The Big Red Beast



This is a map of Republicanistan.
The red dots represent the location of a scandal.
Some of them are small, and some of them are big.
But there are lots of them. It’s hard to know where to look first.
Soon, the whole of Republicanistan will be red.
Then, no matter where you look, all you’ll see
is a big, bloody corrupt beast.
Let’s put another red dot on the map.

Care of Frederick Maryland at Demagogue (here and here), we find this article in Sunday’s LA Times. It’s about Allen Stayman, a former State Department employee who was let go five years ago, even though his bosses wanted him to stay to complete a project on which he was working. He’s always wondered why—and now he knows.

Newly disclosed e-mails suggest that the ax fell after intervention by one of the highest officials at the White House: Ken Mehlman, on behalf of one of the most influential lobbyists in town, Jack Abramoff.

The e-mails show that Abramoff, whose client list included the Northern Mariana Islands, had long opposed Stayman's work advocating labor changes in that U.S. commonwealth, and considered what his lobbying team called the "Stayman project" a high priority.

"Mehlman said he would get him fired," an Abramoff associate wrote after meeting with Mehlman, who was then White House political director.
What labor changes? Well, the article doesn’t say specifically, but the Northern Mariana Islands weren’t paying their workers much money, for a start. They also had some very unusual immigration laws, which had left guest workers outnumbering US citizens. But its big problem was human trafficking. See, sex tourism and sweat shops are pretty big businesses there, and because US federal laws banning child labor, civil rights violations, and sexual abuse don’t apply there, nor do federal minimum wage requirements, it’s a great place to lure women with promises of US citizenship and loads of cash, then force them into prostitution. Or slave labor. Like at the factories Tom DeLay visited and cited as an example of how capitalism should work, right before he killed President Clinton’s reform bill.

Hey—Tom DeLay was a friend of Jack Abramoff, too! What a coinkydink.

But unlike President Clinton, who actually gave a shit about people forced to work in terrible conditions for shitty wages, and women forced to fuck strangers and get abortions against their wills, the Bush White House wasn’t all that bothered. So it set to work, at the request of Jack Abramoff, whose client wanted to keep raking in dough on the backs of trafficked humans, getting rid of the one man who stood in the way: Allen Stayman.

"With only about a year left on my appointment, I didn't think it would trigger any interest from the White House," Stayman said.

…Unbeknownst to Stayman, though, within weeks of Bush taking office, the "Stayman project" was in full swing.

State Department officials resisted the dismissal, and negotiations dragged on for months. In May 2001, one of Mehlman's deputies assured Abramoff's team that, "Obviously, this guy cannot stay."

That July 9, Ralston e-mailed Abramoff with news of a deal on Stayman: "He'll be out in four months."

And he was.
Compassionate Conservatism: Offering shitloads of compassion for human traffickers since 2000.

Open Wide...

Happy Blogiversary...

...to Deborah Lipp!

Open Wide...

Brace Yourselves

Because as soon as the anti-multiculturalism contingent gets their hands on this, it’s gonna get ugly:

A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

…The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
This is certainly not my experience. I lived in Chicago’s most ethnically diverse neighborhood, Rogers Park, for a decade, the last two years of which were spent as part of a condo association that looked like a mini-UN—whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Jews, mixed-race individuals and couples, straight people, gay people. We were, collectively, desk jockies, teachers, nurses, actors, writers, hairstylists. Parents and not, religious and not. And we used to regularly hang out on each other’s back decks with a couple of beers and a grill going, talking about everything under the sun. We had each other’s spare keys. We fed each other’s pets during out-of-town holidays. We accepted each other’s packages. And I would find it simply astounding if we were some sort of crazy aberration.

