Focus on Myanmar and Action Items


"More than 100,000 people flooded the streets of Myanmar's biggest city on Monday, joining Buddhist monks in the strongest show of dissent against the ruling generals in nearly two decades. In swelling tides of humanity, two major marches snaked their way through the nation's commercial capital led by robed monks chanting prayers of peace and compassion, witnesses said."

* * *

That was Monday. This is today:

Nine people have been killed amid a crackdown on anti-government protesters in Burma's main city of Rangoon, state television reports.

It said the dead included eight protesters and a Japanese man, later identified by Japan's APF News as a video journalist. Eleven demonstrators and 31 soldiers were injured, state media said. The deaths came on the 10th day of protests, led by the country's Buddhist monks, against Burma's military rulers.
The monks are leading a protest against Myanmar's (Burma's) military rulers—"three generals wielding almost absolute power"—whose decision to double the price of fuel last month triggered the current protests, as the people of the impoverished nation simply could not bear the increase. The proverbial camel's back was broken.

The peaceful protests have inevitably been met with the iron fist of the generals, with raids on monasteries and arrests of members of the National League for Democracy, the pro-democracy protest party founded by 62-year-old political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi, an amazing and interesting figure, whose National League for Democracy won elections in a landslide almost two decades ago, but was never allowed to assume power. The daughter of Burmese independence hero Aung San, who was himself assassinated, Suu Kyi is beloved by the people of Myanmar and known as "The Lady."

Ordinary Burmese regard her with a reverence that the regime has never been able to reduce, despite regularly denouncing her — although rarely by name — as a tool of foreign powers.

Instead, seeing a foreigner on the streets of Rangoon, people will discreetly approach, whisper "I like The Lady", and move on before they are seen holding a conversation.

…She is the world's only detained Nobel peace prize laureate, having spent 12 of the last 17 years in various forms of custody, but has always insisted on non-violence as the way to "freedom from fear", the title of one of her books.

"It is not power that corrupts but fear," she said. "Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those subject to it."
And fear now grips Yangon:

Red-robed Buddhist monks who had led several days of marches were largely absent from the streets Thursday after soldiers raided monasteries the night before. Monks reportedly were beaten and taken into custody or confined to the monasteries.

"This morning, around noon, we went around the city and we saw that most of the monasteries were locked and we saw some of the monks inside," the American witness said. "So the government is keeping them locked because they don't want them to go out and protest anymore."

She said the soldiers used batons, rifle butts and riot shields to beat the protesters.

"It was a crowd of, I would say, around 2,000 people, between 2,000 and 3,000 people today, and they ... put 10 monks in front of them as a human shield. But the police didn't care. They just came and started even beating the monks," she said.

Streets that had been jammed with as many as 100,000 protesters were deserted by 6 p.m. after the violent crackdown, the witness said.

"Right now it's a ghost town. I mean, nobody's outside. Everybody is so afraid," she said.
Everybody is afraid. She went on to plead for help from the international community: "Please, these people need help. It's inhumane what's happening here."

In a risky phone call to CNN from the heart of the protests, a Myanmar citizen who asked not to be named for security reasons described a deteriorating scene in the streets.

"People are shot and they are running. The soldiers shoot the people...some people are walking on the street and shouting," she said, adding she witnessed government troops shooting a man.

"No one can help us. We have no weapons," she said over a bad connection. The military junta "have weapons and they are doing what they want. We have no rights."
She, too, appealed to the international community.

"We don't want that kind of government. Who can help us? Who can help us? I want (United Nations) or many nations to help us," she said before the line cut out.
Find out what you can do to help here and here.

Here is a list of companies to avoid supporting because they do business in Burma, and it is "impossible to conduct any trade or engage in other economic activity with Burma without providing direct or indirect support, mostly financial, to the military junta," who allow all manner of human rights and labor abuses, and utilize sexual violence as a means of control.

Open Wide...

Hate Crimes Bill Passes in Senate

This would be one example of why, despite our many legitimate grievances with the Democrats, there is still an essential difference between the two parties. The Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act would never have passed (or probably even been brought up for a vote) under Republican leadership.

