Question of the Day
What are the top 5 most important planks of your Perfect Political Party’s platform? Restoring checks and balances? Equal rights? Reproductive rights? The environment? Fair elections?
There are certainly lots from which to choose. What’s your top 5?
Republican Principles
Bush to sign bill to prevent Internet gambling—Huzzah. Bravo, you fearless leader. Way to address the pressing concerns of Americans.
Bill Frist "Cuts And Runs"—Finally admits, after lost lives, money, and resources, that the only way to win in places like the volatile southern part of [Afghanistan] is to “assimilate people who call themselves Taliban into a larger, more representative government.” Which is something that a lot of people, including plenty of Afghans who were no fans of the Taliban, were saying long before the war. Lots of Americans, too. But I believe they’re traitors, while Bill Frist is an Amerian Patriot.
And Drudge plays Blame the Victim.
Mark Your Calendars
Bay Buchanan and I agree.
I know one thing: that e-mail they call an “overly friendly e-mail” that had predator stamped all over it. No one in this country can suggest otherwise. You’re in a leadership position. You have a colleague you know is at least a potential predator and we have the pages coming through his office every day? They had an obligation, that same day, to investigate him further, to call in the FBI, if that was an appropriate action and also to call in those pages and make certain every one of them was interviewed to see if there is any problems here that goes deeper than what they already knew. They failed the parents of this country is what they did.It’s completely idiotic to think that any reasonable person would have read those emails—what stuff do you like to do? send me a pic—and concluded that there wasn’t something icky going on. Let’s be realistic: What the GOP leadership concluded was that they weren’t bad enough that it was worth damaging their electoral chances by opening an investigation. They consciously decided to protect their own asses instead of protecting kids.
One other thing that’s seriously irritating me at the moment: Is no one else (and especially no one in the media) willing to take a long, hard look at how the GOP is categorizing those emails—“Naughty.” “Overly friendly.”—and ask them, point-blank, so you actually feel it’s okay for your Congressional members to be “naughty” and “overly friendly” with teenagers? They’re not saying the emails were innocuous, after all; they’re saying that they were outside the realm of totally acceptable, but, at the same time, that they were acceptable enough that they didn’t warrant an investigation. They might as well laugh it off with a “Boys will be boys,” because that’s the precise equivalent. “Yeah, it’s bad, but hey—dudes are incorrigible. Whaddaya gonna do?”
And, for some reason, that’s being treated as more acceptable than flatly admitting that they just didn’t want to risk electoral defeat.
Libertarian Democrats
Interesting piece by Kos over at Cato: The Case for the Libertarian Democrat. I’m curious to see what you make of it.
Two thoughts I had were:
1) Where do issues like the government’s responsibility to provide a social safety net fall into the “Libertarian Democrat” paradigm? What about socialized or universal healthcare? Interestingly, of the people I know who come from countries with socialized/universal healthcare, access to healthcare is regarded as a right (a sentiment, btw, with which I agree—surely healthcare should be regarded as the most fundamental of rights, as making use of all others is contingent upon life and health); can L.D.s regard healthcare as a basic right and thusly support socialized or universal healthcare?
2) It’s curious that none of the Dems that Kos cites as examples of trailblazing L.D.s are women. (Nor, to my knowledge, are any of them gay or men of color.) And, since Kos mentions Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, I couldn’t help but be reminded of this post where I contrasted Ezra’s and Kos’ assessments of Schweitzer nearly a year and a half ago. Are the L.D.s appealing because they have a "jes' folks" factor and appeal to that infamous American streak of fiery independence and personal liberty, or are they appealing because they’re “real guys”? A combination of both? Is part of the L.D. paradigm rooted in an imagery that depends particular brand of masculinity, or is strictly rooted in the underlying principles Kos lays out? Can a woman, or an openly gay man, be as effective as an L.D.? Or are we just cowboying-up the Dems?
Anyway, what do you think?
Forgive me while I state the obvious.
