books

I suppose it's been pretty obvious that I've been slacking lately on my blogging duties. My posts of late have been less the result of a deliberate process and more of an impulsive, "Oh! I need to blog this!" after coming across something.

Here's one of those things: The Carnival of Science Fiction Feminism call for entries, whose deadline for entries is June 29th, with any posts from late May and all of June qualifying.

So if you're blogging about the edgy sexual and reproductive politics of Battlestar Galactica or sexism of Star Trek or attempted deconstruction of macho in Lost (ha!) or the blatant and pernicious sexism in the Dune prequels (making the original downright tame by comparison) or all the stupid sci fi trash coming out of Hollywood (where we don't really even need to mention the blatant sexism and even occasional misogyny running through those rotting fanboy fantasy blockbusters, now, do we, really?)...then send in a link. Also eligible:

* All Weblog Postings on Science Fiction and Fantasy works in all media (books, comic books, television, film, roleplaying tabletop games and video games) written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Fan fiction written from a Feminist Perspective is eligible.
* Posts about fan fiction written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Posts about conventions and fan gatherings of a Feminist nature are eligible.
* Posts about conventions and fan gatherings written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Posts about any science fiction or fantasy fandom written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Posts linking to newsand announcements are eligible, so long as they pertain specifically to the Feminist Sci-Fi Fantasy community.
* Considerations about science fiction/fantasy news from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Analysis of non-Feminist works from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Rants about any of the above written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Posts which spell “Space” using 3 A’s and two exclamation points and are written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
* Posts about Green-Skinned Amazons (from Outer Spaaace!) with more than two breasts that are not written from a Feminist Perspective will not be eligible (and if they aren’t damned funny,* will be reproduced for mockery).
* Posts about Getting Your Girlfriend into [specific type of fandom] had also better be damned funny. If written from a Feminist Perspective (even tongue-in-cheek), they will be eligible.

I found this announcement via CultureCat, whose blog I confess I've not visited in months. So I'm a week late in seeing that CultureCat is now Mrs. CultureCat -- or should I say he is now Mr. CultureCat?

Congrats to Clancy (who is keeping her name, which only makes sense since she's just finishing her Ph.D. dissertation -- not a time to become someone's rib in name)!

[My Blogrolling account has lapsed. A new arts blogroll is to come.]

So Jedmunds has read Markos and Jerome's book. I haven't. I suppose I'll flip through some pages next time I'm in a bookstore that carries it. But having read Kos on DailyKos for over a year now, I don't feel any need to part with my hard-earned money and too-short time to curl up with a tome about how civil rights are "special interests" and how the Democratic Party can win only by standing for nothing except things not (quite) Republican.

The most glaring problem with the Kos/Armstrong approach to “reforming� the Democratic Party is their ill-considered assault on so called “single issue groups,� ie unions, feminists, blacks and Hispanics. It may in fact be true, as Kos/Armstrong argue, that the sum of these special interests is no greater than the sum of their parts, however their purported solution is breathtakingly naïve. They embrace what they call a broad based, yet completely undefined “progressive� movement, that will remain outside of the Democratic Party, and like their historical conservative counterpart, “take over� the Democratic Party.

Some problems with this idea are readily apparent. First, it is not at all clear that this progressive movement is itself anything more than the sum of these “special interests.� Sure, it’s lovely that this “progressive� movement, which has no apparent purpose other than electing people who happen to be Democrats, will be unencumbered by these single issue litmus tests, such that theoretically, a pro-life, pro-business, anti-immigrant, war-hawk can be elected under the Democratic banner provided he gives rhetorical hell to the Republicans. And that would be considered a great victory for this “progressive� movement.

What I find extremely interesting is how much Markos, and it seems Jerome, have totally bought into the Republican frame of Democratic constituents: "special interests." That puts women's fighting for equal rights right up there with Enron pushing for special regulatory favors. That puts African Americans fighting for equal rights and equal opportunity right up there with the oil and gas industry pushing for less regulation and more tax breaks.

Where Markos and Jerome see "special interests" in traditionally Democratic constituencies, I see citizens. And when it comes to Dick and Jane fighting for their rights vs. Multinational Conglomerates R Us lobbying to be able to dump more toxic waste in the country's drinking water, I don't have any problem seeing a difference.

