TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar
and name your poison!
Meow!
It Was Ours For the Taking, It's Ours For the Fight
So as you may recall, November was National Novel Writing Month. For those of you who don't remember, the goal of NaNoWriMo is to write a 50,000 word novel in one month, the month of November. Winners get a certificate and a pat on the back, losers don't; basically, it's a writing exercise from Hell.
You need to average 1666 2/3 words per day if you're going to win; this year, I was never on pace. Until 30 minutes ago, when I crossed the 50,000 word mark with 66 minutes and 199 words to spare. I didn't write War, What is it Good For?, but I think in the series of scenes that I wrote, there might be a real story, assuming I can build enough connective tissue to hold it together. If nothing else, I wrote 25,000 words in the past eight days, and 20,000 in the past five. That's...really dumb, and next year, I'm going to be more assiduous.
So did any other folks participate? Anyone win? Anyone not win but still proud?
At any rate, I'm celebrating, Spongebob style:
Quote of the Day
"You know, I'm starting to think that maybe, just maybe, the WaPo's John Solomon isn’t a very good reporter."—Steve Benen.
LOL!!! Indeed.
Friday Cat Blogging
"Haz you seen Matilda?"
"We goes sleep now."
Prince Charming
Day Six.
Mr. Shakes had better hope this awesome dude doesn't have a brother, because, if he does, I might be tempted to run off with him.
[Though Manishkumar Patel is married to someone else, he and Darshana] began a relationship in 2001 and had a son in 2004. Darshana said she became pregnant with Manish's child in September 2006 — a child he denied was his — but she miscarried two months later.Boy, he sounds just dreamy.
She became pregnant with his child again in August 2007, the complaint said, and this time she noticed how attentive Manish became. He even prepared meals for her on occasion. Then she noticed the powder on the smoothie cup at the store. A short time later, her doctor detected problems in her hormone levels, and she contacted the lab to test the substance in the cup. While waiting for a kit to test the substance, she miscarried. The lab test later confirmed the presence of the abortion pill, the complaint said.
…The complaint said a search of Manishkumar Patel's residence Wednesday found an envelope containing pills labeled as mifepristone, or RU-486. Investigators said they asked him if he knew what kind of pills they were, and he responded, "abortion pills."
…Investigators had found an airline ticket in Patel's home for a flight scheduled to leave for Germany on Nov. 28, the day after he was arrested.
That Sound You Hear is the Collective Explosion of 30 Million Fundie Heads
Dinosaur Tracks Discovered in Utah. Utah Geological Survey/AP.
Ha ha. Just kidding. The fundies know Jesus put the tracks there just to test their faith.
Canadian Court Says U.S. Not Safe for Refugees
Wow:
The United States is not a safe country for refugees, the [Canadian] Federal Court said Thursday as it ruled that Canada will no longer have the right to turn back asylum seekers at the border.Stripped down to its basics, this means that the U.S.A. is officially known internationally as a torturing country, and one in which it may not be safe to seek asylum.
In the surprise judgment, the court found that the Safe Third Country Agreement breaches the rights of asylum seekers under the United Nation Refugee Convention or the Convention Against Torture....
Citing the example of Maher Arar, Justice Michael Phelan also noted that the U.S. has not been compliant with the Refugee Convention or CAT (Convention Against Torture).
"... The United States' policies and practices do not meet the conditions set down for authorizing Canada to enter into a STCA," Phelan wrote in his 126-page decision.
"The U.S. does not meet the Refugee Convention requirements nor the [UN] Convention Against Torture prohibition (the Maher Arar case being one example). Further, the STCA does not comply with the relevant provisions of the [Canadian] Charter [of Rights and Freedoms]."
There'll undoubtedly be a challenge to this, but for now...wow. Just wow.
H/t Pogge.
Norway: An Aspiration for Some
Apparently, the following clip was cut from Michael Moore's movie, Sicko. If some of their health benefits don't get ya, then the prisons certainly will.
Of course, some others might simply say something like "Oh yea? Well Norway sucks, man! They're a bunch of unhinged tree-hugging hippy wussies! U! S! A! Number one!" We can deal with that in another post.
Republicans Report Better Mental Health
In a new Gallup poll, Republicans were found to be "significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent… Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education."
Gallup goes on to conclude that "one cannot say whether something about being a Republican causes a person to be more mentally healthy, or whether something about being mentally healthy causes a person to choose to become a Republican (or whether some third variable is responsible for causing both to be parallel)."
By their own conclusion, they've lost the fact that their own findings only show that Republicans report having excellent mental health in higher numbers, not that they have excellent mental health in higher numbers, which is a pretty important distinction.
It also makes understanding the relationship between Republicanism and reporting excellent mental health pretty easy to understand, and it comes down to the immortal words of our last Democratic president: "I feel your pain." A lack of empathy is a key feature of modern Republicanism, and, in a world that treats a whole lot of people like rubbish, being empathetic can be a profoundly and quite literally depressing proposition.
I'm not suggesting there are no empathetic Republicans, or no self-centered Democrats; that's why the numbers aren't 100% and 0%. But generally speaking, one party platform speaks to social Darwinists and the other speaks to social safety netters. Every man for himself v. We're all in this together. Bearing that in mind, it's not even difficult to understand why a Republican who didn't actually have excellent mental health might report having such, anyway—to admit anything less would be tantamount to admitting personal failure.
Hostage Situation at Clinton Campaign HQ in New Hampshire
CNN:
Police are at a Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign office in New Hampshire to address what CNN affiliates are reporting as a hostage situation.Hillary Clinton was not in the area. I'll update as/when I get more info.
The affiliates said the incident began about 1 p.m. at the headquarters in Rochester. WCVB-TV in Boston said it is unclear how many people were being held. WMUR in New Hampshire said the hostage-taker was an armed man.
The WMUR Web site said a witness, Lettie Tzizik, told the station she spoke to a woman shortly after she was released from the office by the hostage-taker.
"A young woman with a 6-month or 8-month-old infant came rushing into the store just in tears, and she said, 'You need to call 911. A man has just walked into the Clinton office, opened his coat and showed us a bomb strapped to his chest with duct tape,'" the Web site reported.
UPDATE: The hostages are now reportedly free.
UPDATE 2: The terrorist has been arrested. It looks like no one was hurt, either. Good stuff.
Random YouTubery
1. Give baby lemon, lime, or pickle.
2. Sit back and enjoy the show.
This has to be one of the most universal human experiences. I have seen people of all colors, creeds, ethnicities, religions, ages, and social classes, in different countries, hand their babies something tart or bitter and then totally crack up when the inevitable "ick" face has been successfully evoked.
[Via The Unbeatable Kid.]
Friday Blogwhoring
How much blog would a blogwhore whore if a blogwhore did whore blog?
Recommended Reading:
The Dark Wraith: Taxes Rates, Tax Brackets, and Thompson
John Cole: Meet the Republican Base
Dorothy Snarker: Tina Fey Friday
Libby Spencer: Calling Giuliani on His Lies
Blue Meme: Don't Be Evil
Cookie Jill: Corporate Greed on a Sesame Seed Bun
Autumn Sandeen: Hillary Leaves off the T
A Christmas story from the dark side
I really don't have anything to add to the NYTimes story I saw at Economist's View:
The migrant farm workers who harvest tomatoes in South Florida have one of the nation’s most backbreaking jobs. For 10 to 12 hours a day, they pick tomatoes by hand, earning a piece-rate of about 45 cents for every 32-pound bucket. During a typical day each migrant picks, carries and unloads two tons of tomatoes. For their efforts, this holiday season many of them are about to get a 40 percent pay cut [on about $5/hr, given the piece rate]. ...Nobody but illegals could be forced to put up with this crap. Small wonder the Wall Street Journal editors wax poetic about open borders.
In 2005, Florida tomato pickers gained their first significant pay raise since the late 1970s when Taco Bell ended a consumer boycott by agreeing to pay an extra penny per pound for its tomatoes, with the extra cent going directly to the farm workers. Last April, McDonald’s agreed to a similar arrangement... But Burger King ... has adamantly refused to pay the extra penny — and its refusal has encouraged tomato growers to cancel the deals already struck with Taco Bell and McDonald’s.
This month the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange, representing 90 percent of the state’s growers, announced that it will not allow any of its members to collect the extra penny for farm workers. Reggie Brown, the executive vice president of the group, described the surcharge for poor migrants as “pretty much near un-American.”
Migrant farm laborers have long been among America’s most impoverished workers. Perhaps 80 percent of the migrants in Florida are illegal immigrants and thus especially vulnerable to abuse. During the past decade, the United States Justice Department has prosecuted half a dozen cases of slavery among farm workers in Florida. Migrants have been driven into debt, forced to work for nothing... The Coalition of Immokalee Workers — a farm worker alliance based in Immokalee, Fla. — has done a heroic job improving the lives of migrants in the state, investigating slavery cases and negotiating the penny-per-pound surcharge with fast food chains.
Now the Florida Tomato Growers Exchange has threatened a fine of $100,000 for any grower who accepts an extra penny per pound for migrant wages. ...
The prominent role that Burger King has played in rescinding the pay raise offers a spectacle of yuletide greed worthy of Charles Dickens. Burger King has justified its behavior by claiming that it has no control over the labor practices of its suppliers. “Florida growers have a right to run their businesses how they see fit,” a Burger King spokesman told The St. Petersburg Times.
Yet the company has adopted a far more activist approach when the issue is the well-being of livestock. In March, Burger King announced strict new rules on how its meatpacking suppliers should treat chickens and hogs. As for human rights abuses, Burger King has suggested that if the poor farm workers of southern Florida need more money, they should apply for jobs at its restaurants.
Three private equity firms — Bain Capital, the Texas Pacific Group and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners — control most of Burger King’s stock. ...
Telling Burger King to pay an extra penny for tomatoes and provide a decent wage to migrant workers would hardly bankrupt the company. Indeed, it would cost Burger King only $250,000 a year. At Goldman Sachs, that sort of money shouldn’t be too hard to find. In 2006, the bonuses of the top 12 Goldman Sachs executives exceeded $200 million — more than twice as much money as all of the roughly 10,000 tomato pickers in southern Florida earned that year.
[all emphasis added]
Boycott Burger King.
Measure Me This
Angelos sent me the link to this post about, as he aptly described it, faux-medical vagina 'fixing.' Now, we ladies can measure ourselves (be sure to use your special pink lady tools!) to see if our vaginas "measure up" to the best vaginas, since "All women want to be pretty, tight and small down there!" And, of course, if we don't "measure up," there are surgical procedures available to make sure we do!
I could write a whole post about the beauty standard totally getting out of control and how it's a bloody miracle that there's a woman left in America with a shred of self-esteem, when we've even got to be worried about whether our vaginas are pretty and shapely and perfect enough. But, honestly, if there's anyone reading this blog who doesn't intuitively get all that, I don't think I have the capacity or wherewithal to sort them out.
So, I'll just repeat here what I said to Angelos about it—"You'll be totally unsurprised, I'm sure, to hear that my position on the whole thing is: If you've got a problem with my cunt, you don't need to be fucking it."
That makes things pretty simple.
---------------------
Btw, in case it isn't clear, I'm only talking about vanity procedures. I know some women have real medical issues that need fixing, and I'm not lumping those in here.
Am I the only one…
…who's a wee bit bothered by the tone of the coverage of the latest Giuliani scandal? I'm talking about stuff like this:
His then-mistress, now-wife. Which isn't explained until paragraph three—otherwise known as about two paragraphs after people stop reading—itself tucked after a video link insert.
Subtext: Rudy's wife is a slut! Hee hee hee!
It's not like I think Rudy's relationship history isn't fair game; certainly it is, because he's got no basis at all for not supporting same-sex marriage when his marital history is a total shambles, and his marriage mantra appears to be, approximately, "Sanctity schmanctity!"
But something about the sneering, sanctimonious luxuriating in the reminder, in the course of a story about allegedly defrauding taxpayers, that Judith Nathan was his mistress, that they were having a tawdry affair, that he is a lech and a philanderer, just irks the fuck out of me.
Lots of people get divorced. Lots of people have affairs. Not all of them—not even most of them—are authoritarian goons keen to defraud their constituents. One thing doesn't have anything to do with the other.
One's sexual, relationship, and/or marital habits and history can inform one's authority (and integrity) on all the issues that generally fall under that spectacular umbrella known as "family values," but I intensely dislike the idea that being a bad husband (or wife), even a cheat, is necessarily representative of one's overall character. It's as patently stupid as arguing that Bush is a great person overall just because he's been married to one woman for a long time with no known affairs.
Ahem.
"I woke up with a noose around my neck."
This story, via Cliff Schecter [H/T Blogenfreude] is absolutely jaw-dropping. Just watch it; transcript immediately below.
Male VO: An African-American man is suing a drilling company located off the Louisiana coast after, he says, co-workers hung a noose around his neck and tried to choke him.According to this story, the two white men were fired, too—which makes perfect sense in the era of evolution/creationism-global warning/GW denial-Ann Coulter/Michael Moore both-sides-have-a-point/both-sides-are-just-as-bad bullshit equivalencies that turn everything into a matter of opinion where there's no longer right or wrong or fact or fiction or reality or Cloud Cuckoo, just two sides to every story and gee whiz who can tell what the truth is these days…let's just give it to the guy who screams the loudest.
Female VO: Robert Minter says he fell asleep during a break and woke up when three of his white co-workers were, as he put it, trying to hang him.
Minter: One of the gentlemen had, uh, he had placed the noose around my neck. It went up, over a pipe, about 14 feet high in the air. My other crewmember was standing up on a I-beam, with the other end in his hand, yanking on it.
Female VO: He says they called it a prank. Minter says when he told the bosses of Nobel Drilling of Houston, they fired him—and they say it was because he was sleeping on the job. The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in March.
I hope Minter reams them in court.
And, btw, according to Minter's lawyer, "because the incident occurred offshore, it is outside of the FBI's jurisdiction to pursue a possible hate crime." That's an interesting exception to note when considering federal hate crime statistics.
Why I Live in Florida
From the Traverse City [Michigan] Record-Eagle:
Traverse City High School students Spencer Perrin and Mike Harper, both 17, survey the damage to their car's wheel after it slid off the road and hit the curb at the corner of Pine and West State streets.Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, went through the therapy.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Okay, My Irony Meter's Broken Now
So you've probably heard that Rudy Giuliani probably spent several thousand dollars of New York City money so he could have security when he went to visit his mistress in Connecticut. But don't you believe it. Rudy Giuliani has a defender, and he's an unimpeachable source:
Bernard B. Kerik, who was Mr. Giuliani’s police commissioner when some of the charges were billed, said in an interview yesterday that the security detail’s travel expenses would normally come out of the Police Department’s budget.
“There would be no need for anyone to conceal his detail’s travel expenses,” said Mr. Kerik, who was indicted earlier this month on unrelated federal tax fraud and corruption charges. “And I think It’s ridiculous for anyone to suggest that the mayor or his staff attempted to do so.”
And no, that's not a link to The Onion. It's a story from the New York Times. But it can be hard to tell some days.
Trying to Get White People to Talk About Racism is Like . . . .
. . . . . well, like trying to get white people to talk about Racism.
I was going to go for a cute metaphor -- herding cats, pulling teeth, getting blood from a stone -- but nope -- those all seem way easier to me than trying to get white people to talk about Racism.
I mention this because I read a wide variety of blogs, and I notice that while a number of my favorite bloggers do write posts on race and racism, there is this interesting thing that happens in comment threads to these posts -- if the blog is not frequented mostly by people of color, the comment threads very often stray from anything remotely touching on race or racism, and quickly become about "oppression in general", or a particular commenter's "Me Too!" pointing toward their own particular oppression.
The comments that I read are almost without exception from liberals/progressives. I assume that they are well-meaning, and I believe that most of them truly want to be supportive of the author's viewpoint -- but I'm consistently amazed at how quickly these threads can turn from the main point of the post if it's about race and/or racism.
Personally, I think this may be due to three things:
First: Many (if not most) white people, have very little awareness of their privilege as white people.
I have straight friends who have been harrassed on the street with screams of "faggot" or "lesbo", so they may have gotten a small taste of what it's like to be on the receiving end of homophobia -- male friends of mine have been called "pussy" or "mangina", and hence, may have experienced a minute sampling of misogyny -- but I don't know a single white person who has ever had another white person yell "nigger" at them on the street. (I sure it has happened to someone, somewhere, but it hasn't entered my direct reality.)
In fact, now that I think of it, most of the white people I know who seem to have the greatest understanding and awareness of their privilege are those who have been called "nigger-lover" at some point in their lives, because they stood up for the rights of people of color -- but that's not really the same as being the direct recipient of a racial slur -- it's an indictment of how you are "betraying" the racist culture -- as a white person.
(*Before you start going on about how you think you've been on the receiving end of racism because someone called you "whitey" or "honky" or "gringo" while you were walking through a predominantly colorful neighborhood, please do read to the end of this post, as I have a special note for you.)
Second: I think white people are often afraid to talk about race. If they're liberal/progressive, they're afraid they'll say something ignorant and offensive. If they're conservative/regressive, they tend to want to ignore the issue altogether, or turn it on its head and talk about shit like "reverse-racism" or "quotas" or some other ridiculous crap.
I think white people are a little scared that someday, somehow, all the racist crap that's been perpetrated on people of color over the centuries is going to crash down on them karmically, and I think that they'd often just rather keep those worms in the can, thank you very much -- after all, only 8% of the world's population is white.
(FWIW, I think this is also true of the can-of-worms that is real conversation about misogyny/sexism, as women comprise half of the population, and that it is less true of the homo-/trans-phobia conversation, because homos/trannies are a much smaller minority in terms of total population, and therefore less threatening, even though we're supposed to be this big fucking threat -- but that's not what I'm talking about in this post -- I want to talk about race, dammit! See how easy it is to get diverted?)
Third: I think that there is a subliminal message (in our country, at least) that racism is no longer a problem -- and I believe that that message is dangerous, and factually incorrect (and you all know how I feel about shit that is factually incorrect).
I know that racism is still an issue, because there are white people -- white people who think of themselves as liberal/progressive -- who will say racist things to me when people of color are not around -- even after I have confronted them in the past about racist remarks that they have made.
I know that racism is still an issue because white people seem so fucking uncomfortable about discussing it -- so uncomfortable, in fact, that they avoid discussing it, even when it is clearly brought to the table by someone that they consider an ally.
I know that racism is still an issue because people of color can disappear and nobody seems to notice.
Yes, I think that racism, misogyny, and homophobia (and whole bunch of other hatred-based "isms") are interconnected. Yes, I think that it's important for me to "connect-the-dots" between these forms of oppression, and understand how they intertwine.
However, I think that if I'm really going to understand that tapestry of hate, and learn how to untangle it -- there will be times when I must look carefully, and talk long into the night, about the specific threads which don't touch me in the same way that they touch others who are on the Magical Oppression Carpet-Ride[tm] with me. (Wheee! Are we fucking having fun yet? No. I thought not.)
*Now, just to be perfectly clear about that whole "whitey/honky" thing? When I'm talking about Racism, I'm talking about the cultural oppression of racial minorities by racial majorities. If you're white and American, you are part of a 75% racial majority, and regardless of what anyone has told you, Racism is not an Equal Opportunity Oppressor.
I welcome discussion on the substance of my post, or on race/racism in comments to this post. If you derail it, I'm going to be kicking ass and taking names.
Question of the Day
What book have you always meant to read, but just somehow have never gotten around to reading? For me, it's Lord of the Flies. I know everything about the book; I know the plot, I know the characters, I know all about the pig's skull, and it's one of those books that every well-read person should have read, but I'm almost not certain what the point is since I feel like I know everything about it.
Chuck Norris: 1 Part Absurd, 1 Part Violent; All Douchebag
I know you don't need me to give you one more reason to hold Chuck Norris in contempt, but here's one anyway. This is what he said when asked why he hasn't pursued a career in politics: "Let's say I run for a position in politics and I am debating my opponent and my opponent starts attacking my character and I leap over the bench and choke him unconscious, it's not going to help my campaign."
Excellent point. It's a possibility that's increasingly likely, what with the wide availability of Action Jeans these days.
"Won't bind your legs" while bench-jumping and choking.
Bankruptcy Reform: À La Dodd
Chris Dodd has unveiled his ideas on reforming the bankruptcy laws and protecting folks from the likes of Banker Cat. The main bullet points are as follows:
* Modify the means test to ensure families have sufficient resources to live onI particularly like the idea of medical debts being dischargeable. This would be helpful during the transition period between our current and post-reform health care system. The rest of the plan is certainly worth a read, so check it out.
* Protect children, not creditors
* Ensure all medical debts are dischargeable
* Permit bankruptcy courts to restructure mortgages so families can stay in their homes
* Allow private student loans to be dischargeable
Don't Tase Me, Bro!
I'm too lazy to write a post about this shitastic story about a pregnant woman getting tased, so here's an IM conversation Space Cowboy and I just had:
[16:40] sc: and I guess you heard about the pregnant woman in Ohio
[16:41] shakes: no
[16:41] sc: http://winnipegsun.com/News/World/2007/11/29/4695217.html
[16:43] shakes: omg, the police are out of control with the tasers.
[16:43] sc: not only are they out of control, but with each case they're showing how inept they truly are
[16:44] shakes: totally. and every time i read about one of them now, i think to myself, "summer of the shark!"
[16:44] shakes: remember, 2001, before "9/11," when the media was going haywire because there had been like 6 shark bites in THE ENTIRE WORLD, so every fucking cable station was running constant stories about sharks, and calling it the summer of the shark!
[16:45] sc: oh yea
[16:45] shakes: and for some reason, all these stories about tasers are reminding me of that, except that they amount to a REAL NEWS STORY, but the media isn't going on about TEH AUTUMN OF TEH TASER!!!!!11!!!eleventy-one!!!!!!11!!!
[16:46] sc: state sponsored torture is an acceptable reality, while shark bites is a national terror that must be dealt with (and would make a great movie)
[16:47] shakes: lol sob
Quote of the Day
"Even if you've never heard of the 'Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007,' you'll be delighted to learn that the legislation has, at least, the virtue of fighting imaginary problems with pretend solutions. After seven long years of government solutions far worse than the problems they purport to cure, perhaps that's a step in the right direction."—Dahlia Lithwick, on Democratic California Rep. Jane Harman's new salvo in the war on terror. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. Sigh. [H/T Oddjob.]
Better Get To Livin'
ZOMG. My beloved Dolly Parton + my huge girlcrush Amy Sedaris? In one video? About being eternally optimistic and fierce even in the face of mountains of horseshit?
Somebody pinch me.
Via every gay blogger in the blogosphere.
The Return of Tay Zonday
If you remember my (and Space Cowboy's) fervent adoration for Tay Zonday and his megahit "Chocolate Rain," you'll understand implicitly why I am totally ready to go out and purchase no fewer than 10 cases of Cherry Chocolate Dr. Pepper. I reward advertising genius when I see it, bitchez.
"Ohio's agriculture's based on grains. Cherry Chocolate Rain!"
[Via Stephen.]
You Say That As If It's a Bad Thing
The Weekly Standard on last night's Republican debate:
America got to see a vaguely threatening parade of gun fetishists, flat worlders, Mars Explorers, Confederate flag lovers and zombie-eyed-Bible-wavers as well as various one issue activists hammering their pet causes.What's wrong with a little truth in advertising?
Getting Dick In Mississippi
So why is Trent Lott really resigning from the Senate so suddenly? So far the rumors of the liaison with the rent boy have proved to be unfounded (and on behalf of self-respecting gay men everywhere, may I say "Whew!"). The conventional wisdom is that he's leaving early to take advantage of the change in the ethics rules that would forbid him from lobbying for two years if he retired after December 31, 2007, and another story has it that he's going to team up with John Breaux, the former senator from Louisiana. So it's all about the money, right? Bob Novak shakes his head in dismay that such an "extraordinary" career is coming to an end.
But could there be another, more pressing reason?
Perhaps he's getting out in order to dodge the fallout that might get all over him from the indictment of Dick Scruggs, his brother-in-law, for bribery.Richard F. Scruggs, a prominent trial lawyer who has been fighting insurance companies over payments for damage from Hurricane Katrina, was indicted yesterday by federal authorities on charges of offering a bribe of $50,000 to a Mississippi state judge in a dispute over fees with another lawyer.
So far no one has said that Mr. Lott is in any way connected to his brother-in-law and nephew's doings. But then again, Mr. Scruggs represented Mr. Lott in a lawsuit against State Farm for unpaid damages from Hurricane Katrina, so if there's an investigation of Mr. Scruggs, it might skate a little too close to Mr. Lott for comfort.
The indictment, filed in federal court in Oxford, Miss., Mr. Scruggs’s hometown, said that on behalf of Mr. Scruggs, a colleague met several times this year with State Judge Henry L. Lackey in his chambers in Calhoun County to propose and deliver the bribe in installments.
Mr. Scruggs’s son Zachary, who is a partner in the Scruggs Law Firm in Oxford, and Sidney A. Backstrom, another partner, were also indicted, as were Mr. Scruggs’s colleague, Timothy R. Balducci, a partner in the firm of Patterson & Balducci, and Steven A. Patterson, a staff member in the firm. Mr. Scruggs, his son and the others were all accused of conspiracy.
[...]
Mr. Scruggs, who has negotiated settlements worth more than $100 million this year with State Farm and other insurers, is a brother-in-law of Senator Trent Lott and a close friend of Mike Moore, former Mississippi attorney. He first gained national attention in the late 1990s for helping win a settlement of $248 billion from the tobacco industry.
And if this was Hillary Clinton's brother-in-law that was under indictment, you can be sure that the GOP -- lead by Mr. Lott -- would go after her with a full-throated vengence. Just sayin'...
Hooters Office Party
Great cartoon by Kevin Moore, via Amp, which was "inspired by a discussion of challenges women face in male-dominated workplaces on the NPR show 'Here and Now' in which it is noted Hooters is a favorite choice for office parties among male coworkers, despite female coworker objections."
[Click the panel to see the whole thing.]
Journalism 101
Glenn Greenwald and other liberals in the blogosphere have been criticizing respected Time reporter Joe Klein for writing a piece about attempts to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that had a few minor factual errors and accused the Democrats of giving "terrorists the same legal protections as Americans." Time's Managing Editor Rick Stengel eventually responded to the criticism by appending a "correction" to the piece that said, "In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would allow a court review of individual foreign surveillance targets. Republicans believe the bill can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don't." That should have ended the controversy right there, but Greenwald persisted, writing, "All Time can say about this matter is that Republicans say one thing and Democrats claim another. Who is right? Is one side lying? What does the bill actually say, in reality? That's not for Time to say. After all, they're journalists, not partisans." Now, like Joe Klein, I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right, but I do know a little something about journalism since I once saw All the President's Men and I worked on my high school newspaper, so I think it would be helpful if bloggers knew the 20 basic "Rules of Journalism" so that they won't pester Joe Klein and other professional journalists too much about journalistic ethics in the future. If any real journalists think I've written something that is inaccurate, let me know and I'll just append a correction way down at the end of the post or delete the inaccuracy altogether and hopefully no one will notice.
The Rules of Journalism
1. Journalists must be completely objective. This is the most important rule of journalism. Objectivity means not having any opinion or feelings whatsoever no matter what the circumstances. This rule was best expressed in a line I recently quoted from Washington Post columnist David Broder, the dean of American journalism, about his response President Kennedy's assassination: "As an ordinary man, I wanted leave the scene, hide somewhere, and weep," Broder said. "But I managed to calm myself and to report the event in the most objective way." As I explained in my earlier piece, "Broder refused to take sides after the President was killed. Was he for the assassination or against it? It was impossible to tell from his reporting. No matter what his personal feelings might have been, as a reporter he had to be objective when it came to whether killing Kennedy was a good thing or a bad thing."
2. There are two sides to every story and a journalist must give both sides equal weight even if he or she knows one side is completely false. Weighing one side against the other violates a journalist's objectivity. (See Rule No. 1.)
3. The only exception to Rules 1 and 2 is that during wartime journalists must be patriotic and not write anything that might undermine the government or the war effort or lower morale. Wearing a flag pin on one's lapel is a good way to demonstrate you are adhering to this rule. Reporters should always remember that they are Americans first, journalists second and human beings third.
4. Because most journalists are liberals, they have to bend over backwards to consider the conservative viewpoint in their articles so that it all evens out in the end. (See Rule No. 1.)
5. If you criticize a Republican you must also criticize a Democrat. If you criticize President Bush, you must also criticize President Clinton.
6. If both liberals and conservatives criticize you, that must mean you are doing something right. If moderates criticize you, too, it probably means that they are leaning one way or the other and aren't really moderate at all. The more people who say you are wrong, the more objective, and hence right, you are. (See Rule No. 1.)
7. Journalists should avoid using anonymous sources unless those sources have a reasonable fear of retribution or have political agendas that would be compromised if their identities were revealed or if refusing to grant them anonymity would limit the journalist's access and give his or her competitors an unfair advantage, which could damage the journalist's career.
8. Journalists must always protect their anonymous sources no matter what those sources' agendas might be and even if those sources misled them or were using them to get back at a political opponent. As Richard Cohen has pointed out, using journalists to publish leaks to assassinate the character of an anonymous source's political opponents is a time-honored tradition and the life-blood of Washington journalism. A journalist's job is to facilitate what Cohen calls "the dark art of Washington politics" not pass judgment on it, which would compromise his or her objectivity. (See Rule No. 1.)
9. Rule No. 8 is so important that journalists should be willing to go to jail to protect anonymous sources, unless someone pressures those sources to sign a waiver or the reporter thinks going to jail would just be too much of a hardship to endure. Besides, you can't do any reporting when you are in jail.
10. Journalists should be as accurate as possible, but sometimes there is not enough time to dot every i and cross every t. Getting the story first is more important than getting it completely right because mistakes can always be fixed with "Corrections" in very small print in another edition, in online "updates" or buried in the "Letters to the Editor" section, which no one ever reads.
11. Journalists should not give money to any political campaigns, participate in any political activities or even vote. Former ABC political director Mark Halperin and Washington Post editor Len Downie don't vote, which is why they are so trustworthy and so respected by other journalists. Just as Catholic priests give up sex, journalists should give up their right to participate in the political process so that they will not have to think too much about whether one side or another is correct. Thinking too hard threatens their objectivity. (See Rule No. 1.)
12. Journalists should not censor a story unless the government or a big advertiser asks them to.
13. Because space in newspapers and magazines is limited there is no room for ideas that are too far out of the mainstream or that challenge the conventional wisdom unless the ensuing controversy would sell more papers or magazines.
14. Plagiarism is strongly discouraged and anyone caught plagiarizing should be fired immediately and never be allowed to work as a journalist again, unless they are prominent or distinguished or a close personal friend of the editor and have a really good explanation, in which case they should be given a second chance or even a third.
15. What someone says is not so important as how they said it, what they were wearing when they said it, or their body language. As long as the details are accurate, it makes no difference how trivial those details are. Journalists should just report the facts, especially facts that give their story "color," and not worry about how important those facts are. (See Rule No. 1.)
16. Reporting on people's personal lives should be avoided unless the Drudge Report or the National Enquirer has already written about it, in which case you can report that they reported on it, which is not the same as reporting on it yourself.
17. Every prominent person should be assumed to be not gay unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary or they are dead, and usually not even then.
18. Victims of sexual crimes should never be named, but those accused of sexual crimes should be named even if their reputations are ruined because they probably wouldn't have been arrested if they weren't guilty of something. Shaming people accused of sexual crimes on television is a good way to discourage other people from committing such crimes, even if it leads to unfortunate consequences.
19. Ruining people's lives is generally frowned upon and should be avoided if at all possible unless the public has a right to know. A journalist must be completely dispassionate and not worry too much about the impact of the story they are writing on the people they are writing about or on the world in general as that would compromise their objectivity. (See Rule No. 1.)
20. If someone criticizes a journalist's reporting, especially if it is a blogger, the best response is to dig in one's heels and deny there is a problem, attack the critic as biased, concede a minor point or claim the criticism itself is trivial. A journalist must defend his or her credibility at all costs because without credibility, a journalist is no journalist at all.
-30-
Crossposted at Jon Swift
Obama is not a Muslim is not the point
Now it's WaPo, trying to associate "Muslim" and "Obama" as much as possible by writing an article on rightwing talking points, or, for those who like shorter terms, lies. TPM does its usual fine smackdown.
But what has me puzzled is that the smackdown consists of pointing out that these are lies. There should also be amazement that, apparently, the whole country has decided "Muslim" is a slur.
The mouthbreathers think so. I know that. But progressives? And how about non-progressive media types with any sense of ethics, to say nothing of the Constitution, who might be out there? (Come on. There have to be a couple.) Why isn't anybody attacking the whole premise of this bullshit?
Using Muslim as a slur is more than a lie. It's a betrayal of everything this country stands for. What's happened to everybody?
ZOMG! PLANTS! PLAAAAAAANTS!!!
Xenophobe: Warrior Princess and the Perpetual Outrage Brigade are apoplectic this morning, because some of the questioners during last night's debate are Democrats—which, naturally, makes them PLANTS!!! of the liberal media.
[Insert your own rhetorical about standing up to terrorists if you can't stand up to Democratic voters here.]
This was supposed to be a debate where the Republican candidates got asked questions by average people—not necessarily Republican average people. And just because a question exposes a profound ideological hypocrisy—e.g. "What punishment would you give to women who get abortions if abortion is criminalized?" or "Why don't you support gays serving in the military?" (despite all the support-the-troops rhetoric)—doesn't mean the question isn't fair.
What's hilariously disingenuous about their outrage is that there are plenty of conservative voters who want answers to those questions. They have to ignore the reality of the GOP base in order to be pissed off about these questions—which is why they're hiding behind indignation about the questioners instead.
Yet Another Debate: Republicans Speak to the Common Man
by Petulant
So there was another debate. [Transcript here.] This one was ULTRA special because the Republican Presidential candidates were able to reschedule their busy itineraries to gather in the holy CRIST land of St. Petersburg, Florida. Isn't that where the Fountain of Youth was supposed to be? (Nope, that was St. Augustine. Close Enough!) These boys definitely need it. The same old white men on a stage in need of better make-up artistes are so tedious. At least the Democrats have a wee bit of diversity. So, the boys rearranged their busy campaigns to answer questions from the "people" via YouTube. Many of you may remember how the Republican candidates considered it beneath them and not becoming of a presidential contender to answer to the common folk. Unfortunately, we still live in a society where Snowmen are not accepted. Maybe one day tolerance of the Snow People will be universal. I digress.
The "boy's club" marched on the stage ready to bond with their Republican believers. CNN had Bay Buchanan for a full 10 seconds of screen time. The always dreamy Anderson Cooper played host. He was more demure than Wolf Blitzer's "I am a god journalist routine." So the old white men took their places behind podiums. I noticed Duncan Hunter scribbling away as soon as he took his place. I am sure it was a condolence letter to his number one fan Ann Coulter and the troubles she faces with hate-mail.
Here are a bunch of clips, significantly shorter than my usual offerings as my attention span shortened with the endless booze I consumed during the debate. If it weren't for Cooper's fabulous purple tie and that silvery hair that my hairdresser cannot achieve on my aging homosexual head, I would have been crawling on the floor begging Mishima to shove a sword deep in my gut.
The floorshow!
Here is the opening exchange from Willard Romney and Giuliani who are in a squabble about hired help and those pesky illegals that are SUCH a problem for Americans. Giuliani accused Willard of hiring some illegal painters and Willard went on the defense. Fight that evil Dandy Snake!
The next video is a profound question to the candidates about whether they believe in the Bible and its LITERAL word. Giuliani wavered and sought guidance from Pastor Huckabee, and poor Willard Romney became confused because he believes in the Bible, but his interpretation may differ from EVERYONE ELSE. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith didn't part the badly designed CNN stage and adorn Willard with the holy spectacles so he can translate those golden tablets for the rest of us.
Since this is a Republican debate, the question of ABORTION arose. This wasn't your average Roe vs. Wade Is Evil question. NOOOOOOOOOO! This was a question about how best to criminalize women who have abortions and the doctors that perform them. Ron Paul, Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and once again Willard tackle the issue. AND it ain’t pretty!
If it isn't abortion, it is the GAYS in the military. The Gays and Lesbians can serve, but they are not patriots because they aren't serving America; they are looking for their next fuck. Nothing says arousal like dodging bullets and IEDs. Duncan Hunter is SO against the GAYS in the Military he wants an exclusive Conservative Christian Army! That’s right! Apparently the temptation of too many men and women in close proximity interfere with WAR. This question was posed by openly gay retired Brigadier General Keith Kerr with 43 years of service. Unfortunately his question was not sufficiently answered as the former general was in the audience. SO what fucking happened—CNN HAD AUDIO PROBLEMS WITH HIS MICROPHONE. Why is that surprising? Romney once believed in the gays serving, but WE ARE AT WAR and he will listen to the military. Ok ,Willard! McCain mumbled something that sounded sort of accepting. Huckabee, well he's a preacher.
Up next is that age old question of TORTURE. Willard does not what to go into detail about interrogation techniques as that is the president's priority and he won't comment in any form or fashion EXCEPT that GITMO is a good thing! He didn’t go into his spiel about expansion, but the glimmer was in his eyes. McCain, as we all know, experienced TORTURE and guess what?—HE IS AGAINST IT!
I have been just a wee bit obsessed with Willard Romney. Those Mormons and their sexy underpants just fascinate me. So, here's a video about the evil guns. The Second Amendment is the cornerstone of a wholesome upbringing and the "you-tubers" want to know: Does Giuliani really want people to take a written exam to get a gun? I say HELL YES! Make them take a written exam to birth children too! After Giuliani defends his atypical Republican stance—like so many others—on gun control, some brilliant person wants to know what GUNS the candidates own. Dear Lord, Holy Ghost, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, or whatever deity! THIS is yet another example of the brilliance of CNN. Duncan Hunter shared a touching story of the first rifle his Daddy gave him, McCain had enough guns in Vietnam and Willard's son has guns that he keeps in daddy’s house. AHHH… Can I borrow one to shoot the raccoon that keeps eating the fish in my pond?
I wasn't going to add this bit, but the Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain sent me one of those new fangled email thingies demanding that the little people MUST BE HEARD. The little person in this instance is one Grover Norquist who hates the taxes and for some reason or another is still around. From failures like the Contract for America and college buddies with Jack Abramoff, Norquist is a regular old Renaissance man of whatever the hell he does. O’ yeah! He wants tax reform!!! Well gee, don't we all? Norquist has his gang of connections to spread the gospel and help pad those coffers. Since he is one of the average concerned citizens of America, he wants to know more about the presidential contenders. So, he gets his shadowy self on the YouTube and VOILA, ends up on CNN. WOW!! It seems so easy! All the candidates make a pledge not to raise taxes or not raise taxes unless the American people say it is OK! Yeah, yeah, yeah…
My favorite bit of the evening was the END. Dear, precious, Cooper ended the evening by saying "Hosing down the stage. You know what I am talking about." Yes, we do Coop! Yes, we do!
For more videos, visit my YouTube Channel. The Boys in the Republican Band tackle such brilliant subjects as Space Exploration, the Confederate Flag, Vice-Presidents, and Log Cabin Republicans.
They are special that way.
Cheers!
RIP Henry Hyde
The anti-choice crusader and original gangsta of "youthful indiscretions" has died at 83.
If there is a god, may s/he show Mr. Hyde precisely as much compassion as he showed others during his lifetime.
[H/T Oddjob.]
Predator in the Pulpit
Add this one to the long list of people who prey on kids who trust them.
A Broward minister was charged with sexual battery after he impregnated a teen congregant of a small neighborhood church, authorities said Wednesday.On top of all the issues of a guardian having sex with a minor, note that he wanted her to have an abortion to save his reputation.
Plantation police charged the Rev. Cory Cortezis Lewis, 33, with sexual battery on a victim between 12 and 18 by a custodian.
He was booked into Broward County jail Nov. 20 and bailed out the next day.
The church, at 2889 NW Sixth Ct., is the Fort Lauderdale-area branch of the Church Of God By Faith, in Jacksonville.
Lewis knew the teen her entire life, acting as both her minister and godfather, Plantation police spokesman Detective Phil Toman said. In 2006, he brought her to an empty house and a vacant business in Plantation, where he had sex with her on multiple occasions, Toman said.
Eventually, she got pregnant. At the time, she was 15.
"He was her godfather," Toman said. 'She referred to him as 'Daddy.' He was her minister and neighbor and friend of the family. He was trusted."
Lewis wanted the girl to have an abortion, fearing the baby would damage his religious reputation.
As the victim's pregnancy became obvious, Lewis confessed to the teen's family he had had sex with her, but said the baby wasn't his, according to court records.
He later confessed to the entire church congregation.
"Disgust" doesn't begin to cover it.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime
First segment of the pilot. For Shaker TheHolyFatman.
What is the world coming to?
Thank Maude there are good American patriots like Audrey Jeskey to write letters to the editor when they stumble across travesties like SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER!
[H/T Christina.]
Waste Time on the Internets While Helping Actual Humans
This site is seriously awesome -- basically, it's a vocabulary game, but for every question you get right, the site donates 20 grains of rice to the UN World Food Programme. So it's a three-fer: you improve your vocabulary, you help people in the third world, and you make a conservative angry by supporting the United Nations. My top score so far is 45, and I've donated 3000 grains of rice so far; I look forward to being topped in both categories by people here.
Project Runway Open Thread
week's episode, c/o Her Royal Highness Sarah Jessica Parker.
Oh
Mah
Gawd!
YouTube Debate Open Thread
If anyone cares. I don't really give a rat fart what the candidates have to say, although I'm interested to see what questions CNN chooses for them.
Ron Paul got a lot of applause. Holy Maude, these guys are white. Look at that stage. It's like a Klan rally. Not that the Dems are much better.
Anyway...here we go.
Question of the Day
What pop song has the creepiest lyrics?
This question comes from a conversation Petulant and I were having earlier. He'd noticed that the song lyrics to "Baby, It's Cold Outside" are like an ode to a date rape, and I sent him the lyrics to "Young Girl" by Gary Puckett and the Union Gap, which is totally the creepiest date/statutory rape song of all time:
Young girl, get out of my mind / My love for you is way out of line / Better run, girl / You're much too young, girl / With all the charms of a woman / You've kept the secret of your youth / You led me to believe /You're old enough /To give me Love / And now it hurts to know the truth, oh / Beneath your perfume and make-up / You're just a baby in disguise / And though you know / That it is wrong to be / Alone with me / That come on look is in your eyes, oh / So hurry home to your mama / I'm sure she wonders where you are / Get out of here / Before I have the time / To change my mind / 'Cause I'm afraid we'll go too far, oh / Young girl…
Gross!!!
Runner-Up: The Police's "Every Breath You Take," aka The Stalker Anthem.
Things That Amuse Me
When a blogger, whose use of "cunt" as an insult I recently used as an example in a piece about misogynistic language, posts a graphic that's totally meant to put me in my place for my sanctimonious demagoguery (i.e. explaining that misogynistic language is alienating and rude), but misspells the word "misogynistic."
The correct spelling is, of course, misogynistic—mis being from the Greek mīsein, to hate, and gyn being from the Greek gunē, woman.
Carry on.
What Men Can Do
Day Four.
One of the questions I'm most frequently asked by feminist (or pro-feminist) men is what they can do, aside from just not being violent toward women themselves, to help stop violence against women—so this post is for you.
And it's for me, and every other woman, because we need you. See, the thing about men who are violent toward women is that they don't respect women, or what they have to say, or even their basic rights—and when you consider that the responsibility for preventing violence against women has traditionally been left to women, you start to see the problem. We need other men to communicate to them loudly and clearly and constantly that violence against women is totally unacceptable. We need male allies, just like the LGBTQ community needs straight allies, just like people of color need white allies.
Back in July, Kevin (via Donna Darko) posted a list of 10 Things Men Can Do To End Men's Violence Against Women, from the site A Call To Men—and this list is a really good place to start.
1. Acknowledge and understand how sexism, male dominance and male privilege lay the foundation for all forms of violence against women.
2. Examine and challenge our individual sexism and the role that we play in supporting men who are abusive.
3. Recognize and stop colluding with other men by getting out of our socially defined roles, and take a stance to end violence against women.
4. Remember that our silence is affirming. When we choose not to speak out against men's violence, we are supporting it.
5. Educate and re-educate our sons and other young men about our responsibility in ending men's violence against women.
6."Break out of the man box"—Challenge traditional images of manhood that stop us from actively taking a stand to end violence against women.
7. Accept and own our responsibility that violence against women will not end until men become part of the solution to end it. We must take an active role in creating a cultural and social shift that no longer tolerates violence against women.
8. Stop supporting the notion that men's violence against women can end by providing treatment for individual men. Mental illness, lack of anger management skills, chemical dependency, stress, etc… are only excuses for men's behavior. Violence against women is rooted in the historic oppression of women and the outgrowth of the socialization of men.
9. Take responsibility for creating appropriate and effective ways to develop systems to educate and hold men accountable.
10. Create systems of accountability to women in your community. Violence against women will end only when we take direction from those who understand it most—women.
(I will warn you that becoming an ally in this way may prompt misogynists to accuse you of peeing sitting down—but I promise you'll get used to it.)
The list really does make some great suggestions, most of which boil down to simply becoming a man who actively thinks about this stuff, even though it sometimes feels like there's nothing you can do. Trust me when I say the world is (sadly) filled with people who will give you opportunities to speak up, the chance to make a difference.
