"She Must Be Destroyed"

Bless you, Julia Keller, for giving us this wonderful piece in today's Chicago Tribune, about the untold story of this primary: Devil in a pantsuit or the demonization of Hillary Clinton.

When the doctor checks to see if the patient is still breathing, it's disgust, not compassion, that leaks out between his syllables: "You couldn't kill her with an ax," he sneers.

That patient—the wide-hipped, unwieldy woman at the heart of Dorothy Parker's 1929 short story "Big Blonde"—is a familiar image in books, films, songs, comic books, TV series, video games and, now, politics: The woman as monster. The over-large, over-ambitious, overbearing creature who irritates everybody, the death-defying witch who just won't go away—and who therefore must be destroyed.

...Revealed in the coverage of Clinton's campaign is the persistence of an ancient and distasteful cultural theme: the powerful, ambitious woman as cackling fiend, as fantastically terrifying ghoul threatening civilization. And because this creature (or "she-devil," as MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews called Clinton) is not human, the only solution is to kill it. Not just derail its career—obliterate it. Smash it to smithereens. Vaporize it. Leave not a trace of the foul beast behind.

Hence the appalling preponderance of violent, death-infused imagery in conversations about Clinton, smuggled into otherwise ordinary political discourse like a knife taped on the bottom of a cake plate...

Keller goes on to detail much of the cast-as-inhuman and violent-death-to-the-monster imagery that we've detailed here, over the course of now nearly 100 posts, and notes, quite rightly, that, beyond the "normal" othering of sexism or racism, this is "something different and more sinister," because it is, cumulatively, "an unprecedented public call—albeit metaphorically, but still violently and persistently—for a person's death."

Death, death, death. The steady, depressing drumbeat continues. What these commentators seem to seek is not just a proud female's withdrawal from a political contest—but her outright annihilation. They evoke the nightmarish vision of a commanding woman intent on destruction—thus she must be destroyed before she can launch her evil scheme.

Hmm...a reluctance to give Clinton the room to drop out with dignity and on her own terms because that just wouldn't be humiliating enough. Now where have I heard that before?

What makes Keller's piece so interesting is that she's not a partisan. She's not even a political writer. Keller is a cultural critic, and her piece is filed in the Tempo section, which is where you'll find, among other things, the funny pages. And Keller, while tracing the history of the monstrous women through our cultural history via literature and film, makes the point that she is teasing out a cultural meme perfectly clear:

These observations, by the way, have nothing to do with the issue of Clinton's or Obama's continued candidacies. That's a subject to be debated on the editorial pages, not here. This corner is reserved for cultural imagery, for a spirited exploration of the way a shared belief or preoccupation ultimately manifests itself in our entertainment products. Such an idea is like a splinter driven so deep, resting undisturbed for so long, that for a time you may not even be aware of it. Then slowly, slowly, it begins to work its way to the surface. One day, the sharp tip breaks the skin, and you see what's been down there all along, spreading its poison.

It's a distinction that is lost on every person who's accused me of being in the bag for Clinton. Feminism/womanism is a cultural critique first and foremost, and, although Chris Matthews calling Clinton a she-devil piques my political ire in the same way pernicious media misrepresentations of Al Gore did, the way the MSM's disfavor toward Democratic candidates always does, but that Matthews specifically goes for misogynist attacks against Clinton is not a political concern for me nearly as much as it's a cultural concern, akin to Jay Leno's homophobia and sexism and racism, David Letterman's transphobia, Adam Carolla's sexism and homophobia and fat hatred and transphobia, Bill Maher's sexism and rape jokes, and on and on and on. Our media is a giant tool of the kyriarchy, and, while there are certainly exceptions (we've spoken before in a great QotD thread about films that opened our minds about something), the MSM is largely little more than a jack-booted thug enforcing the biases that protect existent privilege, and politics is only a tiny part of that.

The Sexism Watch has way more to do with the larger culture than it does to do with the subculture of political discourse. Keller's piece clarifies beautifully how a critique of the rhetorical cudgels being wielded against Clinton is a cultural issue, not a specifically political one. And thusly, it underlines once again how a failure to address what's being done to Clinton is not justifiable because she's not your candidate, or because she voted for the AUMF, or because because because...

Not if you care about women and the means of their subjugation. Not if you're a progressive.

Truly, I cannot urge this more fervently, read the whole thing.

[H/T to Shaker Julie, via email.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Hillary Sexism Watch, Part Ninety-Goddamn-Four

Part Ninety-Goddamn-Four—and, btw, for those who think I'm actively looking for these stories, the reality is that I'm only picking the most egregious examples of what I find and/or what are sent to me; if I blogged them all, I'd never blog anything else—was sent to me by contributor Kenny Blogginz and comes care of Barbara Ehrenreich in AlterNet, under the tremendous title "Hillary Revealed That Women Can Be Nasty, Deceptive Candidates Too" and the awesome subtitle "Hillary Clinton smashed the myth of innate female moral superiority in the worst possible way—by demonstrating female moral inferiority."