Thusly, I’m suspicious of Putnam’s research. Also because I found his Bowling Alone to be to cultural anthropology what Dr. Phil is to psychiatry. (Putnam is not a cultural anthropologist, but a political scientist who addresses issues I would suggest are better left to cultural anthropologists.) My being suspicious shouldn’t be misconstrued as my suggesting I reject his conclusions outright; I don’t know enough about them from one article to draw any kind of informed opinion. But it’s this kind of stuff that raises my antennae:

Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.
Los Angeles has a whole slew of concerns attached to multiculturalism that other places might not, primarily immigration, which goes beyond people just not “looking alike.” And reducing diversity in South Dakota to “inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic” is ridiculous, considering its history with regard to Native Americans.

I’d love to go take a look at Putnam’s research, but he has delayed publishing it “until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it ‘would have been irresponsible to publish without that’.” Mmm, yes. It’s much more responsible to announce it, so we can get some good controversy going first. After all, without a big splash, he might not find his name in another one of President Bush’s speeches.

(Via.)

Open Wide...

Another Alleged Republican Sex Scandal

In my neck of the woods:

A 36-year-old Aurora man seeking election to the Kane County Board in November has been charged with sexually abusing two girls. Brent K. Schepp, of the 400 block of Linden Avenue, was named in a 26-count criminal indictment announced Friday by Kane County State's Atty. John Barsanti.

The charges are 14 counts of criminal sexual assault, 10 counts of criminal sexual abuse and two counts of unlawful delivery of alcohol to a minor.

Prosecutors said Schepp knew his victims, who are now 15 and 16. The alleged abuse occurred last year between June and December.

…Schepp is the Republican candidate in the race for an open County Board seat based in Aurora.
Grand Old Perverts. The Republican Party sure does seem to attract ’em, eh?

(Hat tip DBK.)

Open Wide...

The Birth of a Billboard

Watch this Dove ad that follows the transformation of a pretty but plain model into a billboard-worthy picture of perfection.


(Thanks to Ezra for the heads-up.)

I have some issues about Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty, as the curves of “real women” are still being used to sell, for instance, firming cream.


But, on the other hand, I’m in favor of anything that broadens our notions of what is “acceptably” beautiful. Or, hell, even acceptable full-stop.

Anyway, what do you think of the ad?

Open Wide...

A Crisis of Confidence

New piece up at The Guardian’s Comment is Free.

Open Wide...

Total Wanker: Tony Snow

The Bush Cult in full effect:

Tony Snow draped his lanky frame across a wooden lectern, leaned forward and gazed out at 850 adoring Republicans who had paid $175 apiece to hear him speak. There was a conspiratorial gleam in his eye, as if he was about to reveal some deep inner secret from his new life as the White House press secretary.

“Yesterday,” Mr. Snow declared, “I was in the Oval Office with the president ——”

He cut himself off, took a perfectly calibrated three-second pause and switched into an aw-shucks voice for dramatic effect: “I just looove saying that! Yeaaah, I was in the Oval Office. Just meeee and the president. Nooooobody else.” The crowd lapped it up.


That’s me, blowing chunks of Tony Snow.

Lap that up.

Open Wide...

Well, that's convenient

Friday:

U.S. has little time to confirm NK nuclear test

U.S. officials said on Friday initial tests of air samples taken near North Korea found no evidence of radiation, and experts said the United States may have only days to find conclusive evidence of a nuclear test.

But the United States, whose spy planes are continuing to collect samples for radiological evidence, is not ready to declare there was no nuclear device tested, officials said. [...]

"The initial test came back negative," a U.S. official told Reuters, referring to the air sample tests.

Further analysis was being conducted but the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, added, "I doubt it will differ from the initial one."

John Negroponte says otherwise...

Monday:

U.S. confirms North Korean nuclear test

An analysis of air samples collected shortly after North Korea declared it had conducted an underground nuclear explosion confirms the test took place, according to the office of the U.S. director of national intelligence.

The analysis detected radioactive debris, indicating the explosive yield was less than one kiloton, said a statement from John Negroponte's office. That is relatively small for a nuclear test.

See, you can get a lot done over the weekend if you really, really want to.

Officials wanted to do more analysis before confirming the North Korean test. Sources said a nuclear facility in Russia is near the North Korean border, and analysts wanted to rule it out as the source of the radioactive debris.