You can read more about the specific provisions of the bill, which better enables federal and local law enforcement officials to prosecute hate crimes, here. And I'll just repeat what I said when the House passed its version of the hate crimes bill, with regard to the necessity of such legislation…

One of the most frequent talking points you hear in opposition to hate crimes legislation is that giving specific consideration to crimes committed against people on the basis of some specific part of their identity amounts to "special rights" and some kind of preferential treatment. If you hear this in the next few days and need a way to explain why hate crimes legislation is necessary, here it is: The prosecution of hate crimes requires special consideration because when someone is targeted for her/his race, nationality, sex, gender, sexual orientation, religion, it has the potential to affect everyone who shares that identity across the entire nation.

A whole community isn't suddenly considered unsafe because a husband murders his wife, because we recognize the difference between domestic violence and community violence. That murder wasn't random; it was specific. The victim was chosen for a reason. It doesn't make the crime any less horrific, but it doesn't reverberate. It stops with that murderer and that victim.

Hate crimes are the opposite of that; we recognize that when someone is targeted just because s/he is black, for example, that can make all black Americans feel that much less safe, irrespective of the safety of their physical community, because their race community has been attacked. In a hate crime, it doesn't matter which black person/gay person/woman/Jew/quadriplegic had been there; it's so nonspecific that it inevitably reverberates. Suddenly blacks/gays/women/Jews/quadriplegics are staying indoors a little more, feeling a little less able to go out after dark alone…lives of people not directly touched by the crime are affected—and that's why hate crimes legislation is needed, so that freedom can be equally experienced by everyone.

UPDATE: Here's the complete list of 39 Senators who voted against the hate crimes bill. You might notice they all appear to have something in common.

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

Monsieur Maveriqué McCain abstained, naturally. Once again, I am pleasantly surprised by the vote of my Republican Senator Dick Lugar, who was one of only 8 Republicans to vote in favor of the legislation.

Open Wide...

Dems Debate (Again)

There was yet another Dem debate last night, which I didn't watch because I quite honestly couldn't muster the slightest bit of interest. The transcript is here, and it's pretty much the same old shit with no tide-turning events. Steve Benen's got a good review here.

I did like this bit in Reuters' coverage:

Edwards criticized Clinton for voting earlier in the day in Washington to approve a nonbinding motion calling on the State Department to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as "a foreign terrorist organization," which Edwards said was a potential first step toward war against Iran.

…Long-shot candidate Mike Gravel jumped on Clinton as well, saying, "I am ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it."

After a loud laugh at the often-comical Gravel, Clinton defended her vote.
Laugh it up, Hils—but lots of the Democratic base feels exactly the same way Gravel does. And haughty disdain probably isn't the best way to respond to that.

Open Wide...

Happy-Go-Lucky

[This started out as a comment to Kate's post about that implausibly ludicrous article by Sally Ann Voak, but it got so long, I just turned it into its own post.]

Given that every time I've visited Britain, I get constant (flattering and blush-inducing) comparisons to Dawn French, to whom I am almost identical in height and weight, I am indeed a pretty good candidate for speaking to Ms. Voak's claim that women like Dawn French might be better able to cope with being grotesque wretches, but they still can't possibly be happy.


Dawn on the left; Liss on the right.

And, as Kate predicted, I do indeed have something to say. But first, what Voak says:

"Of course, if you are somebody like Dawn French—who is beautiful, talented, intelligent and witty—then you can cope more easily with being overweight. But you still aren't happy, and I don't believe that she is."
That's certainly convenient, isn't it? Dawn French—and all of the rest of us beautiful, talented, intelligent, witty, and fat women—can say that we're happy all we want, but Ms. I Can't Make Money if Fat People Aren't Ashamed doesn't believe it.

Well, I won't try to convince her. People who insist on their own happiness rarely come off sounding happy in the end, anyway—even if they are.

I will, however, note that I'm lucky. A very, very fortunate girl—blessed by chance, touched warmly by the fingertips of providence. The fates shine on me.

You see, Voak says she doesn't believe I could be happy, but, luckily, I don't give a shit.