The GOP spin: House Republican leaders didn’t investigate Foley’s email exchanges because they weren’t “of a sexual nature” and were just “over-friendly,” or “simply naughty.” They didn’t know about the more sexually graphic IM messages.
The IM messages: They are clearly indicative of a man who was trying to arrange a hook-up with a kid.
Maf54: I want to see youThe Obvious: If House Republican leaders had taken seriously the fact that Foley had been sending “naughty” emails from his private account to a teenage boy and done the logical investigation, they would have uncovered the IM messages about which they instead had to learn via the media.
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see
Not knowing about the IM messages isn’t an excuse. It’s the whole point.
Five Things Feminism Has Done for Me
I was tagged by Polly at Marginal Notes to share Five Things Feminism Has Done for Me, with the hope that feminist bloggers in America can run with it as they have in Canada in response to the Canadian federal government's funding cuts to Status of Women Canada. (Seriously, that’s quite a round-up! Well done, Canadian Progressives!) Here goes…
1. Feminism has created the world in which I live. Without feminism, and the diligent determination of women who organized before feminism even had its name, I wouldn’t have the right to vote, to own property, to go to school, to have nearly any job I wanted, to control my own reproduction, to initiate a divorce, to join the military, to run for public office, and a whole lot of other stuff that many of us now take for granted. I was born into a world which feminism had already changed to my benefit. I am one of the women for whom previous generations of feminists have endeavored to provide opportunities they didn’t have, and I am grateful every day of my life that they made the sacrifices they did, that they did the hard work of trailblazing, so that my life could be that much fuller.
2. Feminism has given me a framework and a community on which I depend to support my intrinsic feelings regarding inequality, both on my own behalf and on behalf of others. Reading something like Rosemarie Tong’s Feminist Thought, and discussing it with other women and men, made inevitable the connection between the principles of feminism and a larger struggle for egalitarianism.
3. Feminism has made me less judgmental. In seeking to legitimize a variety of choices—acknowledging that being a working single woman is just as viable a choice as being a stay-at-home mom, for example, and concerning itself with the details of ensuring that each of those choices present opportunities for, rather than restrictions on, women’s individual development and life experiences—feminism has left me better prepared to respect the choices of others. From choices of vocation, to body modification, to positions on marriage and sex acts, I am all about letting one’s freak flag fly—and I honestly believe that if we could all stick my favorite phrase, my rights end where yours begin, there would be room for every last freak flag in America to yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave. (On the flipside, feminism has made me more conscious of language, imagery, behaviors that seek to perpetuate oppression in both overt and subtle ways.)
4. Feminism has given me the permission and ability to define who I am on my own terms. I am not who society wants me to be; I am not who my husband wants me to be; I am not who my family want me to be; I am not who my friends want me to be. I am who I want me to be. That I may get approval from society, Mr. Shakes, my family, my friends, employers, Shakers, strangers, or anyone else based on Who I Am is incidental—and extremely fortunate when it happens. That’s not to suggest that none of the above ever influence me, or affect me, or tell me I’m being an asshole about something and are totally right, so I stop. What it means is that I don’t feel obliged by anyone to be anything other than Who I Am—deliberately childless, queer-brained, fond of video games, short and round and bouncing on the ground, and all the rest. Feminism tells us we don’t have to conform to anyone’s expectations but our own.
5. Feminism gives me hope. Long way to go, we sigh, often. Less frequently, We’ve come a long way, baby—but we have. Our history proves that progress is possible, and sometimes that reminder is the only thing that keeps me going. And not just on feminist issues.
Now I’m meant to tag five people—and I’m going to try to make it a variety. As the Canadian list indicates, it’s not just feminist women who have run with this meme.
1. Amanda
2. Zuzu
3. Brynn
4. Konagod
5. Pam
If anyone else picks it up and runs with it (JackGoff? Minstrel Boy? RedSonja? Kathy? any of the other hundred people I want to tag?), drop me a note in comments!
Breast Cancer Awareness
October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Facts
1. Every two minutes a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer.
2. This year more than 211,000 new cases of breast cancer are expected in the United States.
3. One woman in eight who lives to age 85 will develop breast cancer during her lifetime.
4. Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women between the ages of 40 and 55.
