Faces

There’s an article about Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries in Salon today, and I swear the first thing I thought when I saw the picture of him was a sympathetic, “Oh, I wonder what happened to his face? It looks like he’s been in some sort of accident.”


But no—it was no accident. He destroyed his own face with vanity.

He wants desperately to look like his target customer (the casually flawless college kid), and in that pursuit he has aggressively transformed himself from a classically handsome man into a cartoonish physical specimen: dyed hair, perfectly white teeth, golden tan, bulging biceps, wrinkle-free face, and big, Angelina Jolie lips. But while he can't turn back the clock, he can -- and has -- done the next best thing, creating a parallel universe of beauty and exclusivity where his attractions and obsessions have made him millions, shaped modern culture's concepts of gender, masculinity and physical beauty, and made over himself and the world in his image, leaving them both just a little more bizarre than he found them.
I’m not sure I can even totally explain the odd chain reaction response that went through me. I was sort of shocked, and sort of mad, and, ultimately, sort of sad.

There’s a girl called Amber, who lives quite near me. She was born with severe craniofacial deformities, and has had, in her 25 or so years, about 100 surgeries to try to correct them. I don’t know her, but my sister does. I do, however, remember the first time I saw her. She was maybe 6, and I was maybe 12, and I was at my old elementary school to watch my sister in the talent show. One of the acts was a little girl, dancing with her mom. She looked like no little girl I had ever seen. I remember hearing people gasp, and their gasps made my back go very straight and my eyes narrow. I wanted to tell them to shut up. I wanted to tell them she was the bravest person I’d ever seen. Instead, I crept closer and looked at her. And I remember thinking, in the weird kind of way that shy 12-year-olds who never have their noses out of books do, that she seemed almost magical twirling around and around in circles, and that she looked like a beautiful Picasso.

I have a particular compassion and admiration for people with facial abnormalities. Our faces are so much of who we are—we judge people’s characters by their faces; we look into their eyes and decide whether to trust them. It doesn’t matter whether we love our looks or hate them; our identities our wrapped up in our own faces, and though we may obsess about that strange little bump here or how that bit squinches funny when we smile, most of us will never know what it feels like to have other people react with shock or horror at our faces. Facial disfigurement can completely change a person’s life; I read on Sunday, about an Iraqi veteran whose face was forever changed by an explosion. He hid behind sunglasses and turtlenecks, until, eventually, he got reconstructive surgery that helped a bit—and he resolved to get used to his new face.

So in some strange way, all of this made me angry at Jeffries, irrational though that may be, knowing that he had deliberately abandoned a “normal” face for which others would happily have given anything in exchange, all in the pursuit of beauty. But then I thought about what that meant, to be so fearful and vain, and I felt sorry for him instead.

I saw Amber again many years later, on a talk show, discussing her face and her many surgeries. They showed a clip of her cheerleading at a football game. She seemed to worry about her face a lot less than everyone else did.

"If I had a perfect face, I wouldn't be the person I am today," she says. "Many of my best traits come from experiencing life with this face."
Jeffries ought to consider putting that on a t-shirt.

(You can read more about Amber here.)

Open Wide...

Always Worth the Wait

The Beast has posted their annual 50 Most Loathsome People in America list. The "sentences" are always a highpoint. The first three listed warmed my heart... and there's still 47 to go! Personally, I think Malkin got gypped. She should definitely at least be in the top twenty.

(Energy Dome tip to Tbogg for the heads-up.)

Open Wide...

Wuh?

Political Wire:

"The Bush administration is bracing for impeachment hearings in Congress," Insight magazine reports.

"Sources said a prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. They said the hearings would focus on the secret electronic surveillance program and whether Mr. Bush violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

Said the source: "Our arithmetic shows that a majority of the committee could vote against the president. If we work hard, there could be a tie."
Hmm.

Open Wide...