Now, ignoring for a moment the veracity of its claims, the title itself essentially says, "Women are human beings, too," as if that's news, while the subtitle mendaciously implies it might be feminist supporters of Clinton who promulgate "the myth of innate female moral superiority," though the only people I've ever heard promoting that shit are conservative sexists trying to hold women responsible for society's ills ("Children need their mothers at home") or their own safety ("Women can't dress provocatively if they don't want to be raped because men can't help themselves"), which are the types of ideas roundly rejected by feminists.

Ehrenreich's (extremely questionable) feminism as represented in this piece, which seems based on the premise that women are biologically disposed to virtue and women who aren't virtuous (by her definition) are to be subjected to wanton misogyny, is certainly nothing I recognize. Indeed, it is the precise opposite of the basic tenet of sex equality, as she trots out a slew of sex-based insults, comparing the Senator to Abu Ghraib torturer Lynndie England, notes Clinton's "visible anger...can't all have been PMS," and says "Clinton didn't just break through the 'glass floor,' she set a new low for floors in general, and would, if she could have got within arm's reach, have rubbed the broken glass into Obama's face."

And, after all that, the piece culminates with:

As a generation of young feminists realizes, the values once thought to be uniquely and genetically female -- such as compassion and an aversion to violence -- can be found in either sex, and sometimes it's a man who best upholds them.

I don't think there are many feminists of any age who need an evil caricature of Hillary Clinton, or even a list of her real flaws, to convince them women don't have the market cornered on virtue or that there aren't men who uphold the values of compassion and peace. But I suppose it's fun to pretend that there are, when there's no reason for a screed against Clinton without the pretense.

[Hillary Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five, Eighty Six, Eighty-Seven, Eighty-Eight, Eighty-Nine, Ninety, Ninety-One, Ninety-Two, Ninety-Three.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Hillary Sexism Watch, Part Ninety-Goddamn-Three

What's wrong with this picture?

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton departs from the service entrance after a reception on Capitol Hill in Washington May 14, 2008. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters. Link.)

Stay classy, Reuters.

[Hillary Sexism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five, Eighty Six, Eighty-Seven, Eighty-Eight, Eighty-Nine, Ninety, Ninety-One, Ninety-Two.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Duh of the Day

Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild: "Same-sex lovin' is common in hundreds of species, scientists say."

Yes, we know, said millions of gay animals, including gay whales, more gay whales, gay flamingos, gay penguins, and one very sexy gay dolphin.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Ted Kennedy Rushed to Hospital

Senator Ted Kennedy, 76, has been rushed to the hospital after reportedly suffering a seizure and exhibiting stroke-like symptoms. He reported suffered a second seizure on the way to the hospital.

His spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter says initial tests suggest he did not have a stroke: "Senator Kennedy is resting comfortably, and it is unlikely we will know anything more for the next 48 hours," she said.

Get well soon, Senator.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Why I Won't Vote For Either of Them

. . . . . . regardless of the outcome in Denver.

I will only vote . . . for both of them.

After a brief set of standard disclaimers, I will enumerate some of the reasons that this is so for me.

Disclaimers: I am not, and have never been a “Clinton Supporter” or an “Obama Supporter”. Neither of them was "my" candidate, and I have equally thorny problems with both of them for various reasons. I am not, and have never claimed to be a “pundit”, and I steer clear of most political discussions on this and other blogs because I’m too fucking old not to see that most of it is just the same old rehash. When I have weighed in, it is usually on issues of privilege, oppression, and the need for social change.

Now, on with the show.

As I have said several times in comments – if the DNC doesn’t come away from Denver with and Obama/Clinton ticket, or a Clinton/Obama ticket, I will tear up my registration card and wash my hands of the Democratic Party forever, because it will be clear to me that the Democratic Party has no interest in actually electing a Democrat as POTUS.

Here are my reasons for insisting upon a dual ticket of rivals who are within 2% of one another in popular vote, and within 5% of one another in pledged delegates:

1. In order to be effective, the first Democratic White House in eight years needs a huge public mandate in November – a clear win. (Hell, the Dems may need that mandate just to win the General Election at all, if the RNC attempts to steal votes. Again.)
• No matter how much you love your candidate, it doesn’t change the fact that neither Obama nor Clinton have such a mandate sewn up – or the fact that each alone cannot sweep the GE without a substantial portion of the other’s base. (As has been said so many times during this primary season: Do the math.)
  
• No matter how much you may hate the “not-your” candidate, the facts directly above don’t change just because you feel pissy about them – AND – there is a very real chance that the strengths of each would serve as an excellent counter to the weaknesses of the other in strategizing against the inevitable Republican attacks which will be launched during the run up to the General. (RNC: “B-b-b-but . . . experience!!!” Dems: “Clinton.” RNC: “B-b-b-but . . . . in bed with the old guard!!!!” Dems: “Obama.” Yes, this sucks and it’s probably not even true, but welcome to politics, kids.)
2. In order to be effective, the first Democratic White House in eight years needs a solid Democratic majority in Congress, and if disgruntled Obama or Clinton supporters stay home, down-ticket elections would be negatively impacted.
3. It would scare the living hell out of the RNC.
   

Last night I was having a conversation with an Obama supporter. (It was basically like having the entire MSM live at my kitchen table, as his talking points were exclusively gathered from the radio that he listens to all day, every day, at his carpentry job. Wev. Saves me watching the "news", anyway.)

