Thursday, August 21, 2008


From the Archives (11 May 2007)
After a procedural objection by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) over a protester from the group Code Pink, [House Judiciary Committee Chair (D-MI)] John Conyers had the protester removed [from yesterday’s hearing with Gonzales], telling her, “With the right attire you’re perfectly able to attend this hearing.”

What was she wearing that so displeased the gentle men of the House? Inquiring minds want to know.

My guess: a pink Code Pink T-shirt that stood out amongst the grey-suited set. And I do wonder if they would have kicked out an anti-choice guy wearing a picture of an embryo on his—because they are so often white men—white T-shirt.

Reading this news story reminded me of the time when OUT! (Oppression under Target), a direct-action group I protested with back in the day, disrupted an NEA hearing after Jesse Helms objected to taxpayers paying for homoerotic art.

Minnie Bruce Pratt was there and the guerrilla grrrls came down from NYC breathing fire and protesters lined the 14th St. sidewalks.

We were Hell-bent on getting arrested and, if memory serves—this was way back in 1990 when the world was young and we didn’t yet know that Reagan was probably telling the truth when he said he didn’t remember—the NEA's posted minimum dress code for the event was work/professional, and they only admitted members of the general public who conformed to the board’s aesthetic sensibilities.

OUT! crashed the party, even though we couldn’t wear our typical black OUT! T-shirts and ripped Levis and black Doc Martens with big silver buckles.

We also hid accordioned homoerotic art posters under our nice professional outfits, then disrupted the meeting when the committee tabled any discussion on whether or not they would continue to fund homoerotic art.

Long time passing ... and now our government has issued another dress code.

You'd think fallout from Brownie’s e-mail descriptions of his Fashion God status (that he sent while New Orleans residents drowned) would have taught us all the difference between appearances and someone actually having something useful to say about how the government runs.

Meanwhile, rumor has it that Cindy Sheehan may run for a house seat.

Sheehan is certainly an effective direct action protester—and boy did we need someone like her to stand up and state the obvious—but I wonder how effective she would be in DC.

Still, it would be refreshing to see someone on the Left who refuses to compromise and play nice.

I admire Rudy’s refusal to tow the repug party's anti-choice line (despite the fact that his “while I don’t approve myself” stance is weaselly at best) and am interesting to see how this stance affects voters.

Most Americans are pro-choice, after all, and many fiscal conservatives/social liberals are sick (just SICK, I tell ya) of having their party hijacked by the Flat Earthers. So maybe Rudy will show the conservatives that they are nuts to entertain the nuts and remind them to focus on money matters that affect ALL of our bottom lines and not just those of the big corporations.

I doubt it though.

And speaking of nuts, did anyone see US Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) on CNN, equating Rudy’s support for abortion rights with support for slavery rights?

(Add another chalk mark in the reason-impaired repug category.)

READING: CARMAX extended warranty details (never never never buy a car from this place) • Michael Roston’s “Conyers to Gonzales: No, Let’s Keep Talking about the US Attorneys” in Raw Story (5.11.2007) • David Edwards/Mike Sheehan’s “GOP Pundit Equates Giuliani Abortion Hypocracy to Slavery” (5.11.2007), online here • a boring article on fiscal responsibility

LISTENING TO: Nina Simone’s cover of ”Strange Fruit”

BEST-OF SPAM: Even snakes need love

No comments: