1. image: Download

    hirotohk:

lol yes. 

    hirotohk:

    lol yes. 

    (Source: sissyboi)

     
  2. 17:54 4th Apr 2013

    Notes: 2798

    Reblogged from ritchandfamous

    Tags: politicsqueerpreach

    ritchandfamous:

    Heterophobia

    I’ve had a lot of comments and responses lately about my “heterophobic” remarks, so here’s kind of response to that.

    “Let us have our queer spaces, let us feel empowered—or don’t.  Because we’ll fucking do it anyway.”

     
  3. ….In 2010, I had the rare opportunity to appear on Democracy Now, a show I watch pretty much every day, to debate Lieutenant Dan Choi, a cover model for patriotic gays everywhere. On the show, he declared, with rare clarity: “War is a force that gives us meaning.”

    What, exactly, is the meaning of the U.S. obliterating Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? What is the meaning of soldiers pressing buttons in Nevada to destroy villages halfway around the world? What is the meaning of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan establishing a “kill team” in order to murder innocent civilians, pose for photographs with the dead bodies, and cut off fingers as souvenirs? The U.S. is involved in overt and covert wars all over the world, in order to plunder indigenous resources for corporate profit. And the meaning of the fight for gays in the military is that the gay establishment will do anything to become part of the status quo. But nothing could be more hypocritical than a movement centering around the right to go abroad to kill people and get away with it. If that is a “civil rights” struggle, as we are led to believe, there is a problem with civil rights.

    — Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore (via tagzeen)
     
  4. Rand Paul’s 12-hour filibuster is unlikely to go down as much more than a footnote in the sordid history of the decline-and-fall years of our busted democracy, but it reveals quite a lot about the false promise of The Republic as a bulwark against an empire. There is but one position on which all sides (read: both sides) agree: that the opposition shalt not interfere with the warmaking powers of their side when it’s in power. All the gaudy Democratic moralizing of the Bush years evaporates like a Helmand wedding party under Obama’s wrathful eye. A rough survey of twitter, the blogs, and the mainstream press found most American liberals hurling vengeful non sequiturs at the filibuster or else making fun of Paul for the hilarious fact that he had to hold his bladder for hours in order to make the point that the President has now arrogated to himself not only the right to kill anyone else in the world with no process or trial, but also to kill his own citizens. In purely moral terms that may be a meaningless procedural distinction, but we live in a world of nations, and in that sense it really does represent a leap even further beyond the pale.
    — Jacob Bacharach. Read the whole thing. (via wwnorton)
     
  5. On kids’ movies and the Death of Brad Bird (no Brad Birds actually harmed in the making of this production)

    It’s always going to be a little interesting to me that one of my favorite kids’ films (The Iron Giant) and one of my least favorite (The Incredibles) were created by the same person, Brad Bird.  Part of this is just odds, of course; for good or for ill, the Hollywood blockbuster movie industry is dominated by the writing and direction of a scarce handful of individuals in a way most media isn’t, and this is especially true of animation, where only a few studios achieve wide distribution.

    Still, it’s interesting.  I’d point to this as a good example of the Barthesian death of the author: Bird always claims that criticism of The Incredibles as right-wing is silly, because he didn’t intend anything of the sort, and that’s like saying The Iron Giant is left-wing, and he’s a centrist, after all.

    The thing is… The Iron Giant is left-wing.  Whether Brad Bird intended it to be or not.  The Incredibles is also right-wing, whether Brad Bird intended it to be or not.  Creators fail to learn time and time again that their intentions have very little substance when it comes to the meaning of the things they create; they are two standalone movies and most audiences have no idea they were the brainchild of the same person, and can’t be expected to.  They’re not even done in the same medium of animation.  In terms of impact, one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

    Though — also, they’re not contradictory films?  I love one, I hate the other, I endorse one, I vehemently disagree with the other, but they don’t really contradict each other directly.  Rightwingness and leftwingness are not unilateral blocs of opinion; they represent a rough conglomerate of philosophies that are often associated.  The Iron Giant is an anti-war anti-violence film.  The Incredibles is a pro-aristocracy film.  They’re not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Actually, a lot of pro-aristocratic narratives have endorsed pacifism or mercy or other various values that could be considered liberal; it’s just that hierarchy is so deeply embedded into cultural consciousness that the idea of ubermenschen pervades lots of things, and The Incredibles just really blatantly in love with supermen.

    Barthes’ death of the author is important.  I’m very anti-cult-of-celebrity-personality when it comes to media, period.  I don’t like being a fan of a creator, except in fun; I’m a fan of creations.  A lot of my favorite works were made by people who also made stuff I despise.  I love Watchmen; I don’t like The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen at all.  There are some eps of Steven Moffat’s I still think are well-written and clever, and overall he’s kind of an atrocious writer.  And ultimately, predictably for anyone who knows me, my biggest problem with The Incredibles isn’t that it’s right-wing (and loved by liberals anyway), it’s that it’s stupid and facile and predictable.

