wrong, I promptly admit it... more or less.) I am still skeptical that hard-partying Breitbart was living the drug-free life, of course, and duly remind my readers that coke exits the body without a trace in only about three days. (Breitbart had already admitted youthful drug abuse). I still believe he was all jacked up in this video. And if not, it might be more alarming than if he WAS. I mean, he appears utterly psychotic.

In any event, such a tantrum (check out how red-faced he is, as the cop attempts to guide him in the opposite direction) could not have been any good for his heart. Anger is not good for us, I try to remind myself.

I've always wondered if the cautions against anger in all the world's holy books, are also health guidelines, like the dietary laws turned out to be. The Type A personality is real (and we can all name one we know), but whether it actually leads to heart disease is debatable. But Type A can go either way, it can lead to fulfilling personal ambitions and providing needed leadership, or it can create a whacked-out spectacle like Breitbart screaming incomprehensibly at protesters.

~*~

At left: The Vinyl Vault at Horizon Records. I am grateful I didn't get rid of all my vinyl--I still have several hundred vinyl LPs that I hope to leave to my descendants.

Unless of course, there is a sudden "Cash for Vinyl!" movement and I am bribed with huge sums on loud, late-night TV commercials ... in which case, all bets are off.

~*~

Just watched a panel from the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, titled "Nonfiction: Narrating Disaster" which highlighted three fascinating books that are now on my list--

The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street by Robert Scheer.

The Rainy Season: Haiti - Then and Now by Amy Wilentz

A Hole at the Bottom of the Sea: The Race to Kill the BP Oil Gusher by Joel Achenbach

I am currently devouring Joe McGinniss' NEVER ENOUGH, about the murder of the mega-successful, filthy-rich Kissel brothers. Other books I have read recently include VIRTUE AND REALITY by Lama Zopa Rinpoche (which you can read online too, at the link) and HOMECOMINGS by Risa Bear, the intense and honest biography of a trans woman who transitioned later in life (and who also happens to be my friend). Both books are great spiritual tutorials.

In particular, I can't recommend Risa's book enough. I just loved it.

Living lives true to ourselves, without constant, neurotic worry over what other people are saying and thinking about us, is something that can unexpectedly happen to women as we enter our 50s. Those things we have always wanted to do and say, we finally do and say, without apology. We have always put everyone else first, and now... it is time to put ourselves first. Risa writes from the perspective of one who is in this space, who has decided to be herself at long last.

Her joy at finally being/becoming herself supersedes and eclipses the opinions of others.

I hope at some point, to get to this point myself.

Read More

Girl Scout cookie time!

Four years ago, I posted this lovely photo of a DEADHEAD BROWNIE, and I have been getting hits from hopeful hippies looking for stoner-recipes ever since. No, not those kinds of brownies, you reefer-heads! I mean GIRL SCOUTS!



Yes, it's time for Daisy's beloved CARAMEL DELITES, which have more calories than candy. Munch, munch.

I assume you have all heard about the recent Girl Scouts controversy over the transgendered Girl Scout, which has been all over the news. Short version: the Girl Scouts of America are FAIR and we can be PROUD of them:

A group calling itself HonestGirlScouts.com has posted a YouTube video calling for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies in response to a Colorado troop's decision to allow a 7-year-old transgender child into its troop. Gay rights and transgender rights groups have reported a grassroots LGBT movement of supporters buying Girl Scout cookies in response to the video.

...

After an initial burst of publicity around the nearly 8-minute video featuring a teen Girl Scout wearing a Girl Scout sash, the video has been made private on YouTube. However, it's still available for viewing elsewhere on the Internet.

"I ask all fellow Girl Scouts who want a true, all-girl experience not to sell any Girl Scouts cookies until GSUSA (Girl Scouts of the USA) addresses our concerns," says the girl, identified as a teen named Taylor, a troop member from California, in some news reports. "I ask all parents who want their girls to be in a safe environment to tell their leaders why you will not allow your girls to make any more money for GSUSA."

The video was prompted by the case of Bobby Montoya, whose mother told a CNN affiliate in October that a troop leader initially told her that Bobby couldn't join the troop because Bobby "has boy parts," even though her child identifies as a girl.

The Girl Scouts of Colorado blamed the initial decision to exclude the child on ignorance of the scouts' policy. The state scouts said Bobby was welcome to join Girl Scouts. "If a child identifies as a girl and the child's family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout," said the Colorado Girl Scouts, in a statement to a CNN affiliate.

I bought extra boxes. To be supportive and all, of course. Glad to do my part, she said, her mouth full...

And I made sure to tell the nice middle-class, bright-eyed, suburban Girl-Scout-troop-leader-mom WHY I was buying extra cookies this year. She looked totally stunned. This IS upstate South Carolina, after all.

