Correction on Mary Landrieu

Well..seems like I jumped the gun a bit....

Turns out that Mary Landrieu hasn't made up her mind yet on whether to support Alito's nomination, as I assumed earlier...indeed, most recent reports say that she is leaning towards opposing his nomination. She is definitely on line as saying, though, that she will NOT support or participate in any planned filibuster against his nomination.

That is a marginal improvement on her behalf...and it does raise her status a little bit in my eyes...but st doesn't change one iota my views towards the Democratic Party as a whole as spineless bastards who sell out their progressive base for the quick corporate buck and pander incessantly to the Far Right whenever to their advantage.

And the recent annoncement that Robert Byrd (WV) is supporting Stripsearch Sammy's confirmation is raising a few eyebrows..especially since Byrd was kinda like the Left/liberal press's hero for his fulimations against the Iraqi War. I guess that right-wing populism will never fade out of style..or perhaps the KKK still has a few leftover strings in his pocket.

Let's see the dishonor roll of Dems for Alito once again: Ben Nelson (NE); Conrad (ND); Byrd (WV)

(And lets not forget Dem candidate Casey (PE), too.)

I'm predicting a 61-39 vote for confirmation on Monday, with Lieberman (CT), Pryor (AR); and one more conservative Democrat from the South defecting with the trio above, and unaminous Republican support.

The day after, I expect to see some of the more liberal Democrats burrn their cards and defect to the Green Party..if they really care about their politics and issues, that is.

But, we shall se what we shall se....

Goodbye, Democrats: An Open Letter to Sen. Mary Landrieu

I recently posted this missive to my diary at My Left Wing; depending on webmistress Maryscott O'Connor's generousity, it may show up in the main page; nevertheless, it reflects my feelings on the tribualtions of the Alito circus, the role and craven surrender (as ussual) of the Democrats and my support for a real Left alternative. You may feel free to agree or disagree, as long as you take some kind of stand.




Goodbye, Democratic Party....It's Been Real....NOT!!!! An Open Letter to Sen. Mary Landrieu

by: Anthony_JKenn
January 26, 2006 at 13:39:13 America/Chicago

------------------------------

First, a bit of background into what counts for Louisiana politics, as a preface for my outrage today:

In 1986, when I was a sophomore at Southern University and still a committed Democrat, I attended a debate of the Democratic candidiates for the then 8th Congressional District. Three of the debators were typical white conservative Democrats of the Louisiana/Southern mold, but in different variants. Morgan Goudeau, at that time the District Attorney for my home parish of St. Landry, emphasized a law-and-order/anti-abortion/Christian Rightist stance; Carson Killian (who served as an aide to the then outgoing Congressman. Gillis Long) stressed his neoliberal log=rolling and his insider connections; and state legislator J. E. Jumonville focused on his Edwin Edwards-like pseudo-populism while attacking "Washington policies" while managing to say nothing of substance.

The fourth candidate, a public defender lawyer named E. Faye Williams, happened to be a Black female who professed the most progressive analysis of all of them...and in a district that was nearly 35% Black, that was good enough to get her into the runoff against Clyde Holloway, a far-right Reaganite Republican mostly known for defending segregation. (Needless to say. Holloway found a way to avoid this particular debate, although he did opine that in his opinion, Reagan had done a lot for "the blacks".) In the debate, the other Democrats were waxing more than eloquent about how they would unify and support whomever Democrat would make the runoff. Although Louisiana uses an open nonpartisan dual runoff system for their elections; the dynamics of the district guaranteed that Holloway and a Dem would make the runoff.) Wiliams's entry basically made it certain that with enough Black turnout, she would be the Democrat.

Well, to make a long story short, Faye Williams did make the runnoff against Holloway; and then promptly got smeared by the very same Democrats which professed to support her so well. She was labeled as a literal PLO terrorist, a baby-killer, and a out-and-out lesbian radical feminist by the head financier of the state Democratic Party committee; she was refused any form of financial aid by the usual bankrollers of Dems; and in the final days of theh campaign, some nasty rumors that she had a "Communist for a lover" were spread in the grapevine. (Turned out, the real story was that she had been assaulted by her then estranged husband, who had apparantly caught her dating another man, who was an antiwar activist. The man was attacked and killed, Williams was merely beaten.)

