Gregg Reese, contributor to the Los Angeles-based Our Weekly, has written on the case of PFC LaVena Johnson. The article provides an informative snapshot of the background behind LaVena's death, autopsy findings and official statements, accounts of Congressional efforts that have thus far fallen short of results, and a broader look at the issue of 'non-combat related deaths,' including the similarly-suspicious death of PFC Tina Priest of Texas. From the article:
While a good deal of information about the mystery surrounding her death may be found on the Internet, surprisingly few of the mainstream news agencies have provided in depth coverage. At the same time, military and governmental entities have alternately been unable or unwilling to reach substantial conclusions about what transpired that fateful evening in July of 2005.
The staff of Essence, the women's magazine geared towards an African American readership, reportedly went through a lot of soul searching (since the Army is a major advertiser in that periodical) before running a 300 word article.
Chief Warrant Officer (CW5) Paul Hudson, a senior Army criminal supervisor and an organizer of the meeting between the Johnson family and the investigative team, was reportedly on leave and was unavailable to Our Weekly during the completion of this article.
Official Army spokesman Paul Boyce informed Our Weekly via phone that the death of Pvt. Johnson was thoroughly investigated and data shared with the decedent's family. While the case is officially closed, any additional updates would be closely "reviewed and evaluated."
Congressman Ike Skelton (D-Mo), and the Armed Services Committee he chairs have been sympathetic to the Johnson Family, but since the initial contact, in the words of Dr. Johnson, have "dropped the ball," and apparently have yet to commit to a formal investigation.
Freshman Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), has gone on record to declare she and other law makers have "…gotta find the truth about what happened to this young lady. Her family deserves that at a minimum…" Maria Speiser, spokesperson for McCaskill responded to phone overtures by Our Weekly by explaining that the Senator's office has a policy of not commenting on continuing investigations.
Many thanks to Gregg Reese and Our Weekly for bringing LaVena's story to a new readership.
A correction to one part of the article must be made here: The 12,000 signature petition to the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives was not successfully delivered in this most recent term of Congress. Arrangements for delivery fell through, as both houses of Congress were largely involved in the latter days of the term with the financial bailout package and other issues. It is hoped that the ASC petitions can be delivered to lawmakers in the coming term.
After seeing Mama Shakes' lovely restroom photo, Shaker Amish451 sent me this one, with the note: "On the subject of restroom photos (sorry about the reflection), this hangs in the restroom at 'The Corner Café' in the little town where I live; it has been there for years. I have no idea where it was taken or who the kids were—nor, of course, why the kid with the white cowboy boots has a dove on his head. 'Behold, My...'???"
The dove on the head is just cracking me up. I did a cursory search to try to find the origins of the photo, but looking for "kids peeing" made me feel pervy as fuck, even with "vintage photo" tacked on the back.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So follow me, won't you, on this lovely thought train based on this information:
William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime.
The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government.
William Timmons, McCain's aide, worked closely with Saddam Hussein to negotiate on his behalf.
William Timmons liked Saddam Hussein.
Since William Timmons liked Saddam Hussein, that means he liked hanging out with terrorists.
Since Saddam Hussein was "responsible" for 9/11, that means William Timmons was responsible for 9/11.
That makes William Timmons a terrorist.
Since McCain wants William Timmons on board to aid with the government transition, that means McCain is a terrorist sympathizer who hangs out with a known terrorist all the time.
Just earlier this morning, before hearing this Limbaugh piece, I left the following in the ACORN thread: "The GOP just chose to make a federal case out of it now because: A) they need a reason to explain why they lost; B) exposing Obama's association with ACORN fits into their narrative that he's a radical black (see the stories in recent days about his support for school programming that included African-American sections), since ACORN is mostly associated with minority voters; and C) ACORN primarily helps minorities get housing, which fits into the GOP's narrative about who caused the sub-prime mortgage collapse."
Now listen to Limbaugh (via C&L; full transcript here) as he feeds precisely those talking points to his conservative listeners, which is as inaccurate on the facts as it is racist and sexist:
Isn't is just adorable how he casually dismisses institutional racism, even as he engages in it? It's like a magic trick! What a charming little shell game he plays as he talks about how Obama's mentors are the sorts of people are keeping blacks back, it's black leaders and black ministers and radicals and progressives and Democrats who don't want or allow black Americans to succeed, keeping his listeners focused firmly on that shell, while hiding the one that begets the question: "If those mentors are so bad for black people, why is Obama thisclose to becoming our next president?"
Equally precious is his faux-wonderment that "people not even born here can come here and in a few short years begin prospering in school, their own business or what have you, yet people who are born in this country somehow have [not]." Let us surmise, just for a moment, that Limbaugh doesn't know the answer to his own question starts at the mendacious and unqualified brag so popular among the conservative set that "America is the greatest country in the history of the world." Let us thus pretend, so I can speak for a moment as the partner of an American immigrant to address his perplexity, as counterfeit as his pretense that he gives a shit about anyone but himself, because there are people who wonder the same without guile.