What I find even more laughable is the idea that you can just glom on to the progressive netroots label with avowedly non-progressive, Democratic Party sites like DailyKos, and figure nobody will notice.

Markos a progressive? Give me a fucking break. How many progressive principles has Kos actively, and often viciously, attacked? How can anyone who labels people fighting for their rights as "roadblocks" to be "pushed aside" call himself a progressive.

Obviously the word is rapidly becoming meaningless, at least in the online world. In fact, the Markos strategy to winning elections is to be for nothing but against anything Republican. To him, being for anything means giving in to "single issue voters" like "the women's studies set," whom his "big tent" ideas have no room for. (Several people noted on "Blog for Choice Day" that Daily Kos was mute on the subject, except for a culture of death diary pushing all the right-wing talking points on reproductive rights. You can accuse Daily Kos of a lot of things, but you can't call them pro-choice -- not when they're pushing candidates who are proudly in favor of forced pregnancy.)

Jedmunds continues....

This purported “progressive� movement would appear to have no ideological goals other than electing Democrats. Seriously. According to Kaus… err Kos and Armstrong, we need to take over the Democratic Party, just to get the Democratic Party interested in winning elections. If you think about that long enough, when you’re done laughing, you’ll probably start crying. Unless you’re like me, in which case you squelch your emotions beneath a hard, calloused layer of seething and bubbling rage.

But in fact Kos and Armstrong insist that this new “progressive� movement is without firm ideology, un-united by any single issue except for perhaps opposition to the Iraq war. Yes, indeed, this progressive movement is united in its opposition to a decision that was made almost three years ago. Hahaha. No really, it’s kind of sad. In fact, I doubt many of us are united by little more than an intense and conditioned opposition to the current occupant. And I wonder if Kos and Armstrong ever considered what will happen to this “progressive� movement, united by nothing more than the desire to bring Democrats kicking and screaming to power, when the current occupant takes the hero’s walk into the sunset. Or maybe more optimistically, when and if the Republicans in general heal their self image which has taken some blows lately. What does this “progressive� movement do then? It’s easy to be anti-Republican and nothing more, when Republicans are at their nadir of popularity.

When I look at the strategies pushed on the front page of Daily Kos, I wonder at how they can claim that they're offering anything other than business as usual. Already the Democrats are weak and disorganized because they cannot unite around any issues. Already vast numbers of Democrats vote along with the Republicans on offensive bills like the "Now You Have to Be Rich to Declare Bankruptcy" bill. How is pushing for more "big tent" Democrats (read: Democrats who don't hold progressive values) going to improve things? How is this any different than what the DCCC, DLC and other establishment players are already doing?

Answer: It's not any different. And if you want proof, just look at how Kos & Co. push Democratic Establishment golden boys like Bob Casey, Jr., whose radical right-wing views include making women's wombs property of the State.

But they don’t realize that they have the same problem the Democratic Party has: they don’t know what they stand for, because they’re too afraid to stand for anything.

This is the heart of the problem. Rather than fight for progressive values, Kos and Armstrong advocate more running away from scary Republican rhetoric. Call it the Michael ("I-I-I-I am not a liberal!") Dukakis school of politics.

This “progressive� movement to take over the Democratic Party is little more than an illusion. It’s all pretend. A dash of rabble-rousing and a dash of half-assed wishful thinking for a facile ride that anyone can get on and that’ll never go anywhere. There’s no point to it. At all. There’s not really even a commitment to grassroots politics. After all, Schumer’s appointing Casey as the nominee apparent in Pennsylvania is to be celebrated, for the sole reason that Casey can win. We not only don’t care about ideology, we don’t even need to care about process. Let the DC Dems decide. Because they know best. Except when they don’t. How can we tell the difference? Well, I guess Kos will tell us.

There is a real progressive movement. It's just not happening at Daily Kos -- let alone being led by Markos. Or, as Jedmunds says,

I suspect that a truly enduring movement needs to be united by more than anti-Republicanism or anti-Bushism. And they need to have some idea of what they believe in, or else they won’t exist beyond victory. And I suspect, that if a real progressive movement is to emerge in this country, that Kos and Armstrong, like the Democratic Party itself, will be obstacles to it and not leaders of it.