In any case, because of such antics, Holloway was elected to the Congressional seat by a tiny majority (in a district that was mostly 70% Democratic); he went on to serve another term before the district was ultimately dissolved in reapprochment. And because mostly of that election -- and other outrages of conservative Democrats using mostly Black voters as cannon fodder -- I left the Democratic Party soon after and declared myself an Independent. Basically, I decided that if the party in opposition is going to use my vote for them to oppose my basic beliefs, and constantly surrender to the Right while stating how evil they are, then maybe it was time for a change.

--------------------------

Since those times, I have remained an Independent Leftist both in party affiliation (though I recently changed again to the Green Party) and in political temperment; though, I did still manage a glimmer of hope that somehow the Democrats would give me something -- some hope, some policies, even some rhetoric...ANYTHING -- to allow me to justfy voting for them again. Even though I basically had nothing but disgust for the DLC-led, "Great Triangulator", campaign to everyone but govern center-right administration of Bill clinton and their fundamental sellout of progressive values, I still remained hopeful that principled liberals within the Democratic Party could ultimately take back control and reroute the jackasses towards common sense. And even though I was basically underwhelmed by the campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry as basically "centrist" posers using progressives to sell a basically "me-too" agenda, I still had at least some faith that the putrid reaction of the Bu$h-Co/PNAC/Religious Reich/Grand Old Pilfers administration would transform Democrats to support at least a smidgen of a progressive agenda..if only to say that they understand their base.

Well..I feel that no longer...and I have my own "senior" Senator. Mary Landrieu, to thank for shaking some sense back into me.

When Mrs. Landrieu announced yesterday that she would be voting in favor of "Stripsearch Sammy" Alito's confirmation to the U.S, Supreme Court (joining Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Kent Conrad (SD) as Democratic quislings so far), she basically justified and proved a point that has been crawling under my skin for years: the Democratic Party is NOT, has NEVER BEEN, and WILL NOT EVER BE, given the present political setup, the most effective vehicle for progressive change. After all, if the party has no willingness to discipline Democrats who repeatedly cross the aisle to support right-wing agendas, why should we be surprised when on the most fundamental issues like protection of civil rights and civil liberties or reproductive freedom or Presidential checks and balances, they wilt like maple leaves in fall at the first sign of Republican opposition??

Thusly, I write this memo to Sen. Landrieu:

Hey, Mary...you do realize that it was mostly LIBERAL/LEFT voters (you know, Black folks and women) who put your sorry ass in the Senate seat to begin with, do you??? (The same alliance, BTW, which gave you your rise to political power in the New Orleans area via your father Moon Landrieu, in case you missed it.) You do know that those votes weren't just because we hated your opponents (Religious Reich nutjob/David Duke sympatizer Woody Jenkins in your first campaign, willful Repub henchwoman Suzanne Haik-Terrell in your latest), but because we EXPECTED you to actually support OUR interests and basic policies, do you?? And you do know that the judge that you will be voting for to confirmation on the SCOTUS is one that will mostly repudiate everything that you as a nominal Democrat stands for....do you, Mary??? That he and his allies Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts will effectively attempt to rewrite the Constitution to their lovely protofascist agenda...which would include the total banishment of women like you from political representation??? Or, like your protege John Breaux (of the "You can't buy me, but you can rent me" school of reform), would you have supported Scalia and Thomas, too??

And what a kick in the groin to those of us who saw you with those tears of a crocodile after the clusterf*ck that was the (mis) reaction to Hurricane Katrina's assault on the poor, Black neighborhoods of New Orleans. Wasn't it you, Senator,who got on Meet the Press the weekend after the storm hit and the levees were breached crying about how "one little crane" invested by the FEMA Mafia would have helped alleviate the disaster?? Or how perhaps spending even a portion of the money going to Haliburton's wars on Arabs..errrrrr, the War on Terror...could have been spent on something like...well, actually building up the levees or organizing an evacuation of the city??? But I guess all that smack at Dubya was just that..useless smack for public comsumption to hide the fact that you basically support much of the Bush agenda in full....just with a smiley face and a "humanist patina" attached instead of a Homeland Security hammer and a Bible.

