by Shaker Christina and Shaker Trinity
In the US, we're led to see Australia as a land of deadlier-than-reason-would-allow beasts (seriously, a poisonous mammal? Why? Just...why?) with people who run about in khaki shorts, wearing funny hats all named Bruce, drinking lots of Foster's and eating some bloomin' onions. Aboriginal Australians, when we see them at all, are mysterious people who wander in and out of movie scenes, dispensing wisdom to the hapless Americans or coming to the rescue of their white "mates" in times of trouble in the strange and dangerous Outback. The truth is, Australians know more about the US than I would suspect the average American would know about Australia. Considering they keep getting dragged into our wars, I assume that's a survival technique.
For example, did you know that right up until the 1970s, Aboriginal families were subject to forced removal of their children simply for being Aboriginal? I did not mistype—the nineteen-seventies. Sounds rather familiar to those of us who have some knowledge of the history of Native Americans here in the United States and Canada. (For more on The Stolen Generations, see the government report here.) We will also be familiar with the forced removal of land from those who aren't "using it properly" and the desecration of sacred sites because there's some kind of mineral under it that is more important.
Australia signed the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) in 1949. Lets just examine what they actually signed.
Article II of the Genocide Convention defined genocide as
... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (...)
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
So for the next twenty odd years, Australia practiced the very act they had committed themselves to preventing and punishing in an act of international hypocrisy so blatant we have rarely seen the like.
Of course, that's not all. Aboriginal Australians are also subject to the stereotypes that, here in the US, are usually reserved for African-Americans—dangerous, crime-prone, welfare recipients who just keep on having babies and living off the Australian tax dollar. Strewth, Archie Bunker has nothing on Bruce in this regard.
Recently, the new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued an apology to the Aboriginal Australians for the Stolen Generations, which puts Australia ahead of America for sure, but many people thought, "That's nice but what will be done on a concrete level to fix the disaster caused by this?"
The answer seems to be, not much really:Meanwhile, a retired federal court judge said the legislation [The Northern Territory Aboriginal Intervention] was constitutionally valid but "extremely discriminatory".
Part of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Intervention is to quarantine 50% of the income of Aboriginal Australians to "ensure that it is being properly spent" regardless of whether or not it is actually being spent appropriately. This does not apply to white Australians in any way. There is some talk of rolling out that policy on a national basis despite it being an unqualified disaster in terms of health and delivery of appropriate services as well as on human rights.
"Well I think it's constitutionally valid but it's extremely discriminatory legislation," Murray Wilcox said on radio today. "That is actually acknowledged by the legislation because it specifically excludes the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act and the Anti-discrimination Act in the NT. "In other words the Government is saying this is racially discriminatory legislation but nonetheless it is to be regarded as valid."
The latest in this utterly mind-bogglingly racist legislation is to determine the "viability" of various Aboriginal communities and, for those who do not meet this vague viability, to deny them services. That isn't referring to services like parks. It is referring to basic human rights like health clinics, schools, adequate housing, stores and a police station. We are suspicious that a police station is part of deal to receive things like housing in that it's a great way to make sure that Authority has a foothold right in the center of any remaining indigenous community, and are completely flabbergasted that there is any community in an industrialized country in the 21st century without access to schools. Let's not forget that the quarantined payments are dependent, upon other things, to attendance at school. Nice little Catch-22 there, isn't it? You get a choice: either send your child away to a school that may be hundreds of miles from your home voluntarily or have your income reduced by half, therefore making it impossible to feed said child and the government takes your child and sends him/her to a school hundreds of miles from your home.
Of course, what's racism without a healthy dose of sexism to give it body and flavor?
See this, in the article teased in that screenshot:White truck drivers
is a failure of the Aboriginal communities, don't ya know? It seems more like a failure of the community of white truck drivers, but what do we know?
Speaking to the Bennelong Society conference in Melbourne, Mr Milroy said the intelligence confirmed that earlier reports of Aboriginal teenage girls being targeted by white truck drivers offering cash for sex were not isolated incidents.
In the long list of things "wrong" with the Aboriginal community (because, of course, all these things only happen in Aboriginal communities):"If these types of stimulants are used by Aboriginals, they are not conditioned to this as some of the white community are, and it will be devastating...
(I'll get back to that bolded statemtent in a moment.)
...He said there instances of child sexual abuse including sodomy and rape, while a high number of sexual assaults, pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections had been reported among children under the age of consent. Intelligence had also confirmed examples of child sex offenders working with children in indigenous communities.Mr Milroy said children had been gang-raped by teenagers but the crimes were not reported by the victims for fear of retribution.