Negroponte's likely response: More analysis? We don't got no more analysis. We don't need no more analysis! We don't have to show you any more stinkin' analysis!

Onward towards war.

(Cross-posted.)

Open Wide...

Yahoos and Boobs

Go read Mannion.

Open Wide...

Lord of War

They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."

Last night, Mr. Shakes and I watched Lord of War, a film written and directed by Andrew Niccol about international gunrunners—and I can’t recommend it enough. See this movie.

The main character, Yuri Orlov, is played by Nicolas Cage, and was written by Niccol as a composite of five real-life arms dealers. It follows him for about two decades, as he builds his business, exploits the fall of the Soviet Union, creates uneasy business alliances with African warlords, gets married, has a child. As we come to understand precisely what it is that Yuri does, and the resignation that allows him to do it, the film is neither smug, nor blithe, nor heavy-handed. It is only now that I consider his wife, who never questioned from whence her 18-carat earrings came, is really me—and every other person who doesn’t look too closely at the ugly sources of their freedoms and fortunes.

Lord of War could be the deleted scenes from Hotel Rwanda—the scenes that show how such things are made possible, beyond the human nature that opens the door.

There are so many scenes I’d like to recount, but it would ruin the movie. I’ll just say this: When it was over, we watched the end one more time, and let its reality wash over us again. And then we talked about why the world is the way it is, and wondered if it can ever be any different.

Open Wide...

Ohio’s Domestic Violence Law Being Challenged

As predicted by opponents of Ohio’s gay marriage ban, the law was construed so narrowly as to render its domestic violence law not applicable to unmarried couples. And sure enough, here comes a batterer to challenge his prosecution—and the moral values brigade is in his corner:

In a case from Warren County, Michael Carswell says that he shouldn't be charged with felony domestic violence against his girlfriend because state law conflicts with the constitution.

Citizens for Community Values, which led the campaign to pass the gay- marriage ban, filed a brief supporting Carswell.

The ban prohibits state or local government from recognizing a legal status for relationships that approximate marriage.

The domestic-violence law, adopted in 1979, specifically covers "persons living as a spouse."
A district court has ruled the domestic violence law unconstitutional, so now it goes to the Ohio Supreme Court. In the meantime, attorney Alexandria Ruden of Legal Aid Society of Cleveland and co-author of Ohio Domestic Violence Law points out, “The thought that women could die while we're debating is appalling to me.” Yeah, as it would be to anyone with any sense of decency. But not to men who beat the crap out of women, and certainly not to the “Citizens for Community Values,” who apparently believe that beating on women is a community value.

Disgusting. Halting progress never means just not moving forward; it always means moving backward.

(Hat tip Holly.)

Open Wide...

Shocking, Shocking

The awakening of the Religious Right continues. Go take a look at this video; it's pretty incredible. There's a very nice bit on "dog whistle" politics, which we've seen recently with Bush's "comma" comment that has more or less backfired on him. I think I'm definitely going to have to read this book.

It's really interesting to see the "base" finally wake up and realize the Republicans have been using them since day one, and that Bush is a complete liar with little or no interest in actual faith-based initiatives.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.

Open Wide...

Poll Ponderings

There’s something interesting about these numbers:

– 62 percent of Americans believe that Foley’s behavior was “typical of politicians,” as opposed to just 30 percent who believe his behavior was “typical of gay men.”

– 70 percent of Americans say that the Foley scandal has not changed their opinion of gay people.
(Presumably, that would mean 30% of people say their opinion of gay people has changed. Well, not quite. 3% weren’t sure whether their opinions had changed. Of the remaining 27%, 4% now have a better opinion of gay people, leaving 23% of respondents whose opinions of gay people are now “less favorable.”)

Now follow me for a moment. If you didn’t believe that Foley’s behavior was typical of gay men, why would your opinion of gay people become less favorable? It wouldn’t. There’s no reason to cast aspersions on the entire gay population unless you believe that Foley’s actions somehow typified the whole community.