Suck it Up, Reapers

Via Jedmonds at Pandagon, who notes this is “probably the most fucked up thing I’ve read in awhile,” a contention with which you won’t find me disagreeing, comes this story from the Philadelphia Inquirer about a woman who, while suffering from both AIDS and cancer in the early ’90s, was given two years to live. At the time, M. Smith was single, self-employed, and had little savings, so when she saw an ad offering to buy her life insurance, she followed up, and summarily had her life insurance policy bought up by the ironically named Life Partners Inc.

Under such deals, the buyer gives the terminal patients lump sums, thereby providing them with money to live comfortably until their deaths, at which time the buyer receives a windfall in the form of the life insurance payout. More than a decade ago, AIDS patients were seen as “a sure thing,” but times they are a-changing, and now Life Partners, which paid Smith $90,000 for her $150,00 life insurance policy (which was inseparably linked to her health insurance), is pissed that Smith has the unmitigated temerity to still be alive.

Had Smith perished on schedule, Life Partners Inc. would have made $60,000 on a $90,000 wager - a 66 percent return on the investment.

Instead, the company that expected to make a profit on Smith's life insurance policy wound up spending $100,000 more keeping her alive.

Now, Life Partners' attempt to wriggle out of the relationship has led to one of the most morbid contract disputes ever filed in New Jersey Superior Court.

Stung by the costly miscalculation, the publicly traded company (http://www.lphi.net/) is balking at paying Smith's combined health- and life-insurance premiums.

A stranger claiming to represent angry investors has twice called Smith at home to ask her how she was feeling…

By investing in her fate, Life Partners assumed responsibility for the premiums as long as she lived.

"Purchaser," the contract read, "agrees to make any necessary contributions to the escrow fund to pay future premiums in the event that escrowed funds are exhausted and Seller shall have no further liability for payment of premiums on the policy."

…Smith defied the odds. She recently turned 50 - and thanks to daily medicine, says she generally feels fine.

Though Life Partners has wowed investors with regular dividends and an average 16 percent return, the Smith case has been all pain, no gain.

The cost of insuring her has jumped from $3,000 a year to $26,000 - more than she earns in a year…

"We didn't buy her health insurance. There's no value there, it doesn't benefit us," [Life Partners' president and General Counsel, Scott Peden] told me in a brief phone interview Friday.
I believe the precise legal term for that, Mr. Peden, is tough titties.

(Crossposted at AlterNet PEEK.)

Open Wide...

More Congratulations…

Wampum has posted its Most Deserving of Wider Recognition nominees. Along with another nod to Spudsy (and one for my bloggrrl Pam), I see that of the nearly 300 blogs on the list, probably close to half of them are on my blogroll. It’s just an outstanding list of bloggers. Congrats to everyone who made the list!

(My only question is how do you choose one—or even 10!—out of a list of 300?)

Open Wide...

How do you solve a problem like Scalia?

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is no stranger to ethics problems, but this new bit of dubious douchebaggery, uncovered by ABC News, is nonetheless startling in its blatant disregard for any semblance of propriety:

At the historic swearing-in of John Roberts as the 17th chief justice of the United States last September, every member of the Supreme Court, except Antonin Scalia, was in attendance. ABC News has learned that Scalia instead was on the tennis court at one of the country's top resorts, the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Bachelor Gulch, Colo., during a trip to a legal seminar sponsored by the Federalist Society…

Scalia spent two nights at the luxury resort lecturing at the legal seminar where ABC News also found him on the tennis court, heading out for a fly-fishing expedition, and socializing with members of the Federalist Society, the conservative activist group that paid for the expenses of his trip.

At a press conference, almost two weeks later, Scalia was not inclined to tell reporters his whereabouts during Roberts' swearing-in.

"I was out of town with a commitment that I could not break, and that's what the public information office told you," he said.

It "doesn't matter what it was. It was a commitment that I couldn't break," Scalia continued when questioned further.