The taskforce found a high level of sexualised activity and behaviour has been demonstrated by children, including seven-year-olds experimenting with sex and sex toys. Intelligence also suggested that children as young as seven were actively using alcohol and drugs such as marijuana, or passively smoking the cannabis used by their parents.
is this little...what do the Aussies call it? Oh, right, a "brown-eyed mullet":Many 12-year-old girls were using contraceptive implants and/or taking injections, making them a target for sexual attention.
Did you see the logical disconnect there? It's the contraceptives making 12 yr old girls targets for sexual attention. I would guess a red neon sign develops on the forehead flashing "Now taking BC!!" or something. And Aboriginals are not "conditioned" to deal with drug abuse so The Great White Man in his benevolence must save the poor naive savage by taking half their incomes and their land and communities.
Now, back to the bolded statement. We can't say this strongly enough. Seven year old children do not "experiment with sex," "have sex," or "experiment with sex toys." Seven year old children are raped and act out that rape. The Boy, as co-author Christina's son is affectionately known, is seven years old. His idea of what sex is has something to do with eggs and fish and having to show his boy parts to a girl-not-his-mother and that's just gross especially the fish part. He doesn't like fish. So a seven year old who is exhibiting this behavior has been raped. If one were to read the media reports, one would think that child sexual abuse is not only epidemic but also endemic to the Aboriginal community. We have some doubts about that, only because the same is said here about African-Americans, Native Americans and other minority communities here but the reality is that child sexual abuse rates are pretty much equal across ethnic lines. We'd bet dollars to donuts that is also true in Australia.
[Note: It's also possible that what those children were doing is the perfectly natural body experimentation that all children do—but because the children are members of a group already erroneously regarded to be highly sexualized as native and othered (see also LGBTQ and promiscuity) populations tend to be, it's translated into something inappropriate, when it's totally normal. However, upon reading about the 800 cases of child sex abuse, we feel it is unlikely they're talking about kids playing doctor.]
Aboriginal Australians have been living in Australia, some say for as long as 120,000 years, others say it's more like 40,000 years. They lived there, developing technology and sophisticated tribal cultures in relative peace until 1606. They are the oldest surviving culture in the world with the oldest continuous religion in the world. They were among the first, if not the first, to practice cremation. They revere art to a level difficult to understand for a non-Aboriginal Australian. They traded songs right alongside other things that we would understand as something of value like food or tools. Before colonial intervention, every community had incredibly sophisticated codes of behavior, and very complex family dynamics.
Co-author Trin is a Koori woman who has a twelve-year old girl, who under any circumstance and in any context could not reasonably be seen as a legitimate target for sexual attention no matter what prescription medication she's taking. She also has an 8 year old son with cerebral palsy who couldn't make an 80% attendance rate in school if school was brought to him and conducted in his bedroom. She has a 7 yr old, a 4 yr old and a one year old girl, too, for whom she and her partner provide a loving and safe home and have made arrangements to make a flexible household work for them and their budget allowing the children to have pets, for there to be phone service and internet service giving the children access to the information age. These policies will have a profound impact on them and on their extended family and on their community and the only reason they are being punished in this way is because they happen to have been born Koori.
Not because they need help to manage their finances. Not because they're spending their money inappropriately. That is totally irrelevant. Their Aboriginality is the sole qualifying factor.
Australia should be better than this. The world should be better than this. We can't ignore issues like this in the world we live in today. The age of technology and the internet is forcing this shameful Black history into the limelight, and countries can no longer hide their dirty laundry in their own backyard. Aboriginal people are starting to find an audience for their voice, across Australia and around the world. Listen to them, hear their stories, let them share their struggles with you, and value the knowledge, the experience and the insights they bring as much as you value your own. America knows what damage this will do to the country, still dealing with our own shameful haunting.
Let the Prime Minister of Australia (Mr Kevin Rudd) and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Ms Jenny Macklin) know that the international community sees what is happening and recognizes it for what it is. Don't tolerate this erosion of human rights. You may sign the petition to stop the national rollout of the intervention program. Oxfam works to aid Aboriginal community health organizations, helping to deliver services to targeted needs identified by the community and are active in the Close the Gap campaign to address the 20 year gap in life expectancy rates between white Australians and Aboriginal Australians. Stolen Generations works to restore to the Aboriginal community that which has been taken from them by the Australian government's heinous policy of genocide. Contact them here to see about donations.
Let's Go Outback Tonight!
Wow
The Times' public editor notices that MoDo is a sexist asshole (and other problems at the Paper of Record).