Read the whole thing. The comments in the thread are of interest, too:

Amanda

I’m inclined to think Kos & Co. have pitted “special interests� against the party, and I don’t think their goals are necessarily at odds. Or, to put it another way, this paranoid fear that advocacy groups turn off the public strikes me as illogical.

bellatrys

Trying to woo [pocketbook voters] away by promising to be Repub-lite won’t work. Trying to woo them away by promising to be more Repub than the Republicans won’t likely work either - why should they believe it?

OTOH, the DCCC is just dumb enough to try *either* of those. In which case they will wonder, as they embrace being Evildum to Evildee, why all remaining traces of their old “base� have evaporated - and pay Al From another half-billion to try to figure it out for them.

FoolishOwl

Part of the trouble is that the progressives have been trying to take over the Democrats from the outside ever since the Radical Republicans were defeated and the Republicans were purged of progressive politics. Kos’s model is exactly that which has led to defeats of progressive movements over and over again.

R. Mildred

the dems and kos and all the rest want a win now, any actual strategy that would allow liberal issues to get implemented would take time, they want cake now, before dinner, and are honestly believe that they won’t spoil their appetite.

The only people I’ve seen sell things off and out as quickly and easily as these guys are crack heads, and like crack heads they don’t care who they hurt in the search for the next hit.

Bella

Thing is, the mainstream Democrats have largely kept people like me (waaay to the left of the party as it presently stands) in line and voting for them based on, really, the one Big Issue, the one on which they were never supposed to fail us: abortion. And yet, here we go, they’re about to do just that. And when that happens — and I tell you, I am this close to certain that it’s going to happen, oh, in a few days or weeks, when Alito gets confirmed — my much-decried special interest ass is going to be looking elsewhere. Here’s where the anti-choice fundie wackjobs and I are alike: I don’t like feeling like I’ve been played for a chump by my party. And I really don’t think I’m going to be alone in this.

Jettisoning ideology and identity politics in order to get nominal Democrats elected to office is the kind of profoundly stupid thing the DLC has been up to for a long time now. And we can see how goddamn successful that’s been. We are seriously outgunned when it comes to the really big money, the press is largely in the tank, about all we’ve got on our side is this fragile coalition of identity-based progressive groups and individuals, and Kos and Jerome want to marginalize us further? The hell? Why the fuck would I want to get right-wing Democrats elected? What’s in it for me? God, yes, I’d love to see that twisted little shit Rick Santorum driven from office, but by Casey? Why?

postdated

This leadership is purposefully destroying the party by their willful and intended ineffectiveness.. now that the party is almost the size of a bathtub the bastards have the nerve to take the base hostage and demand ransoms for them to represent us again. They have made the terms of the ransom very clear… Only when you give up your liberal and progressive issue will we then go back to work and represent you… however, the fact of the matter is that once we give up our dreaded issues and ideologies and become partisan just for partisan fuck sake… our representatives will actually be representing the GOP they envy so, and not us.

There are many other comments, but eataTREE offers the lame-ass counter-argument:

You don’t have to vote Democratic. It’s a free country. You can vote third-party or stay home if you like. But the upshot of your doing so is twofold: a) more Republicans are going to be elected (and yes, that will actually make a difference to policy decisions regarding the issues liberals care about), and b) Democrats will tack even further to the right, since they’re no longer getting votes from the left.

This is the regularly-employed tactic. The only problem is that we're talking about the Democratic Party, and who's leading it and best representing the voters. Casey apologists and others like to jump ahead to November, but we're entering primary season. There are no official Democratic nominees to Congress and the Senate yet.

And yet these right-wing faux-progressives claim that only their boys can win. I think the past two decades have proven that that's not true.

I don't know, but to me these folks seem like they're so driven by fear that they figure the only Democrats who can win elections are Republicans, or at least Democrats who look as Republican as possible.

Which is kind of like lighting a fire in the hearth on a really hot day, and offering the rationale that at least it's our heat, and not from the sun.

Finally, from Lorenzo's comment:

Jedmunds said,

In short, think tanks were used to legitimate their ideology.

*DING DING DING* Finally, someone who gets it.

The problem with compromising your ideology instead of fighting like hell to normalize it is that you normalize the other guy’s ideology.

