confession time

I occasionally watch a couple "soap operas" (well, when I have CBS, that is). My cousin got me hooked on The Young and the Restless (Y&R) when I was fourteen and I eventually branched out into the other CBS soaps. I don't watch Y&R very often anymore--I prefer As The World Turns (ATWT) and Guiding Light (GL). Now that I don't have CBS, I keep track of them via CBS' website where they summarize each episode (which I kind of like, that way I don't have to watch the story lines I think are tedious). Yeah, I'm a dork. I get it. One thing I've noticed over the years is that CBS isn't afraid to take on issues in its daytime shows and treat them seriously, not campy like one would expect from daytime tv. ATWT has taken on a current "hot topic": the character of Luke, son of ATWT featured characters Holden and Lily, is gay. He is currently struggling with coming out to his parents, which he hasn't yet. Thus far, Luke accepted the offer of a girl to be his cover but that is rapidly falling apart. He thinks that his parents will freak out completely. He is miserable. As far as I know, Lily has no idea. Holden was suspects but is afraid to comfirm it. His coming out--to his parents--episode is next Tuesday (the 9th). The character of Luke is one of only two gay (main/featured, male) characters in all of daytime television. Hopefully this will bring a change to the genre.

ATWT teamed up with GLAAD to make public service announcements as part of GLAAD's "Be an Ally and a Friend" campaign. One such announcement will air at the end of the May 9th episode. According to Rawstory:

[It] urges viewers to take a stand against the discrimination and prejudice faced by gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, and directs them to GLAAD.org where they can find resources for parents, youth, families and friends.


We also learn from the Raw article that Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty is calling on CBS to not air the PSA and to not, apparently, buy into "propaganda" from GLAAD:

“GLAAD is using free advertising to push a message about homosexuality that is not true,” said Lafferty. “The homosexual condition is not in-born or unchangeable. Thousands of ex-homosexuals can attest to this fact and their testimonies are well documented by Exodus International.

[...]

“GLAAD’s message in its PSA will be to stigmatize any person who thinks that homosexual conduct is immoral or abnormal,” said Lafferty. “The fact is that most people of faith believe that homosexuality is a sinful behavior and that it can be healed. GLAAD is telling Americans that their religious beliefs are wrong—when there is a wealth of scientific evidence that homosexual conduct is dangerous physically and emotionally to the individual.”

“The underlying anti-religious bigotry of GLAAD must be rejected by all Americans and CBS affiliates should refuse to run their inaccurate PSAs next week,” said Lafferty.


Anti-religious bigotry? Oh for fuck's sake. CBS responded with, essentially, "bugger off, you stupid freaks":

Luke's journey to come out is a powerful multi-generational story of love, acceptance and family," said Barbara Bloom, Sr. Vice President of Daytime Programs at CBS. "It is a story of unflinching honesty in which Luke's parents, Lily and Holden, must face their own beliefs when they realize they must choose to love their child because of who he is and not in spite of it. CBS Daytime is proud to support As the World Turns in the telling of this powerfully relevant and engaging story, and we are equally pleased to have GLAAD's support while we do so."


The contact information for ATWT is here. If you're interested, check your local CBS stations for airtimes (when we lived in Ohio it came on at 2 pm EST).

Open Wide...

Clenchy McJaw

ABC kept their cameras on Bush during Stephen Colbert’s “audition video,” and now you can see it here. Lots and lots o’ jaw-clenching!

For those who don’t want to sit through the whole thing, here are a couple of my favorite moments, screen-grabbed for your pleasure:










(Hat tip C&L.)

Open Wide...

Don't Get It? Me Either

If you're as puzzled by the Log Cabin Republicans as I am, take a little time and go read this excellent article at Campus Progress.

It's a long one, but well worth your time.

Over and over again, the speakers expounded on how the philosophy of conservatism, and its insistence on liberty and freedom from the State, created a paradigm for gay identity and expression. It seemed that many attendees had so reworked their own history that Gay Liberation had become a natural outgrowth of Barry Goldwater conservatism, completely disconnected from feminist and left-wing political and social movements. Understanding a lot of LCR members means understanding that many gay Americans don’t necessarily see their struggle connected to larger feminist and identity politics movements.

During one particularly embarrassing (and revealing) moment, one of the original LCR founders shouted from the podium: “And because of Reagan’s courage as governor, California avoided banning all gays and lesbians from being state teachers.” How sad that such a defensive, small-bore, conciliatory act became Reagan’s most proudly pro-gay moment, and how much sadder for so many gay people to be unabashedly championing the man who refused to mention the word AIDS for the first five years of his Presidency even as the virus raged across the country and ravaged the gay community.


Insert your "Denial isn't just a river in Egypt" joke here.

(Energy dome tip to August. I'm gonna make somebody cross-post me...)

Open Wide...

Hold My Tongue?

John Aravosis asks: With the congressional elections 6 months away, is it time for us to stop criticizing Democrats?

I’m going to guess you can correctly forecast my answer, but just in case not, here it is:

No.

You’ll find longer answers from Kevin Hayden at The American Street and Jedmunds at Pandagon that are worth a read.

Open Wide...

School principal to 10-year-old: No free speech for you!

Molly Shoul has been told by her principle that she will not be allowed to sing Pink’s Dear Mr. President at a school talent show because it is “inappropriate and too political.”