Do your part! EAT EAT EAT! How often do we get to eat and feel great about it! SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY!

Read More

Your Friday Blogdonia Soap Opera

You know you've needed one.

I really, really, did not want to address this nonsense here. Really. But when people write entire posts about me, calling me out for my transgressions, well, whatcha gonna do.

What is really funny is that I responded. Like, 12 times, and I was moderated. And they keep asking questions. I answer...incredibly long-ass, intricate replies, and the answer is moderated.

No other choice, but to come here and settle it. (sigh) Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days in Feminist Blogdonia.

~*~

The brawl, we see, starts here and here. (Trigger warning, transphobia)

Background: The so-called radical feminist blog AROOO, aka "A Room of Our Own" (I say "so-called" because they always seemed rather ignorant of Second Wave feminist history, all while claiming it as their own), has a history of extremely nasty transphobia. I was banned from the blog after I objected to (trigger warning, viciousness and bullying) a post in which they (seriously) posted a photo of what they claimed was the genitalia (!) of a trans woman, and made fun of how weird it looks. To me, this was over the top, even more over the top than usual. As regular readers know, I react strongly to making fun of people's appearance, for whatever reason.

I also found it pornographic and deranged, but that's probably quibbling.

Margaret Jamison, the (apparently former) blogger in charge of AROOO, seemed to become more and more obsessed with trans women over time. There was less and less posting about feminism and racism (subjects she was keenly insightful about) and more and more hate speech directed at "tyrannies" (her word for "tranny") that she claimed sent her all manner of threats. This posting-genitalia nervous-breakdown was virtually inevitable. I had believed the general hate speech and turning trans women's attempted-replies into monkey-photos was bad enough, but the genitalia-photo, to me, was the real turning point. I objected, was banned in due course, and went away.

The End. (Or possibly one of those American International horror movies from the 60s: The End?)

Nah, you gotta be kiddin.

Joan Kelly, whom I love, recently met Margaret Jamison in the flesh and became unaccountably besotted with her wonderfulness. Perhaps Margaret is utterly fabulous in person, despite her increasing obsession with trans women, accompanying hate speech and photos of monkeys and genitals, I don't know. I suppose it's possible.

And rather suddenly, Joan has started running all kinds of anti-trans nastiness on her blog (see links above), when she did not used to hold this position. I assume it's to impress Margaret or in solidarity with Margaret, something like that. Unfortunately, these posts are becoming as embarrassingly obsessive and frequent as Margaret's posting at AROOO, which by the way, has ended. Now her co-blogger, Kitty Glendower, has taken over, posting about movies. (?) Huh? What the hell happened?

What happened is that some of Margaret's wack-ass transphobe "friends" (gotta watch those hater-friends, they tend not to be such stable personalities) turned against her (nah, say it isn't so) and posted her private business on the net. I haven't seen any of this private business, but I am assured it exists. (Paranoia will destroya) In fact, I have not seen much discussion AT ALL about Margaret, frankly, except for what I linked above by Suzan Cooke, which is from almost a YEAR AND A HALF AGO (and that tells you how long Margaret has been fulminating non-stop over the evilll trans people, Jesus H Christ).

In one of my offhand snipes in one of the many unpublished posts to the many rants Joan has published over the last few days (including threats to hunt down and shoot whoever outed her dear Margaret... I TOLD you it was bad, people), I mentioned something I've known about Margaret for a long time: the elite school she attended. As regular DEAD AIR readers know, I never forget stuff like that, and if you are going to get all self-righteous with me about 'oppression' -- you'd better not have a major privilege like that stashed away somewhere, or Daisy will drag it out of your privilege-closet and wave it right in your fucking face. Which I did.

And in so doing, I caused Joan and Margaret and the whole Hee Haw gang to have apoplexy. That is PRIVATE INFO!!!! WHO OUTED MARGIE AS A RICH KID!!!???!!! Heads will roll, baby.

Another blog informs me that this so-called "private" info was posted right on Margaret's Facebook page, so I think this is just another excuse to clutch one's pearls, squeal and holler, that the evilll trannies are at it again. I don't remember where I read it, but it didn't seem private... actually, I think Margaret was bragging about it herself when I first read it. (NOTE: people who went to rich, important schools can usually NEVER keep this to themselves for long.)

Anyway (cut to the chase; I am SO SORRY it takes awhile for soap-opera catch-up!), I stand accused of being a racist for comparing the use of the n-word to the use of anti-trans insults (see first link above). I was read the riot act, probably by someone who lives in an all-white neighborhood and never once helped beat up a klansman. Figures.

And I replied, for what, the 12th time? One part of my comment was allowed, the rest was edited. I told Joan, I would print it here if she censored me again. It is really unconscionable to call people out for racism and then not allow them to reply WITHOUT CENSORSHIP to your accusations. I am a lifelong activist who takes such accusations very seriously, not some dilettante who throws words and posts around recklessly. So, here is my complete, unedited reply, which Joan would not publish:



I should be very clear about one thing.

I do think racism and transphobia are analogous. You betcha. Amen. I believe is transphobia/racism are horrific, mindless, oppressive, repressive, evil hatreds of whole groups of people around the world, throughout history, that the haters have NOT EVEN MET. (That’s the part that I find so bizarre and even psychotic.) I grew up with this mindless, obsessive hatred of entire groups of people… and in my piece about my father, I made the analogy between racism and transphobia; I’ve done it before. This isn’t new.

http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2008/09/brute-heart-of-brute-like-you.html

My point was badly made, n-word and ‘transgendered males’–I should not have compared these words, but the hatred they represent. This is what I meant to say, which I only now realize. (my real excuse: exhaustion, lack of education, no time to read over what I type in a hurry, which is almost everything these days. As I have said over and over, I do not have internet access to blogs, email, etc at work.)

A crucial aspect of hating people you have never met, is letting them know, so they will stay away from you. Haters proudly announce hate, by using insulting terms that will hurt. Example: N-word, misgendering. I think the intent to insult is the same. The. Same. And of course, the overall hatred and obsession is VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL in advanced cases like my father and Margie and m_Andrea. And that is what I meant to say, or should have said.

This is what I find analogous, the intent that would cause anyone to say these words after being nicely asked to stop. Words that have prefaced lynching, rape, murder, and thus, deliberately push buttons. NO, by God, you will not spare their feelings.

Neither would my dad, in fact, like Margie, it just made him worse.

Hate is hate and I will never countenance it. Sorry, Joan. But this is what you are trafficking in.

Now, if you cannot post this, as I suspect you can’t, please do your readers the courtesy of letting them know I have responded and delivered the sought-after mea-culpa.

I really hate the ‘putting words in my mouth’ and (I feel you have) incorrectly paraphrased me in this post and find it a hostile act. You can make this up to me by printing this comment. (I guess that will happen after the second Tuesday after the third Wednesday hell freezes over, yeah?)

But you asked, and you got.

~*~

Comments welcome, but rudeness and anti-trans bigotry will get the trap door, as well as a dose of redneck justice, which makes Margaret's [rich school] games, look like a tea party. Be advised, boyz and girlz.

Read More

Odds and Sods: Old St Charles sing edition

Image at left is courtesy of YELLOWDOG GRANNY, thanks Jackie Sue... you always sum up my thoughts! :D



This installment of ODDS AND SODS starts with a major TRIGGER WARNING, as they say. Warning, this thread descends into some very disturbing transphobic nastiness, but that's my whole reason for recommending it. It's pretty educational; I think the "radical feminists" who have colonized that thread illustrate one of the biggest problems with Second Wave radical feminism: Mean Girls.

And yeah, I knew a few in my time.

There was something about Second Wave feminist theory that easily lent itself to weird 'female superiority' arguments (in many instances, not just concerning transgender politics). Note their roaring silence on the subject of F to M transgender people: trans men don't fit their little just-so story, so they don't seem to piss them off as much. It's a very strange victim-chic thing. There is only so much victimization to go around, and the trans women are trying to horn in on OURS, which is COPYRIGHTED. At least, that's how several of the most pedestrian comments sound (yes, looking at you Delphyne!)... it's funny in the way that white supremacist websites are funny: not funny haha, funny sad.

The argument that trans people "uphold the gender binary" is bizarre, since I don't know anyone who doesn't. (The fact that we are forced to CHOOSE A SIDE, in fact, is the whole point, isn't it?) Why do these anti-trans feminists think they do not ALSO "uphold the gender binary"? Because they do. I do, you do, everyone does: If someone looks at you and calls you he or she on sight, well, you've passed the gender-test and you ALSO uphold the gender binary. IS there anyone on earth who does not uphold the gender binary? Where IS this magical omnigendered person? (Glen or Glenda?)

The question is then: Why are you holding trans people to a standard you are not holding everyone to? Why are they expected to "opt out" of a system you have not (and can not) opt out of?

PS: If you've had enough of reading that sort of thing, I can certainly relate. Warning, warning, warning, once again, highly offensive, reactionary victim-chic at the link.

