Money! it’s what I want! Specifically, I want the money that should be summarily deducted from the Republican women in the United States Senate who voted to block a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Have you not heard of this bill? You must be a white cis-man, then. For everyone else outside of that small but powerful category, here’s the summary in bumper sticker form: EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK! Did you know that in the United States the wage gap for white women is 77 cents to every white man’s dollar? That African-American women get 62 cents? That Hispanic women get 53 cents? The Paycheck Fairness Act is designed to help correct that. It would strengthen the existing Equal Pay Act of 1963 and would allow employees easier access to salary records without fear of retaliation. No brainer, eh?

Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Kay Bailey Hutchison have the same jobs that Al Franken, Henry Reid, Mitch McConnell and handsome former Cosmopolitan model Scott Brown have. The salary for the job is $174,000 yearly. All of the aforementioned ladies are white, and they are all Republicans who failed to break ranks to vote for this legislation (well, Murkowski didn’t vote against it–she failed to leave her precious write-in ballots to show up for the vote. Same diff). The dreaded filibuster killed it. That must mean that these four women do not agree that women employees need this kind of legal protection. Hmmmm…….

GRAB YOUR CALCULATORS! What should Collins, Snowe, Bailey Hutchison and Murkowski be paid? And how much money do those four owe back to the federal government now that their hypocrisy has been exposed? I’ll take an Ativan while I wait (the sheer stupidity of some people gives me anxiety attacks).

Ready? I was an English major, not a math major (I’m a GIRL, silly!), but my numbers tell me that each of these women should only be paid $132, 240 per year. Let’s subtract that from $174,000 and see what we get. Oh mercy! These four, who do not believe that women have the right to equal pay, need to remit back to the federal government $41, 760. EACH. For every year that they have served.

I’m starting a campaign to get my money back, because $41K times whatever might be just enough money to ensure that my public library, its hours slashed due to budget cuts, could reopen on Mondays. Luckily, most of the staff are women, and we know they work cheap! Start dialing, girls!

Kay Bailey Hutchison: (202) 224-5922

Olympia Snowe: (202) 224-5344

Lisa Murkowski: (202) 224-6665

Susan Collins: (202) 224-2523

SPIKE! Can you dig it? If you can come up with a better acronym, let me know. Tom Emmer must go down in flames come November.

There are so many reasons to detest Emmer that it’s hard to pick just one. Regressive tax policy? Slashing our state’s already pathetic social safety net? Support for racial profiling laws like Arizona’s? Ugh. All of these positions are typical of a person who refuses, as the Native American aphorism goes, to walk a mile in another person’s moccasins. If Emmer wants to experience the freedom from government that he claims to want, he ought to visit Mogadishu. While he’s there, he can ask how many of the remaining citizens have relatives who emigrated to Minnesota. I suspect he’ll find quite a few, as the Twin Cities area has the largest concentration of Somali expats in North America, and I don’t think they came because they preferred the weather.

Last week I wrote up a press release on behalf of Minnesota NOW on what was just the latest evidence of Emmer’s indifference to people who neither look, think, nor love like him:

October 13, 2010

All Minnesotans, regardless of party affiliation, are shocked by the recent spike in gay teen suicides across the nation. Here at home, 15-year-old Anoka resident Justin Aaberg took his own life in July, a desperate act his mother believes was motivated by unchecked bullying at her son’s school. Minnesota NOW, as a partner in the Safe Schools for All Coalition, hopes that renewed attention to this public health emergency will finally increase momentum for anti-bullying legislation that could do so much to protect vulnerable adolescents.

But that won’t happen if Tom Emmer is elected Governor, warns Shannon Drury, State President of Minnesota NOW.

When Rep. Emmer was asked by a Fox 9 debate moderator on October 9 how he’d respond to this crisis, Emmer said he does not support this kind of legislation. Rep. Emmer said, “we should all be able to have [our] point of view and respect each other but we don’t need more laws trying to get in between people.”

With this statement, Emmer implied that bullies are entitled to their so-called “point of view,” even as they harass and intimidate their peers quite literally to death. “Sexism and racism are also points of view,” says Drury. “Would Governor Emmer fail to enforce other Minnesota civil rights statutes as well?”