It's not easy to be a feminist ally, but, then again, it's not supposed to be—and it just isn't. Stephen McArthur:Every 15 seconds in America, a man beats his wife or girlfriend. Every 45 seconds, a man rapes a woman or girl, most often one he knows -- a wife, a girlfriend, a co-worker, or a family member.
As I've said before, the very thought of it gives me shivers. How wouldn't things change?! From the shame associated with being a victim of sexual or domestic abuse to how such victims are treated by the police and the legal system, everything would be different. We wouldn’t be talking about the ubiquitous straw-woman who invented an assault in a petty act of revenge, but the very real women, millions upon millions of them, who have been attacked—and we’d be talking about their attackers. Suddenly, the onus to avoid abuse would not be exclusively placed on women, creating a belief that violence against women preventable by its victims. Wow.
…Women have led the way in America working to bring the issue of violence against women to the attention of our media, our community organizations, our governments, our schools, and our religious institutions. The time has come for men to stop being bystanders.
Most men in this country are not violent, most do not beat their wives and girlfriends. Despite that fact, domestic violence is really a gender issue. Men commit 90 to 95 percent of domestic violence acts. I think most men instinctively know this is true, but most men find it really hard to talk about it, think about it, or much less do anything about it. Some men believe that because he is not violent or it's not happening in his family, he needn't do anything. Some men believe it is a "woman's" issue, so he can really ignore it. Some men can't imagine talking about this issue with other men, some of whom he might suspect are abusing women in their lives.
Let's face it. This is an embarrasing issue for men. It's much easier for us to simply let women try to take care of this problem. It's really hard for most men to admit that this is our problem. Violence against women is men's violence. Can we find a way to help men own this problem and work together to solve it? How can we end the pervasive silence? How can we help our communities get past the attitude that this happens someplace else, certainly not where we live?
Given the prevalence of male violence against women, why has this not been a very public men's issue. Isn't it really in men's self-interest to address gender violence? Don't most of us really care about the women and girls in our lives?
Most men have a woman or girl in his life who has been a victim of male violence, a mother who was beaten, a co-worker who was abused, a sister or daughter who was raped or killed, a friend whose daughter was attacked, a friend whose wife was battered in a previous marriage. How would things change if our male governmental leaders, our male religious leaders, our male media leaders, our male teachers, our male business leaders, all of us began to speak out, identify male violence around them, and begin working to end it?
Men's involvement will and does make a difference, and there's a lot that men can do to help stop violence against women—even and especially the men who would never commit violence against women in the first place.
To wrap up, I'll quickly just make two other suggestions to men who want to help end violence against women:
1. If you're a blogger, blog about the 16 Days of Action. Blog the list of 10 Things Men Can Do To End Men's Violence Against Women. Link to the women who are blogging about it.
2. Donate. Donate to organizations that support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, and to organizations that advocate against abuse. Donate to the female bloggers who write about it. It doesn't have to be money you donate; you can donate your time and talent, too.
--------------------
NOTE: This thread is for feminists and feminist allies. If your comment is about how not being violent is enough and you resent the implication that silence and inaction = tacit support of violence against women, don't bother. That is not the position of this blog. If your comment is that anything recognizing violence against women specifically is sexist, don't bother. That is not the position of this blog. This thread is to discuss positive action men can take to stop violence against women. Period.
The More Things Change
Yet another candidate is the darling of the media. This time it's Mike Huckabee who's all over the airwaves and the pixels because ... well, it's his turn, I guess, and the pundits have already had their fascination with Mitt, Rudy, and Fred. (John McCain is so 2000.) Hendrik Hertzberg of The New Yorker takes a look.
Huckabee. Funny, improbable name; funny, improbable candidate. How funny? Well, have a look at the first Huckabee for President campaign commercial, aired last week in Iowa and now ubiquitous on the Web. In it, the former governor of Arkansas trades straight-faced non sequiturs with Chuck Norris, the B-list action star. (Norris: “Mike Huckabee wants to put the I.R.S. out of business.” Huckabee: “When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn’t lifting himself up, he’s pushing the earth down.”) It’s an unusually entertaining spot—or, rather, meta-spot, the subtext of which is its own absurdity and, by extension, that of the whole genre.We're hearing a lot of talk about the election of 2008 being a "change" election, as if that makes it somehow different than every other election in the past. The idea, I suppose, is that the choice is between "stay the course" and "change," but since everybody -- in both parties -- seems to agree that sticking with the policies of the current administration would be a disaster, the alternative has to be "change." I can't argue with much of that; but ironically, the candidates, especially the Republicans, don't seem to represent much of a change. All of them pretty much represent the spectrum of the modern GOP; white, rich, anti-abortion, indifferent or hostile to gay rights, and completely sold on the idea that scaring the populace with warnings of invasions of brown-skinned people, be they Mexicans or Arabs, is the easiest way to win the election. And they all seem to be saying, "I'm not George W. Bush, but I stand for just about everything he does." Some change.
How improbable? Well, up until the tail end of the summer, polls had Huckabee’s support for the Republican nomination hovering between zero and three per cent, usually closer to zero. In October, he broke into a trot, in November into a Gallup. In a poll released on Thanksgiving eve by Reuters/Zogby, he is in third place, at eleven per cent, nosing past not only John McCain but also Mitt Romney and narrowing the gap with the fading Fred Thompson to four points. In Iowa, where actual voting will occur on January 3rd, he has surged into what is essentially a tie with Romney for first place.
Huckabee, who at fifty-one is the youngest Republican running, spent half of his adult life as a Southern Baptist minister. Most of his support, so far, comes from the Evangelical Christian right. Yet to those who are not in that category his affect is curiously unthreatening. “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anybody,” he likes to say. His manner and appearance are reassuringly ordinary. When he smiles or laughs, which is often, his dimpled face looks interestingly like that of Wallace, of Wallace & Gromit.
[...]
To all appearances, Huckabee’s gentle rhetoric is a reflection of temperament, not a stylistic tactic. Arkansans caution that he is capable of churlishness. But his history suggests that he prefers consensus to confrontation, that he regards government as a tool for social betterment, and that he has little taste for war, cultural or otherwise. He seems to regard liberalism not as a moral evil, a mental disease, or a character flaw—merely as a political point of view he mostly disagrees with. That may not seem like much, but it makes a nice change. If talk radio hears about it, though, it might be enough to keep him from the top of the ticket.
The Democrats, as Bob Herbert pointed out, don't seem to be much more different than the Republicans when it comes to really making a change. Very few of them are willing to take a stand that represents a monumental shift from the platforms that elected Bill Clinton in 1992 and that which Al Gore ran on in 2000. Perhaps they're counting on the fact that more people voted for those candidates than their opponents (despite the unfortunate outcome for Mr. Gore), but once again, there's nothing that shows a marked departure from the policies of the past. Yes, Barack Obama is the first African-American with a real chance at the nomination, and Hillary Clinton is the first woman, but both candidates have been going to great lengths to discount those qualities as being relevant in the election. (By doing so, that's like saying "don't think about elephants for the next ten minutes." Guess what...you think about nothing else.) The only candidates who are talking about real change -- radical, breathtaking, rafter-shaking change -- are the ones like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul who stand no chance whatsoever of winning the nomination but are there by the grace of nature to provide us with a contrast to the rest of the field and give their fellow candidates someone to point to and say, "Hey, I'm not that guy."
Calling the election of 2008 a "change" election by the pundits isn't much different than the candidate on the stump who tells the crowd that "this election is the most important one in the history of the nation." (Of course it is...to the candidate. Otherwise, why the hell pay attention to him?) But no one on either side has truly told us what the "change" will actually entail...or why we actually need it. We Americans have been remarkably "stay the course" voters for the last few generations, and the changes that have been made in the direction of the country, especially in the last century, have all been from forces outside the various presidential administrations, and the changes those administrations wrought were in response to those outside forces. By most reckonings, the current administration has responded poorly or not at all to the outside forces that have been coming at us. It is in recognizing those failings that we need to find leaders who will provide us with more than just the rhetoric of change but the preparation for the responses to the changes that will be forced upon us.
As John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural address, each generation is tested in some way; the growing pains of a new nation, civil war, the excesses of corporate greed, the dying throes of European imperialism, economic depression, fascism, the nuclear race, or religious zealotry. How we respond tells the world and posterity how much we have grown -- or have not.
Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Quote of the Day
"The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do."—Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, asked whether he would be willing to subject himself to waterboarding.
Any takers?
GOP Voters Forced to Learn Secret Handshake
A couple of days ago, the Virginia Republican Party raised the bar in asshattery. In a move that reeks of desperation, they are forcing people who vote in the GOP primary to sign an oath of loyalty to the party for the upcoming presidential election:
The State Board of Elections on Monday approved a state Republican Party request to require all who apply for a GOP primary ballot first vow in writing that they'll vote for the party's presidential nominee next fall.As Steve Benen recalls, this is not exactly an isolated incident. Funny how we only hear of Republicans embracing this kind of concept, isn't it? I'm just having a hard time reconciling the amount of time wasted by the Virginia state election board in looking this request over. They must really not have anything else to do. And then approving? ASSHATTERY. I'm almost tempted to move to Virginia for the sole purpose of signing the oath and then using it as an ass rag right before I vote against party lines, just to see what the oath police do. If there are any Shakers in Virginia, please let us know if you get oath samples in the mail with fine print that says "No Backsies!" That would be a keeper.