According to the event's invitation, obtained by ABC News, the Federalist Society promised members who attended the seminar an exclusive and "rare opportunity to spend time, both socially and intellectually" with Scalia…

"It's unfortunate of course that what kept him from the swearing-in was an activity that is itself of dubious ethical propriety," said Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, who is a recognized scholar on legal ethics.
Is there a conservative left in D.C. who has a modicum of integrity? Just wondering.

I hate to get all Debbie Downer first thing in the morning, but it’s stuff like this that just makes me think, “Game over.” When the system is so corrupt that even the ostensibly objective judiciary is being bought and sold like so many bales of hay, and are willing accomplices in their own commoditization, I feel like the only solution left is to bang my head against my desk until I have knocked my brain so hard as to inure myself against any further comprehension of just how totally screwed we actually are.

Open Wide...

Study: College Students Can Find Arse With Map

The AP reports on yet another terrifying study of our educational system:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than half of students at four-year colleges -- and at least 75 percent at two-year colleges -- lack the literacy to handle complex, real-life tasks such as understanding credit card offers, a study found.

Uhuh, notoriously tricky, those credit card offers, nestled as they are between wave-particle duality and General Relativity on the spectrum of intellectual challanges. However it is not all bad news, since these same students do possess some skills:

they can do moderately challenging tasks, such as identifying a location on a map.
It is a testament to the current low ebb of our education system that, at the college level, the ability to identify someplace on a map can be described as “moderately challenging.” The situation is summed up nicely, I think, by the following quote from the study's director:

"It is kind of disturbing that a lot of folks are graduating with a degree and they're not going to be able to do those things," said Stephane Baldi, the study's director at the American Institutes for Research, a behavioral and social science research organization.

No shit.

Time to give the rubber stamp a well earned respite, methinks.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day: Boys Don't Cry Edition

My dearly beloved has allowed me to provide today's question, which is as follows: What do you think is the main reason why boys are not performing as well in schools as girls?

Given that this seems to be the hot-button issue of the day, I thought that it was worth garnering people's opinions about it. Much has been written on this topic lately, and we have theories that range from biological imperatives to a supposed feminization of the syllabi. One of the more curious hypotheses that I've read is that the current expectation in the classroom, which requires children to follow a rigid code of behavior including sitting down and shutting up, is not conducive to the education of boys, given their rambunctious and unfocused natures.

However, this assertion is counterintuitive. Back in the day when unruly young lads like William Shakespeare and Lord Byron attended school (and their sisters sat at home sewing), classrooms were run like the Gulag. Not only was a student expected to be quiet, submissive, and still, but the penalties for breaking the expected code of conduct were far more severe. Students who didn't abide by these expectations could expect to be whipped until they did what they were told. This, in combination with the far more rigorous academic demands, provided an atmosphere that was authoritarian beyond the wildest nightmare of today's boys, and far less accommodating of rambunctiousness and lack of focus.

An educational structure designed by men for boys, which managed to produce generations of well-educated and literate men, demanded more discipline, not less. Although I'm not suggesting that we hearken back to the days of caning and suppression of individualism, I'm not convinced that a freeform environment where boys get to roll around on the floor all day is the best solution to their problems.

If boys are indeed inherently more undisciplined than their female counterparts, then perhaps the answer is to provide them with more structure and create a less forgiving environment that demands the very best from them. In the end, it's more important that boys learn how to use their wild imaginations creatively and productively, something which requires focus, which itself is dependent on discipline. Channeling their imaginations into productive endeavors is not the same as stifling creativity.

Thus ends my lay-opinion on the issue...although when I was a lad, the only thing that could keep me in line was the promise of an appointment with a large, thorny stick if I misbehaved, so I do have some knowledge of that of which I speak.

Open Wide...