Minnesota NOW, the Safe Schools for All Coalition, and a bipartisan majority in the State Legislature supported the Safe Schools for All Bill that was vetoed by Governor Tim Pawlenty in May 2009. Today, State Senator Scott Dibble and Representative Jim Davnie (both DFL-Minneapolis) announced plans to re-introduce this bill in the upcoming special session. Minnesota NOW’s statewide membership applauds the Senators for moving this important bill forward.

Rep. Emmer claims “we don’t need more laws,” yet he supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (Source: http://www.emmerforgovernor.com/issues/socialvalues/). “Apparently, Emmer does support more laws, after all—laws that reinforce his social agenda at others’ expense,” Drury says.

“Minnesotans are compassionate people. They want to do whatever they can to prevent another death like Justin Aaberg’s. They don’t want other parents to have to do what Tammy Aaberg did—bury her child.”

While much of my work emphasizes the former half of the creative nonfiction genre, some if it has to be true. This requires research. Too often I’m bogged down in statistics from the Guttmacher Institute or my state’s health and human services web page, but sometimes I stumble upon material that is too insane to keep to myself. Today’s hilarity is brought to us by a pamphlet called The Christian Worldview on the Family, credited to none other than George “rentboy.com” Rekers.

BUT! Because The Radical Parasite lives to challenge you, I have slipped in a few Bible passages that Rekers forgot, courtesy of the good people at Evil Bible.com. Can YOU decide which of God’s words you must follow and which you can freely ignore??

Chart by Mrs. Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian.

HERE WE GO!

We affirm that a man’s authority as head of his wife is delegated to him by God; …and that all authority is established by God and no one and no social institution has the right to exert any authority contrary to God’s laws or the bounds God has set for the man’s office in the family. (Romans 13:1; Ephesians 5:22-23)

All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

We deny….that wives ought to use Biblical limits on husbands’ authority as opportunities to quibble and undermine their husbands’ authority. (1 Peter 3:1-6)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

We deny both that any man should force his wife to abandon her calling in the home for the sake of mere financial gain unnecessary for minimal physical survival, and that the wife should volunteer to do so (1 Timothy 5:8; Ephesians 5:5); that the trappings of middle-class lifestyle are necessities that justify forcing the wife to work outside the home (1 Timothy 6:8);

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

We affirm that God calls the wife to submit willingly in loving obedience and respect to her husband as the Church submits herself to Christ (Ephesians 5:22-24; Colossians 3:18); and that wives with non-Christian husbands are called by God to be a testimony to their husbands by their gentle, submissive obedience, and not to weary them with constant criticism. (1 Peter 3:1-5)

We affirm that a mother’s primary duty is to nurture her minor children; that the wife’s responsibility is to manage the home and make it a center of ministry (1 Timothy 5:10, 14; Titus 2:3-5; Proverbs 31:10-31); that Christian media therefore should not glamorize outside careers for mothers with minor children; and that the Church ought to commend godly wives and mothers who work at home as role models.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

We deny that married mothers of minor children should seek male economic provider roles; that Christian wives should put the world’s idea of self-fulfillment through careers before the calling of God (Matthew 16:24-26; Mark 8:34,35; Luke 9:23-26); that following God’s commands in this area exploits women; and that only women with outside careers are “working women” while others are social and economic “parasites.”

I told you it was fun!

Dear Editors:

I am writing to protest your condescending coverage of Sen. Al Franken’s recent amendment to the Defense Department Appropriations Bill that would ban military contractors from using arbitration to resolves cases of sexual assault. First, your paper neglected to report the senator’s proposal of the amendment, which was inspired by the horrific (and well-reported) story of Jamie Leigh Jones, an employee of a military contractor who, after enduring a brutal gang-rape by several co-workers, discovered that her employment contract denied her the right to seek criminal charges against her perpetrators. Second, the StarTribune failed to note that the amendment passed 68-30, a significant victory not only for Minnesota’s junior Senator and Ms Jones, but for unknown others who have suffered in silence.

When your online news blog Hot Dish Politics finally deigned to cover the issue, it did so under the headline “Franken get testy over statistics,” implying that the real story is Sen. Franken’s demeanor in front of the Judiciary Committee. Even a casual viewer of the embedded clip, offered as proof of Sen. Franken’s behavior, would realize that the senator was carefully deconstructing the argument that arbitration is an appropriate venue for the criminal charge of sexual assault. I daresay that the StarTribune’s editors, not to mention its readers, would get more than testy if they witnessed a corporate attorney attempt to argue away the constitutional rights of a friend or family member.

