* Happy birthday, "post-racial America"! Writing in the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker does not see race. In response to criticism that calling Barack Obama the first woman president was (among other things) racist, Parker pens a column explaining that she can't write racist things, because she is white, and white people have the luxury of not being racist, like black people are:

But I also recognize that my life experience is different from that of most African Americans. And that experience allows me both the luxury of seeing people without the lens of race, but also (sometimes) to fail to imagine how people of other backgrounds might interpret my words.

She also has trouble seeing Obama as "exclusively black" because she has learned that she and the President are eighth cousins once removed—a genealogical "nugget" she had previously intended to write an entire column about.  That detail alone strikes me as a fireable offense.

* Via Figleaf: Holly at The Pervocracy on the douchebaggery behind calling women "females":

I hate it when people call women "females." I have one friend who does it because she was in the military and it was standard practice there, and occasionally I'll say it when I specifically mean biological females rather than women, but 98% of the time it's douchebaggery. Rule of thumb: if you say "females and males" it's okay, but if you say "females and guys/men," you're probably a douchebag.

* Virginia resident Andrea examines U.S. immigration laws through the lens of her attempts to get her British fiancee a visa. In short, they have it easy, and they still don't have it easy:

One of the things I hear a lot in any discussion of people who come here illegally is some permutation of “Well why don’t they just do it legally?” If they know that I’m currently going through the immigration process with my fiance, people will often ask “Doesn’t it make you mad that you’re going to all this trouble and people are just coming over here illegally?” The answers to these questions are, in reverse order, “No, I am thankful that we are able to do it legally fairly easily” and “Wow, you have never dealt with immigration, have you?”

* In Newsweek, Julia Baird tells us to "stop ogling Republican women":

It’s odd to see how some men insist that when women start to grasp power, we should think of them primarily as playthings and provocateurs. Is this the best way to explain their success? They aren’t challenging the status quo. They’re being wild! They’re not trying to lift the ban on offshore drilling. They’re being naughty! When four women beat a field of men on the same night recently, competing for primary and gubernatorial nominations, it was widely referred to as “ladies’ night.” Aren’t ladies’ nights those promotions where women are allowed free entry into bars to provide fodder for the men?

* Scarleteen continues its "queering sexuality in color" series, this time with Dharshi, a 25-year-old South Asian lesbian:

The problem is that the queer community where I live is predominantly white, and tend not have familiarity with issues such as my marriage predicament. Sometimes I do feel pressure from the queer community to come out, as if that will be the solution to all of my problems. I do have some wonderful white gay and lesbian friends though who make an effort to listen and understand. One woman in particular is my mother's age and her advice and sharing of her life experience has really helped me through the hard times. Also when I watch her with her partner and her kids, I feel optimistic that maybe that kind of future is also possible for me. I love meeting other queer people of colour, particularly from the South Asian community, but I don't often get this opportunity.

Photo via Beverley & Pack, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

This time around, let's flip the script to examine what other terrible, no good, very bad things are just like rape. Like health care! The health-care-is-rape argument comes courtesy of WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian. In a piece entitled "Barack Obama and the date-rape of America," he writes:

Good Americans from sea to shining sea are grappling right now with how to mentally process what they're witnessing in Washington, D.C.

The spectacle of a far leftist president literally forcing socialized medicine down the throat of an unwilling center-right America is reminiscent, perhaps more than any other contemporary metaphor, of date rape.

A man determined to have his way with a woman may start off seducing her with lies, flattery and the usual pretense of caring about her. But at a critical moment, when she says, "Stop, I'm not comfortable with this and don't want to go any further," he has a choice: Either do the right thing and back off, or abandon all prior pretensions and take her by force.

As president, Barack Obama courted us with sweet talk, but America grew increasingly uncomfortable with his advances and firmly said, "Stop"—in fact, screamed bloody murder for months. Yet Obama remains obsessed with forcing himself on America.

Kupelian goes on to explain how Obama, much like your undetected date rapist, appears to be an otherwise great guy, until he unsuspectingly rapes America:

How can an apparently decent man like Barack Obama—who undoubtedly loves his daughters and probably reads them bedtime stories, has a good sense of humor, and is highly intelligent and likeable—justify lying and deceiving all the time, pretending to care about Republican input, about transparency, about controlling costs, and so on? Further, how can he justify using such dishonest means to force his will on an unwilling American public? In other words, how can he countenance, in effect, date-raping America?

. . . and how, just like in many date rape scenarios, alcohol is involved:

What we need to understand is that, between his hate-based ideology (Winston Churchill called socialism the "gospel of envy"), extreme narcissism and long-internalized political corruption, Obama and others like him, literally drunk on power, live essentially in a state of delusion: Down is up, truth is cruel and impractical, corruption is just "conducting business," morality is repression, lying is a creative force.