In any case, Senator Landrieu, I will hearby annouce that in the absence of a genuine progressive challenger to your faux-Republican rule. I will be voting Green or somewhere else next election. If I want to be played for a fool, at the very least I should expect the playa to actually respect my interests.

I would conclude this by calling you a corporate whore, Senator Landrieu..but as a sex radical who supports decriminalization of prostitution and other forms of consensual sex work, I consider you to be far, far worse than a whore, and far more obscene than any pornographer. At least they get some great sex out of their deals...when it comes to the Democratic Party and its treatment of progressives and their mass base, all we get is screwed and raped. Have a nice remainder of your term, Senator...hopefully you will gain as much as progressives have lost by your craven surrender.

In the meantime, unless the person's name happens to be Cynthia McKiinney, John Conyers, or Barbara Lee; if they have a (D) next to their name, i will simply respond with my own "D"...for "DENIED". I'm through with lesser evils..for once, I'll save my time and money for supporting a Left/Progressive movement that does some actual good.

Farewell, Democrats...forever. I'm out..in more ways than one.

Quick Hit Link: Darklady Whacks The Pornbusters

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sex-Positive Feminism 101 -- The Basic Myths Debunked (or...The Ultimate Bitch Slap)

I guess that I'd better kick this bad girl off (figuratively speaking, of course) with some basics.

Having been well versed in the worldview of the Left for much of my lifetime -- having gone from traditional liberal Democrat to damn near Marxist to my presentINdependent Libertarian Socialist beliefs in the span of 20 years time, I've seen quite a few sectarian battles in my day....and a lot of them dealing with the issue of sexuality and what should be the Left's general attitude towards sexual expression.

Being just as much a proponent of sexual liberation and the basic right of sexual self-determination and free sexual expression amongst consensual adults, as well as a sometime consumer of explicit sexual material and media, I've also seen how explosive the issues of sexuality and feminism can be when they clash with some variants of classical feminism, which puts the sexual exploitation of women by the "patriarchy" as the fundamental root of all oppression of all women.

Now, I tend to agree in major part with both beliefs: I support the full agenda of sexual liberation and free sexual expression, as well as the total decriminalization of the free consumption of sex work media such as pornography and prostitution (mostly because I believe that open and fully legal sex trading can be regulated to insure both safer work conditions and better experiences for both the workers and their clients. Yet, I also strongly believe just as strongly and passionately in the fundamental program of women's equality, including the right of women to make free and informed personal decisions about their own bodies without censure and without harm, and with the full respect for the concerns and feelings of others. I would think that the two were totally compatable, and went hand-in-hand with each other, and that sexual liberation is perfectly consistent with feminism and Leftist advocacy.

I would think that, and still do...unfortunately, there are certain elements on the fringes of the Left in general and feminism in particular who really do have a BIG problem with overtly (or even casually) sexual women calling themselves feminists and Leftists; or anyone even defending the right to free sexual choice. And these days, they seem to be making a hell of a lot of ground and inroads on progressive political opinion...with the usual results.

The pet peeve du joir of today is the relationship of those of us who call ourselves "sex-positive feminists" or "pro-sex feminists" (actually, I prefer the term "sex radical") to the overall Left/feminist movement....and the ongoing attempts by a group of antipornography feminists using the language of the Left to isolate, marginalize, and basically wipe us off the face of the earth.