That surely means that the 23% who say their opinions of gay people are now less favorable are also in the 30% who believe his behavior was “typical of gay men.” But if you already think that most gay men are like Foley, your opinion of them is pretty low to begin with, so, basically, those 23% are just saying they hate gay people even more than they did before—which, if we’re being honest, isn’t really a meaningful “change of opinion.” That means it’s more like 93% of Americans whose opinions of gay people haven’t changed because of the Foley scandal. We’re left with 3% who don’t know what their opinion is (nor, probably, what year it is) and 4% whose opinions changed for the better.

That’s what you call a win. And more evidence that the constant barrage of attacks against the LGBT community is backfiring.

* * *

Another interesting tidbit from this poll: 80% say that “making sure that gays and lesbians receive the same rights and protections under the law as other Americans” is either Very Important (47%), Fairly Important (14%), or Somewhat Important (19%). But only 66% of the total group polled support gay marriage (21%) or civil unions (45%). Huh? That seems odd.

Especially when 66% also say that “protecting our traditional family values from the gay lifestyle” is either Very Important (42%), Fairly Important (9%), or Somewhat Important (15%). But only 31% of the total group polled believe “there should be no legal recognition of a relationship between gay or lesbian couples.”

So basically, 80% of people want to make sure gays and lesbians have equal rights, but a bunch of them don’t support legalized gay marriage or civil unions. And 66% of people want to protect “traditional values from the gay lifestyle,” but a bunch of them do support legalized gay marriage of civil unions. And, clearly, some people who say that gays and lesbians should receive the same rights and protections under the law also say that we need to protect our traditional family values from the gay lifestyle. That’s just bizarre.

This proves two things: 1) Americans are a very schizophrenic lot. 2) There is no reason under the sun or the moon that such a collection of mixed-up birdbrains should be allowed to vote on the rights of other people. They can’t even be trusted to make any bloody sense, and yet we’ve conferred upon them the unprecedented entitlement of deciding whether to extend civil rights to others.

Here’s the big problem: Whether or not those rights are granted, it makes not a modicum of practical difference to the lives of the heterosexual majority (in spite of what Daddy Dobson or like-minded doomsayers who equate gay marriage with the fall of civilization would have us believe). And that’s decidedly problematic when human nature dictates that we vote primarily out of self-interest. If you have no vested interest in the outcome of that on which you’re voting, you’ve no incentive to explore beyond your aesthetic preference, which could be rooted in religious beliefs or visceral hatred or any number of other things that have nothing to do with the legal merits of the issue.

In other words, it’s no wonder many straight voters are ill-informed and hold completely illogical positions about LGBT equality. Worse yet, one of our political parties is glad of the fact, and the other can’t be bothered to question the wisdom of leaving an important civil rights issue in the hands of a populace whose vast majority won’t be affected by the outcome.

Civil rights shouldn’t be put to a ballot in the first place, because equality isn’t meant to be predicated on the good will of the majority. Had we waited until America was “ready” for interracial marriage, it wouldn’t have been legalized until 1991, 23 years after Virginia v. Loving. But as long as we’re going to take this stupid approach, someone ought to make clear to the people given the undeserved opportunity to vote on someone else’s civil rights that it’s not a referendum on whether they think boys kissing is icky, but on whether they believe that we are indeed one nation with liberty and justice for all.

Open Wide...

Unleash the Moonwalk!

Mr. Shakes and I cannot stop laughing at this.



Via Recon, of course.

("Unleash the moonwalk" references this, also hilarious.)

Open Wide...

Liberals Are Icky

And fair game to be told so, in so uncertain terms, as John and Lindsay have discovered.

Open Wide...

Party's Over



The Dark Wraith has spoken.

Open Wide...

The End of the World as We Know It

Raise the terror alert level—married couples are now the minority!

The American Community Survey, released this month by the Census Bureau, found that 49.7 percent, or 55.2 million, of the nation’s 111.1 million households in 2005 were made up of married couples — with and without children — just shy of a majority and down from more than 52 percent five years earlier.