All It Takes is Courage

William Rivers Pitt is pissed:

Understand this, congressional Democrats, and understand it well: you are not dealing merely with a body of political opponents in the GOP. You are dealing with a group of people that want you exterminated politically. The days of walking the halls of the Rayburn Building, sharing a bourbon with a colleague from the other side of the aisle, and hammering out a compromise are as dead as Julius Caesar. Collegiality is out. Mutual respect is out. They want you gone for good. Erased. Destroyed.

And you have been far too polite about this. The writing has been on the wall for a while now. Back in 1995, Republican Senator Phil Gramm said, "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." That was eleven years ago. If you listen close, you can hear the beasts baying in the distance, waiting to slip the leash. Your limp tactics in the face of the assault upon you, your vacillation, your strange hope that maybe the GOP will be nicer tomorrow, has left you all smelling like Alpo.

For the love of God, you are being compared to Osama bin Laden all over network television because some within your ranks have had the courage to question the war in Iraq. It hasn't been subtle. Bin Laden, according to the right-wing talking heads, is getting his talking points straight from Howard Dean. These are the out-front spokespeople for the folks running the GOP right now. If you think there is compromise to be had with these people, if you think there is quarter to be given to you, then I have a nice, big red bridge to sell you in San Francisco…

You've been outflanked, Democrats. Abramoff won't help you, and the noise machine is preparing to terrorize the American people into such a distracted state that anything you say in the next ten months will be lost amid the howling. The midterms are pretty much a done deal, and your continued marginalization will proceed at speed.

You can stomp your feet and yell at the wall. You can put your head in your hands and weep. You can sit silently and be simply satisfied that your own job-for-life is secure, thanks to your friendly district back home, and be damned to actually doing anything of substance. In other words, you can continue to do what you've been doing since this outrageous assault on basic American democracy began.

Or you can stand up.

It takes a spine to stand up. Find yours. Get up and walk out of the State of the Union speech. Turn your backs on the blizzard of lies and empty promises that are sure to pour forth from that podium. Give it exactly what it deserves.

Walk outside to the steps of the Capitol Building and hold a Counter-State-of-the-Union. Lay out your plans for a better future. Explain how you will reform the system that spawned Mr. Abramoff. Demand answers and explanations about what is happening in Iraq, what is happening over at the National Security Agency, and why this administration believes itself to be completely above the law.

I can even offer a bit of text for your opening statement. "Three years ago during this very speech," your leading spokesperson can say from those steps, "Mr. Bush told us that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons - which is one million pounds - of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, 30,000 missiles to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, al Qaeda connections, and uranium from Niger for use in a robust nuclear weapons program. He said all this three years ago, during this all-important annual address, and all of it was a lie. The American people deserve an explanation."

See? It's easy. All it takes is courage.
Read the whole thing. Gawd, what I wouldn’t give to see the Democrats get up and walk out during Bush’s SOTU address to commence a searing rebuttal on the steps of the Capitol. Instead, they’re still holding invisible hearings in a basement (I love you, John Conyers—keep it up, but please, for the love of the fates, convince your fellow Dems to make some bloody noise about it until it gets heard) and politely responding to racist attempts to smear-by-association. Just ARGH.

Hat tip to Gordon at Alternate Brain, whose colleague Fixer has a few words for the Dems, too.

Open Wide...

Hef

Broadsheet is soliciting opinions on Playboy chairwoman and CEO (and daughter of Hugh) Christie Hefner:

The Australian today has a piece about 53-year-old Playboy chairwoman and CEO Christie Hefner's recent trip to Melbourne.

Hefner is such a fascinating figure: Her fortune is built on the bodies of women scantily dressed in cottontails, yes. But she's also a committed pro-choice, left-wing activist and a great believer in and supporter of women in business.

"Forty per cent of my executive staff is female," she told the Australian, "including the chief financial officer and the heads of marketing, administrative services and human resources." She also credited the company's growth to her ability to "attract so many bright successful women."

What are Broadsheet readers' thoughts on the woman who holds the keys to the mansion these days?
I met Christie Hefner many years ago at, of all places, a high school journalism conference. She was a fantastic and interesting speaker, and a very warm, generous person, too, who left me inspired on many counts. I think she’s eminently diggable.