5. 1,600 men are expected to be diagnosed with breast cancer this year and 400 are predicted to die.
6. Seventy percent of all breast cancers are found through breast self-exams. Not all lumps are detectable by touch. Regular mammograms and monthly breast self-exams are recommended.
7. Eight out of ten breast lumps are not cancerous. If you find a lump, don’t panic—call your doctor for an appointment.
8. Mammography is a low-dose X-ray examination that can detect breast cancer up to two years before it is large enough to be felt. (source)
What are the signs of breast cancer?
The signs of breast cancer are not the same for all women. In fact, some women have no signs that they can see. If you experience any of these symptoms, you should see a doctor right away:
* A lump, hard knot or thickening
* Swelling, warmth, redness or darkening
* Change in breast size or shape
* Dimpling or puckering of the skin
* Itchy, scaly sore or rash on the nipple
* Pulling in of your nipple or other parts of the breast
* Nipple discharge that starts suddenly
* New pain in one spot .
An Early Breast Cancer Detection Plan should include:
* Clinical breast examinations every three years from ages 20-39, then every year thereafter.
* Monthly breast self-examinations beginning at age 20. Look for any changes in your breasts.
* Baseline mammogram by the age of 40.
* Mammogram every one to two years for women 40-49, depending on previous findings.
* Mammogram every year for women 50 and older.
* A personal calendar to record your self-exams, mammograms, and doctor appointments.
* A low-fat diet, regular exercise, and no smoking or drinking.
The third Friday in October each year is National Mammography Day, first proclaimed by President Clinton in 1993. On this day, or throughout the month, women are encouraged to make a mammography appointment.
HELP
Be a Boobiethon participant. I did this last year and it's pretty neat. Last year $9240.40 was raised. (Homepage link to Boobiethon is work-safe)
Donate: Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, National Breast Cancer Foundation, Inc., American Cancer Society
Flat Daddies
Via Warren, this is one of the saddest things I’ve ever heard.
The Maine National Guard is giving life-size from-the-waist-up pictures of soldiers to the families of deployed guard members. Guard officials and families say the cutouts, known as Flat Daddies or Flat Soldiers, connect families with a relative who is thousands of miles away. The Flat Daddies are toted everywhere from soccer practice to coffee shops to weddings.
Ashton Gardner, 6, of Ellsworth, Me., with a cutout of his father, Troy, who is stationed in Iraq.
Fuck. So many horrible thoughts are coursing all at once. What if Flat Daddy (or Flat Mommy, or Flat Big Brother) comes back in a box? What if Flat Daddy comes back with both of his legs missing, looking far too much like that truncated cut-out? And mostly, why the hell are people having to suffer through the despair and anxiety of missing a loved one who’s been put in harm’s way for a war of choice?
Bring the troops home. Bring them home now.
"No, God hates morons!"*
Last week we celebrated Banned Books Week with the ALA and right on cue came a moron from Texas who is challenging a book. No, it's not the Harry Potter books this time around, it's Fahrenheit 451:
Alton Verm, of Conroe, objects to the language and content in the book. His 15-year-old daughter Diana, a CCHS sophomore, came to him Sept. 21 with her reservations about reading the book because of its language.I do declare! Where's that fainting couch when we need it?
"The book had a bunch of very bad language in it," Diana Verm said. "It shouldn't be in there because it's offending people. ... If they can't find a book that uses clean words, they shouldn't have a book at all."
Of course, just like with the Georgia mom who wanted Potter banned, the dad says this (emphasis mine):
"It's just all kinds of filth," said Alton Verm, adding that he had not read 'Fahrenheit 451.' "The words don't need to be brought out in class. I want to get the book taken out of the class."And why exactly do these shining examples of the shallow end of the gene pool want the books banned?