When I suggested that a dual ticket is really the only logical option for the Democrats in November, he said: “Oh, that will never happen. After all the ugliness? After everything Clinton has done, it could never happen.”

I replied that when I view the current Cirque Du Merde that is US politics, the historical comparative which comes most readily to mind is post-republican Rome. In the days of the freshly-minted Caesars, there were many ceremonies of "public reconciliation" in which two bitter enemies performed air-kisses through gritted teeth – often to put an end to public rioting and violence which had flared up between their factions.

I went on to say (and I believe this with every fiber of my being) that if Clinton and Obama aren’t able to swallow their bile and do what’s right for the nation, then neither of them deserve to be President of the United States.

The job of the next POTUS/Veep combo is going to be a daunting one. As the new administration begins clean-up of Bush/Cheney clusterfuckitude, the NeoCons will almost certainly attempt to displace responsibility for the consequences of the last eight years onto a new president, who will face extremely difficult choices (especially if there is not strong support in Congress) about the war, the economy, and our crumbling infrastructure.

In order to be effective, that administration will need a tri-fecta of Congressional support, a sweeping public mandate, and personal fortitude/focus, the like of which has not been seen in this country for decades.

As galling as it may be to Obama/Clinton supporters, and to the candidates themselves, they need each other – and pretending otherwise is just plain stupid.

I am a Democrat, not a Dumocrat. I will not vote for the Stoooooopid Ticket.

Full stop.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Lost Salon and Open Thread

This week in ZOMG Lost, fellow insanely obsessed Lostie Brad Reed of Sadly, No!—who also has the dubious distinction of writing possibly the only post in history to claim I make sense—asked me if I'd like to do a mini-salon on Lost. To which, since I love talking about Lost more than just about any other topic, I promptly answered, ";lkajh;fwhbelfj;ka;lfa;wegfaw yes!" [As always, spoilers reside herein.] Enjoy!

* * *

BR: As a feminist, what's your take on how women are portrayed in the show?

M²: Well, in my typical way, I'll be all mushy about it and say it's a mixed bag. Generally, the female characters are more well-rounded than just about any other female characters on television, especially in ensemble casts—but, let's be honest, that wasn't exactly a rigorous challenge, lol. It's interesting that pretty much the only competition is in sci-fi stuff...and Lost looks more and more sci-fi-esque with each season.

It's further interesting that the show looks increasingly to be making an oblique but advanced commentary about the patriarchy. Daddy issues abound for both women and men—and it's always wise to remember that the etymology of patriarchy is "father," not "man." The Lost fathers (Benry, Widmore, Paik, Shephard the Elder) are archetypical patriarchs—rich, powerful, well-educated, well-connected, straight, and white, with the exception of Mr. Paik, who's in the ethnic majority of his country of residence. It is within the battle among these patriarchs that everyone else is caught; it is to their whims, and their arbitrary rules and preferences, that everyone else is subjected. That's clearly framed as Not a Good Thing, which rather suggests a feminist critique of the patriarchy.

Also see, as examples, the dim view taken of Jin's oppression of Sun, or how every time Jack undermines Kate's autonomy or tells her to stay behind, etc., it ends up biting him (and often the whole group) in the ass. The more possessive he is of women, the worse things get for him. When he pressured Bai Ling to tattoo him against her will, he got the shit beat out of him. There are repercussions for his disrespect and failure to treat women as his equals…

The bit where it was discussed that Widmore "changed the rules" and went after Ben's daughter, for example, can also quite easily be read as a critique of chivalry, where there's been a "gentleman's agreement" to not brutally mistreat "other men's women," even as those women are still oppressed within their own spaces by their ostensible protectors. We've seen Penny and Alex be manipulated and hurt by their own (chivalrous) fathers, but their protection from external danger was part of the agreement made by the men who hurt them.

One of the things I think Lost also does very well, actually, is show that heroism isn't always "big," or what we define as traditionally action-oriented "male" heroics. One of the most heroic moments for me has always been when Sawyer tells Jack about having met Christian in a bar. That level of emotionalism was obviously not easy for Sawyer, but he was facing death and knew telling Jack was a now or never proposition, so he sucked it up and did it. Sawyer isn't becoming a better person, and looking ever more like he's got the destiny of a tragic hero, because he physically rescued Claire, for example, but because he thought to rescue her in the first place. The character arcs have been, since day one, about self-reflection and emotional growth—and getting un-Lost via empathic expansion is a decidedly progressive concept, if not a strictly feminist one. (As is de-othering "Others.")

So, all that said, I view a lot of the complaints that the female characters' storylines are too limited through a prism of patriarchal critique. Meaning, I think the limitations are least partially deliberate—and I hope (and actually presume) there's going to be some serious ZOMG women rockingness before this thing is through.

The little surprise that Sun pulled on Daddy Paik last night was a good omen in that direction.

I'm really disappointed Rousseau is dead, btw.

BR: The actress who plays Rousseau apparently asked to be written out of the show. They didn't really want to kill her.

M²: Ah. Same thing that happened with Mr. Eko. Too bad. I really liked both of them.

BR: Personally speaking, I think Lost does a pretty good job of making its women dynamic and interesting, although none of the characters is nearly as awesome as Starbuck in BSG—but I digress.

