I have proof, ladies and gentlemen. (Dramatic pause, wiping tear from eye) Proof that head Tea Partier Glenn Beck is, in fact, the Devil Himself!
"What proof could you possibly have," you ask? Well, check THIS out. Here are some important numbers:
912, 828 - numbers pertaining to his most famous events, both rallies in Washington, D.C.
46 - Beck's age
12 - the number of letters in Glenn Lee Beck, his full name
10 - the number of books Wikipedia says he has written, in part or in full
1 - the number of divorces he's been through.
And (912+828)*46/(12*10) - 1 = 666!
Presumably, this means Beck will stop being Satan when he reaches his 47th birthday, since then this will add up to 679.5. But maybe that's what Satan Beck WANTS us to think.
What? I was bored while Selah was napping. Sue me.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thursday, August 19, 2010
"Feel" This
Everything that can been written about the Park51 community center controversy has already been written, so I'll keep this short. I'm most interested not in the empty shouts of offense by the right - I've dealt with that in this space before and will not do so again. What's interesting to me is how otherwise reasonable people like Howard Dean could oppose the community center, as Greenwald notes. Greenwald received a letter from Dean in which he says the following:
It's time that we stopped worshipping at the altar of "feelings," as if the fact that someone feels something makes their point of view legitimate. I don't care what people feel - if their feelings are not backed up by rational observations and conclusions, they're meaningless. When the feeling in question is based on a premise that is patently untrue - in this case, the idea that Muslims, as a group, attacked the U.S. on 9/11 - I see no reason why I should respect those feelings. Mosque opponents are wrong, and they should get over it on their own damn time and not make the rest of the sane world bow to their almighty "feelings."
What's truly odd is that conservatives are usually the ones making that argument. They're the ones usually saying, for example, that someone who "feels" racism is wrong because the statements in question are not intended as racist. (It's a misuse of the argument because the feeling in question is based on a real premise - that is, minorities are subjected to some pretty racist shit. And there are frequently some elements of ostensibly "non-racist" statements that have been used as racist statements in the past. So it's usually a lot more reasonable. But this is all beside the point, thus the parentheses.) Since when did conservatives start believing that people's feelings are sacrosanct and that we should all fall over backwards not to hurt anyone else's?
Oh, that's right - when they can tell someone else to inconvenience themselves at the service of their own feelings.
Truth is, feelings don't matter. The facts matter. We've been reversing this for too long.
In other news:
- The last combat troops pulled out of Iraq today. Not sure if that really changes a whole lot, but it's a milestone to be happy about.
- Interesting church-state case out of the 10th Circuit today - memorial crosses along the side of the road are unconstitutional if erected by the government, in this case the Utah State Highway Patrol. I'm usually a die-hard separationist, but I'm not sure I agree with the court here. Seems to me like a memorial cross serves a legitimate secular purpose as required by the Lemon test - that purpose being memorializing a passed trooper. If there was a trooper who wasn't Christian who was memorialized in such a manner, those challenging the crosses might have a point though - at that point, the cross becomes primarily a religious symbol since it'd be a ridiculously inappropriate memorial.
- In case you haven't heard, Pakistan is drowning. Here are some ways to help the victims. Though some Pakistanis aren't donating because the government sucks and is corrupt.Oh, and shame on the URJ for not having any links on its site. They did well for the Haiti disaster - why go silent now?Update: The URJ spokesperson sent me a nice e-mail today - they replied promptly - and noted that they weren't doing direct aid because they didn't have the resources to get directly involved in Pakistan. They are, however, collecting money for distribution to aid orgs that they trust. That's for the best - no sense in wasting money creating infrastructure when you could use someone else's existing infrastructure to spend that money helping people. It's more efficient that way.
- There are so many reasons to love this TMBG appearance on Letterman from 1990. Is it how Letterman refers to their album as "The" Flood? Or how gloriously nerdy Flansburgh looks next to the relatively hip Linnell? Or... well, it's awesome either way.
My argument is simple. This Center may be intended as a bridge or a healing gesture but it will not be perceived that way unless a dialogue with a real attempt to understand each other happens. That means the builders have to be willing to go beyond what is their right and be willing to talk about feelings whether the feelings are "justified" or not.And my response is this - why should we give a damn about someone's feelings if their feelings are wrong? Or as the more eloquent Greenwald puts it:
The central question raised by this controversy is the same one raised by countless similar controversies throughout American history: whether the irrational fears and prejudices of the majority should be honored and validated or emphatically confronted.I described the bigotry of Park51's opponents as understandable in my previous column on the subject, but understandable bigotry is still bigotry and still wrong.