But Kupelian's analogy falls apart when he presents date rape as something that Republicans should actually give a shit about, because for the most part, they really, really don't. If you Google "Republicans date rape," you'll get a lot of hits about Republicans reiterating the idea that bipartisanship amounts to date rape. And Rush Limbaugh equating date rape to extramarital affairs. And Republican Senators refusing to support the right of rape victims to sue their employers. And joking that date rape is like being robbed of expensive jewelry by a beautiful and mysterious woman. Double rape analogy bonus!

Isn't it strange how Republicans seem to only invoke the problem of date rape when they need to use it as a rhetorical tool to transfer sympathy away from real victims of rape and onto themselves? And isn't it odd that when presented with legislation meant to aid real victims of rape, the party refuses to support it? The fact is, Kupelian and his party are far more likely to direct their righteous indignation at people who want everyone to have access to medical care than they are to condemn rapists for raping. So if Kupelian wants us to truly understand how terrible Obama's pursuit of health care is for Republicans, perhaps he should draw comparisons to something that Republicans actually detest. He should also refrain from misusing the term "literally." Twice.

Thankfully for Kupelian, the piece floats several alternate analogies through which Republicans may illustrate their strife. According to Kupelian, Barack Obama is Captain Ahab, and Obamacare is Moby Dick; Barack Obama is a dictator, and America is Zimbabwe; Republicans are "German undercover operatives in the Nazi army plotting to kill Hitler," and Obama is . . . Hitler, presumably.

Did ya'll watch C-SPAN last night? The Republican strategy of frantically burying their racist and classist rhetoric under a protective shield of faux concern for unborn babies was in full, glorious display. Between the white dudes arguing that socialist health care reform will "enslave" the American people (inside) and the white dudes chanting racial epithets at black representatives (outside), I managed to catch this gem from Republican Indiana Rep. Mike Pence (above), who argued that supporting health care amounts to signing a devil's deal with Barack Obama, "the most pro-abortion president in American history."

Because even when the U.S. government explicitly states that it will continue to not fund abortions, Republicans just can't seem to let go of their major justification for denying health care to poor, uninsured Americans: their irrational hatred of women.

"Only in Washington, D.C. could you exchange the pro-life protections enshrined in the law for thirty years for a piece of paper signed by the most pro-abortion president in American history," Pence announced. Well, certainly Obama deserves some sort of award for this distinction! After two centuries of only mildly pro-abortion presidents, and wishy-washy presidents with no discernible views on abortion (I'm looking at you, Millard Fillmore), it's refreshing to finally find a president whose love for abortion can be definitively measured as more intense than the love for abortion held by the 43 men who came before him. I can just imagine Pence furiously calculating Obama's love for abortion, checking and re-checking the mathematics deep into the night in preparation for the health care debate: "multiply by amount of sorrow expressed at George Tiller's murder . . . divided by the cosine of Clinton's love for abortion . . . carry the two . . . my God! It is true!"

All of which is by way of saying, a friend made this commemorative online thingy, and I thought it was funny.

Signed, the most pro-abortion blogger to work in the 2300 block of Champlain St. NW in American history.

A new initiative from youth voting campaign Rock the Vote is encouraging young people to "hold out for health care" by refusing to have sex with people who don't support health care reform. In a strange turn of events, I'm with FOX News on this one: This sucks.

Rock the Vote, an organization which works to "engage and build the political power of young people," is currently collecting signatures for the celebrity-endorsed petition to "hold out for health care."

"We pledge ourselves to the health and liberty of young Americans and to government for the people ... and to never fucking you if you are against us," the video announces. "We will vote against you, work against you, and once again, just in case you forgot, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever fuck you."

The strategy strikes me as counter-intuitive. After all, what do Republicans hate even more than public health care? Young people having premarital sex! If I were a Republican, I would love this Rock the Vote campaign. It reads like a conservative porn script: No health care, plus a bunch of young hot chicks sexily announcing that they're not going to give it up!

But I'm not a Republican, so I find a few aspects of this Rock the Vote campaign unsettling that have nothing to do with the young people admitting to F-wording each other. First, Rock the Vote President Heather Smith told FOX News that the fucking-withholding petition aims to remind the youth of America that "they have a stake and a say" in the debate over health care. Huh. I thought young people had a stake in the health care debate because they're human beings with a civil right to engage in our country's political process. But I guess it's actually because they're hot and like to fuck. Second, the unsettling sexual stereotypes: According to Rock the Vote, women are sexy teases; men are insatiable buffoons. Finally, this line, meant to to ward off a skeezy Tea Party guy who wants to fuck our hot liberal heroine: "I'm on my period. I don't have a vagina." Would you like some transphobia with your abstinence?

On Saturday, hundreds braved the first snow of the year outside BJ’s Wholesale Club in Fairfax to get a live glimpse at Sarah Palin, there to sign copies of her new memoir, Going Rogue. Having filed into the shopping center’s parking lot, the Palinites were sitting ducks for reporters with questions like this one: What does Sarah mean for women?

