Today Al and I decided to finally check out the Montague Bookmill in Montague, MA. It's about a half an hour drive from our place and we'd both heard pretty good things about it from people that have lived in Massachusetts for a little long than we have. I generally enjoy used book stores as long as their filing system makes sense and i can easily walk around/find everything i want and the bookmill succeeded in this area. It's located in a building built in 1842 to be a gristmill giving it an interesting aesthetic quality including several different sized rooms, steep stairs and creaky wooden floors. The majority of books they carried were very well kept, many hardly looked like they'd been open. Probably 90 percent of their books were non fiction, mostly academic in nature topics ranging from gay and lesbian lit to graphic design. My main critique of the bookmill was the lack of books published after around 1992. This is probably something one could say about any used book store, but it seemed more prevalent than another bookstore i regularly visit.
What the bookmill reminded me of most is The Book Loft (warning: this is a poorly laid out website that includes a backing musical track that i think might be by enya that you cannot opt to turn off. actually, don't even go here, it's not worth it.) located in German Village, a subsection of Columbus, OH. This was always one of my favorite places to visit when i actually went into downtown Columbus while i was still living around there. I could literally get lost looking at all their book offerings within their maniacally laid out 32 room store. They were superior to the bookmill in many ways, but their best feature was being open until 11pm or midnight each night (as are many other things located in Columbus). Conversely, nothing in the pioneer valley is open past 9.
I don't want to dis the bookmill too much though, we didn't try out the cafe located next door that has a pretty sweet menu (yum, brie, apricot jam and marinated apple grilled sandwich!). Additionally, i did pick up two Margaret Atwood books for 3 dollars and some change. They are her first and second published works, The Edible Woman (published in 1969) and Surfacing (published in 1972). I've never actually heard anyone talk about these two books when they talk about Atwood which i guess either means they're really bad or really crazy. I have to admit though, the real reason i bought them (although at some point i will read them) was the hilarious quotes on the front cover of each.
It's kind of crazy that that kind of thing would ever make anyone want to buy a book. I really like how Surfacing is considered the most shattering novel a woman ever wrote and then touted as even better than The Bell Jar like Sylvia Plath is the only other woman author out there (maybe in the New York Times eyes she is-- all they probably recognize as literature are the Great Books anyway *puke*). Also-- was everyone afraid of flying back in the late 60s early 70s? Didn't they use to smoke on flights back then? I can only assume that flying fear had something to do with the stale, overused cigarette smoke recirculating through the air ducts on a long flight. I'm really excited to read these books to see if their cover hype lives up to whats inside. When i finish these maybe i'll have to go back to the bookmill to get some more reading...and a grilled sandwich.
With the presidential election only (ha) 10 months away the general feeling by those in the political realm is that our next president will be the democratic nominee (see: Bush, the war, scandal, approval ratings, etc. on the republican side). Even though Super Tuesday has already passed there is still no definitive answer on who that candidate will be. Obama and Clinton are neck and neck trading votes from delegates and states, pretty much ending up equal in their earnings (although in this graph it looks as if Al Gore still has a chance!). McCain is heading towards receiving the republican bid mere months after being hated on for becoming inauthentic in his most recent years. Probably the best course of action for this presidential year would be to get rid of the republican candidate completely and instead let the actual race be between Clinton and Obama. Now that would be interesting! Alas, i'm pretty sure that's not possible, besides they'd probably just split the votes and then we'd have to have a ridiculous amount of recounts, etc. How. Annoying.
For the past several years that Clinton had been hinting at running for president i just laughed it off. Even if she was going to run, i thought, no one would vote for her in the primaries and she'd drop out in the beginning of 2008. I mean, come on. She's a lady. If i learned anything in my women's studies classes it's that no one likes a woman in power. But apparently, i was all wrong. Evidently, she actually might win. WIN. (although one reason i think she is doing so well is because Obama has some things against him too-- mainly that he is NOT a old white man who has a lot of political experience...but that's a different discussion altogether.) Let me make this clear- i consider myself a woman, a feminist and white. Therefore i should be cheering on Clinton and this improbable run. Yet, i am less than pleased. The last time i visited home my mom broached the subject of politics with Al and i and proceeded to tell us she was scared of what Clinton might do if in office. I couldn't help but laugh out loud at her. The right-wing propaganda against Clinton is ridiculous and is forcing unsuspecting conservative people, like my mom, to think that this "feminist, radical, liberal woman" is going to force abortions on all women (even if they aren't pregnant) and castrate all men. Perhaps Clinton was a radical liberal feminist at one time but after her failed attempt at innovating health care in 1992 while her husband was in office she changed as a person. Clinton became part of the political machine, perhaps even, she became the machine itself. In reality Clinton should be the least scary of all the democratic nominees. If she is our next president we will probably see a lot of the same shenanigans we saw with Bush as our leader (but without the scary god-told-me-to-start-the-end-times shtick).