Your point about forms of bravery that aren't traditionally seen as "masculine" is well taken. I think one of the things I find so annoying about Jack a lot of the time is that he sees tromping off into the jungle as the only form of bravery that matters, even when it's completely counterproductive. This week was a perfect example—he could have done a lot more good for the people by doing what Daniel did and helping people get on the boat. But nope, that doesn't fit into his Heroic Jack image! I personally loved Sawyer's line about Jack not getting to die alone. The way Sawyer has developed as a character has been terrific.

Oh, and as for Sun's little trick on daddy, yes that was brilliant (although seemingly not realistic—how much money does Oceanic Airlines have to give these people???). My prediction is that she knows Jin is still alive on the Island and she's going to use all the resources in her father's company to find the Island again. Should be a pretty awesome set-up for the fifth season!

OK, so let's move on to the obvious question for next week: Who do you think is in the coffin?

M²: It seems to me it's got to be Michael or Walt, and I lean toward Michael. The scene strongly suggested it was in a predominantly black neighborhood—in which, as we've now seen, Michael's mother lives. The coffin looked small to me, which made me think Walt at first, but maybe that was just a trick of the camera. What makes me lean toward Michael is that no one else showed up to the showing and Jack said the person in the coffin is neither friend nor family, which seemed rather too cold a response if it were Walt.

There's also the subplot about how the Island won't let Michael die until his work is finished. His being in a coffin is the logical ending to that subplot.

BR: I actually don't think Michael is in the coffin, and here's why: I think it would be something of a cop-out since most fans don't care much about Michael anyway. I think that whoever is in that coffin is going to be someone really big that will completely jolt the audience—think Locke, Sayid or Desmond. We already know that Ben is after Penny—what if he has Sayid take her out and then either Desmond kills himself or kills Sayid in revenge? It's all too brutally depressing to contemplate, since Sayid and Des are, along with Ben, Hurley and Juliet, two of my favorite characters on the show. But I think they're going to pull Something Big on us for this one.

M²: My first question for you is: Is Claire dead?

BR: There's a lot of evidence to support the idea that she is. No one could have survived that house explosion, and Miles—who can see and interact with dead people—seemed particularly fascinated with her.

Yet at the same time, I think there's something else going on here. The fact that the Island/Jacob specifically sent Christian Shephard to retrieve her says to me that she has some important role to play on the show; after all, you didn't see Nikki and Paulo get that kind of celebrity treatment when they kicked it. Remember the message from Charlie that Hurley gave to Jack: "You're not supposed to raise him," with the "him" very likely being Aaron. So if Jack and Kate aren't supposed to raise Aaron, who is? My guess is that the baby belongs back on the island with Claire. And since it's Claire's destiny to raise him, the Island isn't letting her die.

As an aside, I hope they pursue this storyline vigorously throughout the remaining seasons, because Claire is one of the most criminally under-used characters on the show. It's sorta understandable in a way, because she can't go tromping off into the jungle with the baby in tow, but I'm glad they decided to give her something new to work with.

M²: LOL @ Nikki and Paulo. Nice thought about the Island keeping her alive to raise Aaron. I've been wondering if Aaron is "special" in the same way Walt is "special," and whether that specialness is related to Richard Alpert's seeming immortality. I'm getting an X-Men mutant humans vibe—which would not be an unwelcome development at all, IMO.

On that note, your next question is: Why do you think Richard Alpert hasn't aged?

BR: My thinking on this is that Alpert is one of the island's original inhabitants that Ben referenced in his first flashback episode last year. These original inhabitants, it seems, were responsible for some of the older artifacts on the island, such as the ruins where Ben tried to get Locke to kill his father and, most crucially, the four-toed statue. We still have no clue as to the nature of these native islanders, but my personal guess is there's something not-quite-totally human about them, hence the four toes on the statue they made.

So basically, I think Richard's immortality is related to the fact that he's not-quite-human. Those who are like him—and Ben said for whatever reason last year that there were very few of them left—for whatever reason are immune from the time-space restrictions that we mortals must live with.

I think this is going to be something they'll explore in a lot more depth in the last two seasons, since the deeper mysteries on the Island seem to be going progressively backward in time: from the DHARMA Initiative to the Black Rock all the way back to the ancient civilization that produced the four-toed statue.

Your take?

M²: I'm totally with you. Good recall on the four-toed statue. I'm going to stick with my mutant human theory. Also: Mama Shakes says she's going to be pissed if aliens have anything to do with mysteries of Lost. Heh.

BR: I'll be pissed if it's a little-green-men-from-Mars sorta thing, but I like the idea of the Island existing within a wormhole in a parallel dimension where people have developed with only four toes. Oh, and speaking of wormholes and parallel dimensions, what do you think Locke will find in the Orchid?

M²: Ooh, good one. I've got no bloody clue! But I can tell you what I want him to find—I want it to be an old Atari 2600 joystick. Regular directional capabilities are enhanced by pushing the red button, which allows you to pop the island into another place on the time continuum.

BR: Personally, I'd like it to be a mix of the old Nintendo Robbie Robot and the Power Glove.