Luckily, I don't give a shit whether she believes I'm happy or not. I don't give a shit whether she believes I am happy, I don't give a shit whether she thinks I should be happy, and I really don't give a shit whether she thinks I would be happier if I looked different than I do. Luckily, I'm all smiling, contented apathy in response to her furrowed brow, her firm insistence that I couldn't possibly be happy, given my big fat arse and my double chin and my stretch marks and my wobbly upper arms. Luckily, I'm nothing but a chuckle personified at her sad desperation to convince me I'm unhappy.

Funny thing, though—and here comes the irony; watch out!—one of the main reasons I am happy is because I don't give a shit about what Voak thinks, or any of the people like her. That freedom from the shame she wants to impose on people who look like me is itself a happiness, in which germinates the elusive Happiness of Self. And it wasn't really luck at all that I ended up with that freedom; it was hard work and the will, the undiscouragable determination, to love myself and my body—my big, imperfect, flawed body—for exactly what it is, whatever that may be. It shouldn't require hard work and will, but it does—because everything around us is designed to subvert the ultimately simple, but profoundly rewarding, nourishing, and self-fulfilling act of Happiness of Self.

And if you're fat, you've got exhausting old shame-mavens like Voak waiting for you to try to undermine you one last time, telling you even your happiness is bullshit. Well, Voak can believe whatever she needs to believe to make her happy. Me—I'll be over here, blissfully indifferent and happy-go-lucky. Because that's what I've chosen to be, and I won't be denied the splendor of this freedom by anyone.

As I've said before, it remains a radical act to be fat and happy, especially if you're a woman (for whom "jolly" fatness isn't an option). If you're fat, you're not only meant to be unhappy, but deeply ashamed of yourself, projecting at all times an apologetic nature, indicative of your everlasting remorse for having wrought your monstrous self upon the world. You are certainly not meant to be bold, or assertive, or confident—and should you manage to overcome the constant drumbeat of messages that you are ugly and unsexy and have earned equally society's disdain and your own self-hatred, should you forget your place and walk into the world one day with your head held high, you are to be reminded by the cow-calls and contemptuous looks of perfect strangers that you are not supposed to have self-esteem; you don't deserve it. Being publicly fat and happy is hard; being publicly, shamelessly, unshakably fat and happy is an act of both will and bravery.

I choose to be brave. That makes me happy.

* * *

On a related note, I'd also like to point out the image that the absurd Daily Mail chose to accompany Voak's obtuse article could not have been more disharmonious with her shrill fat-shaming. It's one of the most beautiful pictures I've ever seen of a fat woman, and when I looked at it, I smiled. And I certainly didn't feel as though looking like that was A Bad Thing.

Open Wide...

Pace Out

General Peter Pace told the Senate that he thinks homosexual acts are immoral and don't belong in the military.

Pace, who retires next week, said he was seeking to clarify similar remarks he made in spring, which he said were misreported.

"Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," he told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.

"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that was very simply that we should respect those who want to serve the nation, but not through the law of the land condone activity in my upbringing is counter to God's law."
I'm not a lawyer, nor have I read the Uniform Code of Military Justice from cover to cover, but I'm pretty sure that God's law is not cited as the foundation of military jurisprudence. If it was, I think someone would have pointed that out by now.

I have, however, read the bible and I do recall several passages that condemn war and violence against our fellow man. In fact, I think one of the major characters in the bible has several imprecations against war and in favor of peace, including "Blessed are the peacemakers...." So it seems to be a tad disconcerting that General Pace would cite God's law to keep "immorality" out of the military, yet ignore it in order to have a job.

Once again General Pace is promoting the stereotype that the entire gay community is defined by what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. As it stands, the current policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) requires that gay military personnel not disclose their sexual orientation because if they do, presumably mass orgies of soldiers humping each other will break out in military installations all over the world. As fascinating as that may be to some (i.e. Jeff Gannon, right wing shill and male prostitute at hotmilitarystuds.com), it's laughably ridiculous. Just because someone is gay and out of the closet doesn't mean they're any more defined by their orientation than a straight person is, nor is it relevant to the job they're doing. But these generals with tremendous gay issues can't get beyond the adolescent fascination they have with gay sex, so regardless of the morality or personal scruples that any one person may have -- gay or straight -- they cannot see beyond that one thing.