MoDo defends:
"From the time I began writing about politics," Dowd said, "I have always played with gender stereotypes and mined them and twisted them to force the reader to be conscious of how differently we view the sexes." Now, she said, "you are asking me to treat Hillary differently than I've treated the male candidates all these years, with kid gloves."Try to imagine if that were a columnist defending race-baiting in "in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1." Oh, I've always played with race stereotypes and mined them and twisted them to force the reader to be conscious of how differently we view the races.
Congratulations, New York Times: Your op-ed page is as sophisticated as "Mind of Mencia."
[H/T to Shaker Constant Commment.]
Monday Blogaround
Sock it to me, Shakers!
Recommended Reading:
Deborah: Spare a Thought for a Miracle
Steve: Obama, Mudcat, and the Elusive 'Bubba Voter'
Jon: Scalia, McCain and Yoo Push Discredited 'Gitmo 30' Talking Point
Elle: Update about the New Jersey Four
Kathy: Why Sam Nunn sucks
Lauredhel: Assvertising: Stalkerphone
DBK: Heeeeere's Cora!
Leave your links in comments.
Zuh?
Get this.
Well, no, don't get it, as in buy it. I can't decide if this is a new leap in offensiveness or a colossal joke, but please, don't encourage the collective heads of knuckle at Marc Jacobs that thought this shirt was a good idea.
Between the death of George Carlin and this, I'm beginning to think I should just write today off and get back in bed.
(Energy Dome tip to Andy.)
Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude Watch, #60
Shaker Anna passes on this highlight from an article about the race-based attacks Obama is already facing in this campaign, many of which we've discussed in this series:
In South Dakota, a TV station briefly aired an ad that was edited to show Obama saying, "we are no longer a Christian nation, we are also a Muslim nation." It omitted his saying, in the same speech, that the United States is not solely a Christian nation.It's a notable example not only for the content, but for the strategy—which we can be assured will be endlessly repeated over the next few months. Run a ridiculously incendiary (and untruthful) advert, then just pull it when the Obama campaign complains—after the damage has already been done.
The ad, which included a photo of Obama wearing a turban as part of a traditional outfit given to him in Africa, concluded with a man saying: "It's time for people of faith to stand against Barack Hussein Obama." A group called the Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric paid for the ad, which stations quickly dropped after the Obama campaign complained.
Meanwhile, Obama's opponents are also laying the groundwork for blaming him if race "becomes an issue" during the campaign:
The McCain campaign promises to condemn any race-based political appeals. But it also insists it won't stand still for false charges of racism or for allegations merely aimed at preventing criticism of Obama on legitimate issues.Uh-huh. Except for all the dog whistles that will be used during those "confrontations." And if the Obama campaign or his supporters/defenders have the temerity to point out that the old GOP favorite "welfare queens," as a possible example, is race-baiting, then they'll be accused of "playing the race card" by the race-baiters. See how that works?
"Every word will be twisted to make it about race," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a McCain friend and adviser. When he and others confront Obama on issues such as national security and the economy, Graham said, it will have "nothing to do with him being an African-American."
Political professionals differ on how much racially tinged campaigning might emerge this summer and fall. Terry Holt, a GOP strategist who worked on President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, said Republicans know that McCain has no tolerance for such tactics. For the McCain campaign, he said, "it's not about what Obama looks like, it's about what he's going to act like."In other words, as long as Obama never points out when his race is being used against him, as long as he "acts" properly, then race won't be a major factor.
"I think we can have an honest and tough debate without race being a major factor," Holt said.
The GOP has good reason to worry. Their usual line of attack—that the Democratic candidate is un-American and out of touch with "real" American values—takes on a much more nefarious shape when directed at an African-American candidate, especially one who's been attacked for being unpatriotic and a Muslim and a traitor and blah blah, which the GOP's candidate has already condemned. It's going to be tough for them to use any of the standards in their bag of tricks without Obama's race necessarily giving them a wholly different context.
And that’s what these thinly veiled "what he's going to act like" threats are all about. You know we say this shit to every Democrat, Obama. Don't try to make it about race.
Fuck them and the bullshit backstabbing rhetoric they rode in on.
Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude 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.
Kristol: Someone Else
MoveOn.org is not known for being subtle. In fact, I think they wear their in-your-face attitude and the publicity it generates as a badge of honor. Last summer's full-page ad about "General Betray-Us" got enough wing-nuts upset that members of Congress took to the floor of the House and frothed off about treason and such and made it The Most Important Issue of that particular week. It caused a lot of agita for the less confrontational members and alienated moderates. But then again, MoveOn.org believes that the best defense is a good offense. Or just offend and let the chips fall where they may. Whether or not it was effective remains problematic, but no one can say that it didn't get the attention it was intended to generate.