(I use the first person "us" in this,. BTW, because I make no apologies and no illusions about placing myself in the "pro-sex" Leftist side; my mentors growing up were people like Wilhelm Reich (his more eccentric theories about "orgone theory" and sexual repression being the center of all oppression aside), Emma Goldman, Victoria Woodhull in the early era; to present day sex-poz (and quite sexy) thinkers like Susie Bright, Dr. Betty Dodson, Dr. Carol Queen, Dr. Susan Block, and my own special Goddess, Nina Hartley, who originally turned me to the basics that one can be a Lefitst and a feminist and still be unambiguously pro-sex, pro-lust, pro-choice, and pro-equality..and work to create a more sensual erotic medium.)

Ever since our President-Select decided to reward his Religious Right base with another Meese Commission-type juhad against sexual expression not fitting the standards of reproductive procreative marriage, there has been sort of a countervailing revival of the type of antipornography feminist activism made famous by the duo icons of (now deceased) writer/essayist Andrea Dworkin and her partner in sexual fascism Professor Catherine MacKinnon (still alive and essaying). It was this duo that drafted the original proposal to declare sexually explicit material a violation of civil rights for women due to its allegedly harmful effects on women; and to use lawsuits and peer pressure to wipe out any form of sexual expression deemed harmful or "degrading" to women.

The most benelovent variant of this theory states that by expressing "male sexual control" of women through appealing to their base fantasies about pleasure, porn, prostitution, and so called "pro-sex" advocacy directly contribute to a climate of male sexual domination of women and a repression of an essentially natural female sexuality which apparantly is...well, not male-dominated. The worse variants actually remove even that pretense of subtleness: Men who masturbate ot images of women having sex and loving it are prima facie oppressors of women who only wish to use and rape them for their own selfish and deadly pleasure..and any woman who even tolerates them is a traitor to feminism, if not all womanhood, and should be immediately run out of the "sisterhood". And of course, any progressive man who questions antiporn theory for its parallels with traditional conservative restrictions and its tactical alliances with the Far Right is immediately dubbed a "right-wing libertarian" who masturbates and ejaculates on the bodies of dead women and children; or an enabler of rape and murder.

In the course of promoting these views, the more extreme and loudest of the antiporn "left" feminists tend to bestow the worst stereotypes upon advocates of "sex-positive" feminism...basically, they are either White elitists who use off "people of color" for their own selfish pleasure, or posers who inject evil" male values" into the women's movement. The ideal world for these "cultural feminists" is one where essential "female values" -- including some restrictive ideas about sex -- become the norm which overwhelms the evil patriarchy.

When these "feminists" inject their vitriol into the overall debate on sexuality amongst feminists, the results can be explosive...and ultimately divisive.

Such is now the case with a debate that is now swirling and flaming over at my colleague Bitch Lab's blog today over a series of posts that the hostess (who is a serious feminist/Leftist who is generally "pro-sex" with some qualifications) entered about the myths and misconceptions that were being spread over exactly what "sex-positive feminism" really means....and doesn't.

Here's a brilliant excerpt from Ms. Bitch's first entry:

Seriously. I’d just like to have some examples. As much as I criticize Biting Beaver, I do not get the idea that she doesn’t like sex or that she thinks women naturally have a low sex-drive. Radical cultural feminists hardly seem to me to be interested in claiming that women have low sex drives. Andrea Dworkin clearly gets passion and sexuality.

Similarly, I do not get the idea from Lusty Lady or Thagmano or Susie Bright or Annalee Newitz that all they are are interested in having sex constantly. As much as they’d like? Sure.

(Ok. I take that back, I can picture Annalee wanting to have an orgasm contest, as long as she was with a a voluptuous, blonde lap dancer.)

But that’s all they’re about? I don’t get that sense at all. These are all fascinating women who have all kinds of things going on in their lives: work, knitting, baking pies, music, friends, drinking, writing, blogging, teaching, speaking, families, cupcakes. So, they couldn’t have sex constantly anyway, could they?

They don’t seem to hold women to any particular standard. I also don’t see how they expect that women should have “libidos like men’s.” Maybe I’m wrong. I’m sure they’ll correct me if I am. (ADD: Susie actually wrote something the other day criticizing the insistence by BigPharma that men pop viagara in order to be forever a stud-horndog.
So, while it sounds as if this post will be about both sides, it’s not really. It’s an argument against a sex positive feminism that just doesn’t exist. If it does, I saw no quote from or links to any women who exemplify this point of view (or even the other one,that of the “prude”).