If the UCMJ forbids sex between people who aren't married to each other, then that's fine, but let the law be applied equally. The assumption that just because a soldier is gay means he or she is prone to sexual immorality any more than some horny heterosexual private is just plain bigotry; it condemns an entire group of people based on something they have no control over and before they even get a chance to prove themselves to be fit to wear the uniform and serve in the military.

It isn't the gays who should be kicked out of the military, it's the people who, for whatever reason, cannot get over their pathological fixation with sex. They're the ones whose morality should be questioned.

Crossposted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Open Wide...

Piss Off, Inhofe: The Sequel

It is with great glee that I wake up this morning to find that the Senate's most miserable pissant-dumbfuck-crankydick-pieceofshit, James Inhofe, decided to go toe-to-toe with Barbara Boxer at another global warming hearing. After all, it worked out so well for him the first time around. His current objection was to having Senator Barbara Mikulski testify:

“Senator, I’m not going to agree to that,” [Boxer] says. “I’m the chairman of this committee and I’ve spoken to you about this. You knew this was coming. I asked Sen. Mikulski to join us. If that’s not enough, I went back to the parliamentarian. There is absolutely no rule that forbids this.” [...]

Inhofe and Boxer bicker back and forth before Boxer says, “This is an outrage. It’s an absolute — this is my friend…”

“It’s an outrage to invite her,” interrupts Inhofe.

“If I might complete this,” Boxer shot back, “it is an outrage to object to a sincere colleague who wants to work with us on a bipartisan basis on an issue that’s so dear to our heart. And I am offended. It doesn’t diminish my wanting to work with you in the future, but I mean, Sen. Inhofe was going to go to the floor and object to committees meeting today if this happened,” [Boxer] says.
Man, there's just something about global warming that immediately crawls up Inhofe's ass and transforms him from a mild-mannered asshat to a full blown fucking putz.

Sorry, James, but there will be no waaaaaaaaahmbulance picking you up today. Your miserable shit self will have to sit and take the now infamous Boxer Smackdown every time you open your piehole. And you'll like it. Asshole.

Open Wide...

Failures

Oh my fucking God, this article by Sally Ann Voak is precious. It's a nearly perfect distillation of every dumbassed myth and stereotype about fat people, with a heapin' helpin' of woefully ignorant judgment. I kinda want to bronze it, it's so perfect. (By which I mean, it might be triggering or infuriating to some, but it's so over-the-top, it was seriously the best laff I've had since someone guessed that The Rotund is a size 12/14.)

It was really, really hard for me to pick just one favorite line, what with the fact that she says flat out there is no such thing as a happy fat person -- because it's impossible to look at a fat body and like what you see -- except, well okay, somebody like Dawn French might be able to cope better than some, but she is STILL NOT HAPPY.

Seriously. She really wrote that. (I can't wait to see how Liss responds.) As Dave Barry would say, however annoyingly, I am not making this up.

Nor am I making up the new-on-me fact that there is such a thing as a "Slimming Award," and Sally Ann Voak decides who gets them. Or that she's "stunned" when her former award-winners regain. Or that she believes more people are getting fat because it's acceptable now.

But none of that gets QOTD status. No, that honor belongs to this line, which made me snarf so hard I peed a little:

The fact that I have failed in my almost evangelical mission to slim the nation actually dawned on me one sunny afternoon three years ago in Bromley, Kent.

For real. On one sunny afternoon in Bromley, Kent, she realized for the first time that she had not, in fact, single-handedly slimmed the nation.

Poor pumpkin.

You've got to read it. I can't even do all the lunacy justice.

And if you find yourself nodding along with anything she says, we seriously need to talk.

(Thanks to reader Louise and somebody else -- one of the Kates? -- for sending me this one.)

Open Wide...

The House vs. MoveOn.org

The House voted to condemn the MoveOn.org ad by a margin of 341-79.

I'm so proud to see our elected representatives fight so hard to make America safe from bad puns in print advertising.

Crossposted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime

The Bay City Roller Show



More Sid & Marty Krofft awesomeness.

I don't know when this show aired, but I'm
going to guess on S-A-T-U-R-D-A-Y mornings!

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

What was your favorite movie when you were a little kid, the one you watched a thousand times and of which you never tired?