Liquidating ideology for partisanship ultimately only serves to normalize the opposition’s ideology and thus to keep getting them elected. The entire point of the conservative movement since the 70’s has been to normalize their ideology to make themselves into the center and thus to increase their electoral fortunes.

Update 2:40pm EST: See also eugene's review of the Kos/Jerome book at MyLeftWing:

While the chapters on consultants and infrastructure may garner the book attention among established Democratic circles, it is the chapter on the single-issue groups that I bet will be best received by the blogosphere. This was the case in an earlier review of Crashing the Gate published on ePluribus Media by Aaron Barlow. Barlow commended the authors for taking on the single-issue groups who peddle special interests and pet issues (frames that are Republican in origin and generated to discredit Democrats; Markos and Jerome repeatedly adopt such frames - one wonders if they read their Lakoff that closely), and opens his own review with the familiar tale of an anti-war protest that saw a series of speakers take the podium to exhort the audience to care about their own cause.

For Markos and Jerome, such instances are perfect examples of how these single issue special interests have ruined the Democratic Party brand. I find that difficult to believe, particularly since in the case of antiwar protests, they would not have existed at all had it been up to the Democrats. Antiwar activism has routinely been denigrated by the Democratic establishment. To blame antiwar activists for Democratic failures, then, is to me simply appalling. Had Democrats either taken the lead on opposing the war, or done their jobs and not voted for it in the first place, the single-issue approach the authors find so frustrating wouldn't have happened at all.

[snip]

One has to be careful to not allow an attack on specific groups and organizations to slide over and become an attack on people who take those issues seriously. While neither Markos nor Jerome explicity makes such an attack on people, their use of language - speaking of these matters as special interests (a Republican frame) and as pet issues (another Republican frame) can have that impact, especially if this book is uncritically used to frame the discussion. Democrats take issues like the environment and abortion and labor rights and ending racism and health care and peace extremely seriously, as well they should. Any Democratic strategy must also take them seriously.

What we do want, and what the authors seem to desire as well, is for these groups to craft a strategy that is holistic in nature. To come together to support candidates who share all values (The authors suggest that the 2004 Colorado elections were a good example of this approach). And to come together to explain to Americans why their core issues of concern are not separate, but are fundamentally, even inextricably, linked - why you can't have successful labor organizing without addressing racism, why you can't fix the environment without talking about foreign policy, why you can't provide universal health care and at the same time say it's OK to deny women abortions, as someone last weekend tried to convince me you could.

In short, that strategy needs to directly address what is routinely derided by Markos and Jerome in this book: ideology.

The American political landscape is littered with the bodies of Democrats who believed you could build a governing majority without worrying about ideology. Pat Brown, Lyndon Johnson, even Jimmy Carter to some extent, found out the hard way that as a Democrat, you ignore debates over ideology and deeply-held beliefs of your voting base at your peril. Ideological splits cannot be forestalled by appealing to party unity or by trying to silence dissent - they can only be resolved by working through the issues themselves, rather than ignoring them and allowing them to fester.

Markos and Jerome's dismissive attitudes of ideology are more than politically shortsighted. Their attitudes, I would suggest, stand in the way of a reconstruction of a progressive message. To the authors, ideology is a term that is always defined as a negative. Ideology divides, never unites. It alienates, never amalgamates.

There's much more, well worth the read.

There's an interesting article in this week's New York Review of Books, written by Garry Wills about Jimmy Carter's new book, Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis, that offers some quite sharp insights on the so-called "pro-life" movement -- something I consider only slightly short of remarkable, given that this is coming from a patriarchal moralist and a paternalistic liberal journalist, two men who've not demonstrated much insight when it comes to women's rights.

In his book, Wills writes, Carter lays into the fundamentalist authoritarianism that's sweeping across the religious landscape, and which took over the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000.

Such attitudes are far from the ones recommended by Jesus in the gospels as Carter has studied and taught them through the decades, and their proponents have brought similar attitudes into the political world, where a matching political fundamentalism has taken over much of the electoral process. Such dictatorial attitudes defeat the stated goals of the fundamentalists themselves. On abortion, for instance, Carter argues that a "pro-life" dogmatism defeats human life and values at many turns. Carter is opposed to abortion, as what he calls a tragedy "brought about by a combination of human errors." But the "pro-life" forces compound rather than reduce the errors. The most common abortions, and the most common reasons cited for undergoing them, are caused by economic pressure compounded by ignorance.