Now, I'm quite certain it's true for the most straight, white, cisgender, able-bodied males who had access to even halfway decent public school education and healthcare as a kid that "America is the greatest country in the history of the world." But it's not true for all Americans. And the poorer you are, and the darker your skin, and the Xier your chromosomes, just for a start, the less true it's likely to be for you.
Even though a straight, white, cisgender, able-bodied, working class male American kid might have gotten a better education and had more opportunity than my straight, white, cisgender, able-bodied, working class male Scottish husband when he was a kid, he most certainly got a better education than a lot of American kids (and always had access to healthcare, thanks to his government's view that healthcare is a right).
So when he immigrated to America, he was already doing better than a lot of his new peers—and, to boot, his funny accent probably worked as much in his favor in some situations as it worked against him in others; what discrimination he did face was negligible. How many "left behind" Americans can say that?
The truth is that my immigrant partner wasn't failed by his country of birth the way a lot of Americans are. The truth is that he isn't failed by America the way a lot of Americans are.
And the truth is that he's lived here less than a decade and understands that better than Rush Limbaugh, Born and Bred American, does.
Or, perhaps more accurately, cares about that ghastly inequity more than Limbaugh ever will.
Limbaugh claims, loudly and often, to be concerned about all Americans, but he flatly refuses, as is so evident here, to do the fundamental thing that's required for progress—be progressive. As I've said before, progress necessarily precludes the mockery, belittlement, and/or exclusion of historically marginalized groups—and that goes double for scapegoating them, which is Limbaugh's stock in trade. Beyond that, he views social change like he views economics: Make everything as splendid as possible for those at the top and the benefits will "trickle down" to everyone below.
Well, that's bullshit when we're talking about the economy, and it's bullshit when we're talking about justice and equality. The evident reality is that people at the top of the heap, having "got theirs," start to view the conference of rights as a zero-sum game, because they confuserights with privilege, and fight to protect their privilege at the expense of everyone else. The evident reality is that there is little incentive for most people to yield what is necessary for real equality and lift up the rest of the boats, despite years of promises to the contrary.
People like Barack Obama and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Jeremiah Wright and ACORN and all the other Lefty demons in Limbaugh's world understand that, to one degree or another, and are trying to do something about it—which is what really separates them from Limbaugh. It's not that he doesn't know.
We all know that equality is a gift rarely granted by people who benefit from its absence.
He just doesn't want anyone to do anything about it.
After all, he profits quite handsomely from the frustration and fury which systemic inequality breeds in those who will never be on the top of the heap and are perilously close to its bottom. Every inch closer to equality we move, the harder it gets for Limbaugh to convince his listener that it's someone else's boot on the back of his neck, that it isn't greedy patriarchs like him who cause their suffering, but those who want to take the little bit of privilege they've got, the little bit of privilege he's convinced them will cushion them when they fall better than a social safety net ever would.
Limbaugh knows damn well the answers to his own questions. He knows damn well he's talking absolutely rubbish. He just hopes his listeners don't, so he can keep reaping the rewards to which they'll never be privy.
The rest of the images are also quite charming. Racism, sexism, and eliminationism! Whee! Welcome to the wonderful world of the Republican party, folks!
And of course, it wouldn't be complete without a "it's your fault if you're offended" statement:
The chairman of the Sacramento County Republican party, Craig MacGlashan, told the Sacramento Bee on Tuesday, "Some people find it offensive, others do not. I cannot comment on how people interpret things."
Yes, because cheering on the idea of torturing a fucking Presidential candidate is all about interpretation. (Not to mention that this "funny" image just goes to show that Republicans know that waterboarding is torture, yet refuse to take it seriously as long as it's happening to others.)
Someone, please, get me a TARDIS so I can fast forward to January.
Let's be clear about what this is. These are random stories about fake vote registrations. The Drudges and Fox scoundrels of the world seem to think that if someone fills out a voter registration card for Mickey Mouse, that Mickey Mouse might show up and cast a vote they're not entitled to cast. It doesn't and there is zero evidence of any voter fraud or anything that would make voter fraud more likely. The level of lying, bad faith or at best ignorance of the people making these claims is really beyond imagining. This isn't vote fraud. There's no evidence of vote fraud. Nothing. This is an effort of a losing political party to a) lay the groundwork for challenging their defeat at the polls b) lay the groundwork to pass laws to make it harder for poor people and minorities to vote.