There are definitely a couple of films that come to immediately to my mind for this one: the Star Wars trilogy, the Indiana Jones trilogy, Goonies, The Black Stallion, Dragonslayer, The Wizard of Oz... It's hard to choose just one—although, if I had to bet money on which I watched the most, it was probably the Star Wars films, because, ya know, LEIA!!!



Bunhead, circa 1982

Open Wide...

Guessing Game

Apropos of a great post by Sweet Machine over at my place, my friend The Rotund has issued a challenge to the internet: guess her height and weight.


Nobody's got it right yet, so I wanted to see what Shakers have to say. The culture would have us believe that 200 lbs. is -- as Joy Nash puts it -- breathtaking, 350 lbs. is virtually immobile, and any woman over 150 is a cow, full stop. And as Sweet Machine points out, since so many of us lie about our weights, we have no idea what X lbs. actually looks like.

So what do you think? Just how Rotund is the Rotund?

She and I will both post the answer tomorrow.

Open Wide...

Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment Passes with Lots of Help from Democrats

I'm absolutely fucking sick:

The Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment—which ratchets up the confrontation with Iran by calling for the designation of its Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops—just passed overwhelmingly, 76-22.
The text of the amendment states that "the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization...and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists," which prompted opponent of the amendment, Jim Webb (D-VA) to note: "At best, it's a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."

Nonetheless, the amendment passed overwhelmingly, with the help of plenty of Dems, including Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, just for a start. (Obama didn't vote.) Because I'm evidently living in Bizarro World, my Democratic Senator, Evan Bayh, voted for it, while my Republican Senator, Dick Lugar, was one of only two Republicans who voted against it. (The other was Chuck Hagel, of course.)

I just don't even know what to say about this mess. It's exactly this kind of asinine, belligerent posturing that empowers the Iranian mullahs and makes life eminently more difficult for moderate Iranian reformers who don't support the mullahs and who don't support Ahmadinejad and who also don't want to fight a war with America.

Oh, and I guess the Democrats haven't noticed that America doesn't want a war with Iran, either. Otherwise, their decision to give Bush carte blanche to pursue his neverending war is inexplicably stupid.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"Childrens do learn."President Bush, today, at an event supporting his No Child Left Behind educational initiative.

Open Wide...

Apple, Meet Tree

From TPM:

Here are the latest fundraising tallies, as of the end of September, from the Dem and Republican committees in charge of 2008 House races:

DCCC:
In the bank: $22.1 million

Debt: $3.1 million

Total: $19 million

NRCC:
In the bank: $1.6 million

Debt: $4 million

Total: -$2.4 million
Funny how the NRCC economic model looks similar to someone else I know. Keep borrowing till it burns, bitchez!

Open Wide...

Caption This Photo



"Kanye West doesn't care about you."

U.S. President George W. Bush talks with children from Public School 76 after giving a progress report on his Administration's No Child Left Behind program at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York September 26, 2007. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES)

Open Wide...

Awesomeness

Way to go, Harvey (IL) Police Department:

Cook County law-enforcement officials Tuesday announced indictments in two more cold-case murders stemming from a raid on the Harvey Police Department this year, and said they also are investigating about 200 rape kits found in the suburb's evidence vault, many of which were never sent to the state crime lab.
Some of the evidence goes back a decade. At least one cold rape case of the approximately 50 with viable DNA evidence has also now led to charges based on the recovered kits.

The article (quite rightly) talks about how justice has been elusive for the victims because of the languishing rape kits. What it doesn't mention is how many other victims have been created by the rapists never brought to justice for wont of laziness and incompetence.

But what we really need to be talking about is how none of this would be a problem if only women would start playing a part in their own safety.

Open Wide...

Because "Go Fuck Yourself" Isn't Particularly Enlightening

Jessica points to an article by Comment is Free blogger David Cox called Feminism's Rape Fallacy that will, possibly, drive you batshit insane—unless you're a rape apologist, natch. (The comments certainly will, so consider yourselves warned.) You know you're in trouble when you see "Might a supposed victim's behaviour indeed have seemed to imply consent?" asked as a serious question (imply consent?!), and it only gets worse from there, as Cox invokes the old "you've got to protect your cunt like we menfolk protect our property" chestnut, and then erects a strawfeminist who "perpetuat[es] the idea that women have no part to play in securing their own safety" only to knock her down.