"This is a fifth-grade student that wants to perform a song filled with lyrics about drug use, war, abortion, gay rights and profanity," said district spokeswoman Nadine Drew. "This is an elementary school that includes kindergarteners and pre-K students."
Oh it’s “filled with lyrics about drug use, war, abortion, gay rights and profanity,” is it? Let’s take a look at those lyrics:

Dear Mr. President / Come take a walk with me / Let's pretend we're just two people and / You're not better than me / I'd like to ask you some questions if we can speak honestly

What do you feel when you see all the homeless on the street / Who do you pray for at night before you go to sleep / What do you feel when you look in the mirror / Are you proud

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry / How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye / How do you walk with your head held high / Can you even look me in the eye / And tell me why

Dear Mr. President / Were you a lonely boy / Are you a lonely boy / Are you a lonely boy / How can you say / No child is left behind / We're not dumb and we're not blind / They're all sitting in your cells / While you pave the road to hell

What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away / And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay / I can only imagine what the first lady has to say / You've come a long way from whiskey and cocaine

How do you sleep while the rest of us cry / How do you dream when a mother has no chance to say goodbye / How do you walk with your head held high / Can you even look me in the eye

Let me tell you bout hard work / Minimum wage with a baby on the way / Let me tell you bout hard work / Rebuilding your house after the bombs took them away / Let me tell you bout hard work / Building a bed out of a cardboard box / Let me tell you bout hard work / Hard work / Hard work / You don't know nothing bout hard work / Hard work / Hard work / Oh

How do you sleep at night / How do you walk with your head held high / Dear Mr. President / You'd never take a walk with me / Would you


I see absolutely no reference to abortion, nothing about “gay rights,” and no profanity aside from the word “hell” used in the way anyone who attends church would hear it be used. As for reference to war, well, we’re at bloody war, and as for drug use, talk to the user-in-chief. If mentioning that is inappropriate in school, then request a change in the lyrics, don’t ban the song. Molly’s mom suspects that if the song were pro-administration, there wouldn’t be a problem, and I suspect she’s right.

Molly said Thursday she thought the song was "really cool" because it spoke about important subjects like war and homelessness.

Molly said she liked the way the song addressed the president directly.

"He should try to listen to what other people say, not just himself," she said.
Out of the mouths of babes.

Here’s the most pathetic part:

Assuming the decision stands, Molly said she plans to select a new song for the show later this month with a message she thinks school officials wouldn't object to: A hip-hop song about two girls fighting over a boy.
Yeah, that’s a much more appropriate message for the pre-K kids. Of course, something tells me that’s exactly the point Molly’s trying to make, clever girl. I’m suddenly having flashbacks to age 12, when I challenged a minister on the church’s position on women and got, “You’ll probably be a high school dropout and pregnant at 16!” as a response.

(Hat tip to Simply Left Behind, passed on by Shaker G.)

Open Wide...

Ha

I love this paragraph:

Angry conservatives are driving the approval ratings of President Bush and the GOP-led Congress to dismal new lows, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that underscores why Republicans fear an Election Day massacre.
I don’t believe, unfortunately, that the GOP will actually face an Election Day massacre, but it’s fun to see it in an AP lede, and even more fun to think about the GOP shitting their pants about it.

Open Wide...

Shocking

Get the fainting couch ready, Shakers: Unwanted Pregnancies Rise for Poor Women. And—brace yourselves—“relatively affluent women are succeeding more and more in getting pregnant only when they want to.”

Oh, Martha-Ann—what could possibly account for this disparity?

Asked what was driving the trends, the authors noted that some state and federal reproductive health programs have been cut or made more restrictive in recent years. State and federal programs have increasingly focused on abstinence rather than contraception, and some analysts have argued that the shift is leading to less use of contraceptives and more unintended pregnancies.
Gee, so does that mean that retrofuck social conservatives will finally change their tune about the efficacy of abstinence-only programs? Of course not!

Leslee Unruh, president and founder of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, a South Dakota-based nonprofit that seeks to educate about abstinence programs, said the growing number of unintended pregnancies among poorer women shows that traditional sex education programs are failing.

"Programs for poor women are often so condescending, even degrading," she said. "They teach how to put on a condom rather than how to take control of their lives."
Hmm. I never considered how self-deprecating I was being when I required my sex partners to use condoms all these years. Silly me, I thought that protecting myself against unwanted pregnancy and disease was actually a pretty darn good way of taking control of my life. I had no idea that simply repressing all my sexual urges, even with my husband, was a better way to go about it.

The authors said the growing disparities between richer and poorer women appeared to be the result of greater contraceptive use by the more affluent.
I wonder if that has anything to do with more affluent women being able to afford to pay for birth control out-of-pocket, since a lot of health plans still don’t cover prescription birth control. Or affluent women being more likely to have the health plans that do cover prescription birth control, or health plans full stop. Or the de-emphasis on condom use, since condoms used to be more freely available at federally funded clinics. Boy, I just really wonder what could account for greater contraceptive use by the more affluent.

The health statistics center, which is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reported in 2004 that after decades of increasing contraceptive use, the trend stalled in the late 1990s and began to decline after that. The decline occurred almost entirely in poorer women.
Huh. What happened in, oh say, the year 2000 that could possibly have reversed the trend in contraceptive use? You don’t think it has anything to do with a president who quite possibly thinks that prayer is the best contraceptive method, do you?

Open Wide...

“Brainwashed by propaganda and gender bias.”

That’s to what Jeffery M. Leving, a Chicago attorney who specializes in men's rights and authored the book Fathers' Rights attributes inmates’ belief that it is their children’s best interest to not see them while they’re in jail. I’m not sure what he would use to explain that same belief held by many female inmates, too, but I suspect the reality is that most of the inmates who feel that way are motivated by a sense of shame, and perhaps an unwillingness to subject their children to the scary experience of visiting a parent in jail. Some of them may even be respecting their children’s wishes to not see them; I had a friend in high school whose father was in jail for murder, and the last thing in the world he wanted to do was visit him in prison.