Now they're out with a new ad. It's not as provocative; it doesn't call into question the patriotism of a general, but in a way it does cut right to the point, and it does provoke at least one observer: William Kristol.
Having slandered a distinguished general officer, MoveOn has now moved on to express contempt for all who might choose to serve their country in uniform.Mr. Kristol goes on to point out that little Alex will be only nine when/if John McCain left office and that we have a volunteer army, so if Mommy isn't going to let John McCain have him, it would be her telling her adult son not to join the military. Those are valid points, and we're all allegedly intelligent enough to know that commercials -- whether they're selling a politician or a boner pill -- exaggerate and simplify to the point of silliness. If that was the only complaint that Mr. Kristol had, I would read his whining without comment and then move on, so to speak.
Their new and improved message is presented in a 30-second TV spot, “Not Alex,” produced in conjunction with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It’s airing for a week on local broadcast stations in markets in the swing states of Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, and on two national cable channels, with a reported buy of over half a million dollars.
The ad is simple. A mother speaks as she holds her baby boy:
“Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he’s my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him.”
Take that, warmonger!
But he cannot leave well enough alone, so he has to make a larger point. And in doing so, he does what he does best: expose the smug hypocrisy that is his trademark.
I was having trouble putting my finder on just why until I came across a post by a mother of a soldier recently deployed in Iraq, at the Web site BlueStarChronicles.com.But William Kristol, who has never had a problem heating up the war rhetoric to get someone else to go fight a war for some neo-con vision, never chose to serve either; growing up the only person he ever saw in uniform was the doorman at the Waldorf Astoria. He glorifies the service of others as if he was re-enacting some G.I. Joe Saturday-morning cartoon fantasy, doing the bidding of the nation's leaders. He serves as the chief cheerleader of sending others, including the sons and daughters of the keepers of BlueStarChronicles.com, to fight his wars, but never thought of doing it himself, and when he was faced with it during the time he was eligible for the draft, he found a way to avoid it. Someone else served instead of him. And he has the nerve to chastise MoveOn for pointing out that there are some people who don't want their child to go to war.
Here’s what the mother of an actual soldier has to say about the remarks of the mother of the prospective non-soldier in the ad:
“Does that mean that she wants other people’s sons to keep the wolves at bay so that her son can live a life of complete narcissism? What is it she thinks happens in the world? ... Someone has to stand between our society and danger. If not my son, then who? If not little Alex then someone else will have to stand and deliver. Someone’s son, somewhere.”
This is the sober truth. Unless we enter a world without enemies and without war, we will need young men and women willing to risk their lives for our nation. And we’re not entering any such world.
[...]
The MoveOn ad is unapologetic in its selfishness, and barely disguised in its disdain for those who have chosen to serve — and its contempt for those parents who might be proud of sons and daughters who are serving. The ad boldly embraces a vision of a selfish and infantilized America, suggesting that military service and sacrifice are unnecessary and deplorable relics of the past.
And the sole responsibility of others.
In a way it's comforting to know that he is so predictably self-parodying. It's one of those constants like the speed of light: if William Kristol didn't come up with one of these at least once a month, we'd have to wonder what else has gone wrong in the universe.
(Cross-posted.)
News from Shakes Manor
The following exchange took place in the kitchen of Shakes Manor, after its two human inhabitants had spent approximately 20 minutes trying to open a coconut, with no success.
Iain: What the fook?!
Liss: Right? I mean, monkeys can open these things.
Iain: They're smarter than we are.
Liss: We should climb a tree and drop it, I guess.
Iain: [Takes a long look at the coconut.] I'm getting the sledge hammer.
More Trouble in the Turd Tunnel
A 1.8 meter (nearly six feet) python has been found in a toilet bowl in a highrise apartment in Australia's northern tropical city of Darwin, media reported on Friday.Mmm. Poopy python!
The Northern Territory News said the black-headed python was found in a 10th floor toilet.
Reptile catcher Chris Peberdy told the newspaper the python, likely to be a runaway pet, had been traveling through the building's sewer pipes.
"When I saw it I was pretty shocked," he said. "There is no possible other way it could have got there than through the toilet. I had to give him a wash because he was wet and a bit smelly."
You know you've been blogging a long time when you've posted not one, not two, but three stories about snakes in toilets. And that none of the above are the worst found in a toilet story you've posted.
Btw, I'd like to congratulate Reuters News for correctly filing this story in their "Odd News" section.
Doctor Knows Best
by Shaker Juliemania—Thinking out loud is lot easier, but sometimes, in order to sleep at night or focus on anything else, I must put it in writing and this is one of those times.