Lindelof and Cuse actually released an Orchid orientation film last year as a teaser for the season:


You can see that there are two #15 Bunnies in the film, and Marvin Candle is very, very freaked out to see them. My take: in the future they sent Bunny 15 backward in time, and he popped up in the past right before they were about to conduct the experiment (don't think about it too hard—your head will hurt). And clearly, having the same two entities from different times in the same room together is dangerous—think about Marty McFly avoiding his future self in Back to the Future II. Whatever is in the Orchid, it has to do with moving matter through space-time. I also think it's how Ben popped up in the middle of the desert a couple episodes back. To exact revenge on Widmore, he put himself in the Orchid and zapped himself into the future.

M²: Okay, final question: Why doesn't Sawyer leave the island?

BR: This one's easy for me: Sawyer is just a better person on the Island. Even though Sawyer was a dirtbag in his off-island life, part of him was always really uncomfortable with it. The Island offered him an opportunity for tabula rasa, as Jack noted in the first season. Why the hell would Sawyer want to go back to his life of being a skuzzy con man? On the Island, he's respected, appreciated and the ladies seem to really dig him.

I think my big question is less "Why doesn't Sawyer leave the island," but why the hell does Kate not want to stay? Even though she does get off the hook in the future for all those crimes she committed, she doesn't know about that now. What's true for Sawyer is equally true for Kate—far from being a criminal on the island, she's one of its respected leaders.

M²: What put Kate on the wrong side of the law in the first place was her desire to the right thing. Unlike Sawyer, who generally always knew (pre-Island) whether he was doing the right thing or the wrong thing, Kate's calculations were sometimes off; she thought she was doing her ma a solid by blowing up papa! She didn't quite get for a long time why she was wrong; now she does, and that same old desire to do the right thing means she's got to go back and face the music, whatever the consequences. She needs to make amends in a way Sawyer doesn't. So…yeah, her leaving doesn't perplex me—but her shacking up with Dr. Drunky Possesso does!

BR: Welp, this was really fun! I'm always happy to find fellow geeks to nerd out about this stuff with! I'll send you some questions for next week's finale! Namaste!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Bravo, WaPo

With publication of Kathleen Parker's appallingly homophobic and misogynist screed against the Democrats, you've demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that you have the same profound failure of judgment and contempt for your readers as does the New York Times every time they print the latest pile of poop masquerading as journalism produced by Maureen Dowd.

Congrats on the big league bumblefuckery. Please go fuck yourselves.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

The Virtual Pub Is Open

TFIF, Shakers!

Belly up to the bar
and name your poison!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

One Day (Plus Time Served) for Murder

by Matttbastard

As Liss mentioned earlier, my coblogger, Isabel, points to this rocks glass full of of straight-no-chaser WHAT. THE. FUCK:

The day after he admitted killing a woman and dumping her body on a rural road, Wayne Ryczak was a free man.

Judge Stephen Glithero sentenced the 55-year-old St. Catharines [Ontario, Canada] construction worker to one day in jail Thursday for the death of 29-year-old Stephine Beck.

The one-day sentence is in addition to time Ryczak already served in jail since his March 5, 2007 arrest - time the judge said was equivalent to 30 months.

"Devastated, we're devastated," Beck's mother, Alice Dort, said from her home in Nova Scotia shortly after a police detective broke the news by phone. "This is just so unbelievable."

"There's no justice. None whatsoever. I'm just so disgusted."

[...]

"She was a very loving person," Dort said of her daughter. "She had a heart of gold. Her lifestyle, to me right now, this whole thing has judged her on her lifestyle, not as a human being."

And what was Beck's "lifestyle"? Yep, she was a sex worker.

To continue:

Beck's partially naked body was found on the side of Seventh Avenue in Vineland around 6:30 a.m. on March 4, 2007. The cause of death was strangulation.

Ryczak was arrested the next day, after his neighbour told police she saw him struggling to stuff a woman's body into his hatchback.

He pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder, but guilty to manslaughter on Wednesday in Superior Court in St. Catharines.

In a rare move, Ryczak took the stand after his plea and claimed he acted in self-defence when he grabbed Beck by the throat.

Ryczak testified Beck attacked him with a brass lamp around 3:30 a.m. when he entered his trailer at 241 St. Paul St. West. He said he didn't know who she was, although she may have looked familiar.

It was during the struggle that Ryczak said he pushed Beck back and she collapsed on the couch, court heard. When he checked her nose, she wasn't breathing.

He panicked and loaded her into his vehicle.

Court heard Ryczak was known to use the services of prostitutes, but there was no evidence he engaged Beck, a sex-trade worker, in that capacity. He also used drugs, sometimes for days or weeks, but there was no evidence he took drugs that day.

[...]

...Ryczak's lawyer, Geoffrey Hadfield, argued what happened after Beck died was separate from the offence itself. Beck was unlawfully in Ryczak's home, probably with criminal intent, and it was in that context, he argued, that the death occurred.

Yes, it's quite obvious she was asking for it, and Ryczak's actions were entirely justified.

Wait—it gets better:

In sentencing Ryczak, the judge said he took into account Ryczak's remorse and the guilty plea at an early stage in the court process. The issue of self-defence could have been brought up at a trial, which would have left the Crown with the burden of proof. There could also be issues raised over the cause of death because of potentially lethal doses of cocaine in Beck's system, Glithero said.

Yes, she would have likely died anyway—Ryczak merely expedited the process.