Built into the question, however, is, of course, a request to comment on the possible incompatibility of being a feminist and a porn advocate, and I guess it depends on what one’s feelings about porn are. I don’t have a problem with porn—at least not the kinds found in the pages of Playboy. Child porn and porn dependent on exploitative images of mistreating or belittling women (or men) bother me. Pictures of happy naked people don’t.

And while I’m aware that behind any pornographic image is the possibility of a person who is unhappy or has been exploited, I don’t find that any more reason to categorically condemn pornography than any other profession in which workers can be mistreated and taken advantage of. White-, blue-, and pink-collared women can be—and are—sexually exploited, too. Which is, in part, why I’m a feminist…to make sure that each person, irrespective of gender or career, is treated with equality, dignity, and respect. Another part of it is legitimizing a variety of choices for women, including being a porn star.

(There’s a whole issue of objectification that I’m not really going into, but suffice it to say, at the moment, that my attitude about objectification is not a porn- or even body-specific issue, and that there are more insidious sociological factors that promulgate objectification than nudity and/or pornography.)

Open Wide...

Barf-Inducer of the Day

Blllluuuuuuurrrrrrrggggghhhhh:

President Bush told abortion opponents Monday that they are pursuing "a noble cause" and making a real difference in the campaign to recruit more Americans to stand on their side.

"We're working to persuade more of our fellow Americans of the rightness of our cause," the president told abortion foes gathered at the foot of Capitol Hill on a chilly, rainy day. He spoke by telephone from Manhattan, Kansas, where he was to give a speech.

"This is a cause that appeals to the conscience of our citizens and is rooted in America's deepest principle," the president said. "And history tells us that with such a cause we will prevail."

…"You believe, as I do, that every human life has value, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence apply to everyone, not just to those considered healthy or wanted or convenient," Bush told the abortion foes.

"These principles call us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children," the president said.
I could, of course, go on a rant that dissected this steaming pile of horseshit and highlighted all its many hypocrisies, but you already know what I’d say. And I really need to go find some paper towels to clean up the massive pile of puke on my desk, anyway.

Open Wide...

More on Gender and Education

Per my below post, there’s more good reading on the topic by Ampersand here and here, and a good one from Echidne here. Also Mannion here, here, here, and here.

Open Wide...

The Trouble With Boys

That’s Newsweek’s cover story this week, and it’s all about how boys are falling behind girls in school. The premise that runs throughout the piece is that schools—nay, the very fabric of our society!—have become so feminized that boys can’t possibly function. Overtly, the article notes:

Some scholars, notably Christina Hoff Sommers, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, charge that misguided feminism is what's been hurting boys. In the 1990s, she says, girls were making strong, steady progress toward parity in schools, but feminist educators portrayed them as disadvantaged and lavished them with support and attention. Boys, meanwhile, whose rates of achievement had begun to falter, were ignored and their problems allowed to fester (click here for related essay).
Couple of problems with that paragraph. One: No notation that the American Enterprise Institute is a conservative—and actively anti-feminist—thinktank.

Two: The “related essay” is written by feminist scholar (and mother of three boys) Carol Gilligan, who has written a thoughtful piece on how helping both girls and boys doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game, and that “the remarkable transformation in the lives of girls over the past 20 years suggests that similar results could be achieved with boys.” But Gilligan’s view doesn’t get equal time in the main piece—just a link to a side essay—while Sommers’ view stands alone, uncritiqued and lacking context.

Three: How, exactly, have schools changed so dramatically in their structure that they now explicitly favor girls? I’m 31 years old; my life spans the exact time frame since the passing of Title IX and all the supposed radical changes in education that helped girls and hurt boys. All of us were expected to sit quietly in class, raise our hands, follow the rules, etc.—exactly like school was (minus, perhaps, knuckles getting rapped with rulers) back when girls were largely denied access to public schooling. Now, suddenly when boys are falling behind, we’re being told that the very structure which was developed when public education was predominantly boys-only is hurting boys, coupled with the claim that feminists are somehow to blame for it.