While it would be easy to go in another direction about how swearing fealty to the Party is quite the scary concept, I think we can have more fun with this in a Match Game kind of way:
To that end, I agree, without hesitation, to vote for the Republican nominee in the next presidential election.
As part of this oath of loyalty, I fully understand that I am obligated to _________.
Here are some possibilities to get you started:
1. Learn the secret handshake
2. Laugh and shoot milk through my nose
3. Come to meetings dressed as Spongebob Squarepants
Have at it, Shakers!
A Bleg
Not to get all Jonah Goldberg, but I need some help from Shakers and friends-of-Shakers. I'm working on a story for Minnesota Monitor about the rising cost of birth control for college students and women receiving medical assistance, due to a 2005 "error" by Congress. So far, it's impacted about 3.75 million American women, who have seen their monthly cost for hormonal birth control jump from about $5 to about $40 a month. That it's probably in everybody's interest for college students and women on medical assistance to have the option not to become pregnant should go without saying, but our Democratic-controlled Congress has been none too swift to fix the problem.
I'm interested in interviewing women who are facing this issue. If you're interested, email me at jfecke [at] minnesotamonitor [dot] com. The interview can be done by email if that works best for you. Thank you, we now return to our regular programming.
WTF Dennis?
You know, for a long time, I gave Dennis Kucinich the benefit of the doubt. When people accused him of just being a goofy, pointless, time-wasting vanity candidate, I defended him. He's earnest, I said. Well, no more.
That he would seriously consider for one second sharing a ticket with Ron Paul—the same Ron Paul who isn't even pro-choice and refused Medicaid and Medicare payments at his private practice because he's so against government-sponsored healthcare—is laughable, and he's lost me well and truly.
Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover
You know, some days I just don't even know what to say.
Last night, I had a pain in my knee. (Probably bursitis; nothing major.) At any rate, I went to WebMD to check my symptoms and reassure myself that it was, indeed, nothing major, and I came across their list of most-read stories. Number one on that list? "11 'Don't-Tell-the-Wife' Secrets All Men Keep."
Really? "All Men?"
The pain in my knee receding into the background, I opened up the story. And it did not disappoint in its craptacularness.
Like all "X things that are absolutely true about any given gender" stories, it was a mix of things that are true for all human beings, things that aren't true for all human beings, things that aren't true for all men but are supposed to be, and things that are just naked, raw sexism at its worst. We take them in order.Secret #1: Yes, we fall in lust 10 times a day -- but it doesn't mean we want to leave you
If the oldest question in history is "What's for dinner?" the second oldest is "Were you looking at her?" The answer: Yes -- yes, we were. If you're sure your man doesn't look, it only means he possesses acute peripheral vision.
"When a woman walks by, even if I'm with my girlfriend, my vision picks it up," says Doug LaFlamme, 28, of Laguna Hills, California. "I fight the urge to look, but I just have to. I'm really in trouble if the woman walking by has a low-cut top on."
Granted, we men are well aware that our sizing up the produce doesn't sit well with you, given that we've already gone through the checkout line together. But our passing glances pose no threat.
"It's not that I want to make a move on her," says LaFlamme. "Looking at other women is like a radar that just won't turn off."
First of all, buddy: you said these were secrets. I know a lot of men and women, and not one woman is surprised to see her partner checking out other women. For that matter, not one man is surprised to see his partner checking out other men. Why? Because people are going to look, men and women alike. If you're secure in your relationship, you're not afraid to have your partner see someone else attractive. If you're not...well, the problems are deeper than just looking at someone.
For those who are secure, though, the problem is not that you find someone else attractive -- it's when it crosses a line from looking to ogling. That's a line that men cross far more often than women, because, let's be honest, we're told we're supposed to. But that doesn't excuse the behavior. Secret #2: We actually do play golf to get away from you
More than 21 million American men play at least one round of golf a year; of those, an astounding 75 percent regularly shoot worse than 90 strokes a round. In other words, they stink. The point is this: "Going golfing" is not really about golf. It's about you, the house, the kids -- and the absence thereof.
"I certainly don't play because I find it relaxing and enjoyable," admits Roland Buckingham, 32, of Lewes, Delaware, whose usual golf score of 105 is a far-from-soothing figure. "As a matter of fact, sometimes by the fourth hole I wish I were back at the house with the kids screaming. But any time I leave the house and don't invite my wife or kids -- whether it's for golf or bowling or picking up roadkill -- I'm just getting away."
Again, these are not secrets! Yes, no matter how much you like someone, at times you need to get away and do something else. The thing is, that also works in reverse. There are plenty of times your wife would like to get away from you and the kids. The question is not whether you're playing golf to get away from them, the question is what are you doing to facilitate your wife getting the same privilege?
You see, it's expected that men will go out golfing, or for beers with the guys, or for card night or to a ball game or a movie or concert or...well, you get the point. Women? Well...who's going to watch Muffy and Junior? Me? Oh, honey, I have to work late that night.
Again, the ability to get away is a human need. And not just a male need. If you're getting away all the damn time, well, you're not pulling your weight at home. And you're ensuring your partner has to pull more than her weight. There's nothing wrong with getting away -- but it needs to be fair. And it can't become an excuse to shirk your responsibilities.Secret #3: We're unnerved by the notion of commitment, even after we've made one to you
This is a dicey one, so first things first: We love you to death. We think you're fantastic. Most of the time we're absolutely thrilled that we've made a lifelong vow of fidelity to you in front of our families, our friends and an expensive videographer.
But most of us didn't spend our formative years thinking, "Gosh, I just can't wait to settle down with a nice girl so we can grow old together." Instead we were obsessed with how many women who resembled Britney Spears we could have sex with before we turned 30. Generally it takes us a few years (or decades) to fully perish that thought.
You know, I was never unnerved by the thought of commitment. I won't say that I lived up to my commitment during my marriage, because I didn't -- but the commitment itself was nothing that I was opposed to.
I've never been interested in just dating randomly. It never appealed to me, not even in High School when guys are supposed to be getting with as many girls as possible all the time. I wanted relationships, always. And while I won't say that my mind never wandered during my marriage, I wouldn't say hers never did, either -- and frankly, it never bothered me, because I knew we were committed, and neither would ever stray. Never in my wildest dreams would I have cheated on my ex. I did a lot of stupid things, but that was always and ever beyond the pale for me.
My point? Guys are supposed to be "weirded out" by commitment, and women are supposed to crave it viscerally. But there are women who have trouble committing and guys like me who find it extremely natural. I'm sure for humans of all genders and orientations, there are moments of doubt in any relationship. The fact is, though, that a strong relationship can survive those moments. If a relationship can't, the doubt wasn't misplaced.Secret #4: Earning money makes us feel important
In more than 7.4 million U.S. marriages, the wife earns more than the husband -- almost double the number in 1981. This of course is a terrific development for women in the workplace and warmly embraced by all American men, right? Right?
Yeah, well, that's what we tell you. But we're shallow, competitive egomaniacs. You don't think it gets under our skin if our woman's bringing home more bacon than we are -- and frying it up in a pan?
"My wife and I are both reporters at the same newspaper," says Jeffrey Newton, 33, of Fayetteville, South Carolina. "Five years into our marriage I still check her pay stub to see how much more an hour I make than she does. And because she works harder, she keeps closing the gap."
Oh, criminy. Your "secret" is poorly written. It isn't "earning money makes us feel important" that you're saying. It's "earning more than you makes us feel important."
How does one address this? I'm sorry -- if you're a man earning less than your partner, welcome to 2007. It's not unusual, and it's getting less unusual all the time. Get the hell over it. This is one of the lies the patriarchy tells men -- that if we're not the primary provider for our families, we are failures. Bullshit. If we're contributing equally to our household, and our income combined with our partners' is enough to pay the bills, we're doing just fine. It is not a failure to make less than your partner.
What it does do, however, is make it impossible to assert privilege when you come home at the end of the day. You can't simply walk past the messy kitchen, down to the un-vacuumed basement, flip on the TV and pop open a beer. Being in a relationship where the money earned is equal or so means you, as a man, can't fall back on the old "I pay the bills" mantra that men were told they could fall back on, rather than pitch in. You know how you solve that? Drop the mantra. It was a stupid mantra to begin with.
Help your partner, be a partner, and you know what? It won't matter who's earning what money, because you're both working hard, and you're both partners. A man who works as hard as his spouse has nothing to apologize for. (Ditto a woman who works as hard as her spouse.) A man or woman who cuts corners, and foists jobs off on the other? No matter how much they make, they're failing their family.Secret #5: Though we often protest, we actually enjoy fixing things around the house
I risk being shunned at the local bar if this magazine finds its way there, because few charades are as beloved by guys as this one. To hear us talk, the Bataan Death March beats grouting that bathroom shower. And, as 30-year-old Ed Powers of Chicago admits, it's a shameless lie. "In truth, it's rewarding to tinker with and fix something that, without us, would remain broken forever," he says. Plus we get to use tools.
"The reason we don't share this information," Powers adds, "is that most women don't differentiate between taking out the trash and fixing that broken hinge; to them, both are tasks we need to get done over the weekend, preferably during the Bears game. But we want the use-your-hands, think-about-the-steps-in-the-process, home-repair opportunity, not the repetitive, no-possibility-of-a-compliment, mind-dulling, purely physical task." There. Secret's out.