It's time that we stopped worshipping at the altar of "feelings," as if the fact that someone feels something makes their point of view legitimate. I don't care what people feel - if their feelings are not backed up by rational observations and conclusions, they're meaningless. When the feeling in question is based on a premise that is patently untrue - in this case, the idea that Muslims, as a group, attacked the U.S. on 9/11 - I see no reason why I should respect those feelings. Mosque opponents are wrong, and they should get over it on their own damn time and not make the rest of the sane world bow to their almighty "feelings."
What's truly odd is that conservatives are usually the ones making that argument. They're the ones usually saying, for example, that someone who "feels" racism is wrong because the statements in question are not intended as racist. (It's a misuse of the argument because the feeling in question is based on a real premise - that is, minorities are subjected to some pretty racist shit. And there are frequently some elements of ostensibly "non-racist" statements that have been used as racist statements in the past. So it's usually a lot more reasonable. But this is all beside the point, thus the parentheses.) Since when did conservatives start believing that people's feelings are sacrosanct and that we should all fall over backwards not to hurt anyone else's?
Oh, that's right - when they can tell someone else to inconvenience themselves at the service of their own feelings.
Truth is, feelings don't matter. The facts matter. We've been reversing this for too long.
In other news:
- The last combat troops pulled out of Iraq today. Not sure if that really changes a whole lot, but it's a milestone to be happy about.
- Interesting church-state case out of the 10th Circuit today - memorial crosses along the side of the road are unconstitutional if erected by the government, in this case the Utah State Highway Patrol. I'm usually a die-hard separationist, but I'm not sure I agree with the court here. Seems to me like a memorial cross serves a legitimate secular purpose as required by the Lemon test - that purpose being memorializing a passed trooper. If there was a trooper who wasn't Christian who was memorialized in such a manner, those challenging the crosses might have a point though - at that point, the cross becomes primarily a religious symbol since it'd be a ridiculously inappropriate memorial.
- In case you haven't heard, Pakistan is drowning. Here are some ways to help the victims. Though some Pakistanis aren't donating because the government sucks and is corrupt.
- There are so many reasons to love this TMBG appearance on Letterman from 1990. Is it how Letterman refers to their album as "The" Flood? Or how gloriously nerdy Flansburgh looks next to the relatively hip Linnell? Or... well, it's awesome either way.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
The Constitution's There For A Reason
OK, let me clear something up for y'all in the wake of the smackdown Judge Vaughn Walker dealt to California's Proposition 8 restricting gay marriage. Walker based his ruling on the obvious 14th Amendment grounds - the denial of marriage rights to gay couples was a violation of both equal protection and due process. The equal protection argument seems so blindingly obvious to me that I'm surprised a judge hasn't used that one yet against gay marriage bans (though it was used against the federal DOMA by a MA judge last month, though that ruling also - awesomely - referenced the conservatives' favorite amendment, Number 10). But hold this thought for a second.
Across the country, Virginia AG/demagogue Ken Cuccinelli is clearing hurdles for his lawsuit against the individual mandate to purchase health care that was a centerpiece of the recent health care system reform bill passed back in March. I don't know about whether this case will succeed or not - my gut tells me it won't, mainly because the courts have had an insanely expansive view of the Commerce Clause over the last few decades - but the judge's ruling allowing the suit to proceed is consistent with the unique nature of a federal law requiring individuals to participate in interstate commerce.
The point I'm trying to make is this: critics of both rulings, while hailing from opposite political poles, will make essentially the same argument. You shouldn't overturn legislative acts, they'll say. A majority of citizens or their duly elected representatives voted for it, they'll say. They'll whine about activist judges and say runaway courts are trying to ruin America.
And they'll all be wrong.
See, it doesn't matter if 52% of a state's citizens voted for a law. It doesn't matter if 221 Representatives and 56 Senators approved it. It doesn't matter how well it polls or how much good it does. If it violates the Constitution, it is a judge's solemn duty to invalidate the law. And this applies equally to the gay marriage bans, the federal DOMA, and the individual health care mandate.
Whining about "activist judges" ignores one important principle - we don't live in a pure democracy. We live in a constitutional democracy, and in a constitutional democracy the majority doesn't always get its way. Those words in that constitution have to mean something. It doesn't matter how popular censorship is, say: the Constitution says you can't do it. It doesn't matter how popular gay marriage bans are, and it doesn't matter how much good can be done by an individual health care mandate. If it's unconstitutional, you can't do it.