And that appears to be the biggest problem with most of the stories being written about gender and education lately—the notion that the nebulous concept of “feminization” is responsible for some boys struggling is being treated as conventional wisdom, while any other explanations are relegated to side notes, if they’re even addressed at all. The suggestion that girls’ successes be used as a model is routinely absent from articles such as this one, perhaps because nothing more radical than a cultural imperative to encourage women’s education, and an expectation that girls step up to the plate, can be pointed to as evidence of girls’ educational surge.

And, mind you, though it’s much more convenient for these articles (and many of the studies upon which they’re based) to turn this into a boys vs. girls issue, like all gender issues, it’s hardly that straightforward. Not all boys are struggling, and not all girls are succeeding. But an acknowledgement that children of both sexes respond well to one type of educational structure or another wouldn’t allow for a parade of experts to be introduced to reassure us in fancy words that “Boys will be boys.”

Primatologists have long observed that juvenile male chimps battle each other not just for food and females, but to establish and maintain their place in the hierarchy of the tribe. Primates face off against each other rather than appear weak. That same evolutionary imperative, psychologists say, can make it hard for boys to thrive in middle school—and difficult for boys who are failing to accept the help they need. The transition to middle school is rarely easy, but like the juvenile primates they are, middle-school boys will do almost anything to avoid admitting that they're overwhelmed. "Boys measure everything they do or say by a single yardstick: does this make me look weak?" says Thompson. "And if it does, he isn't going to do it." That's part of the reason that videogames have such a powerful hold on boys: the action is constant, they can calibrate just how hard the challenges will be and, when they lose, the defeat is private.
Yeesh. Now, being a woman who has no particular affinity for appearing weak and a cultural anthropologist who doesn’t much care for biological determinism as a default explanation for cultural phenomena, I would be inclined to ask the question, “Might we consider what it is about our culture that reinforces an association between accepting help and weakness among boys and men?” See, even though we’re primates, we’re not chimps. And one of the things that separates us from chimps is the capacity for cultural adjustment. If males are biologically determined to “measure everything they do or say by a single yardstick” which determines the appearance of weakness, the best way to address the associated educational issue isn’t necessarily to bend an existing structure to accommodate an urge that isn’t a strength in other areas of life, either, but addressing the failings of our culture at large to disassociate need from weakness.

Undoubtedly, there are those who would accuse me of further attempts to “feminize” the culture, but a boy who learns that seeking help is not a sign of weakness is more likely to become a man who seeks medical treatment at the first sign of trouble—one of many reasons why redefining “weakness” could benefit men.

As a final note, this article, which saw fit to mention the feminization of education, biological determinism, and the lack of male role models as possible reasons why boys are falling behind, fails to mention something rather important.

Boys have always been boys, but the expectations for how they're supposed to act and learn in school have changed. In the last 10 years, thanks in part to activist parents concerned about their children's success, school performance has been measured in two simple ways: how many students are enrolled in accelerated courses and whether test scores stay high. Standardized assessments have become commonplace for kids as young as 6. Curricula have become more rigid. Instead of allowing teachers to instruct kids in the manner and pace that suit each class, some states now tell teachers what, when and how to teach. At the same time, student-teacher ratios have risen, physical education and sports programs have been cut and recess is a distant memory. These new pressures are undermining the strengths and underscoring the limitations of what psychologists call the "boy brain"—the kinetic, disorganized, maddening and sometimes brilliant behaviors that scientists now believe are not learned but hard-wired.
Activist parents. Some states. Standardized assessments have become commonplace. Curricula have become more rigid. Well, that’s a lovely dance that manages to avoid the ten-ton elephant hiding between the lines: No Child Left Behind.