Yet the anti-life movement that calls itself pro-life protects ignorance by opposing family planning, sex education, and informed use of contraceptives, tactics that not only increase the likelihood of abortion but tragedies like AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. The rigid system of the "pro-life" movement makes poverty harsher as well, with low minimum wages, opposition to maternity leaves, and lack of health services and insurance. In combination, these policies make ideal conditions for promoting abortion, as one can see from the contrast with countries that do have sex education and medical insurance. Carter writes:

Canadian and European young people are about equally active sexually, but, deprived of proper sex education, American girls are five times as likely to have a baby as French girls, seven times as likely to have an abortion, and seventy times as likely to have gonorrhea as girls in the Netherlands. Also, the incidence of HIV/ AIDS among American teenagers is five times that of the same age group in Germany.... It has long been known that there are fewer abortions in nations where prospective mothers have access to contraceptives, the assurance that they and their babies will have good health care, and at least enough income to meet their basic needs.

The result of a rigid fundamentalism combined with poverty and ignorance can be seen where the law forbids abortion:

In some predominantly Roman Catholic countries where all abortions are illegal and few social services are available, such as Peru, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia, the abortion rate is fifty per thousand. According to the World Health Organization, this is the highest ratio of unsafe abortions [in the world].

Don't tell the zealots. They don't want to hear it. More importantly, they don't want you to hear it.

A New York Times article that came out after Carter's book appeared further confirms what he is saying: "Four million abortions, most of them illegal, take place in Latin America annually, the United Nations reports, and up to 5,000 women are believed to die each year from complications from abortions."[*] This takes place in countries where churches and schools teach abstinence as the only form of contraception—demonstrating conclusively the ineffectiveness of that kind of program.

By contrast, in the United States, where abortion is legal and sex education is broader, the abortion rate reached a twenty-four-year low during the 1990s. Yet the ironically named "pro-life" movement would return the United States to the condition of Chile or Colombia. And not only that, the fundamentalists try to impose the anti-life program in other countries by refusing foreign aid to programs that teach family planning, safe sex, and contraceptive knowledge. They also oppose life-saving advances through the use of stem cell research. With friends like these, "life" is in thrall to death. Carter finds these results neither loving (in religious terms) nor just (in political terms).

In other words, the so-called "anti-abortion movement" in the United States wants authoritarian political policies that emulate policies in countries where the unsafe abortion rates are highest in the world.

"Pro-life"? More like a Culture of Death. A Culture of Death that promotes the un-checked proliferation of military weapons into the hands of criminals and terrorists....

The pro-life forces have no problem with a gun industry and capital punishment legislation that are, in fact, provably pro-death. Carter, a lifelong hunter, does not want to outlaw guns and he knows that Americans would never do that. But timorous politicians, cowering before the NRA, defeat even the most sensible limitations on weapons useful neither for hunting nor for personal self-defense (AK-47s, AR-15s, Uzis), even though, as Carter shows, more than 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs told Congress that these weapons are obstacles to law enforcement. The NRA opposed background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists and illegals, and then insisted that background checks, if they were imposed, had to be destroyed within twenty-four hours. The result of such pro-death measures, Carter writes, is grimly evident: "American children are sixteen times more likely than children in other industrialized nations to be murdered with a gun, eleven times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from firearms accidents." Where are the friends of the fetus when children are dying in such numbers?

A Culture of Death that fights against the power of the people against the super-rich multi-national corporations....

It is the gap between rich and poor in the world that presents the main threat to our future, yet American policies increase that gap, at home and abroad. We give proportionally less money in foreign aid than do other developed countries, and our ability to give is being decreased by our growing deficit, incurred to reward our own wealthy families with disproportionate tax cuts. Carter points out that much of the aid announced or authorized never reaches its targets. This reflects a general smugness about America's privileged position. We are dismissive of other countries' concern with the world environment, with nuclear containment, and with international law.

A Culture of Death that proudly crows its willingness to use torture and bribery and nuclear weapons to push "national interests"....