It is more than a mere semantic difference to point out that this isn't about voter fraud but voter registration fraud. And voter registration fraud has been repeatedly investigated by multiple organizations of every political stripe to see if it leads to widespread voter fraud, which can actually affect the outcome of an election, and there's no evidence that it does. Because, you see, most fake voter registrations don't come with attached fake voters.
That doesn't mean there's no reason to be concerned about fake voter registrations; it just means that the shrieks about how fake voter registrations could affect the election are bollocks.
A self-absorbed, insensitive douchenozzle snuck behind his wife's back to name his new daughter Sarah McCain Palin. The father and mother had previously agreed upon Ava Grace as a suitable name for their new daughter, but "to get the word out" father Mark Ciptak went ahead and put Sarah McCain Palin Ciptak on the birth certificate.
Ciptak rationalized it this way: "I took one for the cause. I can't give a lot of financial support for the campaign. I do have a sign up in my yard, but I can do very little."
Yeah, way to go. Way to make that sacrifice. Glad you're getting the word out. Now everyone knows you're a duplicitous, unscrupulous douchebag with zero respect for either your wife or daughter. That's what you meant by "getting the word out", right? Because, really, no other explanation makes sense.
"To me it is like Halloween: You get energized by eating all that candy at night but then you feel sick the next day."—Bush campaign strategist and hardcore Republican tosser Matthew Dowd at the Time Warner Summit panel, after HuffPo Washington Editor-at-Large Hilary Rosen said that John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin for his vice presidential nominee "had been successful in energizing the Republican base."
If/when (please, Maude, when) McCain loses this thing, the animadversions and recriminations are going to be positively stunning.
Mama Shakes snapped this in the women's restroom at a school sports facility this weekend:
In case you can't see the image, or make out exactly what it says, the scrawled message reads: The people hear are so gay thay make me want to boff.
I'm totally writing a new national anthem, and that's the first line.
(When Mama Shakes told me about taking the picture, I immediately requested a copy so I could post it. She emailed it to me with the note: "Hears the restroom righting." Ha.)
Someone asked the WaPo's Gene Weingarten about the Biden-Botox story—and referenced my post in the process, but that's only how I found it, not what interests me about it. What interests me is Weingarten's response:
Main Street: Who the hell cares whether Biden has had Botox treatments? With all the real issues The Post could be tackling, why on earth are columnists at The Post conjecturing on such a triviality? It speaks more to the Cult of Youth to which this country has fallen prey as it does of Biden.
Gene Weingarten: You know, it's a GOSSIP column. In a very big paper filled with a lot of other stuff. Complaining that The Post is lowering itself to write stuff like this is like complaining that The Post isn't a serious publication because it carries comics.
Seriously, Gene—learn to logic. The point isn't that the Post shouldn't carry anything frivolous; the point is that gossip about someone's appearance and conjecture about how they might maintain it isn't actually "frivolous" in the first place.
Our culture's very public and unrelenting pastime of judging people's appearance is associated in large or small parts with racism, colorism, sizism, ageism, eating disorders, depression, bullying, suicide, appearance-based wage gaps, compulsive plastic surgery junkies, etc. etc. etc. Just because we treat something like No Big Deal doesn't mean that it is.
A little less conventional wisdom and a little more actual wisdom would be great.
So, Senator Hillary Clinton does an interview with the dipshits at "Fox & Friends," and they ask her what she thinks the chances are, on a scale of 1 to 10, that she'll be the next majority leader in the Senate.
"Oh, probably zero," she said. "I'm not seeking any other position than to be the best senator from New York that I can be."
Being nominated to the Supreme Court?
"Zero," Clinton said. "I have no interest in doing that."
Running for president again?
"Probably close to zero," she said. "There's an old saying: Bloom where you're planted."
And I immediately turn into Lloyd Christmas.
Lloyd: What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd: [long pause] So you're telling me there's a chance. YEAH!!!
The whole president thing I'm pretty wev about (unless McCain *gag* wins), because who knows what the landscape will look like eight years from now. And SCOTUS is a nifty idea, but I doubt she could be confirmed without a veto-proof majority, and, even then, it would be a tough road. (And why the hell would she want to go through that?) But I would like to see her as Senate Majority Leader.
And in my cozy little Lloyd Christmas world, the chances of Obama choosing her to be Secretary of Health and Human Services and her accepting the position are still eleven out of ten, because the "Fox & Friends" reprobates evidently didn't think to ask her about it.
I've looked around but haven't found it yet, have you all covered the "Palin is a Cunt" shirts that people were wearing to the hockey game last week? As much as I dislike her, those shirts were totally uncalled for. You guys are usually the first one to notice this kind sexist crap.
I've gotten a few emails about this, too, so let me just quickly say: Yes, I've seen it, and no, I'm not going to cover it (aside from this note). They're detestable, it goes without saying—but the people who wore them have been trying to sell those shirts ever since Palin was nominated. I've been aware of them for quite some time. It was a publicity stunt, and I'm not inclined to give them any more attention.