As some of you may have heard, the American Medical Association (AMA), at their annual meeting last weekend, voted on two Resolutions that seek to prevent homebirths and to increase MD control over midwives by making the commitment to "... develop model legislation in support of the concept that the safest setting for labor, delivery, and the immediate post-partum period is in the hospital...". (Click here to read Resolutions 205 and 239.)
The MSM picked up the story in the entertainment sections here, here, and here on Tuesday, not because of the outrageous resolution to take away a woman's choice, but because Ricki Lake was mentioned. The initial draft of Resolution 205 included a personal attack on Ricki Lake and her film The Business of Being Born.
I won't get into the facts or arguments regarding this; there are many who can represent these much better than I can. See Big Push For Midwives and Reality Check or read comments at Feministing.
I am not a doctor, a midwife, nor have I given birth. My greatest gift was watching my partner's stepdaughter give birth and I will never forget the breathtakingly spiritual experience it was for me. My partner (before we were together) used a midwife for her births, two at home and two at the hospital. Until last fall, that was my only experience or knowledge of child birth.
In October, I was given the incredible opportunity to facilitate a meeting between local midwifes and OBs who were meeting for the first time, primarily because of this tragic story. In preparation, I did extensive research on the various arguments and points of view. I interviewed the midwife and OB contacts, asking numerous questions and tried to determine if there was any common ground; unfortunately there wasn't any. These groups were operating from two completely different paradigms.
I determined that the only productive conversation that they could have was to specifically address the issues and process needed when a woman who has chosen to have an "out-of-hospital" birth with a midwife, has some complication that requires that she be transferred to a hospital. As simple as that may sound, it surprised me to discover many midwives experienced distrust, animosity, judgment, and downright disdain by the OBs upon transfer. And in many cases the mother was treated without respect and with hostile judgment for putting her child at risk.
Amazingly, this local group of midwives and doctors listened to each other and slowly created the foundation for compatible transfer protocols—ones that honored the midwives and the patient, acknowledged what the doctors required from them upon transfer, and even went so far as to begin creating consults between doctors and midwives. It was an incredible experience and I am honored to have participated. Most states only have these relationships with CNMs and occasionally with CMs and lay-midwives.
Sadly, as powerful as that meeting was, the only area that could be addressed was when a mom becomes a "patient". And through this process of understanding I realized the very dangerous paradigm under which much of the American medical community operates.
Much of the American medical community operates under a "Doctor Knows Best" paradigm. Only their scientific methods are considered factual. Only their knowledge and expertise can be used to make decisions on our behalf. This paradigm is frequently used across the board for every issue, even herbal or holistic.
So of course, the AMA "knows better" than midwives about childbirth and pregnancy, dismissing the fact that from the beginning of time midwives (not doctors) have been helping women give birth at home. Hell, they even co-opted the latin word for midwife—obstetricis. It doesn't matter that there is plenty of evidence to prove that homebirth and midwifery is safe and sound; unless the evidence comes from the American medical community it is false!
Many doctors don't believe homebirth is safe at all, and I suspect that many don't believe vaginal births are safe, either. How can they, when they are so grounded in the "doctor knows best" paradigm? One doctor told me that he "would try to honor her request to have a vaginal birth"; he admitted that if he perceived the slightest risk, he would not.
The AMA outlines this clearly. (See at the bottom of Resolution 239.)H-420.998 Obstetrical Delivery in the Home or Outpatient Facility
They rule out homebirth in support of an "environment conducive to peer review" and advise that hospitals and staff "should recognize the wishes of the women" but only "within the bounds of sound obstetrical practice". But they would encourage education "concerning risks" (read: homebirths) and "benefits of various birth alternatives" (read: c-sections).
Our AMA (1) believes that obstetrical deliveries should be performed in properly licensed, accredited, equipped and staffed obstetrical units; (2) believes that obstetrical care should be provided by qualified and licensed personnel who function in an environment conducive to peer review; (3) believes that obstetrical facilities and their staff should recognize the wishes of women and their families within the bounds of sound obstetrical practice; and (4) encourages public education concerning the risks and benefits of various birth alternatives. (Res. 23, A-78; Reaffirmed: CLRPD Rep. C, A-89; Reaffirmed: Sunset Report, A-00)
The AMA has an appalling history when it comes to their "doctor knows best" methods and expertise regarding women's health. In the 1950's, they still touted the clitorectomy hysterectomy as the cure for "hysteria" in women. Today many doctors still consider menopause to be a disease. I could go on, but you get my point.