NCLB punishes schools whose pupils’ scores don’t improve. When funding is predicated on test scores, is it any wonder that schools are teaching how to pass tests, rather than teaching learning as a lifelong process? If this structure is leaving boys behind, it isn’t because of a feminist agenda, that’s for bloody sure. Instead, those concerned about boys’ education would do well to turn their eyes and their pointed fingers of blame in the direction of Washington, D.C.—and the manliest of the manly brush-clearin’ cowboys from whose private-schooled brain this idea sprung.

Open Wide...

SOTU Primer

Check out Ezra’s State of the Union Primer at Tapped. It’s really good, and has a detailed explanation of why HSAs, which are going to be a centerpiece of Bush’s SOTU address, are a bad idea—something I was going to write about today, but Ez’s piece is so good, I won’t bother. I will note, however, that HSAs sound attractive at first blush for the same reason Bush’s Social Security reforms did—more control over one’s own money—but have the same inevitable result—more exposure to financial ruin at a vulnerable point in one’s life. Liberals will need to mount an informational (truth) campaign akin to that run against his Soc Sec reforms to make sure this dreadful idea tanks, too.

Open Wide...

Pentagon Was Spying, Too

So says Newsweek, in an article called The Other Big Brother:

But there are now questions about whether [Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA)] exceeded its authority and conducted unauthorized spying on innocent people and organizations. A Pentagon memo obtained by NEWSWEEK shows that the deputy Defense secretary now acknowledges that some TALON reports may have contained information on U.S. citizens and groups that never should have been retained. The number of reports with names of U.S. persons could be in the thousands, says a senior Pentagon official who asked not be named because of the sensitivity of the subject…

[An internal CIFA PowerPoint slide presentation], which [William Arkin, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst] provided to NEWSWEEK, shows that CIFA analysts had access to law-enforcement reports and sensitive military and U.S. intelligence documents. (The group's motto appears at the bottom of each PowerPoint slide: "Counterintelligence 'to the Edge'.")
Next on C-SPAN: Xtreme Spiez, with your host, Donald “Trix6” Rumsfeld.

Shock of all shocks, an internal Pentagon review, that I’m totally sure was planned even before Newsweek started asking questions, has discovered CIFA’s database contains information that violates regulation, which requires them to dispose of information about US citizens after 90 days if they are not “reasonably believed” to have some link to “terrorism, criminal wrongdoing, or foreign intelligence.”

There was information that was "improperly stored," says a Pentagon spokesman who was authorized to talk about the program (but not to give his name). "It was an oversight." In a memo last week, obtained by NEWSWEEK, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England ordered CIFA to purge such information from its files—and directed that all Defense Department intelligence personnel receive "refresher training" on department policies.
Phew. I always feel much better when the government gets busted doing something and then says it was only a mistake and won’t happen again. Especially when it’s part of a coincidental pattern of such “oversights.”

New entry for my Most Hated Euphemisms list: Improper, when the correct word is illegal.

Open Wide...

Tools

So Chris Matthews had a pretty big week, what with cheerfully mocking gays with Imus and then comparing Osama bin Laden to Michael Moore and then defending his remarks, with help from Joe Scarborough, by clarifying that it’s not just Michael Moore who bin Laden sounds like, but all liberals (video). Soon, enough, the Bow-Tied One quickly picked up and ran with the sentiment, as did Newt Gingrich, who said on Hannity & Colmes, “I think it's quite clear as you point out, Sean, that from this tape, that bin Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media, they're monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States policies.” Now it’s making its way through the rightwing blogosphere, because nothing’s more fun than conflating people who don’t share your opinion with terrorists.

There seems to be a rather strange expectation that liberals ought to express some sort of outrage that some of their most public representatives use language that sounds like that used by bin Laden. But the onus here is not on legitimate opposers of the war, who the administration goes out of its way to remind us are not “unpatriotic, not at all,” even as their shills gleefully assert otherwise. The responsibility is on the rightwing who, in choosing to seize upon the comparison to try to score political points, make themselves the useful tools of anyone whose goal is to see the United States torn apart at its seams. Bombs aren’t the only thing that can destroy a democracy; in fact, they are not even the most dangerous thing.