But why let the facts get in the way of a little feminist-bashing?

In a case in my neck of the woods, fathers’ rights advocates are making noise about the visitation rights of incarcerated fathers. And if there’s any lingering doubt that far too many of these advocates have woven an anti-woman agenda into their advocacy, check out the facts of this case: The father is in jail for raping the mother.

Linetty tells of the attack -- how he wrestled her to the ground, punched her in the head, pulled down her pants and raped her, covering her mouth and threatening death during the assault.

Finally, Linetty recalls, her eyes unblinking and her voice clear but delicate, how the police knocked on the door and the whole episode ended as quickly as it began…
The thing about this case is that the fathers’ right advocates have selected it specifically because the case is unusual in that the father has raped the mother, because if the father is denied visitation, it’s that much easier to claim it’s because of gender bias, as opposed to a case in which the father is in prison for theft, or even murder. Their entire premise is rooted in the notion that feminism and gender bias have rendered the legal system prejudiced against men, and so they have glommed on to this family, where that refrain makes the most sense, to make their case for incarcerated fathers’ rights.

Linetty does not want to take her three children to see their father, in spite of a court order to do so. Her 13-year-old daughter has written a letter to the judge saying “she does not want visitation.” Her 10-year-old daughter has “not spoken up in favor of seeing her dad.” Her 8-year-old son is in therapy to deal with the situation. The fathers’ rights advocates, who insist that this is about what’s best for the children, in spite of the children’s wishes and lingering trauma, have now stepped in on the father’s behalf.

Fathers' rights advocates counter Linetty's anti-visitation stance by arguing that children need their father in their lives even if he is incarcerated for a crime against their mother.

Children who do not have contact with their father have an increased chance of ending up in prison themselves, lower self-esteem, higher suicide rates and a greater chance of alcohol and drug abuse than kids who see their dads, fathers' rights advocates say.

"The court has determined that it is in the best interest of the children that they visit their father," said Jeffery M. Leving, a prominent Chicago attorney who concentrates on men's rights and author of the book "Fathers' Rights."

"In part, it's about the right of fathers, but the real focus is children's rights," Leving said.
Note that there is no distinction made between children who want to see their fathers and those who don’t. Also note that Leving fails to mention that the father, Henry Weldy, was not involved in his children’s lives before he went to prison, and that he isn’t commenting on the case.

"You don't deny children the right to see their parents based on issues between the parents," said Mike McCormick, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, based in Washington.

"I'm in no way downplaying the seriousness of the fact that he is convicted of raping her, but that consideration is separate and distinct from the issue of the child maintaining a relationship with their father, even in circumstances of incarceration," McCormick said.
Love it. He reduces a father brutally raping a mother to an “issue between the parents,” then immediately claims he’s not “downplaying the seriousness of the fact that he is convicted of raping her.” He's also attempting to cast this as an issue with Linetty "denying" her children's "right" to see their parent, implying it's because of that little "issue" between her and the father, even though the children don't want to see him.

Barry Nothstine, spokesman for the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, said the facility follows court orders for inmates' visitation with their children, unless the inmate has been convicted of child molestation or prison officials have reason to believe the inmate would harm the child.
Physically harm the child only, of course. That a daughter, or a son, whose father is a convicted felon (no less convicted of having raped their primary caregiver) might be emotionally traumatized by being forced to see him against her/his will makes no difference, apparently. (And, as an aside, “children of batterers can be at just as much risk psychologically, sexually, and even physically after the couple splits up as they were when the family was still together. In fact, many children experience the most damaging victimization from the abuser at this point.” So I’m not sure that a conviction for child molestation ought to be the only reason to believe an inmate, of either gender, with a history of spousal abuse would be predisposed to hurting a child.)

What pisses me off to no end about this case is that the fathers’ rights advocates claim it’s about the children’s rights, but they aren’t paying any attention to what the children want. I don’t give a flippity shit whether this a man in jail for raping his children’s mother, or a woman in jail for murdering her children’s father; I would make precisely the same argument if the genders were reversed. I care about the rights of those kids to not be turned into pawns of gender crusaders, and their rights to not forcibly be made to spend time with the person who raped their mother, even if he is their father. Why don’t the fathers’ rights advocates have the same concern, if this is really about the children’s rights and not about their anti-feminist agenda? To them, it's apparently inconceivable that these children might have genuine reasons for not wanting to see their father; it must just be because of their mother's interest in denying the father his right to see his children.

Worse yet, Linetty says the children don’t know the specifics of the case, except that their father hurt their mother, but considering that since the fathers’ rights advocates have come on the scene and it’s getting more press, it’s highly unlikely that they will remain ignorant for long. In using this case for their own crusade, the fathers’ rights brigade will inevitably reveal to the children that their father is a rapist. How does that serve the children’s best interest, no less the father’s? They don’t care about anything but their own agenda, least of all the people they purport to help.

(More from Trish Wilson, Pinko Feminist Hellcat, and Jessica.)

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What issue—political, cultural, legal, whatever—do you think never gets as much coverage as it needs/deserves in the mainstream media and/or the blogosphere?

Open Wide...

UN to quiz Washington on torture

Sent on by Shaker Jaclyn:

The US is due to appear before the UN Committee on Torture for the first time since launching its war on terror following the 9/11 attacks.

Thirty senior officials from the departments of state, defence, justice and homeland security will testify in public at the hearing in Geneva.

They are likely to face tough questions about practices used in the US' anti-terror drive, correspondents say…

The hearings have huge significance, says Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch.

"What makes this so remarkable is that this is the first time the United States is accountable for its record on torture with regard to some of the practices implemented after 9/11," she says.

The committee will want to know about alleged CIA secret prisons and the prisoners no-one has access to, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says.