“I think she speaks her mind, and I think sometimes she speaks a little bit unguarded, so she is a little—she’s not conformed to speaking planned speech. Planned. It’s not planned,” Dee, a Palin supporter from Haymarket, Va., explained. “So I think she speaks her thoughts, and I think that she goes ahead and talks. I think she’s a strong woman. And she allows herself to express that … she’s not afraid to speak. And she’s fairly attractive, and that doesn’t seem to interfere with her being intelligent.”

“As a younger female, I like the fact that she has her own opinions and is not afraid to share them with others,” Chantilly, Va.’s Celia Coughlin submitted. “Also, that she can stand on her own and pave her own path and not really follow the line of any particular thing.”

Elizabeth from Gainesville, Va., says: “For women, she represents principles, life principles, and for the country she represents principles also.”

“I think she’s representing the women the way they should be,” says Patrick Darby of Rockville, Md. “You know, independent, strong, capable of doing whatever she wants to do, standing up for moral issues. And rights.”

Who could ever argue with “rights”? Or with refusing to conform to “speaking planned speech”? Therein lies the appeal of the Palin as culture warrior. Since she debuted on the national scene last summer, conservatives have attempted to corral this outspoken personality into a politically expedient persona: Palin as feminist. The November issue of conservative magazine Newsmax featured Palin on the cover, under the headline “Sarah Palin and the Leaders of the Newer Feminism.”

In the issue, Newsmax situates some notorious female conservatives, like Palin and Dr. Laura Schlessinger, alongside more traditional feminist icons, like Ms. Magazine executive editor Katherine Spillar and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Pegging Palin, darling to anti-feminist voters everywhere, as America’s hottest new feminist is a clever trick. As the crowd at BJ’s attests, Palin’s feminism contains none of the messy political agendas of former feminist waves—it is all personality, all self-reliance, and no politics. It’s about speaking your mind, even when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

It’s a bizarre twist on the old feminist adage that the “personal is the political.” Instead of identifying the structural influences over the day-to-day lives of women, this feminism focuses tightly on choices that have been fully operational for decades: Pants or skirt? Family or career and family? Maybelline or Cover Girl?

In “newer feminism,” every woman’s choices are valued—no matter what those choices mean for other women. Schlessinger isn’t an enforcer of rigid gender roles; she’s a facilitator of women’s choices. Palin’s opposition to abortion rights and comprehensive sex education isn’t anti-feminist; it is her choice to deny reproductive choices to other women. Under this model, Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis isn’t an exploiter; he’s a liberator of women’s breasts.

Last fall, Palin did some yeoman’s work in the rebranding of the “F-word.” After telling Katie Couric that she was a “feminist who believes in equal rights,” Palin quickly added that she believed that all of feminism’s work had already been achieved. This “newer” feminism isn’t shy about devaluing feminism: The Newsmax report casually accuses Gloria Steinem of “man-hating,” celebrates Schlessinger’s statement that feminism has “turned the family life upside down” as a welcome “departure from the feminism of old,” and raises the bogeyman of feminist “bra-burning” four times. In her contribution to the Newsmax piece, FoxNews.com writer Andrea Tantaros floats a new definition of feminism: “choice.” Feminism, she writes, is now “defined by each and every woman.”

The democratization of feminism brings us back to the parking lot outside of BJ’s Wholesale Club. If feminism is now “defined by each and every woman,” why not by Mary Ellen Hood, a D.C. resident who eschews politics but loves Sarah Palin?

“I’m not so sure I would put a label on her as a feminist,” says Hood of Palin. “She presents herself feminine … The impression is that feminists are women who don’t like to value their feminine qualities, and they like to put it down and be like a man, and I don’t think that’s appropriate for women. I kind of like her in that regard, that she’s sort of celebrating her womanhood as well.”

Loretta Teele of Fairfax is also more comfortable defining Palin in opposition to feminism than in concert with it. “She’s more godly, loving, and she’s more into her family,” says Teele. “She’s not out there like some of the past feminists—and I do not want to call names—that are bashing men and everybody around them. Feminists have a tendency to bash men. They’re cruel, and she’s not that.”

Caroline, a Herndon resident, is open to seeing Palin as a “new” feminist. “I think in a way. You know, not in the classic kind—you know, I came of age in the feminist revolution and there was a lot of kind of anti-male and anti-traditional female roles, like kids. There was a touch of that, there, back in the old days. And so, in that sense, she’s surely not. She kind of does kind of integrate it all—family, husband, everything, so I do think that that is really good.”

Others aren’t budging. “A feminist? Maybe borderline a little bit,” says Coughlin. “But I don’t really see her—no, not really.”

“I don’t even know what that means,” confirms Dee.

Feminism is now “defined by each and every woman,” and some women are still content to define the movement as those godless, mannish, childless specimens of women who hate men. The latest wave of the women’s movement is all about women having choices—as long as they make the right ones. Call it “newer” feminism, or Sarah Palin feminism, or anti-feminist feminism—just make sure you get a woman to say it, to make sure that it will be above all criticism.