The numbers by no means suggests marriage is dead or necessarily that a tipping point has been reached. The total number of married couples is higher than ever, and most Americans eventually marry.
Oh. So who cares then?

The usual suspects, natch.

“It does show that a lot of people are experimenting with alternatives before they get there,” [Steve Watters, the director of young adults for Focus on the Family] said. “The biggest concern is that those who still aspire to marriage are going to find fewer models. They’re also finding they’ve gotten so good at being single it’s hard to be at one with another person.”
Watters is pretty sure, though, that “the trend of fewer married couples was more a reflection of delaying marriage than rejection of it.” Which, in large part, is true—although he probably hasn’t spoken to any of the couples who are rejecting marriage in “solidarity with gay and lesbian couples who cannot legally marry in most states.”

And what about those gay and lesbian couples, anyhow?

The census survey estimated that 5.2 million couples, a little more than 5 percent of households, were unmarried opposite-sex partners. An additional 413,000 households were male couples, and 363,000 were female couples.

…Since 2000, those identifying themselves as unmarried opposite-sex couples rose by about 14 percent, male couples by 24 percent and female couples by 12 percent.

…In the rural Midwest, the number of households made up of male partners rose 77 percent since 2000.
Quite possibly, it’s not the number of households full-stop, but the number of households willing to identify themselves thusly which has risen significantly. “Gay Chic Reaches Bumblefuck!” “Queer Eye for the Farm Guy!” Or perhaps people are just sick and bloody tired of attempts to bully them into denying who they are. What a perfect legacy for the GOP/Conservative Christian crusade against the LGBT community—more out queers than ever before!

Anyhow, with three quarters of a million same-sex couples across America, the vast majority of whom aren’t allowed to get married, perhaps anyone who’s worried about the state of marriage in America would do well to champion the legalization of gay marriage. Of course, I suspect that for anyone who’s hand-wringing over married couples being a minority, tipping the scales back by offering marriage equality to same-sex couples isn’t the solution they have in mind.

(Crossposted at Ezra’s place.)

Open Wide...

Shameful Shays

I’ve been meaning to write something about the comments made by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) about Abu Ghraib, wherein he deemed what happened there “not torture” but “outrageous, outrageous involvement of National Guard troops from (Maryland) who were involved in a sex ring and they took pictures of soldiers who were naked. And they did other things that were just outrageous. But it wasn't torture.”

But about all I can come up with is: You know, Mr. Shakes tried breaking a chemical light and pouring its phosphoric liquid on me once, but I just didn’t find it kinky.

Seeking to minimize what happened at Abu Ghraib by reducing it to something that could be found in any old bourgeois sex repertoire so that it couldn’t possibly be torture, even if were simultaneously “outrageous,” has to be one of the most convoluted contortions of logic I’ve ever seen. Anyway, Digby and Wolcott deal with it splendidly, as always.

Open Wide...

Looking Foxy, Dems!

At least according to the WaPo, which front-pages an article on the “parade of attractive candidates” that could help the Dems win in November. (I shit you not.) Three pages later, it concludes that a candidate’s looks only matter to people who know fuck-all about the issues. So, awesome story.

Anyhoo, here are the Doable Dems by the WaPo’s reckoning:


Hot or Not?

Call me crazy, but I think the most notable feature about this group is not that they’re unusually attractive for political candidates (come on—John Edwards, Barack Obama, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer?—attractive politicos are hardly unheard of), but that they’re all just fairly young. I mean, what's the average age of the two houses of Congress these days—1,000? It's probably not as bad as all that, but I must admit there are times I'm watching C-SPAN and can't help but notice that my 51-year-old senator, Evan Bayh, looks like a daggone whippersnapper.


Anyway, my point is, not that I really have one, is that it's probably more notable to see young, fresh-faced candidates than attractive ones. That these candidates have been singled out as good-looking may be more a function of our general attitudes toward aging, particularly as it relates to beauty, than an actual dearth of attractive Congresscritters.

Then again, maybe there’s something to be said for youth.


Dennis Hastert
1960 Yearbook Photo

Open Wide...