They may ask about the precise measures the US has taken in the wake of the abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison to ensure it does not happen again.

More awkward still, they may want to know if an independent inquiry into the possibility that high-ranking government officials authorised torture, our correspondent adds.
There appears to be little coverage of this in the American media. CNN had a story the other day, but it doesn’t even mention that a US team will be testifying. The testimony of the US team, led by a State Department Attorney, begins tomorrow.

Open Wide...

Rumsfeld Heckled

Good grief.

Anti-war protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday, and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him in a question-and-answer session of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence.

"Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?" asked Ray McGovern, the former analyst.

"I did not lie," shot back Rumsfeld, who waved off security guards ready to remove McGovern from the hall at the Southern Center for International Studies.
Video at the link. You’ve got to watch it. I love the part where Rumsfeld says, “I’m not in the intelligence business.” Nope—just in the business of going to war on cherry-picked intelligence.

President Bush seldom faces such challenges. Demonstrators usually are kept far from him when he delivers public remarks.
Yeah, we know.

(More on the courageous Ray McGovern here and here.)

Open Wide...

Pray Tell, Mr. President

Thank goodness our president is around to inform us about important parts of our country’s history, like how it’s “a nation of prayer.”

"America is a nation of prayer. It's impossible to tell the story of our nation without telling the story of people who pray," Bush said during a White House celebration of the National Day of Prayer. "At decisive moments in our history and in quiet times around family tables, we are a people humbled and strengthened and blessed by prayer."
Seriously, barf. Not just because he prays, but because he considers prayer step one in combating hurricanes, for example.

Bowing his head many times as Christian and Jewish leaders offered prayers, the president thanked those who pray for him, calling it the greatest gift a citizen can offer him.

"In my travels across the great land, a comment that I hear often from our fellow citizens is, `Mr. President, I pray for you and your family.' It's amazing how many times a total stranger walks up and says that to me," Bush said. "You'd think they'd say, ‘How about the bridge?’ Or, ‘How about filling the potholes?’ No, they say, ‘I've come to tell you I pray for you, Mr. President’."
Fucking hell. Where to begin. Okay, first of all, it tells you everything you need to know about this president that he considers prayer “the greatest gift a citizen can offer him,” and the sharp critique of his policies by a comedian something to get pissed off about.

Secondly, call me crazy, but with a 68% disapproval rating, I’m sure there are a lot of people who are praying that Bush leaves his office ASAP. I’m also quite certain there are plenty of people who would say, “How about the bridge?” or “How about filling the potholes?” or “How about that war in Iraq?” or “How about not secretly wiretapping Americans?” or “Where’s Osama bin Laden?” were they given the opportunity to get within earshot of him.

And even though pretending people never question him, choosing instead to simply offer prayers in return for what a bang-up job he’s doing, makes a nice sound bite, it’s kind of unbelievable he doesn’t remember the mother of a dead soldier camping outside his mansion in Crawford for a month last summer, trying to get some answers and accountability of him, or a student asking him who the hell is monitoring independent contractors in Iraq less than a month ago, just for a start.

Bush was careful to also honor those who choose not to pray, or join any religion.

"We are a people united by our love for freedom, even when we differ in our personal beliefs," the president said. "In America, we are free to profess any faith we choose, or no faith at all."
Well, I’ve got no faith in you, that much is for certain—particularly the trifling lipservice you give to atheists on the day our White House is celebrating the National Day of Prayer. It isn't just that this president is effusively religious; it's that he wields it in such a way that even religious people find objectionable.

Taking a page out of the conservative handbook, who like to do things like celebrate the Day of Truth immediately after the Day of Silence, I’m declaring tomorrow National Day of Reason. And, much like every other day, I imagine the White House will decline to participate.

Open Wide...

Forever Stamp

So, the Postal Service is proposing a “forever stamp,” which could be bought at the soon-to-be-raised again 1st class stamp price of 42¢, but could be used forever without adding 2¢ or 3¢ stamps as prices are raised in the future. Ruth Goldway of the U.S. Postal Rate Commission warns that “the Postal Service is likely to limit the quantities of forever stamps bought at any one time,” I guess to prevent people, or corporations, with the dosh to buy hundreds of dollars of stamps at a time from stockpiling them (although I don’t imagine there’s a way to prevent some nut with lots of spare cash and time from trolling stamp-sellers to buy $500 worth of forever stamps at once if they were really determined).

I don’t even think I use stamps enough anymore to care about this. An entire roll of forever stamps really would last me forever. Of course, that would require remembering where I put it during the long stretches between sending out holiday cards.

Open Wide...

Utterly Unctuous. On Both Sides.


[Disclaimer: (And I can't believe I have to write this.) Although my tone may be flippant or seem a little bleeding-heart in this post, I haven't the slightest bit of sympathy or support for internet predators, pedophiles, or anyone remotely connected with the abuse, sexual or otherwise, of a child. This is more of a media critique.]

Last night, I caught most of To Catch a Predator on MSNBC. If you're not familiar with the show, basically it's feeding into the current "internet predator" boogeyman mindset: Men soliciting sex with minors online. The show is in "Gotcha" format; a "sting" is set up, men solicit sex with a minor in an online chat, not knowing that they're actually speaking to a cop. When they show up at the agreed-upon location, suddenly they're confronted by Chris Hansen, Dateline "Correspondent."