How condescending is this photo? It's not the fabled (and fake) American-flag-wearin', gun-totin'  bikini photo that surfaced on the Internet shortly after Palin reached national fame, but it's about as close as Newsweek could get to the real thing.

I am generally in agreement with Palin supporters when they accuse the media of hurling sexism toward the former Governor. David Letterman's joke about Palin's underage daughter fucking Alex Rodriguez? Inappropriate. Ridiculing Bristol Palin for getting knocked up, while laughing it up with Levi? Sexist.

And I tend to agree with Palin's response here, too: Yesterday, Palin took to Facebook to denounce the cover's sexism. "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now," she wrote. "If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention—even if out of context."

Is the Newsweek cover sexist? Yes. But let's put the photo back into context for a minute: Sarah Palin's entire existence is sexist.

Let's try to imagine, for a moment, the thought process that went into creating this Newsweek cover image : "We need to convey that Palin sucks really bad! Let's take some photo of Palin lookin' sexy, slap it on the cover of Newsweek, and then use her sexuality in attempt to draw attention to all the terrible things this woman has brought upon us."

Hey! That sounds kind of like what John McCain did when he chose Palin as his VP: Found an attractive lady, slapped her on to his campaign, and used her image as a sexy lady in order to distract people from her scant qualifications, her total lack of concern for women's issues, and her complete suckiness as a candidate.

Sarah Palin's very existence as a national figure depends upon people being sexist. It's not just the bad things that have happened to her that are a result of sexism—the mud-slinging about her daughters, the circulated upskirt photos, the intense scrutiny over her appearance and her clothes. But sexism tends to help individual women, too, and it has certainly helped Palin. Sexism allows women to earn insane amounts of money for simply taking their clothes off, and it allows women to earn an insane amount of political power for simply being a hot conservative lady with no particular skill at public speaking, reading comprehension, telling the truth, or articulating a single political view that makes any sense, ever.

At that point, can we really get bent out of shape every time we see the media reflecting the reality that Palin is a product of sexism in their coverage of her? We have crossed the Rubicon, people. Everything about Palin is sexist. When it comes to sexism, I'm a big advocate of hating the game, and not the player. But the game works both ways. And I am sick and tired of only having to care about it when that sexism means something bad for Sarah Palin.

AshleyMadison.com, an online dating site that facilitates extramarital affairs, has never been too popular among moral conservatives. Earlier this year, Deroy Murdock argued on Human Events that Ashley Madison has edged out gay marriage as the number one threat to traditional matrimony. Now, cluck-clucking conservatives won't have to choose between the cheaters and the gays: Ashley Madison has begun marketing itself as a place where the married can pursue their same-sex attractions, too.

Ashley Madison's gay (and bi-curious) population is modest, but growing. Worldwide, the agency hosts 4.7 million members seeking extramarital affairs. Of those, only 143,427 are seeking some same-sex action. About two-thirds of Ashley Madison's same-sex seekers are women looking for women; one-third are men seeking men. Noel Biderman, Ashley Madison's CEO (married, two kids), says that his service provides a necessary sexual outlet for gay men and women who are trapped within the confines of traditional marriage. "There are men and women who, for whatever reason, might have been motivated to pursue a traditional marriage because they did want to build a family," Biderman says. "Unfortunately, in our culture, their sexuality is still at odds with that arrangement."

In an age when marriage equality is gaining serious steam, helping closeted gays escape their repressive straight marriages seems downright altruistic. But Ashley Madison isn't so progressive as to encourage gay men to marry each other. "They're not looking to leave their families," Biderman says of the same-sex contingent. "They're looking to have this on the side." Ashley Madison is not here to release gays from the closet—it's here to offer them a peek outside before returning them safely to nuclear family life. Meanwhile, it invests in the repression. "I don’t want to call it ironic, because people who find this ironic assume that we're a home-wrecking service," Biderman says. "We're not. We are a marriage preservation service."

Nobody relies on the preservation of traditional marriage like Ashley Madison. Ashley Madison's motto, "when divorce isn't an option," seems strange in a country where no-fault divorce makes it easy to reset one's relationship status to single. But Ashley Madison is not designed for folks willing to ruin their home lives so transparently. The service relies entirely on secrecy and discretion—what skeptics might call "lying" and "self-delusion." "This is not a service for people in open marriages," says Biderman. "There are sites out there for the courageous ones—the swinger couples who have found the courage to say, 'I love you, but I need to do something different in the bedroom,'" he says. Ashley Madison, on the other hand, is for people who "can't voice their sexual concerns to their spouses, because they are terrified of the repercussions," he says. "There's this notion that people who engage in infidelity are lying and deceitful," he says. "But people wouldn’t have to lie if these more realistic sexual options were socially acceptable."