He looked through the book and found the following things wrong with the book: discussion of being drunk, smoking cigarettes, violence, "dirty talk," references to the Bible and using God's name in vain. He said the book's material goes against their religions beliefs.Was his daughter forced into reading F451? No, of course not. She was offered an alternative book to read. Does that satisfy these people? No, of course not. They want a book they have never read banned from the schools because it is against their religious beliefs so that everyone must be punished for their blatent, offensively high stupidity. Well, Mr. Verm, I say to you: fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Fuck you for trying to dumb down the rest of the students to appease your ignorance.
"Somewhere the saving and putting away had to begin again and someone had to do the saving and keeping, one way or another, in books, in records, in people's heads, any way at all so long as it was safe, free from moths, silver-fish, rust and dry-rot, and men with matches." ~ Fahrenheit 451
(* = from Six Feet Under)
Just a Thought
This has been bothering me all morning.
It would have been very, very nice to have seen this much mainstream media coverage, outrage from both sides of the fence, and noise from the Democrats for the Torture Bill as there has been for Mark Foley.
Not to mention this.
Too bad there was no "forbidden sexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" angle thrown into the Torture bill... or maybe a reference to JonBenet Ramsey. Someone might have noticed it, then.
(We're only making plans for cross-posts...)
Honor and Dignity
“We know we must renew our values to restore our country.
This is the vision of America's founders. They never saw our nation's greatness in rising wealth or in advancing armies, but in small, unnumbered acts of caring and courage and self-denial.
Their highest hope, as Robert Frost described it, was to occupy the land with character. And that, 13 generations later, is still our goal, to occupy the land with character.
In a responsibility era, each of us has important tasks, work that only we can do. Each of us is responsible to love and guide our children and to help a neighbor in need. Synagogues, churches and mosques are responsible, not only to worship, but to serve. Corporations are responsible to treat their workers fairly and to leave the air and waters clean.
And our nation's leaders our responsible to confront problems, not pass them onto others.
And to lead this nation to a responsibility era, that president himself must be responsible.
So when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of our land, I will swear to uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.
…Our country is ready for high standards and new leaders, and it won't be long now.
An era of tarnished ideals is giving way to a responsibility era, and it won't be long now.”
— George W. Bush, remarks at the Republican National Convention, August 3, 2000
Jesus Peanut
Mama Shakes sent this one along, since my reputation for, as she describes it, “providing your blogging friends with the most up-to-date ‘Christian art and religious visions’” is unparalleled. Shakers, I give you…
Finding the face of Jesus in his peanut turned this eBay seller from an atheist into a believer. And he’s now selling the object of his dramatic transformation to help pay for his tuition to Arizona State University.
Only $100. Zero bids. Auction ends in a week. Good luck, Shakers!
Holy folks Gone Wild on x-rays, turtles, ultrasounds, chocolate, dying plants, sheet metal, trees, more trees, wardrobes, water stains, grilled cheese sandwiches, potato chips, plates of pasta, drywall, fish, and more fish.
More Foley
A former House page said Sunday that in 2003 he saw sexually suggestive e-mails that Rep. Mark Foley had sent to another former page.Frankly, it’s amazing that Foley managed to keep it up undetected until now. Or not, actually—because it seems like he had help.
Patrick McDonald, 21, now a senior at Ohio State University, said he eventually learned of "three or four" pages from his 2001-2002 class who were sent such messages.
McDonald said he remembered saying at a 2003 page reunion, "If this gets out, it will destroy him."
The Trib ends its story with this: “The relationship between Foley and pages in the class of 2001 and 2002 was so close that he stood up on the floor of the House to commend the young men and women for their service.”
And kickingdonkey at MyDD pulled out the transcript of that occasion:
Mr. SHIMKUS: I thank my colleague. Now someone who spends a lot of time with you also, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), would like to say a thank you.“Mr. Shimkus” is Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) who runs the Page Board. If Republican pages were being warned in 2001 “to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley” by a supervisor in the House Clerk’s office, how on earth did Shimkus not know what was going on with Foley? If he didn’t, someone was protecting Foley from him. If he did, he clearly felt no obligation to protect pages from Foley, since he obviously let him “spend a lot of time” with them. In either case, there was a serious breakdown in oversight that needs to be explained.