You've seen this type of scene before... for a while it was very trendy for every network news team to have a group called "The Crimestoppers!" or "The Good Guys!" Usually they were confronting business owners (always small business owners, mind you, they never went after the big guys) about a complaint that a viewer sent in. These were very big when I was living in NYC; I vividly recall one that happened not too long after 9/11. A woman in a small Chinatown shop was selling photographs of the towers burning and collapsing. The "reporters" set up a "sting" where they went to buy the photos (which were being held under the counter, of course), then suddenly revealed themselves to be.... The Crimestoppers! Champion of channel 3 newsviewers everywhere! The woman selling the pictures took off running down the street, chased by the reporter still screaming, "Don't you feel ashamed for selling these?

I tell you, it really made me ill.

Setting aside the questionable taste and mindset in selling these photos right after 9/11, was it really necessary to chase a middle-aged woman down the street with cameras? I thought selling such photos was a little ghoulish myself, but how does it serve anyone to humiliate someone and quite possibly ruin their small business (the store name and location was prominently featured) for no other reason than smug ratings?

Not to bash everything these reports did; occasionally they went after someone very corrupt; someone that really needed to be stopped before cheating another hapless customer out of money or putting someone else in a dangerous situation. But the humiliation factor was always there. I recall one in particular; a school bus driver that had been busted for driving under the influence was back on the job as a bus driver. Did the "reporters" confront the hiring authority? Did they go after city hall? No, they ambushed the bus driver as she was leaving her vehicle, on the job, screaming "How do you justify driving this bus when you were fired for driving under the influence??" Again, they chased her across the parking lot. Now, I don't want someone driving a school bus to be under the influence either, but was this really necessary?

I got this same feeling while watching Dateline last night. Now, pedophiles and predators of children are the lowest of the low. But the attitude of Chris Hansen was so melodramatic and sneering, I almost found myself feeling sorry for them. And I was pissed, because I felt like I was being manipulated into feeling that way. I didn't really feel "sorry" for them in the slightest... but because the show was trying to manipulate me into the "shoot him now!" mindset, it backfired.

A typical exchange would go like this: The predator would show up at the "home" of the minor he had solicited (a house with hidden cameras set up all over the place), and would enter upon being called in by a female voice in another room. "I'm just getting changed!" They would walk in, and suddenly CHRIS HANSEN would burst into the room, saying something ridiculously overdone like "I'm afraid you won't be keeping your DATE tonight!" Bewildered, they would allow themselves to be seated with Hansen, who would sneeringly badger them with questions taken directly from the chat sessions they had with their "dates." They all went a little like this (You can read actual transcripts at the MSNBC story.):

"You were here to have sex with her, weren't you?"

(Man mumbles something, either denying it or trying to put positive spin on the situation)

"Oh come on now, here you're describing the appearance and size of your penis. To a minor. How do you justify yourself? How do you feel being caught while trying to have sex with a minor?? Don't lie, we have your words right here!!"

(Mumble mumble mumble)

"Have you seen the Datline series: To Catch a Predator?"

(Mumble mumble *nod* mumble)

"Good, because you're on it right now!!"

Ed Wood would be proud.

And on and on it went. Then they were arrested, and taken to a small room to be interrogated by police, again on camera. Generally the police took a less "camera ready" approach to talking to the men, but again they took every opportunity to humiliate them. We were also treated to trial footage, and shots of the men being led away to jail in prison stripes and ankle chains.

Again, I'm not trying to come across like I'm saying "Oh, poor child molesters." Please stay with me.

I knew that things were going a bit far when they pulled a "gotcha" on one guy who was truly disgusting. He was due to arrive at prison in four days for a 11-month stretch for soliciting a minor. And here he was, getting in a quick one before going to jail. Nice.

Here's what got me: when the guy showed up at the house, faraway tracking shots showed him to be a Little Person. Not that such a thing matters, but after the big reveal of Hanson's pop-out, he took the guy over to the kitchen counter to interrogate him. This was a normal-sized counter with barstool seats.

"It took a long time for him to get up on the seat," sneered Hanson in voiceover, "because this predator is only five feet tall!"

This solidified that Datline had gone from "protecting your children" to "everyone come to the freak show." Were we supposed to laugh at him because, not only is he a pedophile, but he has the nerve to be a Little Person as well? Was he even more horrible because of this? Not only is he an *internet predator,* he's also not like us physically!! Even the tone of Hansen's voice was very melodramatic and mocking. (He has one of those "news announcer" voices that comedians love to imitate.) They could have arrested this guy and thrown him in jail where he belongs, but Hanson had to beat him up, first.

Look. I can't stand people like him. Anyone that abuses a child deserves the harshest punishment available. The idea of someone trolling the internet for underage sex partners makes my skin crawl.

But I have to say, this "throwing them to the lions" style of television makes me a little sick, too.

While I think it's possible to have absolutely no tolerance or respect for someone due to their actions, I still think it's possible to behave like a rational human being when confronting them. This is why we rely on formal court cases, and not lynch mobs.

This "Cruelty TV" is just a televised lynch mob to me.

(I'm sure I'm going to regret cross-posting this...)

Open Wide...

Lapdogs

Highly recommended: This article on the press by Salon’s Eric Boehlert. Amazing stuff.

Open Wide...

Fox Killed Socrates

The Fox News Effect:

Does President Bush owe his controversial win in 2000 to Fox cable television news?

Yes, suggest data collected by two economists who found that the growth of the Fox cable news network in the late 1990s may have significantly boosted the Republican Party's share of the vote in the 2000 election and delivered Florida to Bush.

"Our estimates imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 8 percent of its audience to shift its voting behavior towards the Republican Party, a sizable media persuasion effect," said Stefano DellaVigna of the University of California at Berkely and Ethan Kaplan of Stockholm University.