I have a couple responses to this article.

1. I just adore how Cox puts forth his idea that women should be more responsible as if no one's ever fucking said that before, as if no one has ever suggested that the burden of rape prevention should be on women. (And as if women aren't socialized from birth to be inimately familiar with rape prevention, from their behavior to their clothing choices to their attitude, etc. etc. etc.) Hardly a week goes by that I don't read an article saying the same goddamned thing, whether women are being admonished to "learn common sense" or "be more responsible" or "be aware of barroom risks" or "avoid these places" or "don't dress this way" or whatfuckingever. If Cox wants to make a serious contribution to a conversation about rape prevention, he could try writing something that answers this question: Why is it always more important to lecture women on what they should be doing to avoid rape than to talk to men about the fact that they do not have the right to women's bodies without express consent?

2. The whole rape-burglary comparison ("We keep our valuables out of sight") needs to die a swift and preferably painful death. As I've said before, as charming as it is to see the wanton and unwanted abuse of my body compared to property theft, I honestly can't even begin to convey how much you don't get it if you can construe a woman just existing with "keeping valuables in plain sight." That defenders of the "rape aversion advice rooted in women's behavior restriction" inevitably rely on the "getting robbed" comparison tells us two things. One: It shows how deeply ingrained the notion of women's bodies as property is. Comparing a woman's genitals to "unhidden valuables" is laughable in both practical and intrinsic ways, and yet such associations are routinely cited with not a hint of awareness at their patent absurdity. Two: It illustrates how far removed men are from the real threat of rape. Invoking property theft is evidently the closest thing many men can imagine to being forcibly subjected to an assault on one's sex organs, which has got to be a lovely world in which to live.

3. Cox, and all the other victim-blaming rape apologists hiding behind this "feminists aren't helping rape victims" bullshit, can talk to me about what "feminists" should or shouldn't be doing on behalf of rape victims when they've spent as much time as "feminists" have talking about women who are raped on the job and denied captivity benefit for union members for not being held hostage long enough, who are threatened with jail for not wanting to watch the video of her rape, who are threatened with jail because her case didn't result in a conviction, whose rape cases are dropped for lack of a translator, when they've spent as much time as "feminists" have talking about laws that say women can't withdraw consent after sex begins, about judges who blame children for their own rapes, about cops who are rapists, about ministers who blame their underage victims, about women's magazines that engage in preemptive victim-blaming, about the media refusing to call rapists what they are, when they've spent as much time as "feminists" talking about rape being treated as a compliment, about how women are forced to submit to all manner of absolutely hilarious rape jokes, about every last unmitigatingly infuriating detail of the rape culture in which women must walk and talk and live and breathe every fucking day and the perpetuation of which is often integral to male-exclusive bonding.

4. Other than that, I'll just repeat the same shit I always say, like a damn broken record, until it penetrates the heads that still haven't yet managed to wrap their minds around the concept: Left to my own devices, I never would have been raped. The rapist was really the key component to the whole thing. I was sober; hardly scantily clad (another phrase appearing once in the article), I was wearing sweatpants and an oversized t-shirt; I was at home; my sexual history was, literally, nonexistent—I was a virgin; I struggled; I said no. There have been times since when I have been walking home, alone, after a few drinks, wearing something that might have shown a bit of leg or cleavage, and I wasn't raped. The difference was not in what I was doing. The difference was the presence of a rapist.

More recommended reading for Mr. Cox:

Auguste: Consent: Possibly the Easiest Concept in the History of the World

Jill: The Rape of Mr. Smith

Open Wide...

So Much for Mom and Apple Pie

While Phyllis Schlafly and Concerned Women for America rant on about the dangers of feminism and the "vulnerability of motherhood", their lordly, masculine protectors continue to champion fiscal policies that destroy rural economies, moving more and more rural mothers out of the home and into low-wage jobs and higher levels of poverty.

"A new study by the Carsey Institute shows that rural mothers with children under age 6 have higher employment rates than their urban counterparts, but have higher poverty rates, lower wages, and lower family income."
Rural working mothers also face serious difficulties in locating quality child-care, and are less likely to have access to child-care with organized learning activities built in, which, in turn, increases the likelihood of their kids having difficulty in school, which increases the possibility of them remaining in poverty.