As soon as those "realistic sexual options" are accepted, though, Ashley Madison goes kaput. The service wouldn't be making any money if people weren't terrified of communicating with their spouses. Besides, secrets are hot. Ashley Madison's branding centers around the service as a sexy, hush-hush taboo. Ashley Madison may have built an empire out of facilitating transgressions, but its continued success lies in reinforcing the traditional. Biderman's business will only remain viable so long as its members continue to invest in conservative, heterosexual marriages which reinforce monogamy. "People have told me, 'Oh, you should open Ashley Madison in France,'" says Biderman. "I tell them, 'You know, I don’t think they need me.'"

To date, Ashley Madison has only identified a need in the U.S., Canada, and Australia. In order for the service to expand, Biderman has got to locate other cultures that are currently struggling between the repressive and the progressive. "Places like Brazil offer an interesting dynamic, where infidelity among men is extremely high and among women it's much lower," he says. "There’s no reason to believe you can’t be wildly successful there. There is an incredible opportunity for a global phenomenon."

Biderman's latest campaign to make this an Ashley Madison world has, so far, failed to reach its full potential. "We always thought there would be a marketplace for same-sex affairs, but it's been difficult to cultivate it," says Biderman. "We could probably stretch those legs further, but there are so many obstacles to advertising our brand. We have enough difficulty advertising infidelity—think about the problems we'd have marketing to same-sex infidelity. I cant even tell you one avenue where I could effectively market that."

Ashley Madison's target demographic —people who lead conservative lifestyles but secretly yearn for a transgressive kick—is difficult to target. Social conservatives, remember, are obligated to respond to businesses like Ashley Madison with concern, outrage, and calls for banning. Ashley Madison claims to support the institution of marriage. Other American institutions have proven less than supportive of Ashley Madison. Recently, police kicked a tanker truck advertising Ashley Madison affairs out of the city of Philadelphia. Earlier this year, an Ashley Madison commercial was deemed too hot for the Superbowl. "We've got the Parent Television Council saying these ads are reprehensible," says Biderman of the Web site's conservative backlash. "There's this huge fear to have any sort of conversation about sex."

[youtube:v=EwJSD46JSoM]

As a result, Ashley Madison's marketing strategy has attempted to awkwardly straddle the divide between the conservative and the progressive. In one television spot, targeted toward women, Ashley Madison is offered as an alternative to a life married to a sexist pig. This husband arrives to an anniversary dinner late, leaves early, and in the meantime, ogles other women and implies that his wife is fat. Cheating on this guy practically constitutes a feminist act. The ad targeted at men contains no such progressive bent. In this version, the poor man's wife isn't a jerk—but she's fat, and she snores, too! This man is encouraged to cheat on his wife for more, shall we say, traditional reasons: he just wants to fuck someone else behind her back. And there's nothing progressive about dudes doing that.

[youtube:v=mZLjwhEp7nU]

Ashley Madison's new PR push advertising same-sex affairs may further alienate the conservative base it requires to stay relevant. Then again, perhaps the gay element is just what Ashley Madison needs to keep conservatives abreast of its services—and curious about exploring its taboos. Every time a religious conservative declares a sexual practice an affront to human decency, a new conservative kink is born.

Illustration by Bonnie Kennedy

The Republican Governor's Association has launched a new attack ad against Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate for Governor of Virginia. The ad catches Deeds fending off a female reporter's line of questioning about proposed tax increases by telling her, "I think I've made myself clear, young lady."

"Did you catch that?" a female voice for the GOP's ad asks, incredulously. "Young lady?" The ad then rewinds the tape to replay the money quote: "I think I've made myself clear, young lady."

I don't know the age of this particular reporter, who has not been identified, but she's clearly a fully grown woman and not some spunky cub reporter grilling Creigh Deeds on tax reform for class credit. That's unimportant—dismissing a reporter as "young lady" is offensive, regardless of the age of the woman behind the microphone. Deeds obviously fucked up here. Interestingly, the people calling him out on it are supporters of Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate. McDonnell has voiced some pretty fucked up ideas about women himself, ideas which have translated to a seriously dangerous voting record.

After playing "I think I've made myself clear, young lady" a second time, the ad's incredulous female voice chuckles softly and promises: "It gets worse." As proof, the ad points to DeedsUncut.com—not an uncircumcised porn site, promise!—which reveals Deed's entire back-and-forth on the tax issue.

But it doesn't get worse. It's just more footage of Creigh Deeds explaining to a group of reporters if and when he would raise taxes in the state of Virginia—no more sexist dismissals, verbal slip-ups, or misogynistic attitudes on display. Because to Republicans, taxes are worse than sexism!

The "young lady" line was bad. Also bad: when politicians with bad track records on women's rights use sexism as bait to try to get people outraged over raised taxes. To the Republican Governor's Association, sexism is only an issue when it's somehow involved with the only issue they really care about: that if Creigh Deeds becomes governor, rich white dudes may have to pay more taxes. Did you catch that?

My wife has convinced me when I'm elected governor we're going to have a working mom government simplicity task force so all the smart women in Virginia can help tell me how to run Virginia," McDonnell said. "[They will] help cut down some of that bureaucracy, I think that would be a good idea."