    It’s not satirical—satire is not a badge you just get to whap on anything intended to poke fun at something else.  Satire isn’t a catch-all that excuses everything, though Bird’s certainly tried to invoke it as such.  What’s it a satire of?  Cape length?  It’s a parody, at best.  I like a lot of narratives that endorse things I hate: The Lord of the Rings is totally monarchist, for instance.  I still like the early Harry Potter books, but they were always very creepy and Calvinist.  Narrative is complicated.  I just loathe “but Brad Bird also did The Iron Giant, haha!” as a gotcha; so?

     
  6. 16:16 12th Oct 2012

    Notes: 41932

    Reblogged from iamthespacecadet

    Tags: politics

    moderatenotes:

    The strategy of staring longingly at your opponent is making me uncomfortable.

     
  7. 13:13 28th Sep 2012

    Notes: 38823

    Reblogged from wanderingsong

    Tags: politicswhat a snob!

    caffeinatedfeminist:

    str8nochaser:

    bilt2tumble:

    kazecat:

    XD

    Yep.

    he was the least ridiculous. and he’s pretty fucking ridiclous

    Mitt Romney was the least fucking ridiculous person the Republican Party could offer for this election.

    Let that sink in.

    (Source: drunkonstephen)

     
  8. image: Download

    recursivefaceplant:

motherjones:

bostonreview:

Via Benjamin Dictor

Zing.

Still gonna vote for him anyway.

Err, can we not use the specter of the Republicans to dismiss people’s issues with the Obama administration’s warhawk policies?  I’m not sure #shrug is an adequate reaction to something pointing out the needless murders of civilians abroad that most Americans (liberal and conservative) turn a blind eye to.I mean, I really don’t think that Mother Jones is suggesting we vote for Romney here. 

    recursivefaceplant:

    motherjones:

    bostonreview:

    Via Benjamin Dictor

    Zing.

    Still gonna vote for him anyway.

    Err, can we not use the specter of the Republicans to dismiss people’s issues with the Obama administration’s warhawk policies?  I’m not sure #shrug is an adequate reaction to something pointing out the needless murders of civilians abroad that most Americans (liberal and conservative) turn a blind eye to.

    I mean, I really don’t think that Mother Jones is suggesting we vote for Romney here. 

     
  9. image: Download

    harpermd:

standardreview:

thenewrepublic:

What would William F. Buckley think of the GOP of today?
“Buckley felt that outlandish stances discredited conservatism by making it seem “ridiculous and pathological,” as he wrote to a supporter who had criticized his editorial. They allowed the media to tar all conservatives as extremists, and turned off young people. He insisted that conservatism had to expand “by bringing into our ranks those people who are, at the moment, on our immediate left—the moderate, wishy-washy conservatives” who comprised the majority of the Republican Party. “If they think they are being asked to join a movement whose leadership believes the drivel of Robert Welch,” he warned, “they will pass by crackpot alley, and will not pause until they feel the embrace of those way over on the other side, the Liberals.” Buckley consistently maintained that conservatism was the “politics of reality.””
- Geoffrey Kabaservice “What William F. Buckley Would Think of Today’s GOP”
Photo courtesy of the Atlantic

“The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.” - William F. Buckley
I kind of love when conservatives look to Conservatives Of History to make fun of modern conservatives, because conservatives have always been terrible, actually.

But that’s kind of the Conservative modus operandi isn’t it? The past is always better than the present, and the future should be an attempt to return to whatever traditional value society has abandoned.

    harpermd:

    standardreview:

    thenewrepublic:

    What would William F. Buckley think of the GOP of today?

    “Buckley felt that outlandish stances discredited conservatism by making it seem “ridiculous and pathological,” as he wrote to a supporter who had criticized his editorial. They allowed the media to tar all conservatives as extremists, and turned off young people. He insisted that conservatism had to expand “by bringing into our ranks those people who are, at the moment, on our immediate left—the moderate, wishy-washy conservatives” who comprised the majority of the Republican Party. “If they think they are being asked to join a movement whose leadership believes the drivel of Robert Welch,” he warned, “they will pass by crackpot alley, and will not pause until they feel the embrace of those way over on the other side, the Liberals.” Buckley consistently maintained that conservatism was the “politics of reality.””

    - Geoffrey Kabaservice “What William F. Buckley Would Think of Today’s GOP

    Photo courtesy of the Atlantic

    The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.” - William F. Buckley

    I kind of love when conservatives look to Conservatives Of History to make fun of modern conservatives, because conservatives have always been terrible, actually.

    But that’s kind of the Conservative modus operandi isn’t it? The past is always better than the present, and the future should be an attempt to return to whatever traditional value society has abandoned.

     
  10. 23:26 6th Jan 2012

    Notes: 151

    Reblogged from amaronith

    Tags: politicstruth

    roxanneritchi:

    I like that all the Republican presidential candidates this go around are cartoon villains. Not even supervillains. Just villains. Like, Rick Santorum’s taunting Inspector Gadget and Rick Perry is chasing Scooby Doo around and Michelle Bachmann is pouring oil into the ocean while the Planeteers combine their powers. 

    If any of them actually get into office I figure, yeah, we’ve moved up to SuperFriends territory.

    (Source: formerlyroxy)