What frightens me is that, should the AMA successfully assist states in developing legislation that would force all women to give birth in a hospital because of safety, mother and child will effectively become property of the hospital. The "doctor knows best" will have complete and full control of the decision-making of how she will give birth. Women who refuse will be forced to hide, and, should anything happen to the baby, held criminally negligent.
Control over women's bodies will be given to the American medical community in the same way the Church and State had control of women for centuries (and in some countries still do).
We can not acquiesce by leaving this fight to the midwifery community. This will have far-reaching ramifications for all of us. As difficult as it may be, we need to change the "assumptions, concepts, values, and practices" (a paradigm shift) of the medical community to reflect feminist principles, as well as enforcing the concept that we can make the right choices for ourselves.
I don't want to live in a country where women do not have control over our own bodies, our own lives.
Pro-Choice, to me, means that every woman has the absolute right to make choices about her body, her life, her heart, her mind, and her future. Period!
Where shall we put our teaspoons?
America 2.0
I just received a link to this item from The Dark Wraith with the following note (posted here with DW's permission):
People think I am some kind of conspiracy theorist when I talk about the extraordinary, pervasive profiling being done by the government and corporations (including search engines like Google). What you will read about at that link is a major step in filling in a key class of fields in consumer preference profiles, and this is most decidedly information both the government and commercial interests have wanted because online transactions are becoming more common and more indicative of individuals’ psychographic profiles.Fare thee well, America 1.0. It was nice knowing ye.
And this latest ridiculous prying into private choices and preferences is in a bill introduced by none other than Sen. Chris Dodd.
More America 2.0 here.
"If she's not crying...then I did not do my job."
by Diane Elayne Dees, a writer who, for five years, published The Dees Diversion, a blog about liberalism, feminism, animal liberation, social mores, and the WTA. Diane also blogged two and a half years for the Mother Jones MoJo Blog, and for five years, she and her husband were the webmasters of Princess Cafe, the world's only virtual rock and roll restaurant. She also writes short stories, poetry, essays, and creative nonfiction, and is a practicing psychotherapist. Diane now writes Women Who Serve, a blog about women's professional tennis.
"The guy gets all the glory, the more he can score..." And you know the rest. The sexual double standard in the 21st Century is no different than it was in the 1950s, and who better to prove that than the perennially disgusting Justin Gimelstob? Gimelstob, in a Washington Post blog item that makes you want to take a post-read shower, says that he was sexually involved with Charlie Sheen's wife before her marriage and that "I don't think I was the only one."
So what? Kirsten Mueller has had sex with some men--what a complete slut that makes her, not only in the tiny mind of Gimelstob, but in the minds of most Americans (I cannot speak for other cultures). When does it end, this belief that men should have sex with as many women as possible, but women should not dare have more than one partner? I cannot tell you how many girls and women I meet who have bought totally into the belief that they are sluts and whores if they have sex with more than one man, but it is a credit to males to have multiple partners. Many of these same people--men and women--claim to support gender equality. How crazy is that?
In this same story, Gimelstob goes viciously after Anna Kournikova, calling her a bitch, a douche and a scumbag. With regard to playing against her in World Team tennis mixed doubles, he says "If she's not crying by the time she walks off that court," then I did not do my job." That is mild, however, compared to: "...she's gonna be serving 40 miles an hour and I'm gonna be just plugging it down her throat."
He denies he has any sexual interest in Kournikova, but goes on to say "I wouldn't mind having my younger brother, who's kind of a stud, nail her and then reap the benefits of that."
Of course, the defense of this type of blather is that is it "trash talk." I do not approve of trash talk because it gives the culture even more permission to be sexist, misogynistic, gay-hating, racist, etc. by normalizing hate. But even if one approves of sports trash talk, this goes over the line. And given Gimelstob's contempt for women, I'm not convinced that 100% of his diatribe is "only trash talk."
The time has come for Tennis Channel to get rid of the toxic and misogynistic Gimelstob. Don't expect Tennis Channel executives to do the right thing and fire him. Don't even expect them to perceive that anything he said (and constantly says) is inappropriate. We must be the ones to tell them. Pressure is the only thing that will make this happen (and it also needs to happen at ESPN, where Dick Enberg lives).
(Cross-posted.)
Michelle Obama Racism/Sexism Watch, Part 11
Rupert Cornwall in The Independent. Let's start with the racism:
Race is the wild card, the great unknown, of this election. Like the golfer Tiger Woods (and to a lesser extent Colin Powell), Obama transcends race. He is the post-racial candidate, not black but African-American in its literal, not politically correct, sense. The son of a Kenyan father and a white American mother, he is not descended from slaves, nor was he shaped by the struggle for civil rights.Are you fucking kidding me?