Mr. FOLEY: I warn all of you not to cry in front of me, please, so I can get through this very important day with you without shedding tears as well....
And, of course, Melanie, and finally John [redacted]. John was the highest bidder on lunch with Mark Foley. Maybe you all do not know this story, but John had paid considerable sums to dine with me. I had offered to take the winning bidder to lunch in the Members' dining room. Then I heard how much John [redacted] paid. And I said, “John, there is no way in the world after you committed so much money to have lunch with me that I would dare take you downstairs to eat in the Members' dining room.” I said, “Where do you want to go?” He says, without reservation, “Morton's.” I said, “Morton's? Like in Morton's Steakhouse?” He said, “Oh, would that be too much?” I said, “Oh, no, we'll go.” I said, “Call your mother, get permission, make sure she notifies the Clerk and we will go to Morton's.” And so we proceeded to cruise down in my BMW to Morton's.
And Tony Snow dismisses the whole mess as “simply naughty emails.” Hastert continues to try to distance himself from responsibility by saying he only learned of the more graphic IM conversations from the media, and “certain Members of Congress were only made aware of a 2005 e-mail exchange between Foley and a House page that was characterized as ‘over-friendly’ and not of a sexual nature.”
Let’s talk about that “characterization” for a minute. The emails included questions like “what stuff do you like to do?” and also included a request for a picture. Call me crazy, but when a 52-year-old is sending emails like that to a 16-year-old, they’re more than just “over-friendly,” and anyone with two brain cells still knocking together ought to be able to figure that out. Just because Foley didn’t include pictures of his dick doesn’t mean the emails weren’t “of a sexual nature.” Sexual overtures are not always sexually graphic.
And I think it’s worth pointing out again and again that these were sent from Foley’s personal email account. If he was just being friendly, as these assholes keep claiming, why didn’t he send his missives from his Congressional email? That the GOP leadership couldn’t put two and two together is either indicative of monumental stupidity, or, more likely, their deliberate unwillingness to come up with four.
Meanwhile, Foley has checked himself into rehab, saying he needs “immediate treatment for alcoholism and other behavioral problems.”
My Weekend Entertainment
So what had me laughing my ass off all weekend, you say? Well, I'm glad you asked. It began during my ride home Friday and hasn't let up since.
Regarding the Mark Foley "scandal," I've heard this response:
"His sexual orientation doesn't matter," or, "It doesn't matter if he's gay," because the Democrats are just trying to smear him.
This, from conservatives. Suddenly, sexual orientation isn't on the table.
And here's the best part... the first person that I heard saying this? Michael Savage.
Yeah, that Michael Savage.
Mister "Bareback Mounting."
Mister "radical homosexuals and radical Islamists are the same thing."
Mister ""When you hear 'human rights,' think gays. ... [T]hink only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son."
Mister "Gays are fighting for perversion" and "Lesbians are jealous of AIDS."
Suddenly, when it's a Republican in trouble, Michael "Get AIDS and die, you pig" is saying sexual orientation is off limits! It doesn't matter! Stop talking about it! Stop being mean with your... your... gay smears, you mean meanies!
When just a few days earlier, he was saying this:
SAVAGE: Washington Times employee arrested in sting, just popped up. Metropolitan police today charged the director of human resources [chuckle] at The Washington Times with one count of trying to entice a minor on the Internet. Randall Casseday, 53, was arrested at 9:45 p.m. yesterday with where police said he had arranged to meet a 13-year-old girl. He had actually exchanged Internet messages and photographs with a male police officer posing as a girl. Well, OK, great. I actually think he should get a reward that it wasn't with a boy. I actually was thrilled to see it was only a girl. I'm not saying it was good that he did it. But don't get me wrong, I was stunned that it was with a girl. I mean, there is still a normal pervert out there. It's hard to believe. There are still normal perverts? It's shocking.
[...]