I am grateful to Sen. Franken for his steadfast commitment to this issue. I only wish more people were as “testy” as he was in the face of grave injustice.

I remain, as always,
The Radical Housewife

As I’ve written before, I like listening to right wing talk radio. I live in a safe, liberal bubble here in south Minneapolis, and I feel it’s important to peep outside my comfort zone from time to time.

My favorite right wing nut is Rush Limbaugh, of course, but on yesterday’s drive to Target the host was Jason Lewis. I find Lewis fascinating. He’s an avowed libertarian who spoke out forcefully against RINOs like John McCain and Norm Coleman during last year’s election. I have no problem with libertarians: I find them to be a remarkably consistent bunch, and consistency is something I respect. To libertarians, a small federal government will keep its nose out of your health care AND your personal life.

So I was somewhat shocked to hear Lewis contort all reason in his attempt to justify the Defense of Marriage Act. He acknowledged that the act infringed upon the rights of states to determine how they wish to recognize civil marriage, and libertarians love them some states’ rights. I stayed glued to my radio in the Target parking lot while Lewis declared that civil marriage for heterosexuals existed because the state needs to offer this benefit in order to give folks incentives for having children. The state, he argues, offers this carrot to heteros because a mommy and a daddy are just naturally better at raising kids.

!!!

Did I miss something in American history class? “We the People, in order to breed more Well-Armed Citizens, shall offer Tax Breaks that are Significant, in addition to Inheritance Rights and and Health Coverage (through Employers only) to One Man and One Member of the Weaker Sex entering into a Civil Marriage Contract with this Federal Government. Amen.”

I have heard a lot of stupid ideas on KTLK, but this one really took the cake. I thought about my neighbors across the alley, who have enjoyed the benefits of civil marriage for 20 years without producing a single new taxpayer. I thought about the millions of children removed from the homes of abusive, neglectful heterosexual parents, many of them married! Mostly, I became blind with rage when I thought about my two best friends, and the insinuation that that they can’t raise their three kids as well as Matt and I raise our two.

I remember well the time Cathy sat in our living room and recounted with exhaustion the years, tears, and big bucks she and her partner went through to become parents. “And all you two have to do is SCREW!” she laughed, but I understood her bitterness. Gays and lesbians have to work a hell of a lot harder to become parents: they have to WANT it. They’re nothing like Bristol Palin and her ilk, hetero humpers who think that it’s a terrific thing for a child to be raised by a seventeen-year-old. Guess what? It’s not. Practically speaking, a child would do better to be raised by an adult for whom parenthood is not a surprise, but a considered life choice.

Speaking of choice, I became far more convinced of the pro-choice mantra “every child a wanted child” when I had a squalling infant at home. If you’re not mentally prepared for the pure hell on earth that is caring for a baby, you’re going to fuck it up. I daresay that the obstacles facing gay and lesbian parents make them better qualified for the job than quite a lot of breeder parents. They have to WANT it.

In other news, some more nuts are unhappy that the Obama administration is not taking into procreation into account in their defense of DOMA. Others, like me, are pissed that the Obama administration is defending DOMA at all.

And don’t even get me started about the MESS that is health care “REFORM” which has to be qualified because without a public option there is no reform whatsoever! Jeez Louise!

I think it might be best to turn off the radio for a while, crawl back into my bubble, and hide.

My essay for Skirt! mag mentioned that Elliott had the distinct honor of being harassed by Michele Bachmann before she became Michele Bachmann. While digging through the vintage posts in my old MySpace blog, I found my account of that day:

Friday May 5, 2006
Pissing Off Michele Bachmann!
For out-of-towners, you should know that state senator Michele Bachmann is a hateful old cow who keeps introducing a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and any legal equivalent in the Minnesota legislature. And she’s decided that poisoning Minnesota politics is not enough–she’s running for Congress! Yechhh.

Yesterday I took the children to the capitol to show our opposition to the so-called “Abortion Regulation Act,” one more law designed to take us a step closer to the dark ages. We were joined by sister Leah and nephew Aidan. The boys quickly grew bored with holding “Pro-Choice Pro-Family” signs and wanted more fun, so they began chasing each other around a bronze statue of Cass Gilbert. A pinchy-faced woman approached and nagged, “You should stop them from doing that. That statue is really valuable.” As she walked away I whispered, “You don’t have to listen to her. She’s MEAN.” Yep, it was our pal Michele.