What i believe about Clinton, though, is in no means indicative of the general feminist climate. Actually, it seems most people who call themselves "feminist" (which honestly could mean any number of things) are pretty split between Clinton and Obama supporters (not unlike the race itself). Last week New York State's NOW (National Organization of Women) released a statement to the press demeaning Senator Kennedy for not supporting Clinton saying,
Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard...This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation- to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who “know what’s best for us.
This is insane, disgusting and not something that (i hope) most feminists feel. NOW New York lost a lot of respect after posting this from many feminist bloggers (INCLUDING MYSELF). (it must be noted that the national NOW branch has issued a statement saying that they do not agree with the feelings within NOW New York [aka- not all feminist groups are crazy, apparently just one].)
The anti-feminist Ann Coulter has also come out with her stance on Clinton. Last week on Hannity and Colmes Coulter announced she'd endorse Clinton if McCain is the republican candidate (and after the Super Tuesday results it seems more likely than not he will be)
I'm not sure, but this might be the end of the world. If conservative joke Ann Coulter is campaigning for Clinton (even if it is only to make a point) AND ultra-feminists feel as if she must win because of her womanhood i can only assume Clinton will be the next president of the United States. Sadly, in all of this ruckus about who is more liberal, who is more scary and who is the most democratic i agree with Coulter's stance the most (!!!). She seems to be the only conservative (maybe even person) that understands the inability for Clinton to do anything for the liberal side because of how integrated she is in the old wealthy white male political machine.
After i said all of this i realize that i don't really know anything at all about Obama except that he's charming, he looks good on the beaches of Hawai`i (see above) and he's new to this whole political thing (which can only be a good thing). I don't think he's the best candidate for the job, but at least he's not as misunderstood as his rival.
I lost some respect for the New York Times today. The main headline on the New York Times website, NYTimes.com, in the mid-morning read, "Tainted Drugs Tied to Maker of Abortion Pill" (login required?) a story about cancer patients in China becoming paralyzed after taking contaminated drugs. The Times is really going after those shock and awe hits with this title. The headline and the following article is disgusting for a few reasons. First off, linking the always hated "abortion pill" with the harm of cancer patients (a group that will always be a favorite to feel sorry for) is not doing any good for the plight of choice in America. Second, the title implies that the abortion pill is tainted and therefore worth a second glance by the FDA before we let anyone else get hurt. But I think the thing that irks me the most is that the Times needed to mention RU-486 (aka "the abortion pill) at all. The article is about a pill for leukemia and has nothing to do with abortion, the potential harm taking the abortion pill could cause or ANYTHING to do with (or the lack of) sexual reproduction AT ALL. In fact, as the article states, "(RU-486) is made at a factory different from the one that produced the tainted cancer drugs, about an hour’s drive away." Clearly, the Times is just putting a little fear in our hearts and a smile on the faces of those that are anti-abortion.
This ridiculous headline comes right at the heels of an interesting article over at Slate.com bemoaning inane headlines on cable news sites like Foxnews and CNN. As I read the article that quoted headlines like "British Teen Films Herself Trying To Kill Parents" and "Elementary School Principal Charged in Sexual Assault" I was glad that I didn't read any of those website instead opting for more "intellectual" (I am really smart) sites like the New York Times. After the Times headline today I guess no one is safe from the stupidity the internet forces news sites to lower themselves to in order to receive the maximum amount of hits per day. The Slate article compares these sensationalist headlines to tabloids on gossip sites like TMZ and mention that sex and missing/dead babies are the favorite headline topics for cable news. In my mind, this Times article is no different.
Further Reading: Ann at Feministing adds some interesting points to this discussion that I didn't mention above. Not sure what RU-486 is? Wiki-it.