Indeed, if he, like Woods, had married a white woman, the question of his race might never have arisen. But he didn't. He married Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, product of the historically black south side of Chicago, whose father worked in the city's water department, whose ancestors were slaves, whose family roots are in the deep south, in South Carolina.
First, I don't even understand how people can say "post-racial" with a straight face. Obama "transcends race"? Tell that to the people making monkey dolls in his image, accusing him of being a terrorist sympathizer and/or a black separatist, calling him the "affirmative action candidate," referring to him as "Osama," or doing any of the other almost 60 things in the (necessarily incomplete) Obama Racism/Muslim/Unpatriotic/Scary Black Dude series. Hey, assholes! You're supposed to pretend not to notice he's not white! He transcends race, remember?
Obama does not transcend race. Race is not something that can be transcended. There's no level of universal appeal that will somehow erase the color of your skin and all your experiences of living in it. Obama just happens to be the kind of black dude who doesn't automatically make a certain sort of white person uncomfortable -- the sort of white person who goes around the fucking bend if you point out even unconscious racism in something he's said and yet secretly believes our prisons are full of black men because black men commit more crimes, duh. Big difference.
Second, did you seriously just say that if Obama had married a white woman, his race would never have come up? Because folks would never have noticed the contrast between Obama's skin and his wife's? Because the contrast itself wouldn't have been a huge fucking issue? Also, way to say, "If only Michelle didn't exist" there, dude. Now tell us how you really feel.
Moving on to the sexism:
Above all, perhaps, she must throttle back – just as Hillary Clinton was obliged to do in 1992, after she had outraged male supremacists by defending her career choices with the remark: "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas." Right now, a little more cookie baking would also suit Michelle Obama fine, although her exact culinary plans are unknown.JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. Sixteen years later, and we're still on this.
Dear International Media,
You can buy very good, reasonably priced cookies at grocery stores and bakeries everywhere in the U.S. these days. Our citizens will not suffer for lack of cookies if our FIRST FUCKING LADY can't produce. It's okay, really.
Love,
Kate
But, you know, if Obama had just married a white woman with a killer shortbread recipe, the Republicans wouldn't even bother running against him, let alone smearing him at every turn. And voters would not even notice the color of his skin, much less object to the concept of an African-American president. Clearly, Mrs. Donna Reed Obama would have it all wrapped up for him by now -- in handmade paper, with a cunning little bow.
(Via Michelle Obama Watch.)
Michelle Obama Sexism/Racism Watch: Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten.
Quote of the Day
"With the exception of the cross-burning episode … I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district."—Dave Daubenmire, friend to Freshwater, the teacher who told his students that evolution was bunk, taught intelligent design and creationism instead, kept a Bible in his desk, told students that homosexuality is a sin, and branded students' arms with crosses.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
I don't know about you,
but I need a fooking drink.
Belly up to the bar
and name your poison.
I Am An Unhappy Camper
Obama backs the FISA "compromise":
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA CompromiseSayeth Digby: "'Work to remove' telecom immunity should be rewritten to 'maybe show up to vote on some amendment that will surely be struck down and then whimper away.' What a colossal failure of leadership." Atrios merely makes him the Wanker of the Day.
"Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
"That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
"After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people."
Hugely disappointing. Hugely.
Though of course not totally unexpected.
Friday Cat Blogging
I don't know WTP I did with my camera, so here are classic pix of the resident furballz of Shakes Manor:
Olivia
ACLU Symposium on LGBTQ Rights
This week, the ACLU has been having a symposium on LGBT rights, which has included just some amazing pieces by LGBTQs and their allies. Just a few of my favorites:
My fellow Hoosier Bil Browning's Look for That Day to Arrive, Andrew Belonsky's A Brief Sketch on Gay Pride, Pam Spaulding's Moving That Civil Rights Ball Forward, Shark-Fu (aka Angry Black Bitch)'s Why I Am an Activist, Bethany Laccone's The Story of a Red Short-Sleeved T-Shirt, Michelangelo Signorile's Breaking Down the Closet, Tedra Osell (aka Bitch PhD)'s How the Gays Taught Me to Stop Worrying and Love Marriage, Donna Rose's Pride—A Transgender Perspective, and Ian Thompson's This is Who I Am.
I was incredibly flattered to be asked to write a piece as an LGBTQ ally, and I chose the topic of marriage equality. I wrote something very personal about my relationship with my best friend Todd, and what it means to be able to share just about everything together, including my marriage, but have this big blank where his would, could, should be.
Read it at the ACLU Blog, where you will also find the rest of the awesome contributions to the symposium, or continue below.