We have, for example, declared our right to first use of nuclear weapons. We have used aid money to bribe people against holding us accountable to international law. We have run secret detention centers where hundreds of people are held without formal charges or legal representation. We have rewarded with high office men who, like Alberto Gonzales, say that the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners are "obsolete" or even "quaint," or who, like John Bolton, say that it is "a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so."

The result, as Carter writes, has been to turn a vast fund of international good will accruing to us after September 11 into fear of and contempt for America unparalleled in modern times.

In other words, it's all of a piece -- the right's contempt for human life, which for American citizens is so cynically packaged by as a "Culture of Life," promotes death in America and worldwide. And what is becoming increasingly clear is that the right's bottom line is that they are all for promoting governmental and corporate power at the expense of human rights and human lives.

How can a loving religion or a just state support such a culture of death? Only a self-righteous and punitive fundamentalism, not an ethos of the gospels, can explain this.

Indeed.

Big Brother is watching you:

NEW BEDFORD -- A senior at UMass Dartmouth was visited by federal agents two months ago, after he requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's tome on Communism called "The Little Red Book."

Two history professors at UMass Dartmouth, Brian Glyn Williams and Robert Pontbriand, said the student told them he requested the book through the UMass Dartmouth library's interlibrary loan program.

The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said.

Because, you know, if you even want to research Communism in history, that makes you an al-Qaeda suspect.

The eavesdropping was apparently done without warrants.

One assumes that's because the American courts are in league with al-Qaeda, too.

The student told Professor Pontbriand and Dr. Williams that the Homeland Security agents told him the book was on a "watch list." They brought the book with them, but did not leave it with the student, the professors said.

Someone please tell them that the Cold War is over, and that Communist China is now lending us the money to go fight wars on Iraq.

Meanwhile, with a snarky chuckle, Xeni at Boing Boing has a link to Amazon so you can buy the book that will invite Federal investigators over to your house.

Also on the watch list: Charles Darwin's, "The Evolution of Species." (I'm just kidding, but in this day and age, you never know.)

Inga Muscio is back with a new book. Personally, I’m not sure that I could be happier about it. Muscio’s first book, Cunt: A Declaration of Independence, changed the course of my life. To put it bluntly, Muscio used the power of words to open my consciousness in ways I could never have anticipated. Over time, I have discovered that I am far from the only person who felt this way.

Apparently this is Inga Muscio’s goal and her talent because she has done it again with Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Devil: My Life and Times in a Racist, Imperialist Society.

Weaving history, observations, and personal experiences together, Muscio dissects the white supremacist nature in an accessible, painfully honest, and eye-opening manner. Explicitly explaining how racism infiltrates every aspect of life in the United States, Muscio also discusses animal rights and environmental issues, leaving readers with a coherent understanding of the nature of domination.

Sometimes reading this autobiography is painful—Muscio invites and elicits introspection that might hurt. In the end, however, hope is offered and knowledge is gained. This is the kind of pain that leads to improvement and consciousness, and that kind of pain is something that should never be underestimated.

It’s a shame that the resource packet was cut from the final copy of the book. The bright side is that it is available online at Inga Muscio’s website along with excerpts from the book.

All in all, I’d certainly recommend Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Devil to anyone who is willing (and I mean really willing) to read, understand, and improve.

I thought I'd pass this on:

Contributors wanted for an anthology of writing by sex trade workers to be published by Soft Skull Press. All genders are encouraged to submit, as are current or former workers from any area of the sex industry: survival workers, strippers, whores, hustlers, pro dommes, film or print models, escorts, etc. All kinds of takes on the industry, positive to negative, are welcomed. Essays, narratives, and comics are all acceptable, fiction or non. Unpublished writers welcomed. We are looking not only for accounts of personal experience, but also for pieces that reflect the unique position sex trade workers occupy on the front lines of struggles with race, class, gender, ownership, and desire. Deadline: October 15, 2005 Length of submissions: 1500-3500 words Send submissions as word or .txt attachments to: swas3@juno.com Editor: Annie Oakley Payment: Fee and copy of the book www.sexworkersartshow.com

I have to pimp a story subcription you might like.