In Florida alone, they estimate, the Fox effect may have produced more than 10,000 additional votes for Bush -- clearly a decisive factor in a state he carried by fewer than 600 votes.
The next bit that follows in Morin’s column is about our tendency to apply a litmus test to the news—Republicans favor Fox and Democrats favor NPR and CNN. At first, I was thinking that tends to undermine “The Fox Effect,” but then I considered that the existence of an ideologically conservative news outlet which could be selected instead of more objective sources is the important thing. Being given the choice to ignore all other perspectives leaves one in a vacuum of slanted news that never forces one to question one’s opinion on any issue. If Fox never offers information that Bush’s tax cuts actually hurt working people in the long run, the possibility never has to be considered, making it that much easier to vote for Bush, even if you’re one of those working people.

Combined with the well-documented slant to the right of outlets like NPR and CNN as they chase Fox’s and conservative talk radio’s huge ratings, The Fox Effect is bigger than just Fox. And it all goes back to Reagan’s squashing of the Fairness Doctrine—and the modern incarnation of “fairness and balance,” which obligates equal time being given even to the most ridiculous, untenable, and mendacious positions. This is the success of the conservative movement in the media—getting rid of a legal requirement that provided for “honest, equal, and balanced” presentation of controversial issues with public importance in favor of a disingenuous “balance” that really amounts to the squeaky wheel getting the grease, bolstered by the conventional wisdom that the media suffers from a liberal bias.

All of this got me thinking about the discussion we’ve been having about the Left blogosphere, and it occurred to me that, while the Right are principally disseminators of talking points, the Left spends a lot more time breaking down the Right’s arguments, explaining why they’re wrong, fallacious, and/or dangerous, drawing cause-and-effect lines between things like tax cuts and a faltering infrastructure. This tendency is what elicits accusations that we are reactive, rather than pro-active, that we let the Right set the tone. But I think it’s more than that. It’s a lingering belief in the rightness of the Fairness Doctrine, which itself is a variation on the Socratic method, as assumptions are put forward for acceptance or rejection.

The Left debates. The Right lectures. Many versus One.

This dichotomy presents itself everywhere.

Left: Comments threads on almost all blogs.
Right: Not so much (ref. Malkin, for a start)

Left: Discussion of opponents’ positions.
Right: Dissmissal of opponents’ positions.

Left: Common good.
Right: Personal benefit.

Left: Nuance.
Right: Black-and-white.

Left: Flip-flop.
Right: Stay the course.

Left: Globalism.
Right: Nationalism.

Left: Multiculturalism.
Right: Conformity to majority.

Left: Bipartisanship.
Right: Partisanship.

Left: Diplomacy.
Right: Unilateral action.

Left: Separation of powers.
Right: Unitary executive.

Et cetera. These divisions weren’t always so rigid, and of course I’m making broad generalizations (not every progressive is interested in debate, nor is every conservative disinterested), but they are broad generalizations about the progressive and conservative movements, based on their objectives and the methods used to achieve them. And in a very real way, we’re seeing a breakdown between the struggle to maintain a democracy and a submission to totalitarianism.

That may seem a long way to have traveled from The Fox Effect, but it really isn’t. When I write about the conservative media shills serving as the conduit to move extremist ideas into the mainstream, the ideas that they transmit—racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, supremacy of conservative Christianity, dissent as treason, social Darwinism, the benefit of corporate rule—are an ugly cocktail of the characteristics of fascist regimes.

A cocktail that doesn’t, by the way, seem to prevent other media outlets from running frantically down the trail blazed by Fox, because who cares about the collapse of democracy when there’s money to be made? If selling hate and fear means we can charge more to Burger King for running sexist ads during our broadcasts, then sell away, Wolf! Faster, pussycat—shill, shill! Sure, pandering to the lowest common denominator inevitably means dragging down all of us, but it’s all just a big game, anyway.

Isn’t it?

If it is a game, we’re losing—those of us who still care about reason and democracy and a vision of this country laid out by its Founders. Barring a sudden awakening from their apathetic stupor of Americans keen to keep their democracy intact, the real legacy of The Fox Effect will not simply be delivering Bush to the presidency, but tyranny to America.

Open Wide...

Say a prayer for the youth of America

It’s a difficult world out there for young people. What with “Internet,” the liberal controlled media, and society’s baffling acceptance of homosexuals (who, in some places are actually allowed to marry like a natural couple, if you can bear to think on it) as just another minority group, it’s difficult to find one’s True Path through the dual mindfields of tolerance and easy access information.

Which is why I’m proud to bring you Truth for Youth:

“Preventing truth decay”… THE TRUTH FOR YOUTH… the entire New Testament along with powerful, full color comics that are packed with the absolute truth regarding moral issues young people are faced with everyday. Sometimes the truth hurts. But you’ve got to deal with it. If you can handle the truth…


A quick perusal of the “powerful” comics included in this volume shows us that the Truth, which was apparently so important to reinforce that the word is used five times in the product description, shines its light on Pornography, Homosexuality, Safe Sex, Abortion, Drugs, Peer Pressure (which seems somewhat ironic) and that horrific destroyer of teen minds, Rock Music. Nice to see that some things never change.

As someone who spends a good portion of his day with a homosexual- it’s true, or rather, it’s Truth, and I’ve got to deal with it- I decided to check out the comic, just to see what I could learn from it. And wow, I learned a lot! I learned that the Bible tells us to “avoid angry and violent people,” and that violent skinheads and the peaceful gay protestors they attack are equally sinful in the eyes of the Lord. Oh, and it turns out that “gay” is actually just politically correct whitewashing of homosexual, much like “pro-choice” is a whitewashing of abortion supporters; and that being accepting and open-minded is really you’re way of showing your “chilly lack of love for God.