Any government program tentatively named the "Working Mom Government Simplicity Task Force" which aims to include the perspectives "all the smart women in Virginia" is sure to cut down on bureaucracy! Oh, and in case you were wondering: he got that idea before all the smart women in Virginia turned against him:

When asked by a member of the media after the speech, McDonnell said he proposed that idea to his team before his thesis was brought to light.

Being a Republican means believing that teenagers today will have less sex than they did when you were a teenager if you just spend enough money telling them abstinenance is good.

Headline via Mike Riggs via commenter.

But oh, it was funny while it lasted. Let's relive the jokes, shall we?

Anderson Cooper: "It's hard to talk when you're teabagging."

Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox (haha, "Cox").

[youtube:v=OLsKt4O4Yw8]

Huffington Post commenter: "Did the women who protested wear 'pearl necklaces' to the 'tea bagging?'

But some unsuspectingly pervy grocery store cashier takes the cake. Blogger "Jenny the bloggess" reports:

Then when I was checking out the bagger asked me if I was “going to any teabagging parties today”.  Like, WTF? And the cashier was just looking at me waiting for my response and I was all “Uh…no” because I was too shocked to say anything else and then I got home and thought maybe teabagging means something else now but no, I googled it and it still totally means the same thing.

Like, I don’t even have a witty ending here to wrap things up.  I’m *that* freaked out.  Teabagging. I am never going back to HEB.

Only later does Jenny realize that it does mean something else now.

UPDATED: Hi.  I’m an idiot.  Apparently “teabagging” is a truly horribly named Republican rally going on around America today to protest taxes or tea or something.  Teabagging. Good one, Republicans.  You totally got me.

In the Daily Beast this week, McCain calls gay rights "one of the [causes] closest to my heart," and insists that "if the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric." Later this week, McCain is slated to address the Log Cabin Republicans at their annual convention, and she works hard on the Beast to build up the the gay conservative group's inclusiveness as a part of its "core Republican values," while dissing the Democrats for being the party that's really anti-gay.

"President Obama, for instance, is also against gay marriage—a dirty little secret many of my gay friends were shocked to discover during the presidential campaign," McCain writes. "But you’d never know it because he always 'sounds' so inclusive."

Actually, Obama's position on gay marriage is a "dirty little secret" only to the most willfully ignorant of armchair political analysts. Actually, Barack Obama made clear his opposition to gay marriage throughout the campaign. Why? Because the only fucking reason Democrats still adopt that position is so they can stand a chance in the general election, where they're facing off against the Republicans—you know, the party that actually doesn't want gay people to get married.

The Washington Blade has more bullshit to call on McCain's new number one issue. Blade editor Kevin Naff calls the Log Cabin Republicans "a rudderless group right now, bereft of leadership following the resignation of its executive director . . . and the departure of other key staffers." But "there are other problems with Meghan’s take on gay issues and the role of Log Cabin in fighting for them," Naff writes. "Chief among her shortcomings is timing."

Here's a dirty little secret for you: Barack Obama is not the only major presidential candidate to have opposed gay marriage in the primary! The point is not lost on Naff, who is miffed that McCain decided to wait until her father lost the presidency to reveal her whole-hearted support for gay rights. "It’s easy to adopt these 'progressive' stances when the campaign is over and you’re looking for a provocative gimmick to get yourself booked on Larry King and 'The View,'" writes Naff. "But when Meghan’s pro-gay views might have mattered, she was silent."

Then, it gets personal. "In fact, the Blade reached out to Meghan several times during the campaign for comment. We sensed that she was a new kind of Republican, one who doesn’t subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh-enforced code that the GOP remain beholden to the most out-of-touch Christian conservatives on the far right," Naff writes. "She declined all interview requests, while her father supported Proposition 8 in California and a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Arizona."

Let the record show that I have also found my attempts to contact Meghan McCain rebuffed. Meghan, if you're listening: I don't care that you're late to the party. I know you'll be in D.C. this weekend. The offer to down shots in Adams Morgan still stands, girlfriend.

In yesterday's The Fix, Chris Cillizza poses the question: "Is Gay Marriage Still An Issue?"

Hey, let me take this one, Chris: Yes.

But let's back up a bit and see why Cillizza labors over whether or not one of the biggest issues the states are grappling with today is simply a sneaky non-issue in disguise!:

Twin decisions in Iowa and Vermont legalizing gay marriage over the past five days have reinvigorated the debate over same sex unions and raised questions about whether the issue continues to have the same political potency for Republicans as it did as recently as four years ago.

As recently as four years ago? Proposition 8, the legislation that overturned gay marriage in one of the biggest, gayest states in the union, was passed four months ago, dude. But continue:

By and large, however, Republican national leaders—-particularly those running for president—have condemned the recent decisions. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said the "definition of marriage should be left to the people and not to activist courts" while former House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) called the decision "outrageously wrong" and said it revealed "judicial arrogance."