Does a man like bin Laden care if his enemy collapses under the smoke of explosions or from the slow but insidious undermining of the priniciples in which its freedom was forged? Absolutely not.

Dissent is a right. And dissent is only imbued with the capacity to provide comfort to one’s enemies when it is demonized. Were the Right to condemn instead attempts to widen the cavern between two groups of people who simply have different ideas about how best to fight a common enemy, they would strengthen, rather than further weaken, our democratic process, but they have chosen a much darker route, and in the end, we’ll all be worse for it.

That’s the thing about demonization—it only really helps the demons.

(Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)

Open Wide...

Sigh

Lauren says goodbye.

Of course I understand all her reasons, and even though I’ll miss her, I’ll still eagerly look forward to all the great stuff Jill has to say—in addition to the two mystery bloggers who will be joining in, too. But, as she says, “It ain’t easy to be an feminist today, especially if you live in small town Indiana,” and it was nice to know another Hoosier bloggrrl was just down the road apiece.

Open Wide...

He's Too Sexy for His Boots

Shaker Constant Comment passes on this little gem from the fashion pages of today’s Chicago Tribune:

Unstatesmanlike Conduct

It was about a year ago this week when Vice President Dick Cheney apparently was plucked out of the stands at a Packers game to jet to the 60th anniversary remembrance of the liberation of the Nazis' Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp in Poland. That's how it looked, anyway, from the green hooded parka trimmed in bushy white fur, knit ski cap, clunky lace-up boots and bulky gloves Cheney saw fit to wear in the company of more professionally attired statesmen.
No way. He looked awesome.


"When’s the kickoff?"

Open Wide...

George and Jack, Sitting in a Tree…

Time reports that the White House may soon have a difficult time continuing to claim that the President doesn’t know Jack Abramoff:

TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months: that a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal—like the shots of President Bill Clinton at White House coffees for campaign contributors in the mid-1990s.

Nice gratuitous Clinton reference. Remember how Clinton was impeached for the great Coffee Klatch Scandal of ’95? Yeah, me neither.

Anyway…

In one shot that TIME saw, Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians, which owned a casino in southern Texas. Garza, who is wearing jeans and a bolo tie in the picture, told TIME that Bush greeted him as "Jefe," or "chief" in Spanish. Another photo shows Bush shaking hands with Abramoff in front of a window and a blue drape. The shot bears Bush's signature, perhaps made by a machine. Three other photos are of Bush, Abramoff and, in each view, one of the lobbyist's sons (three of his five children are boys). A sixth picture shows several Abramoff children with Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is now pushing to tighten lobbying laws after declining to do so last year when the scandal was in its early stages.
I predict that when these photos inevitably surface, the White House will easily dismiss them with a line like, “The President meets thousands of people. That doesn’t mean he has a personal relationship with every one of them.” At which point, the question should become: But how many of them were part of the president’s transition team into the White House and then later flagrantly abused their positions?

It doesn’t really matter if they only ever met in passing or used to have secret midnight trysts under the presidential portrait of Taft (that saucy minx). Does the buck stop with the president or doesn’t it?

Open Wide...

Congratulations Are In Order…

The first of the Koufax noms are up, and in the Best New Blog category, what do I see but Paul the Spud’s The Adventures of the Smart Patrol and Tart’s Blog Formerly Known as Some Watery Thoughts and Now Known as Tart Juice. Congratulations!

There are lots more on the list, many of whom are gracious enough to spend some of their time making this blog better, by regularly adding their voices to the discussions and making deliciously wanton whores of themselves every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Congratulations to all of you, too. Each and every one of you absolutely deserves the recognition.

Boy, I’ve got a lot of new blogs to check out…

Open Wide...