Oh, and at the first National Rural Assembly in Chantilly, VA this Summer, not a single republican candidate bothered to participate.

Compassionate Conservatism -- The Oxymoron that keeps on giving. (Me. The. Creeps.)

(H/T to Shaker Kate217)

Open Wide...

Weirdo

Today's Opinion Journal has a piece on Giuliani's "odd behavior," which begins by referring to his decision to accept a call from his wife in the middle of a speech to the NRA last Friday:


Transcript: Just think of the language of it; the language of it is the people [phone rings] shall be secure— Let's see now. This is my wife calling, I think. [answers phone] Hello, dear. I'm talking- I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now; would you like to say hello? [laughs] I love you, and I'll give you a call as soon as I'm finished, okay? Okay, have a safe trip. Bye-bye. Talk to you later, dear; I love you. [hangs up phone to applause] It's a lot better that way. [???] Well, this is one of the great blessings of the modern age, being always available. Or maybe it isn't, I'm not sure. [laughs]

What a douchehound.

Anyway, the OJ goes on to note that, despite his campaign's assertions that it was a "candid and spontaneous moment," Giuliani has taken calls during speeches on other occasions: "During one event in Oklahoma, we're told he took two calls, at least one from his wife, and chatted for several minutes as the audience waited." And it's not like this stuff is well-received:

"That was just weird," one NRA audience member told the New York Post about the phone interruption.
"Weird" is a word that seems to follow Guiliani around quite a bit—and not in the good way that many of the proudly weird weirdos of Shakesville, myself included, would certainly defend. Steve Benen has a post today on Giuliani’s ‘weirdness factor’, in which he links to a New York Times piece in which more of Giuliani's weird behavior is detailed.

While rattling the cup in London [last week], he told reporters that he was "probably one of the four or five best-known Americans in the world." Oh? And who, someone asked, also makes that rarefied list? "Bill Clinton, Hillary," he replied before aides hustled him away.

Offhand, we can think of any number of Americans who might be more famous worldwide. President Bush, anyone? How about Muhammad Ali, Madonna, Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey?
Al Gore, Colin Powell, Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, any one of several dozen movie stars…?

The real revelation was Mr. Giuliani’s sense of his own importance. It was on display again in his N.R.A. speech. Freshly returned from London, he told the audience, "It’s nice to be here in England." Then, seeing an American flag, he said, "Ah, America."

He meant it as a joke about the mental scrambling that the rigors of campaigning can cause. But the underlying assumption was that people were so focused on him that they knew his travel schedule by heart. Many in the audience didn’t get it.

They found it weird, just as some New Yorkers did when Mr. Giuliani used to begin speeches with raspy imitations of Marlon Brando as Don Corleone—as if everyone knew "The Godfather" as well as he did. Often enough, people wondered if he had a sore throat.

The weirdness factor has a long history.
Some of which is also listed, including the time Giuliani "squealed in delight as Donald Trump nuzzled his fake breasts," and the time he "told reporters that he was leaving his wife—his second wife—before he bothered to tell her." And there's plenty more that isn't mentioned: Giuliani making fun of a Parkinson's patient, the infamous ferret tape during which he endlessly berates a caller for disagreeing with the city's policy on banning ferrets, his completely bizarre (and racist?) homage to the Lion King, and on and on and on.

It occurs to me that the more I know about Giuliani—inflated sense of self-importance, a tendency to ramble incoherently when he most needs to shut it, his completely misguided sense of what's "cool," the staged "spontaneity," the compulsion to perform—the more he reminds me of someone…



Rudy Giuliani: David Brent, with less kindness and a mean fascist streak

Open Wide...

Biden His Time

So I'm reading Chris Cillizza's The Fix, and there's an item about Joe Biden "putting all his chips on Iowa" and "dispatching almost all of his senior national staff to the state for the final months before the state's caucuses" and how Iowa is "likely his last best chance to build momentum around his campaign" which currently has him polling around 2-5%.

And I was struck with the realization that the idea of Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee is so patently absurd that I can't even believe he considers himself a serious candidate, which is probably why I can't wrap my head around the fact that he even has senior campaign staff, no less that he's sending them all to Iowa.

Open Wide...