It's called "One Story" and it comes out 18 times a year. It is exactly what it says...one short story a month (with a couple extras a year) in a small paper booklet. When I receive it, I try to read it as soon as possible b/c the stories are just a quick respite from the trials and races of the everyday. And as it's one story, it's not an overwhelming chore. Once it's over, it's done, but it gives you something to think on for the rest of the day.

www.one-story.com

and the editor states she's always looking for unpublished work btw 3-8000 words. So word up to you fiction writers. It's hard to get published in fiction.

Pic:

Caption:
Godless, secular, Marxist inspired homosexual debauchery at its sordid best. A must read!

Pic description:

Now that I have your full and undivided attention, let me say that I hope the reader was not offended in any way by the overt references to lesbian sex ("Gasp")implicit in the title of this post. Please, bear in mind that in light of Ms. Cheney's strong support of the president, it was all I could do to resist the powerful urge to devise a title caption that made oblique reference to the coincidental similartity between the president's last name and the physiological focal point of her characters in her steamy first novel. However, as we prepare for observing tomorrow's "Justice Sunday" I asked myself, "What would Larry Flynt do?" and decided to opt instead for the ever popular XXX/porno. headline motif.

I found Mrs. Cheney's first effort to be a rolicking good read, loaded with double entendre and overtly gay dialog. Set in the late 1800's, "Sisters" chronicles the westward journey of two young women, each with their own passionate desire to carve out new lives, far away from the failures and shame of their previous existence in upper crust, New England society.

Set at a time when handsomely rugged men struggled to acquire wealth through ranching, gold mining and, if need be, killing, the two beautiful heroines find themselves innundated by invitations to romance and riches. There was,however, only one, small problem. . . they were lesbians in love!

The author writes with such nuance of detail about the passion between the two women that I could not but admire her dedication to the research process. Thorough and convincing, Ms. Cheney writes as if she herself had shared the same conastoga wagon as the two female "sisters."

A definite "thumbs up" to Lynne Cheney for this dazzling literary effort, a definite contender in the "girl meets girl" genre and, hey, for only $9.95 in beautifully bound hardback, Lynne helps put the value back in "values."I look for more great things to come from the pen of our talented second lady.

selected excerpts: WARNING! Hot, steamy depictions of lesbian sex are to be found in the following passages. Continue reading at your own risk.

"The women who embraced in the wagon were Adam and Eve crossing a dark cathedral stage -- no, Eve and Eve, loving one another as they would not be able to once they ate of the fruit and knew themselves as they truly were. She felt curiously moved, curiously envious of them. She had never to this moment thought Eden a particularly attractive paradise, based as it was on naiveté, but she saw that the women in the cart had a passionate, loving intimacy forever closed to her. How strong it made them. What comfort it gave."

"The young woman was heavily powdered, but quite attractive, a curvesome creature, rounded at bosom and cheek. When she smiled, even her teeth seemed puffed and rounded, like tiny ivory pillows."

"Let us go away together, away from the anger and imperatives of men. We shall find ourselves a secluded bower where they dare not venture. There will be only the two of us, and we shall linger through long afternoons of sweet retirement. In the evenings I shall read to you while you work your cross-stitch in the firelight. And then we shall go to bed, our bed, my dearest girl."

Note: Originally published in 1981, "Sisters" was scheduled for a second printing by its Canadian publisher last year but, oddly, when the author received notice of such she insisted that the project be immediately halted. It is also rumored that Republikans are buying up all remaining copies of the book in order keep them off the market, thus sparing the values crowd from having to explain yet another embarrassing example of blatant hypocrisy.

I'm trying to build an on-line community for a novel about a young woman (Cassie DiMarco, from Philadelphia) at Yale in 1975 who runs smack into the Sexual Revolution. It's the Women's Movement which saves her (that and her extraordinary personal energy and verve). While it takes place in the 70s, I think the issues she deals with (love, temptation, self-identity, losing that identity in someone else) are still relevant today. And the president of Harvard helped to prove that recently. Yale thanks you, Harvard.

The novel is making its way through the publishing juggernaut, so I'm attempting to use a blog to build readership for the book. I invite everyone to visit the blog, comment if so moved, and perhaps add it to your life. It's not really a personal home page, but a work of fiction.

http://beyondyouandme.blogspot.com/

Thanks.