First off -- no, this isn't true. I didn't like fixing things, I've never liked fixing things, I never will like fixing things. Oh, there are some exceptions -- I take some satisfaction in sewing a button on a suitcoat, for some reason -- but by and large, I'd rather not have to fix something than have to. This is why I rent.
Second -- note the quote in the second paragraph. Nice, huh? You see, fixing a hinge -- that's manly, tough work. The garbage? Meh, that's girly work. The former is stuff men like. The latter is just something that has to get done.
Except -- the latter is something that has to get done. Not to put too fine a point on it, but what this argues is that men should get out of the housework we don't like in order to be able to do stuff we like more. That is not how housework works. Yes, it's always great if one partner likes doing laundry and another hates it, but the other likes mowing the lawn and the other hates it. It's easy to divide those tasks up. But most people don't like taking the garbage out, or dusting the living room, or vacuuming the bedrooms. That doesn't mean they don't have to get done -- yes, even if the Bears game is on. Maybe, just maybe, you can get it done Saturday night, and then you don't need to worry about it.Secret #6: We like it when you mother us, but we're terrified that you'll become your mother
With apologies to Sigmund Freud, Gloria Steinem -- and my mother-in-law.
I don't even know what this means. I really don't. And the guy who wrote this doesn't elaborate.
I think, and I'm just guessing here, but I think he's saying that he likes when his wife does things for him, but doesn't like when she complains about things. And...well, that makes sense, because everyone likes a servant who doesn't complain. It's not the secret to long-term happiness, mind you, but it's sure a good deal if you can get it. But it's not a partnership in any way, shape, or form.Secret #7: Every year we love you more
Sure, we look like adults. We own a few suits. We can probably order wine without giggling. But although we resemble our father when he was our age, we still feel like that 4-year-old clutching his pant leg.
With that much room left on our emotional-growth charts, we sense we've only begun to admire you in the ways we will when we're 40, 50 and -- God forbid -- 60. We can't explain this to you, because it would probably come out sounding like we don't love you now.
"It took at least a year before I really started to appreciate my wife for something other than just great sex; and I didn't discover her mind fully until the third year we were married," says Newton. "But the older and wiser I get, the more I love my wife." Adds J.P. Neal, 32, of Potomac, Maryland: "The for-richer-or-poorer, for-better-or-worse aspects of marriage don't hit you right away. It's only during those rare times when we take stock of our life that it starts to sink in."
This is true, as far as it goes -- if you're in a good relationship, it only deepens and gets better with time. But I hate, hate, hate the call back to men's soi disant emotional childishness.
You know what? Men have emotions. We have had them all our lives. We're not taught to accept or appreciate them, mind you (too girly), but we have 'em. And love -- powerful, deep, abiding love -- is one of them. There's nothing to explain about them -- you can't explain emotion, not really. But they're there.
Incidentally, saying to your partner, in the immortal words of The Spiral Starecase, "I love you more than I did yesterday, but not as much as I will tomorrow" never comes off as saying "I don't love you now." It comes off as saying, "I love you." If it doesn't, you need to reexamine your skill with the English language.
True crapulence coming:Secret #8: We don't really understand what you're talking about
You know how, during the day, you sometimes think about certain deep, complex "issues" in your relationship? Then when you get home, you want to "discuss" these issues? And during these "discussions," your man sits there nodding and saying things like "Sure, I understand," "That makes perfect sense" and "I'll do better next time"?
Well, we don't understand. It doesn't make any sense to us at all. And although we'd like to do better next time, we could only do so if, in fact, we had an idea of what you're talking about.
We do care. Just be aware that the part of our brain that processes this stuff is where we store sports trivia.
Shut. Up. Shut up. Shut up, shut up, shut up.
If your boss comes to you, and says, "Jenkins, we need to talk. I have some problems with your performance," guess what? You listen. You comprehend. You are able to discuss it in a reasonable manner. You are capable of understanding another human being.
Women are human beings. They are not speaking a different language. They are saying things like, "When you leave the downstairs a mess for me to clean up, I feel like you're saying you don't care about me." This is the woman you say you love, you say you want to be with forever, so when your partner comes to you and says that she has a problem with your performance in a relationship, why do you treat her with less respect than you do your boss?
If the woman you love tells you she's concerned about something, isn't that more important than your boss telling you that? Of course it is. And yet men are told it's okay to simply blow our partners off, ignore their heartfelt needs, because that's chick stuff, and it doesn't matter.
Fuck that.
If your partner tells you something is important, it is important to her. Therefore, it is important to you, if a partnership is to mean anything. If you truly don't understand what she's saying, ask a few goddamn questions. If you disagree, say so. If you agree, follow through on what you say you'll do.
Saying men can't understand complex emotion is as deeply misandrist a statement as exists. We can, and we do. We may not always like what that tells us -- if your wife says you don't contribute to housework, you may not want to hear it. But that doesn't mean you can't hear it. You're making the choice not to. And claiming anything otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of you, me, and most important, your partner, who deserves a whole lot better.Secret #9: We are terrified when you drive
Want to know how to reduce your big, tough guy to a quivering mass of fear? Ask him for the car keys.
"I am scared to death when she drives," says LaFlamme.
"Every time I ride with her, I fully accept that I may die at any moment," says Buckingham.
"My wife has about one 'car panic' story a week -- and it's never her fault. All these horrible things just keep happening -- it must be her bad luck," says Andy Beshuk, 31, of Jefferson City, Missouri.
Even if your man is too diplomatic to tell you, he is terrified that you will turn him into a crash-test dummy.
Kill. Me. Now.
My ex-wife was and is a better driver than I am. She drove most of the time before we had a kid; once my daughter was born, she would usually be the one to sit with her -- but not always. (Yes, I'm aware, in retrospect, that we both sort of went along with my male privilege there, at least most of the time. It's not something I'm proud of.)
Regardless, I never felt like my life was in danger when my ex was driving; I might sometimes wish she would go faster or something, but it didn't especially bother me. I like driving, so I'd drive when I got the opportunity. But it didn't bother me when she drove.
Women are safer drivers than men, by and large. That doesn't mean there aren't female drivers who are bad, or male drivers who are good. But at some point, we need to start letting stereotypes from the 1950s die.Secret #10: We'll always wish we were 25 again
Granted, when I was 25 I was working 16-hour days and eating shrimp-flavored Ramen noodles six times a week. But as much as we love being with you now, we will always look back fondly on the malnourished freedom of our misguided youth. "Springsteen concerts, the '91 Mets, the Clinton presidency -- most guys reminisce about the days when life was good, easy and free of responsibility," says Rob Aronson, 41, of Livingston, New Jersey, who's been married for 11 years. "At 25 you can get away with things you just can't get away with at 40."
While it doesn't mean we're leaving you to join a rock band, it does explain why we occasionally come home from Pep Boys with a leather steering-wheel cover and a Born to Run CD.
Oh, sure, everyone would like to ignore their responsibilities and hearken back to our youths, once in a while. I'd be happy to be physically 25 forever. But alas, we're all going to get old and die. It's inevitable. That doesn't mean one can't take chances in life, one can. But it's simply the truth that a parent owes it to his child to be at least somewhat responsible. A man or woman owes it to their partner to be at least somewhat responsible. That's life. If you don't want to be responsible, don't get married and don't have kids. There's no shame in that.
The thing about this is, again, this is as true for women as it is for men. You think your wife doesn't occasionally miss the nights she could go clubbing with friends, pick up a cute guy and bring him home? Right. All of us occasionally would like some breaks from responsibility. The key, as always, is balance -- if you bring home the leather steering wheel, she gets to buy her car the eight-ball gearshift knob, or buy herself the Rick Springfield album. Fair's fair.Secret #11: Give us an inch and we'll give you a lifetime
I was on a trip to Mexico, standing on a beach, waxing my surfboard and admiring the glistening 10-foot waves, when I decided to marry the woman who is now my wife. Sure, this was three years before I got around to popping the question. But that was when I knew.
Why? Because she'd let me go on vacation alone. Hell, she made me go. This is the most important thing a man never told you: If you let us be dumb guys, if you embrace our stupid poker night, if you encourage us to go surfing -- by ourselves -- our silly little hearts, with their manly warts and all, will embrace you forever for it.
And that's the truth.
This is true, but it's true for everyone. As I said way back up top, it's all about balance. It's great for people to be able to get away and do things on their own once in a while. But people, not men. If your wife said she and the girls were going to go to Mexico and go surfing, would you be fine with that? Maybe you would be, and if so, great -- fair's fair. But if you're thinking, "Whoa, why are they all going to Mexico?" then you're falling into privilege.
Ultimately, that's what this list is. It's a long defense of the male privilege to go away, to disconnect, to ignore unpleasantries, to regress to childhood at will. It doesn't work that way. The thing is, women and men alike need time alone, need time apart, need freedom and trust from their partner -- and owe freedom and trust in return. Honesty, balance, and fairness are the keys to a happy relationship. In a relationship where those are the watchwords, not one thing on this list would need to be a secret (except for the stupid "We don't understand you" thing). It's only when what's sauce for the gander is not sauce for the goose that these things become problematic.