Glithero noted Ryczak's mother said he was a good son and his boss testified he was a valued employee. Ryczak contributed to the community by serving on the city committee and was a former cub scout leader and minor league lacrosse coach, the judge said.

"In my opinion, he presents as a person with many admirable qualities," said Glithero, adding he has values of family, community and hard work.

Uh-huh—nothing screams "model citizen" quite like a drug abusing murderer who conspired to cover up his lethal actions and only came clean because he got caught in the act.

Alas, Isabel already has a fauxgressive in comments arguing that, based solely on the evidence presented (ie, pretending the fact that Stephine Beck was a sex worker didn't have a measurable impact on both the sentencing and the coverage) this sentence was fair.

A thought experiment: say a man ends up struggling with a middle-class HR generalist, one thing leads to another and—whoopsie!—he accidentally strangles her. So, he panics, decides that the only logical thing to do next is to pull up her shirt, pull down her pants, and dispose of the evidence. Then, after an eye witness notices him stuffing her dead body into the trunk of his car, he's arrested, but argues that it was all in self-defence (She was on drugs, trying to steal something! You know those HR generalists! The cocaine in her bloodstream would have killed her anyway, regardless of whether she was strangled her to death!). And the only reason he decided to cover up his actions, instead of immediately calling authorities, was because he was SO SCARED.

Does anyone honestly believe that the judge would have readily accepted a tale so convoluted even a staff writer for Matlock wouldn't have the gumption to throw it out during a brainstorming session? Would that same judge have rewarded Wayne Ryczak with a 1 day sentence (claiming that the time spent was the equivalent to 30 months, the official length of Ryczak's sentence) if Stephine Beck had been an HR generalist, and not a sex worker?

I seriously wonder.

Look, I’m a prison abolitionist; I believe the prison industrial complex and adversarial justice system are unfair, counterproductive, racist, classist, etc. and require radical transformation. But all that's beside the point (and is not one I wish to address atm). Within the strictures of the current Ontario criminal justice system, the leniency of this sentence is unbelievable—or all-too-believable, since Stephine Beck was a disposable victim.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Friday Cat Blogging

"Oh hai! Are you trying to work or sumpfink?"



"But I's so cute!"



"I am napping. Leave me be."



"Must I really slap you with the Fuzztacular Paw of Doom?"

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Bite in the Ass

Among McCain's long list of objectionable traits, starting with his infamously outrageous temper and ending with being a pandering bozo, is that when he's got no legitimate argument in his arsenal to use against a Democratic opponent, he has a tendency to use ancient misogynist slurs, as when he suggested that an Iraq War resolution introduced by Rep. Jack Murtha was a result of Murtha's being "too emotional."

Or as today, when Obama gave a speech criticizing Bush's appeasement shtick, which a McCain spokesman promptly denounced as a "hysterical diatribe."

Casting Democratic rivals as "girly men" through the use of overt sexist rhetoric, innuendo, and dog whistles is a classic strategy in the GOP playbook. This is something all Democrats, Democratic voters, and semi-conscious lefties should know.

Which makes the abject failure of so many of them to give the tiniest, microscopic shit about sexism during this primary so patently short-sighted, aside from unconscionable on an ethical level.

No matter which Democratic candidate goes into the general, misogyny's going to be used against them. And it would be a significantly less successful strategy if the Democrats were sweeping into the general on a cresting wave of misogyny-busting awesomeness, instead of having no goddamned leg to stand on.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Double-Amputee Sprinter Allowed to Pursue Olympic Qualification

Nice:

Oscar Pistorius, the double-amputee sprinter who was barred from able-bodied competition in January, will be allowed to pursue his dream of qualifying for the Olympic Games after an unexpected decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The Court, an international panel which has final say over legal matters in sport, overturned the International Association of Athletics Federations’ ban, ruling in effect that Pistorius' carbon fiber prosthetic blades do not give him an unfair advantage.

Originally, Pistorius' prosthetics were found to be "more efficient than a human ankle," giving him an unfair advantage. But his attorneys argued that the original investigation failed to consider "the issue of Oscar’s overall net advantage or disadvantage," an eminently reasonable argument, IMO. After all, we've all heard our whole lives how physical ability is only one part of being a successful athlete, and how vitally important attitude, self-perception, the ability to visualize winning, etc. etc. etc. are. Surely, what affect being a double-amputee competing against able-bodied athletes—and knowing there will always be people who think he doesn't belong there—has on the psychological component of Pistorius' game can't be measured, for good or ill.

In the past, I.A.A.F. spokesman Nick Davies has insisted that these matters can only be treated on a case by case basis with the burden of proof on the athletes to show that the prosthetics do not provide an unfair advantage.

"Unless there is adequate evidence to support that determination," [Pistorius' attorney] said. "Then the disabled should be allowed to compete."

Right on.

[H/T Zuzu.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Friday Blogaround

'Cuz bloggerz, like, totally rule!

Recommended Reading:

Isabel: Man Kills Prostitute, Gets Less Than 2 Years.

Chello: Beyond Rape: A Survivor's Story

Kevin: UC Berkeley Hamstrung by Budget Cuts

Jessica: NY High School: No male escort? No prom.

Amanda: She Writes Letters

Jorge: My Very Own Animal Planet

Mad Kane: George Who???