~*~

I have not written about the political upheaval in Egypt, since I am ignorant of specifics and haven't had the time to delve properly into the subject. Thus, I share what smarter people have written:

Mubarak departs – what next? (A Scottish Liberal)

Mubarak Finally Listens – “Let My People Go!” (FireDogLake)

Katrina Vanden Heuvel: Neocons Have a Hard Time With Democracies That Emerge From Within a Country (Crooks and Liars)

~*~

:: A picture is worth a thousand words! You gotta see this: A Children’s Treasury of CPAC Stupidity: the Final Chapter Subtitled: TRINKETS OF THE DEATH OF AMERICAN CIVILIZATION... I promise you will love it!

:: On a more wonky note, Ezra Klein explains things carefully, in this post titled Do Republicans really oppose making health-care insurance cheaper? Yes, I've wondered that, too. Excerpt:

[The] short version is this: If you make health-care insurance cheaper and make it harder for insurance companies to deny people coverage, then a certain number of people who would like to leave the labor force but can't afford or access health-care insurance without their job will stop working.

To understand why, imagine a 62-year-old woman who works for IBM and beat breast cancer 10 years ago. She wants to retire. She has the money to retire. But no one will sell her health care under the status quo. Under the health-reform law, she can buy health care in an exchange because insurers can't turn her away due to her history of breast cancer. So she'll retire. Or imagine a 50-year-old single mother who wants to home-school her developmentally disabled child but can't quit her job because they'll lose health care. The subsidies and the protections in the Affordable Care Act will give her the option to stop working for awhile, while under the old system she'd need to stick with her job to keep her family's health-care coverage. That's how health-care reform can reduce the labor supply. If either case counts as a destroyed job, then so does my winning the lottery and moving to Scotland in search of the perfect glass of whiskey.

:: By way of Onyx Lynx, I found Avedon Carol's post quite thoughtful:

But I think there's also a deeper game here, and it explains why the entire media - not just the Murdoch and Moonie media - stays so focused on the right-wing crazies. It's the circus that deflects attention from what's really going on while everyone is playing games like "Beck is crazy" and "Look - Sarah Palin!" Well, yes, they've pretty much consistently done that sort of thing for the last 20 years, but I mean going even deeper than that, to why it is so consistent - enough that even some of our best liberal, independent bloggers just can't seem to pull their eyes away sometimes. Somebody out there wants us to keep watching the clown show for an even bigger reason.

:: OPEN LEFT is shutting down. Which is not a good sign. :(

Bye yall! I'll miss you!

~*~

This week's especially merciless ear worms:

This first one contains the original language, "I don't give two fucks about you"--which was sanitized for US airplay and became the more neutral, "I don't give a damn about you"... punks were considered pretty scary and thus, properly de-fanged for stateside radio. I'd never give you a de-fanged version on DEAD AIR!

I am proud to say, I own both versions in various mixes and anthologies, or I wouldn't even know about the censorship.

The Modern World - The Jam (1977)



~*~

Trigger warning, probable suicide references (debatable ever since song recorded in 1967); Joan Didion famously started her Doors essay with this song.

Moonlight Drive - The Doors (1967)



~*~

TOO GREAT FOR WORDS, this first-class mystical acidhead music can't be beat. Question: Are they chanting "Stonehenge! Stonehenge!" at the end? I've always thought so. Not sure what St Charles had to do with Stonehenge but hey, why not?

I really love this. NOTE: Acid flashback warning for at least half of my regular readers. :P

St Charles - Jefferson Starship (1976)

Read More

Stuff I like

:: Natural Factors chewable Vitamin C. The Boysenberry makes me happiest!

:: Sounds True meditation music, especially the kundalini meditations.

:: The HP Lovecraft Tarot, which I want in the worst way, but not enough to spend $1000 for it (new), or even $350 (used). (I hope Cthulhu won't take it personally; it's never a good thing to be on his bad side.)

:: My surrogate son, South Carolina Boy, writes very personally about familial stress, shifting identities and transition: A Real Trans Person and Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.

:: Masada bagels, particularly the Everything bagel and the Cinnamon Raisin! mmmmm

:: Theraneem products, which cured my eczema. I can't recommend them highly enough, for any troublesome skin issue you might have.

:: URBAN FARM, a magazine almost as much fun as Mary Jane's Farm. (Our local equivalent is from Hendersonville, NC: Back Home.)

:: BeeWell Honey, from Pickens County, SC. Besides scrumptious wildflower honey, the best thing in Pickens County is Glassy Mountain. (NOTE: This is not to be confused with Glassy Mountain in Greenville County, which was once stunningly beautiful, but now totally ruined by rich people, golfers and enormous McMansions; Kevin Costner and Tiger Woods are frequent visitors and investors.)

:: Barbara Lynn, known as the Queen of Gulf Coast Blues and Soul.

~*~

You'll lose a good thing - Barbara Lynn (1962)

Read More