Conversations with a handful of high level Republican party strategists, however, produced a far more mixed view of gay marriage as a campaign issue.

Let's pick one of the anonymous GOP sources from the handful who suggests that gay marriage ain't no big thing:

Another Republican consultant said that the issue is a complicated one for GOP candidates in the context of a political campaign. "It's sort of a no-win," said the source. "You often need to be on one side of the issue to win the primary, then you're in trouble for the general."

Who is this consultant, and who is he consulting? No major party candidate—Democrat or Republican—has ever openly supported gay marriage in the primary or the general election. Barack Obama, socialist Democrat/Antichrist, supported civil unions but not gay marriage.

Thankfully, after a long discussion of whether or not this issue is an issue, Cillizza comes around: The issue is, in fact, an issue.

What seems clear is that as gay marriage becomes more prevalent in the country, the issue will almost certainly continue to animate the bases of the two parties—Democrats in support, Republicans in opposition.

Photo by nerdcoregirl.

Last month, Greg Hambrick at the Charleston City Paper wrote a story resurrecting the Lindsay Graham gay rumors—and the renewed effort to out him. It's largely a non-story: Graham is still single, still maybe gay, still saying he's not, and there's no more evidence to suggest he is, still. But that hasn't stopped Michael Signorile, noted gay writer and committed outer of closeted gay politicians:

"Let's have a real investigation of the rumors about South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who … has been rumored to be gay for years," Signorile says. "Like Larry Craig, Graham has voted antigay — including for the federal marriage amendment — while people in South Carolina and Washington have discussed what some say is an open secret for a long, long time."

Signorile claims that "the homosexuality of public figures—and only public figures—should be reported on when relevant to a larger story (and only when relevant)." That means that a politician's private sexuality is fair game only when he or she has spoken against it publicly. But as Hambrick notes, it's not just liberals who are working to out gay politicians—it's, duh, the Republicans, too. Writes Hambrick:

With rampant calls for a primary opponent to challenge Graham next year, it likely won't be the Dems that Graham has to be concerned about with the gay-baiting. While many in the Democratic Party have reveled at the scandalous exit of Sen. Craig, a long-standing opponent of gay rights, the most vocal calls for his ouster came from his own party, including presidential candidate John McCain, Graham's Senate BFF.

These Republican gay witchhunts don't pass Signorile's stink test. Republicans don't like gays, and they don't like Republicans who are secretly gay, so there's no real hypocrisy to be remedied here, just plain homophobia. When Republicans begin to take up Signorile's cause, I wonder if it begins to become counter-productive. Should liberals really be working to shun all Republican gays from political life because they disagree with their politics?

Most of all, though, I think Hambrick fails to pass the news test here. There's no new evidence that Graham is gay. There's no real mobilized effort to prove he is. All Hambrick has is "former Ninth Circuit Solicitor David Schwacke," outed by the Republican party, and Charlie Smith, an openly gay realtor who ran for office a couple of times. Neither have any real perspective on Graham. Why not make the story about one of them, and not about Graham, who has nothing to do with any of it?

In a bizarre case of if-you-can't-beat-'em-join-'em, Howard Ahmanson has jumped GOP ship in favor of joining the Democratic Party. You may remember Ahmanson from when he was the conservative Evangelical mogul who proved instrumental in funding California's Proposition 8. But that was as long ago as last year!

Ahmanson, who "characterizes himself as a social conservative and a fiscal moderate," says he left mostly because he disagreed with the Republicans' mantra of "No new taxes whatsoever no matter what." He does, however:

- oppose abortion and stem-cell research

- still believe that homosexuals are sinners in need of Christian healing

- will support Obama if he does anything that would traditionally be supported by the Republicans.

So why did Ahmanson join the Democrats? Some nonsense about how Independents are "cowards" who are "stereotyped as social liberals and fiscal conservatives," unlike Ahmanson, who is socially conservative and fiscally slightly less conservative.

Plus, it's hilarious! Now that Ahmanson has established himself as a Democrat, he gets to describe himself as "now a blue-dog Democrat for Bobby Jindal for 2012."

Nevermind, I love this dude.

Cristina Page for Reproductive Health Reality Check wrote yesterday on one sector of the economy that hasn't hurt from the economic downturn: Birth control sales. Page's evidence of a contraceptive spike:

- Vasectomy.com has fielded a 30 percent increase in appointment requests since January

- Over-the-counter contraceptives (like condoms and emergency contraception) have "jumped a dazzling 10.2 percent in the first two months of the year."

- Nielson reports that "condom sales jumped up 5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 and 6 percent in January compared with the same time periods last year."

- and "sales of Essure, a non-invasive, irreversible birth control method for women were up also, 28 percent over last year's sales."

The numbers aren't simply evidence of couples putting off pregnancies during the recession—they're also a big fuck-you to Congressional Republicans who objected to the family planning provisions in Obama's stimulus. Vasectomies, condoms, and Plan B are great options for men and women with health insurance and cash. But those Americans who can't afford to step-up their birth control with their current bank balances will be having recession-era babies—and they're the ones who will be hit hardest by another mouth to feed.