Leave your links in comments.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Nice.

I've been reading some of the California/Marriage articles, and I just had to share this little tidbit from this article:

I am hoping for invitations to some lavish gay beach weddings in the next few months, but at the end of the year, the gays who stage those weddings will still be filing separate 1040s. That's not going to change any time soon, since both John McCain and Barack Obama (and, for that matter, Hillary Rodham Clinton) share the same position on equality for gay couples: they oppose it. Neither candidate would end federal discrimination against gays who want to marry.

Get that? Apparently, Hillary Clinton isn't a candidate. She's irrelevant; Obama has already won! Wheeeee!

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Ellen's Marriage Announcement

As Petulant pointed out earlier, Ellen wasted no time in putting California's new state ruling on gay marriage into action. Below is the clip from her show's taping where she made the announcement:

[H/T to Amanda]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

It's All So Simple

Recently, Susan Estrich wrote an article in The Eureka Reporter discussing the new Grand Theft Auto game. Now, we've already had the discussion about the game itself; it's not the debate over the game that I want to bring to your attention, it's the jaw-dropping response letter to the editor that makes me want to tear my hair out.

Dear Editor,

Recently, I read with interest Susan Estrich’s article on “Grand Theft Auto.” As a video game researcher, I found her column to be largely non-factual and typical of the hysteria that surrounds video games.

For instance, she laments that the current generation of youth are “going down the tubes.” Yet, by most standards, including violent criminal behaviors, current youth are the healthiest in decades.

As violent video games have increased in sales, violent behaviors among both youth and adults have plummeted to levels not seen since the 1960s. As an aside, rape rates also have declined as pornography has become more common, in contradiction to what Ms. Estrich implies.

Yes, that's right, folks. Porn cures rape. Apparently, rape isn't about power and control, it's about being horny, just like rape apologists have said all along! Why, if we'd just give all men unlimited access to porn, rape would just vanish! Oh, and as an aside, did you know that as sales of ice cream increase, the incidents of violent crime also increases? It's true! Contradictory to what any of you may imply.

It amazes me that this person, this Ph.D., this Assistant Professor at Texas A&M can blithely make a statement like that with nothing to back it up, "as an aside." Apparently, he missed that day in class when they explained that correlation does not imply causation.

(Tip of the Energy Dome to Shaker Heraldo.)

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Hillary Sexism Watch, Part Ninety-Goddamn-Two

Scot Lehigh's got a problem with Clinton and her supporters (and, though he doesn't say it, feminists who are not explicitly Clinton supporters but just have a problem with sexism, not that any of those political unicorns exist, ahem). His problem is that he doesn't think sexism is as big a problem as we've made it out to be. And like any good denier, he first starts out by reluctantly admitting that sexism still exists.

Now, I wouldn't assert for a second that sexism is extinct. It, like racism, is real, and one would have to be purposely oblivious not to notice it in our culture. Further, there are plenty of unhinged Hillary haters out there. And whatever the motivation, we've also seen some exceedingly silly media stories about Clinton. High among them rank the deconstruction of her laugh and the attention focused on a Clinton outfit that showed a bit of cleavage on the Senate floor. (How that must have shocked the chaste and ascetic monks who have long inhabited that storied chamber!)

People are right to decry boorish anti-Clinton comments, offensive jokes, and the bilge, bile, and billings-gate of the talk-radio blowhards, as well as occasional over-the-top utterances from cable commentators.

And then comes the big BUT.

But let's not mistake the Bruegelian sideshow for the political mainstream.

(If Lehigh thinks this shit ain't mainstream, he ought to try reading the first ninety-one parts of this series.)

Even allowing for all that stupidity, the notion that sexism is primarily to blame for Clinton's woes doesn't pass logical muster.

Ooh, see what he did there? Doesn't pass logical muster. So anyone who suggests that sexism might be primarily responsible for "Clinton's woes" is illogical. Well, isn't that just like a girl? Someone tell Mr. Lehigh we can't help it—it's all the estrogen clogging our brains.

Lehigh then goes on to prove his case that sexism isn't as bad as all that, and, for someone who values logic so highly, he really shouldn't spend so much time torturing it:

Consider: Last fall, Clinton was widely judged the prohibitive front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. In early October, she led Obama by a staggering 53 percent to 20 percent in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. At that point, her average lead in national polls was 20 percentage points.

Therefore, if gender bias really were the cause of her primary problem, one would have to posit that a [sic] epidemic of resurgent sexism suddenly infected the country late last year.

Actually, no—one would merely have to posit that as soon as there emerged a viable male challenger to Clinton's status as presumptive nominee, there also emerged a reason to target Clinton with sexism. On paper, Obama, the first-term, relatively unknown junior senator from Illinois, did not look like a viable challenger. Edwards, despite having been the #2 on the last national ticket, was largely written off, too. And none of the other also-rans were ever thought to have a chance against Clinton. So it was only when someone was able to successfully mount any challenge at all that there was reason to go after her.

Based on Lehigh's logic, if Clinton had sailed through the primary and become the nominee with no significant challenge, as was originally predicted, sexism would not have inevitably been an issue during the general election; we would have had to see an "epidemic of resurgent sexism suddenly infect the country" first. Anyone think that sounds right?