Biting Beaver, incidentally, refers to a blog team of a radical lesbian feminist and a male friend who promote antiporn feminism and basically dismiss most forms of lesbianism (including girl-girl sex and public bisexuality in mainstream porn) as "male identified" and thus totally wrong. An example of their madness can be found here.

[More on this later..gotta run for a bit. Hang on..it does get better.]

:-)

Well...Here I Am!!! :-)

Considering that this is not that new a venture for me, it has been a while since I decided to create a blog to post my more intimate thoughts on issues..but hopefully I will manage an update or two a week, at least.

This blog will mostly be my rants and raves on two particular topics that are gripping my brain:

1) The total lack of respect for and misconceptions given to Leftists and feminists who support a more tolerant and open attitude about sexuality and sexual expression. You would think that the idea that adults should have the freedom to determine their own sexuality would be universal along the Left diaspora...but you'd be quite wrong. There has been a history of implicit or even explicit Puritanism among progressives that has perverted and divided progressives from time immortal; and thanks to the most recent sex panics brought forth by the Religious Right commisars who have gained power under the thumb of King George the XLIII.....errrrrrrr, I mean, President-Select George W. Bush; a new round of Left erotophobia and repression has been brewing. This blog is meant to serve as an alternative voice for those of us who call ourselves "sex-positive", and for Leftist sex radicals who believe that a more progressive and open-minded view about sexuality is essential to the revival of the Left politically and socially. (More on this in a later post.)

2) Why the Democratic Party really, really, REALLY SUCKS as a genuine progressive counter to the Right, and how to build an effective alternative movement from the ground up. Being raised in the Red Boot state of Louisiana (and BTW...a nice SmackDog boot to the ass goes to the fool who switched the color scheme and dictated that red be a right-wing color rather than the traditional color of revolt and revolution), and having been witness to the smarmy behavior of conservative Democrats in power (from "populist" Edwin Edwards to our present guv Kathleen Blanco) and the repeated spinelessness of too many liberal Democrats (with some exceptions, of course), I have come to the conclusion that the Party of the Donkey has lived past its due date as an opposition party. After all, the best they could do to battle a President at the bottom of the ratings in 2004 was to nominate a candidate (namely, John Forbes Kerry) who basically adapted most of the "War on Terra" agenda (albeit with more of a smiling face and a bit more rainbowish patina); then just sit back and watch the noise machine of the Right shred him apart with Swift Boat vets and Ann Coulter/Bill O'Reilly missives. And even that's nothing compared to what's in store if, as expected, Hillary Clinton gets the nomination in 2008, if her initial attempts to triangulate herself into a compassionate Republican in Democratic drag are to be believed. If a loyal Yellow dog Democrat like Molly Ivins is opposing your candidacy, then that says much. (More on this later, too.)

Now, these are only the present issues: I will do my best for variety sakes to mix in some not so serious issues, too.

BTW..although some adult topics will be expressed here, don't come here thinking that this is a porn blog and you can post sex spam or irrelevant links; there are other sites for that. I'm always looking for feedback and comments from anyone who views this blog; especially from any sex-rads, sex-pozzies, and progressives who would like to engage me in principled and mature discussion. It's the trolls who want to poison the well with drive-by smackdowns whom I want to avoid...though if you really, really piss me off, I may use these pages to respond in kind. (But just in case, and for your protection, I will moderate the Comments section for pre-approval.)

To paraphrase George C. Scott channeling old General "Blood and Guts" in that classic monologue in Patton::

All right, you sons-of-bitches (and bitches, and porn sluts, and other assorted radical riffraff)....you know where I stand. It is my extreme privilege to fight alongside you men and women anytime, anywhere.

And hopefully, you will come along for the ride, too.

:-)

Testing....

This is just a test of the new blog..just ignore.