Or, as Page puts it: "So much for contraception being a non-sequitur in discussions about the economy."

Photo by Marshall Astor

[youtube:v=ywvqMAnHZd8]

This time, it's the American Right to Life Action group repeatedly harassing Ann Coulter for her support of Mitt Romney, who is maybe pro-choice and also Mormon! (She gets pissed). This is all still relevant because Romney might come back in 2012 to secure his polygamous alien reign and abort your teenagers, or something.

Recently, a study was released by the Harvard Business School showing that "culturally conservative states are America's biggest purchasers of Internet pornography." The revelation gave D.C.'s liberal bloggers an opportunity to descend on their Republican prey like ruthless, moral vultures. Observe:

First, Paul Fidalgo, the "DC Secularism Examiner," weighed in with his requisite gloating commentary, calling the news "delightful" and "hilarious," and informing readers that "it's okay to love every minute of this." What's so funny? "It turns out that the ultra-red Utah was #1 in online porn subscriptions," he writes, "and eight of the top ten porn-loving states voted for John McCain in 2008." He then cites his favorite "schadenfreude" moment in the report: "In states where more people agree that 'Even today miracles are performed by the power of God' and 'I never doubt the existence of God,' there are more subscriptions to this service," because, apparently, people who believe in God aren't allowed to watch porn or they're mean awful hypocrites.

Then, "DC Ethical Issues Examiner" Laura Harrison McBride chimes in and blows the secularist out of the water with her own gloating gloaty gloat. McBride, for her part, paints conservatives as Puritanical overlords who are districted from their mission of preventing Laura Harrison McBride from politely drinking her martinis only by the prospect of hypocritically jacking off in the privacy of their darkened home offices.

So, has this study proved once and for all that conservatives are horrible hypocrites worthy of a good smiting from the liberal bloggers of the world? Or perhaps something else can account for the amount of Internet pornography consumed in these great Republican centers?

a) People in Utah have to get their porn on the Internet because it's, like, kind of hard to buy it anywhere else, DUH.

b) Conservatives don't care about the war on porn anymore, they're on to more important things like shunning abortionists and preventing the gays from devaluing their marriages.

c) Actually, NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE WAR ON PORN ANYMORE, except for the "experts" who blog for the Examiner's peanuts and write long, ranting blog posts thoroughly shaming anyone who watches it, making them, actually, yes, the sole brave warriors left in the moral crusade against pornography.

d) People who actually buy porn on the Internet are total Internet n00bs: Of course they voted for John McCain. While these red staters are busy plunking credit card numbers into pay-for porn sites, tech-saavy Obama voters are downloading teh pron free of charge because they've been navigating this series of tubes long enough to know that you don't pay for this shit.

Photo by bella731.

In "Generation Chickenhawk," Max Blumenthal heads to the College Republican National Convention to interview participants about their support for the war in Iraq. The results are totally pro-American and completely not gay.

Topics discussed: Post-election sex, Prop 8, making nice, hugging it out, Larry Summers, innate mathematical ability, Democrats vs. Republicans, girls vs. boys.

Download the podcast here.

THREE! Sarah Palin appeared on Saturday Night Live last week to get back at Tina Fey for being so mean all the time. Palin proved she really knows how to act presidential use that Northern Idaho journalism degree. Let's go straight to the video (includes Mean Girls-style bitchy stare-off between Palin and Fey)!

TWO! Yesterday, the McCain/Palin camp announced the endorsement of Telemundo actress Katie Barberi, a Mexican-American. The announcement came on the same day some other minority came out in favor of the Obama campaign. "As a Hispanic-American, I understand how important this election is for Hispanics," said Barberi. A little birdie told me Barberi's endorsin' qualifications include an uncredited role as an economics student in a little something called Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

ONE! Michele Bachmann, a Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, has the ghost of Joe McCarthy in her, and boy is Congress's face red! In an appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Bahmann—whom I did not even know existed, much less existed solely to warn the American people against the creeping spectre of communism—made her stunning debut on the national stage. Bahmann accused Barack Obama—who is currently running for president of the United States of America—of being "anti-American."

"If we look at the collection of friends that Barack Obama has had in his life," Huffington Post reports Bahmann as saying, "it calls into question what Barack Obama's true beliefs and values and thoughts are. His attitudes, values, and beliefs with Jeremiah Wright on his view of the United States...is negative; Bill Ayers, his negative view of the United States. We have seen one friend after another call into question his judgment — but also, what it is that Barack Obama really believes?" Following her indictment of Obama, Bachmann called for an investigation into the American values of all members of Congress. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America," she said. Believe us, Michelle—we're listening!

AND THE BUZZER! Totally non-Republican (educated guess) lovely lady Amy Poehler matches your Palin and raises you a Fey with her Alaskan rap bit (SNL rap bits: Making me laugh since 2007):