Sometimes not blogging about things is actually better.
There's always a good reason why something that might seem like a natural fit doesn't end up on the blog. I just wanted to say that and reaffirm my promise that I'll never ignore something because of partisanship.
Iain and I saw this clip last night on Campbell Brown's show (CAMPBELL!!! BROWN!!! NO BIAS!!! NO BULL!!!) and we both just burst out laughing:
Dana Bash: We've heard people in the crowd screaming things like "terrorist," "traitor"—when you talked about Senator Obama—and worse.
John McCain: I've heard the same thing—I've heard the same thing at, at—I've heard the same thing, unfortunately, at, at Senator Obama's rallies, being said about me.
Really? Since I don't guess Senator McCain has actually been in attendance at any of those rallies, I'm supposing he means he's heard it on video. Funny thing is, I can't turn up a single video of such a thing on YouTube. Huh. He must have a special stash of secret videos of Democrats screaming horrible things about him, which he's not making public only because his hands are tied by that darn promise to run a respectful campaign on the issues.
You know, there are morons and assholes on both sides of the aisle. That doesn't give anyone license to make shit up out of whole cloth.
Shaker Constant Comment just emailed me with a heads-up that FiveThirtyEight now has Indiana leaning Democratic:
Bush won Indiana by 16 points in 2000 and 21 points in 2004. And now it's trending toward Obama.
O. Mah. Fookin. Guh.
If I'm honest, I just can't believe the state will go blue in this election when all the votes are (allegedly) counted—but it's amazing that it's so close.
It would be more amazing if we hadn't had to come to the brink of a total economic meltdown to get there. But that's a whole other post.
The National Enquirer's got another election bombshell for us: Obama Sex Perv Scandal blares the breathless headline in big, red, block letters. What could it be? Did he have an affair? Pay off a mistress?
No. He was allegedly mentored as a child by someone who later confessed to secretly authoring under a pseudonym in 1968 "a hard-core pornographic autobiography…laced with perverted sexual activity, bisexuality, rape—and the seduction of children. …In his shocking tell-all, [Frank Marshall Davis] admits to seducing a thirteen year-old girl, voyeurism, exhibitionism, bisexuality, rape and sadomasochism."
Obama refers to a childhood mentor named "Frank" in his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father. The Enquirer says that "Obama insiders" have confirmed it was a reference to Frank Marshall Davis. (The Obama campaign response [pdf] to Jerome Corsi's smear job on Obama, confirms as much, so no "insiders" needed, although that does successfully imply that Obama's trying to hide something and the Enquirer's reporting is more awesome than it is.)
Provided the rest of the information about Davis provided by the salaciously voyeuristic and repugnantly unethical Enquirer is accurate, and it seems to be, the obvious follow-up questions are: 1. How is this a "scandal" for Obama, who was a child at the time of his interaction with Davis? 2. Shouldn't the primary concern be whether Obama was victimized by Davis?
Not according to the first rightwingers out of the gate, natch. (I won't provide the direct link to this bit of swill, but you can find it via John Cole, if you are so inclined.)
The National Enquirer now suggests Barack Obama had an underage, gay affair with a pedophile. Yup. That Frank Marshall Davis guy Barry says was his good friend? Turns out he was a perv of the first order and liked young boys.
How many things are wrong with that single paragraph? There's no such thing as an "underage affair with a pedophile." Affair connotes consent, something a child cannot provide. Calling it a "gay affair with a pedophile" conflates pedophilia with homosexuality, one of the oldest smears in the book. Davis was one of Obama's childhood mentors, not his "good friend." There's nothing in the Enquirer article that suggests Davis "liked young boys," which doesn't mean he didn't, but, to come to that conclusion, one must connect "pedophilia" with "bisexuality," without regard for the former being an aberrant criminal proclivity and the latter being a healthy sexuality. It is a true clusterfucktastrophe of erroneous conclusions and fucked-up (possibly deliberate) misunderstandings about sexuality and sexual assault.
But most awful is the breathless reporting which implies that the possibility Obama was sexually assaulted somehow reflects badly on him. What terrible judgment he has, to have had "an underage, gay affair with a pedophile" at 10 years old! It's a sentiment similarly proffered by another prominent rightwing blogger (to whom you can get via Brad) who wants to know: "When is someone going to question how these associations must have warped Obama's views and render him unstable, and unsuitable for the Presidency?"
And so on.
I never thought I'd see the day, even in the rightwing blogosphere, when the possible suggestion of a politician having been raped as a child was gleefully used to question his fitness for the presidency.
With the dizzying pace of the election and the economic crisis, it seems appropriate to ask: Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a Marx Brothers movie and you were Margaret Dumont?
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