We returned to the cluster of sign-holders, while Michele returned with one of her staffers in tow. She strode through our group, then turned to look behind her with a classic “who farted?” grimace on her face. Though she was staring at me and my kids, I thought her look of disgust was probably a delayed reaction to the gentleman displaying a sign with her picture and “HATEMONGER” written across it. As Michele stomped off into the Senate offices, the women behind me gasped, “did you see that? She was staring at the kids! She was grossed out by pro-choice kids!”

I was so proud. We’ll be back soon to destroy that fucking statue, Michele, just you wait!

I have nothing against Cass Gilbert, so we never made good on our promise of more mayhem. And as we all know, Michele was elected to national office later that year, terrorizing children on a larger scale and making a mockery of my beloved home state.

Please, for the sake of the pro-choice kids, consider making a campaign contribution to a smart, experienced candidate who has a great shot at beating Ol’ Fart-Face in 2010: State Senator Tarryl Clark.

Ok, pop culture nuts. Here is the clip of Kate “Reverse Mullet” Gosselin in action that’s got the blogosphere abuzz.

I have never seen this program, but it has captured my imagination along with the rest of the country because it seems to encapsulate so much about what is wrong with America today. You know the usual suspects: fame, greed, infertility treatments, reverse mullets, the works. With this clip we can now add the age-old “is she a good mother?” obsession to the mix. The commenters on Gawker, where I first saw this clip, made a variety of excuses for how annoying whining children can be, so in their opinion Kate deserves the benefit of the doubt. I have a different take.

I am something of an expert on difficult children, never more than when summer vacation is underway. I can see myself in Kate’s shoes here, grinding my teeth with rage after a long day of being harassed by a gaggle of little brats. One strategy is to keep the jaw wired shut and ignore them, which Kate is doing here. One could also explain to Mady calmly that it’s almost time for the interview, and Mommy will get her a drink once it’s over. A truly wonderful Mom of the Year might ask the Access Hollywood staff if they could delay the interview so all eight of the kiddos could get a drink, but it could be argued that Moms of the Year do not have reality television programs that get them into these situations in the first place.

One thing you NEVER, EVER do? Get yourself a water bottle and drink it while your thirsty kid cries. Parents are constantly challenged to balance what their children need with what the parent wants. It’s a push-pull that happens to every adult with a small person in her care. This is a good example of how the parent’s want takes precedence, with disastrous results. To hear Mady Gosselin plaintively wail “you’re really really mean…you drank right in front of my face!” is to witness the effect of emotional abuse on a 8-year-old child. It’s a disgusting power trip and it makes me sick. I can only hope the backlash will lead to this show’s cancellation.

I feel terrible for all of Kate’ children, but I also feel better for my two. Summer vacation might not be so bad after all.

From the trusted smarties at Gawker, of course. Why am I not reading the connections between Scott Roeder and James Von Brunn in the New York Times? Huh?

Three—three!—political shootings by right-wing extremists does actually make a trend, mostly because it’s not accidental that the crazies are turning violent now. Right-wing domestic terror, weirdly, spikes when the right-wing media step up the intensity and violence of their rhetoric—which they happen to do when Democrats are in charge. Hey, remember Oklahoma City? Guess what: now we don’t just have a regular Democrat president, we have a black man who is a secret Muslim! Sean Hannity and Dick Cheney and Bill O’Reilly tell the nuts that the nation is literally in danger because a terrorist has stolen the White House. So what happens then?

Gawker: The Rise of Right-Wing Violence

Look, I like our new President as much as anybody. But today he’s gone too far and I’m fucking sick of it.

I supported Hillary in the primaries, and if you don’t know why, I’ll tell ya: she has a vagina, stupid. Additionally, I had the insight of my brilliant friend Cathy, who was convinced that Obama on the campaign trail was a liberal as he was gonna get. A campaigning Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was as conservative as she was gonna get, and once in office she wouldn’t appoint a nutty anti-choice activist to a key position in the Department of Health & Human Services, like President Obama just did.

Today in “Obama FAIL” we have the irritating news that Obama’s administration is just gonna sit back and let the embarrassment that is “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” remain a part of Pentagon policy. It was bad enough when the nitwit Carrie Prejean said he was her ally against same-sex marriage, and he didn’t make a peep. You know that Hillary would not have put up with that kind of crap.

I was wrong about the radical feminist army, too–I think we need one after all. (Erin?)