I Want All These Things for Him
My best friend is a gay man.
When I was 15, there only needed to be one other person in a high school of 3,000 who carried a copy of Camus' The Stranger under his arm and knew down to his bones what I am the son and the heir of a shyness that is criminally vulgar really means to make the world perfect, and I found him, or he found me, and so it was.
Two peas in a pod, attached at the hip, like-minded misfits in mail-order t-shirts and Doc Martens, whose collective nirvana was making light-headed pilgrimages to Wax Trax records to browse their dusty bins for long-awaited releases or rare bootlegs, shuffling among the other angsty shoegazers there for the same purpose. We dyed our hair and graffitied our leather jackets with images of the deities—The Smiths, The Cure, Siouxsie. Our tribe. We staked out our place among them and locked arms.
The world, or rather finding our places in it, has gotten a lot more complicated since then, but navigating it together makes it infinitely easier, because he is the kind of friend that everyone should be fortunate enough to have. He has seen me at my absolute worst—embarrassing, shameful stuff; he has known me to be stubborn, hurtful, uncompromising, inconsiderate, irrational. He has known me to lie. Some of it was directed at him. Some of it caused huge fights. And he has, graciously, forgiven me every time, because he made our friendship worth earning his forgiveness.
He has also seen me at my best, which, in the weird way of the criminally shy, is sometimes even harder for me to fully share than my worst. But he knows my heart truly, in the way few people do.
I have seen him at his worst and his best, too.
Our intertwined lives have left me with indelible memories of all the things we've done as a duo—writing an underground paper together, writing a shitty screenplay together, making silly movies together, living together, working together, vacationing together, attending innumerable concerts together, celebrating our 9-days-apart birthdays, seeing thousands of films, getting drunk, doing drugs, hanging out, wasting time, spending nights talking 'til dawn, laughing until we are gasping for air and swearing we shall never recover.
And then there's the stuff that happened to us individually, for which the other stood by, cheering for triumphs and helping pick up the pieces after disasters. The 18 years, more than half our lives, we've spent as confidants, conspirators, and comrades have, after all, spanned the years during which we stumbled along the uneven path toward adulthood—and it's a path along which he came out, I was raped, and both of us fell in and out of love, sometimes in spectacularly heartbreaking fashion.
I was married and divorced young. He was my best man at my wedding, and the only person in whom I could totally confide when my marriage really began to fail, making him the best man at my divorce, too. I swore off marriage—but when I met and fell in love with a Scotsman, and our being together depended on getting that piece of paper, my best friend was there to go out with us for burgers after our 10-minute ceremony at the courthouse.
Someday, I would like to be his Matron of Honor.
Or his Best Woman. Whatever he wants to call me.
I want to help plan his bachelor party; I want to organize a shower; I want to help plan the most beautiful, elaborate, over-the-top wedding extravaganza or the trip to the courthouse or whatever he wants in between. I want to see him stand beside a man that he loves, as I've been able to do, and have their relationship legally recognized. I want to see him kiss the groom, lingeringly and lovingly. I want to give a toast at the reception where I announce that I can already feel his gay marriage undermining the sanctity of mine, and watch him laugh while he snuggles in against his new husband's shoulder.
I want all these things for him. And there's no reason, not a one, why he shouldn't have them. Which is why I'm going to keep on working my one little teaspoon to do whatever I can to make sure he does.
I wasn't sure how I was going to end this piece, but my dear best friend—who doesn't even know that I'm writing it, and who recently ended a long-term relationship—just now, as I wrote, serendipitously sent me the following e-card:
"Just a reminder..... ;-)" he added, and signed it "Chewbacca."
I'm working on it, doll.
Stop Her Before She Kilts Again
I've got a new piece up at The Guardian's Comment is Free about Britain's decision to ban Martha Stewart from entering the country:
I love Britain. I adore chip shops and Cat Deeley and tea with milk and lots of other things British, including my husband. But producing the freckled Hearts-supporting, "tosser!"-hissing ginge that I call my spouse pales in comparison to the utter genius of Britain's decision to ban Martha Stewart from its shores because she is a dangerous criminal.Read the whole thing here.
…British authorities no doubt quite rightly fear that, given half a chance, she'd viciously replace England's Burberry plaids with soul-deadening beige – and I can hardly contemplate what damage she might do to Scotland's tartans. Yes, keeping her out is the right decision. Bravo, Britannia!
Which Superhero Are You?
You are intelligent, witty, a bit geeky
and have great power and responsibility.
Click here to take the Superhero Personality Test
Via Portly Dyke, aka Ironman.