I can’t wait to tell my gay- excuse me, homosexual friends what I’ve learned. Listen, I’ll say, you know how you spent much of your childhood mocked and abused by your peers? And how even today, the majority of our country is so terrified by you that they’re willing to re-elect a lying imbecile to office just so they can prevent you from ever having your love officially acknowledged? Well, that was all simply a choice on your part. You decided to fall in love with Marcus, who had that lisp and kept biting on his pen when you worked on algebra problems together and who just broke your heart when he started going out with that slut in homeroom. You decided that you wanted to be with Sharon, even if you stuck with Tom because it made your parents happy. The thousand breakings that occur over the span of any life that spend its time reaching out to connect with strangers, the endless surfacing and resurfacing and terrible fear of drowning alone- all of that doesn’t mean anything for you homosexuals, because you made your choice, and it’s a sin, and for god’s sake, even if you were ten, you should have known better.

Young people really need to know this. They need to know that the choices we aren’t even aware we’re making are wrong, but that it’s okay, we’ll be forgiven for our sins, just as soon as someone finishes informing us what they are.

Open Wide...

Back-clapping friends, we all.

Mannion on the press:

They cover politics as if it is a game, as if the people involved, the "players," are players, colorful characters whose quirks and foibles make their stories funnier or more dramatic, but whose political views are no more important than a ballplayer's pet superstitions or diligent pursuit of an arcane record. It's not just Joe Klein. He's the model. That Tom Delay is a thief and a thug and a posed a real threat to the useful functioning of the government never seemed to figure in the coverage of him, even as he disappears back down the sewer out of which he came. The Bug Man, the Hammer, he's just contemporary Washington's Ty Cobb, isn't he?

(As if Cobb's racism and sociopathy were of no real consequence.)

The assumption underlying and propping up all this chummy let me buy you a drink and we'll call it even bonhomie is that "We're all in this together." Everybody in Washington is there for the same reason. To do a job. And that job is to keep the country moving. We may have different ideas about how to get there, but finally we all want to end up in the same place, don't we?

No.

Not true.
Excellent post, top to bottom. Go read the whole thing.

Open Wide...

Be a Man: Eat Shit!

Last night, I saw these two commercials almost back-to-back…

TGI Friday’s: Four guys sit at a booth together. When their food is delivered, guy #1 stabs his steak and holds it up and growls, “Meat!” Guys #2 and #3 follow in kind. Stab. “Meat!” Guy #4 stabs a piece of broccoli and holds it up, saying, “Vegetable medley!” The other three guys all look at each other, then look at him with an expression that would best be translated as, “What are you—some kind of fag?!” Guy #4 sheepishly drops his broccoli, stabs a sausage and holds it up, saying, “Sausage!” They all cheer triumphantly. Guy #4 is a fag no more. You know, because he’s about to eat some sausage.

Burger King: A guy and a girl sit at a table together. The guy throws down his fork and jumps up into a song-and-dance routine, braying about how he’s not going to eat “chick food” anymore. He sings and dances his way to Burger King to get a ginormous burger, joined by other men who are all doing the same. The refrain of this song is “I am man, hear me roar, I’m incorrigible, I eat meat.” Spray-painted signs declaring “I Am Man” are unfurled off of overpasses. An Asian man in a business suit collapses onto the sidewalk, hungrily tearing into a Double Whopper. “I’ve eaten quiche, but I won’t anymore,” the men’s chorus sings. The men riot and toss a mini-van off a bridge, which lands in the back of a dump truck being towed by an old man clad in leather, who’s being led forward by a woman bearing a burger on a silver tray, just out of his reach. “I am man! I eat meat!”

I love the message here. It’s manly to eat meat—but not just any old meat; specifically the heart-stopping, artery-clogging beef served up by fast food and chain restaurants. It’s girly to eat vegetables and be healthy. Trying to save men from heart disease is just another part of the radical feminist agenda to “feminize” society. Damn women—if it weren’t for the mothers, girlfriends, and wives who try to get them to eat healthy, men would never have to subjected to the horror of broccoli! Damn henpecked hubbies and faggots—real men stuff their faces full of shit to prove how manly they are!

Stunning.

Coincidentally, just yesterday I read this about one of the manliest men of them all, Dick “Quick Draw” Cheney:

The extent of his atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries, which, if it extends beyond the heart to the brain, can cause hard-to-recognize changes in cognition) is unknown. Bypass surgery itself has long been associated with subtle changes in neurological function. At age 65, Cheney is easily 30 or more pounds overweight, seems to have slacked off on what was once a more rigorous diet, and appears to suffer from recurrent bouts of gout. At a roundtable lunch with reporters a couple of years ago, two who were present say, he cut his buffalo steak in bite-size pieces the moment it arrived, then proceeded to salt each side of each piece.
Cool. Nothing quite says “manly” like recurring gout.

Open Wide...

God is not mocked

I declined to answer a question about religion the last time I participated in one of those ubiquitous meme quiz thingies. Not that I'm terribly ashamed of whatever it is that I believe; it's just that much of the trouble in this world - not all of the trouble, and perhaps not most of it, but still a goodly portion - seems to stem from an endless traffic wreck of various theologies, and who wants to contribute to that? The fewer people who talk about their faith, the better, I think. Still, I've been musing on religion lately, and I'm reminded of my long-gone church-going days, and the particular Sunday I got my bona fides as a Baptist.

By the way: You know about Baptists, right? No half-hearted sprinkling of water upon unwitting infants for that denomination. Baptists go for a more immersive experience as old John advocated back in the day. Moreover, it takes a conscious profession of faith to enter the club, an answering of the call. Real "come to Jesus" stuff.