SAVAGE: That's how I see it. [Caller], I honestly do see it that way, and I've decided to not use the word "gay" anymore. Instead I'm using the word "hedonist" because I think it more aptly describes what I'm trying to say because the lifestyle of the homosexual and the lifestyle of a heterosexual hedonist is almost the same. So therefore, I would say the hedonist and hedonism is a better description of what I'm trying to get at with regard to why I'm hated in the media.
Ohhhh... that's why he's hated in the media. And here, I thought it was because he was a vicious, racist, hatemongering, raving lunatic.
Just remember... when a Republican is caught in skeezy activities with a young man, his sexual orientation doesn't matter. If it's anyone else, ALL GAYS ARE CHILD MOLESTERS OMFG!!!!!!11!!!
Oh, oh my goodness. I haven't laughed this hard in a long, long time.
Wait, what's that? Newt Gingrich is whining about "overly aggressive reaction" to the Foley story?
Discussing the recent resignation of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) with host Chris Wallace on the October 1 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News political analyst and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) claimed that House Republicans would have "been accused of gay bashing" if they had "overly aggressively reacted" to Foley's allegedly inappropriate email communications with a 16-year-old male congressional page when House Republicans reportedly first learned of Foley's actions in late 2005.
Stop it, you guys... you're killing me!
(My girl wants to cross-post all the time...)
Be “Playful”
Via Angelos, here’s another awesome revelation about the Bushies from Bob Woodward’s new book, Too Little Too Late, or whatever the fuck it’s called:
Rumsfeld also infuriated another powerful woman — then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice — by not returning her phone calls. So she complained to the boss.Yeah, be playful—you know...wear shorter skirts, show a boobie!
Bush advised Rice to be "playful" with the stubborn Rumsfeld in an effort to get along.
And he cajoled Rumsfeld, telling him: "I know you won't talk to Condi. But you got to talk to her."Bush then drew two circles and two dots on Rumsfeld’s arm, saying, “Circle circle, dot dot, now you have a cooties shot.”
Yeesh. These are the dopes running our country, people.
The Plot Thickens
Q: What would you say if I told you that the GOP knew about Foley's fondness for pages as far back as 2001?
Because it looks like they did.
A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.Democratic pages were not warned. Ahem.
Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk's office.
Loraditch, the president of the Page Alumni Association, said the pages were told "don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff."
Meanwhile, the FBI has opened a preliminary investigation into Foley's actions.
Officials say the FBI and Department of Justice lawyers are trying to determine how many such e-mails were sent, how many different computers were used and whether any of the teenage victims will cooperate in the investigation.Wow.
It's possible Foley could be prosecuted under laws he helped to enact, as the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
Irony Calling…
[I]n-person, actual sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page would be perfectly legal in D.C. and in most places in the U.S., but it seems that it is a criminal act for Foley to discuss or solicit sexual acts with the same page over the Internet.Why?
[U]nder the so-called "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense…Wah wah wah. I believe, friends, that’s what we call being hoisted by one’s one petard. What a stupendous intersection of their convenient disregard for states' rights when it suits them, their hubristic compulsion to pass all manner of nonsensical legislation in order to claim—yet again—how they protect families, and their hypocritical, perv-rife ranks.
Republicans drew the line of age of consent at 18 when, with overwhelming support, they enacted the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006," which the President signed into law (with Mark Foley standing behind him). By definition, then, they consider the acts in which Foley apparently engaged to be criminal. They even enhanced the penalties for this conduct. For those purposes, it doesn't really matter what states have designated as the age of consent because House Republicans have declared it to be a federal crime to solicit or discuss sexual acts with someone under the age of 18.
In the end, the legality of Foley’s misdeeds informs whether the GOP, who knew what he was doing, but decided not to pursue it (in part, they say, because his victim’s parents didn’t want them to, which doesn’t explain their reluctance to protect other underage pages from being targeted by Foley), were simply engaging in an unethical cover-up or a criminal conspiracy. It’s difficult to understand how Speaker Hastert, for example, is not guilty of abetting actions made illegal by legislation enacted by his own party.
(Photo via.)