A more easily digestible example of this concept is this: I once worked for a man who used sexism against me. Now, if I were just sitting in my office, doing my work, he didn't walk in and hurl sexist epithets at me. But the moment we butted heads on anything, the moment I presented him with a challenge, out came the slurs and insults.

Sexism, when used as a tool to try to diminish an uppity woman, is only useful and necessary when there's a challenge to male authority or status. So sexism only became operative as a tool to use against Clinton when there was a man who seemed capable of besting her. If it hadn't been in the primary, we would have seen the same thing in the general. No epidemic of resurgent sexism necessary.

Lehigh then goes on to list what he considers the major failings of Clinton's campaign—some of which are spot-on, some of which less so—and concludes "Bluntly put, it wasn't sexism that has brought Clinton to her current plight." It's a statement certainly more blunt than his original starting point, which was, as you'll recall, "the notion that sexism is primarily to blame for Clinton's woes doesn't pass logical muster." We've seemingly gone from sexism not being primarily to blame, to sexism not being to blame at all. Funny how that happened.

The thing is, one of the things about sexism (or any other bias) is that so much of it is invisible, making it impossible to see all the ways it can undermine the people it affects. Holding men and women to different beauty standards, for example, means Clinton spends "an hour and a half getting ready for each day's campaigning. She didn't mean studying her notes and making sure she knows the name of the mayor of McKeesport. She meant doing her hair, putting on her makeup, deciding what to wear or at least thinking about it even if she has someone else to decide for her. And so on." Let's say it takes Obama an hour to shower, shave, and throw on a suit. Over the course of a year of seven-days-a-week campaigning, that's 182 extra hours—more than a full week—of time to spend campaigning, or relaxing. If he can get ready in a half hour, double it.

And one cannot possibly quantify what it means that the "not official" supporter of Barack Obama, MSNBC, allows its employees to call Clinton a she-devil, accuse her of pimping out her daughter, have a laugh over offensive kitsch in her likeness, and suggest she be murdered by a superdelegate, just for a start.

One cannot possibly quantify what it means that subtle prejudices play out in the choices of what photos accompany stories about the candidates—and that photos of Clinton are frequently very unflattering, while photos of Obama are generally the opposite, despite both of them being photogenic and attractive.

There are dozens and dozens of these manifestations of "invisible sexism," things that are all too easy to simply not consider. Especially if you're determined to make the case that sexism doesn't matter, that's it's not "the political mainstream."

Ultimately, though, there's one quite obvious consideration Lehigh failed to take into account: Sexism is the mainstream, full-stop. Manifestations of sex inequality are everywhere, from the continuing pay disparity to the dearth of female leadership in the vast majority of professional environments to the still-disproportionate household labor in most two-salary homes to portrayals of women in media to sexual assault statistics and on and on and on. Sexism is the mainstream.

What makes Lehigh think the political mainstream is any different?

It's not some magical place that the realities of the rest of the world don't penetrate. In fact, despite 52% of the population being female, only 16% of the US Senate and 16.3% of the US House of Representatives is female.

In the 232-year history of this nation, we've had one—one—female contender for the presidency who had a serious chance.

The political mainstream is, as it happens, a more sexist place than most.

Tell me again about your fancy logic, Mr. Lehigh.

[H/T to Shaker Corinne.]

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

McCain on California Marriage Decision

While we're at it:

John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.

File under "activist judges." How Maverickally Delicious of him.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Friday Movie Review: "The Speed Racers"

Hey assholes, it's Kenny Blogginz again, and I'm here with another one of my eye-opening Friday movie reviews.

My wife and I just got back from the movie theatre, and boy are my engines revved up. The Summer Blockbuster Race has only just begun, and "The Speed Racers" comes in first place in my book, even though I had to make a "pit stop" during the movie, because I had diarrhea! Anyway, "The Speed Racers" is running on "E." But the "E" doesn't stand for "empty"—it stands for EXCITEMENT!

"The Speed Racers" is all about a young racing prodigy named Steve Racecar, played by Emily Hirsch. He's the best in the business...and the business is adventure! Steve runs into trouble when he turns down a big sponsorship from a mogul who cares more about profits than he does about 360s and triple-dips. Steve gets helped out along the way by the mysterious Racer X, played by Matthew Fox. SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Racer X is actually Rex Racecar, Steve's fake-dead older brother.

If this storyline sounds familiar, it may be because "The Speed Racers" is actually a prequel to last years breakout success, "Into the Wilde," which is about a disillusioned Steve Racecar journeying into Alaska, eating some poison "Boo-Berries," and dying a painful death. SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "The Speed Racers" is also a prequel to the hit television series "Lost," which is about Racer X banding together with fellow plain-crash survivors to punch people and shoot people. It's called "The Racecar Trilogy," if you're interested in buying the box set.

In conclusion, if you're ready to start your summer off with a bang, "The Speed Racers" is the perfect high-octane thrill ride for you and your pep-peps to go see. It's a great movie for people who have fake-dead brothers, too. If you can get your fake-dead brother to see it with you, that would be perfect. If he's still pretending to be dead, just wear a classy oversized tee-shirt with an airbrushed portrait of him on it. He'll know, because he's probably a secret agent.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!