Imagine a boy in his early teens, dutifully attending services - Sunday school every week with the bi-weekly bonus of full church services led by the imposing Reverend Abrams*, whom my church shared with another house of God some miles distant. I say 'dutifully,' yet perhaps not wholeheartedly. Church attendance was not optional in my family - not with my grandmother on the choir and my grandfather among the deacons - but willing engagement was another matter. As hymns soared heavenward, my thoughts ever strayed to the comforts of a peanut and jelly sandwich, a bottle of grape Nehi, and The NFL Today. Brent Musburger, Irv Cross, Phyllis George (a former Miss America, even), Jimmy the Greek. The Dallas Cowboys vs. anybody. Sweet chariot, carry me home!

I came to dread those Sundays that featured actual church service not just because time ground to a halt, but because of the call to redemption, the moment in each service when the good reverend would descend from the pulpit to stand before the pews, arms outstretched in welcome, all while the choir sang of penitence.

Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!

And the congregation watched. Even while it sang, it watched, the communal eye fixed on some young man or woman old enough to make the decision for Christ. Would this be the day? Sometimes it was: the young adult would take those faltering steps up the aisle to be embraced by the pastor and held up, amid hosannas and praise, as a lamb returned to the flock. A couple of weeks would pass until the next full Sunday, when the floor behind the pulpit was raised on hinges to reveal a great sunken basin, a pool full of water - shiveringly cold water - made gray and murky with God's grace. The congregation would gather around as Reverend Abrams descended into the pool, followed by the initiate. The pastor would lay his hands upon his charge and intone the mighty words:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

And splash! Down into the water went the initiate, and up again quickly, sputteringly, into a life washed clean of sin. More praise, more hymns, and - a quick change of clothing later - a sermon dedicated to this new Christian existence.

Often, however, the call was not answered. On such occasions, the pastor would lower his arms, always looking a bit disappointed, and return to the pulpit as the hymns died away. This moment always filled me with relief as the suspension of time seemed now lifted and I might get home in time for kickoff. There was another element to my relief, however, surely more keenly felt by those a bit older than me: they knew that they had evaded God's spotlight, the laying bare of the self before judgment, the terror of the call. But sooner or later, they all answered - unless they dropped out of church altogether. The stare of the communal eye simply could not be resisted.

On one Sunday, I realized - somewhat belatedly - that the eye was now fixed on me. The pastor, the choir, everyone sitting behind me (I'm sure), all watching me. In that moment, my terror began.

Silent terror, to be sure. No adult came right out and suggested that it was high time I got myself good and baptized. My mother never said anything. Even my grandparents, both active in the church, remained silent on the matter. That was their genius; unspoken disappointment was much more powerful than anything mere words could convey. Greg, my younger brother, shrugged. "Better you than me," he said. He could afford to laugh. He was two years younger.

About a month passed before I did what had to be done. As I rose tentatively from the pew and moved into the aisle, it seemed to me that no one was surprised. My mother looked pleased. Other young people looked relieved that someone else had drawn the heat, as it were. Everybody else? They looked satisfied.

Reverend Abrams smiled broadly as he placed a strong hand on my shoulder; he turned me toward the congregation. Another lamb come home. I felt like a fugitive snared in a dragnet. Not charitable given the issues involved, but there it is.

The next two weeks flew by.

I arrived on the fateful day with a spare change of clothing to accompany my Sunday best. Dunking clothes: a t-shirt, jeans, sneakers, all of which I donned immediately after Sunday school. I was given a thin white cotton gown to wear and was made to wait in an anteroom as the preparations were made. I heard songs, some kind of address from one of the deacons, discussion of some church business, more hymns. About twenty minutes passed before I was ushered out and onto the steps of the baptismal tank. The good reverend awaited me there, waist-deep in the transformative waters. The congregation pressed against the dais - a big crowd, I remember thinking. Following a cue, I stepped down into the water. At first it wasn't cold, then all of a sudden it seemed freezing. I sloshed my way over to the pastor, who turned me around and placed one hand on the back of my head, another on my chest, all while saying something I couldn't quite follow. I heard the words "Holy Ghost" and suddenly I was underwater. All sound stopped, drowned in the cold water. And then, just as abruptly, I was up again. And sputtering.

I was quickly wrapped in a towel; accompanied by Greg and his best friend, Jerry, I left the church by way of a back door. I entered the church kitchen, a separate and rickety building that, if I remember correctly, had once served as an extra classroom for the nearby elementary and had actually been moved via truck to its new location. The room was unheated and unkempt and was stocked with castoff furniture and appliances. This is where I was to change back onto my dry Sunday attire. Then I would return to the church proper where I would sit in the front pew for the traditional post-baptismal sermon.

While I dried off as quickly as I could and began to change into my suit, Greg kept asking animated questions about what the experience had been like. Jerry amused himself in the meantime with an old ball peen hammer he had found in a drawer. Pretending to be the mighty Thor - a fairly heathen activity considering where we were - he swung the hammer in vicious arcs, this way and that.

At some point during what turned out to be Jerry's final swing of the hammer, the head of the ancient tool broke away from its handle. It flew across the room, coming to an abrupt halt when it struck me in the right temple.

The room turned white for just a second. I fell to my knees, not from the impact of the projectile so much as sheer surprise. Then, of course, came the pain.

Jerry blathered some kind of apology that I really can't recall. I took some time recovering but managed to regain my feet and finish dressing. Greg asked if he should go fetch someone; I told him no. Part of it was pure embarrassment, I'm certain, but part of it may have been that in some way, I figured I had it coming.

This is the closest thing to a religious experience I've ever had.

The Scriptures tell us that God is not mocked. I do believe though, with utter conviction, that He is easily amused.

(All names changed except those of my brother and the hosts of The NFL Today circa 1975.)

(Throroughly cross-posted. Many apologies for the length.)

Open Wide...