And guess what? Judges are better positioned to make those calls than we are. That's why we have a system that gives knowledgeable, sharp legal minds the power to compare laws to the Constitution. And if we disagree with the results of a ruling - whether it's the gay marriage ruling, the health care ruling, Citizens United, whatever - we can't be so quick to dismiss it as illegitimate. Judicial review - unfriendly folks call it "activism" - is a well-respected and perfectly legitimate power granted to judges. Rather, let's debate these rulings on the grounds they ought to be debated on - is the judge's interpretation of the Constitution correct?
In the case of gay marriage, I think the judge is correct. You're free to disagree in the comments. But if anyone whines about "activist judges," or thinks that the outcome is less legitimate because it came from a judge instead of a vote, I'm ignoring them and so should you.
Across the country, Virginia AG/demagogue Ken Cuccinelli is clearing hurdles for his lawsuit against the individual mandate to purchase health care that was a centerpiece of the recent health care system reform bill passed back in March. I don't know about whether this case will succeed or not - my gut tells me it won't, mainly because the courts have had an insanely expansive view of the Commerce Clause over the last few decades - but the judge's ruling allowing the suit to proceed is consistent with the unique nature of a federal law requiring individuals to participate in interstate commerce.
The point I'm trying to make is this: critics of both rulings, while hailing from opposite political poles, will make essentially the same argument. You shouldn't overturn legislative acts, they'll say. A majority of citizens or their duly elected representatives voted for it, they'll say. They'll whine about activist judges and say runaway courts are trying to ruin America.
And they'll all be wrong.
See, it doesn't matter if 52% of a state's citizens voted for a law. It doesn't matter if 221 Representatives and 56 Senators approved it. It doesn't matter how well it polls or how much good it does. If it violates the Constitution, it is a judge's solemn duty to invalidate the law. And this applies equally to the gay marriage bans, the federal DOMA, and the individual health care mandate.
Whining about "activist judges" ignores one important principle - we don't live in a pure democracy. We live in a constitutional democracy, and in a constitutional democracy the majority doesn't always get its way. Those words in that constitution have to mean something. It doesn't matter how popular censorship is, say: the Constitution says you can't do it. It doesn't matter how popular gay marriage bans are, and it doesn't matter how much good can be done by an individual health care mandate. If it's unconstitutional, you can't do it.
And guess what? Judges are better positioned to make those calls than we are. That's why we have a system that gives knowledgeable, sharp legal minds the power to compare laws to the Constitution. And if we disagree with the results of a ruling - whether it's the gay marriage ruling, the health care ruling, Citizens United, whatever - we can't be so quick to dismiss it as illegitimate. Judicial review - unfriendly folks call it "activism" - is a well-respected and perfectly legitimate power granted to judges. Rather, let's debate these rulings on the grounds they ought to be debated on - is the judge's interpretation of the Constitution correct?
In the case of gay marriage, I think the judge is correct. You're free to disagree in the comments. But if anyone whines about "activist judges," or thinks that the outcome is less legitimate because it came from a judge instead of a vote, I'm ignoring them and so should you.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Immune Me, Please
One of the best things about America is that absolutely anybody - and I mean anybody - can run for office. Including this dude. Hot Air posted a video of this guy's promo clip which sounds like someone fed a TelePrompTer word salad. But the website is even more awesome, for gems like:
There's only one thing to say after reading this website... God bless America.
VOTE FOR ME AND IF I WIN I WILL IMMUNE YOU FROM ALL STATE CRIMES FOR THE REST OF YOU LIFE!And:
Using the Civil Right Act of 1966 for the first time in history to find out two things:And:
1. why Democracy invaded the U.S. State on July 16 1866
2stop Constitutional Right violations in our state at all cost I will tell you all this
I would like to update the monitory car insurance to match the federal insurance act where they say if you do not know the name and address of the person who will get the check when you pay you money to your agent it is gaming and we can not gamble in Tenn, right now we are gaming
There's only one thing to say after reading this website... God bless America.
Wait For It... Wait For It...
I've been in Arkansas for the weekend, so I've been in kind of a news bubble. Instead of doing the work to find out what's actually going on, I figured I'd just barf up some stuff on Shirley Sherrod and call it a post.
I'm of two minds about this whole thing. Part of me wants to blame this whole thing on Breitbart and his fact-free smear on a low-level USDA employee, but that feels strangely insufficient. Because I also feel like this whole incident is mainly the fault of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and the Obama administration lackeys who took Breitbart at his word and fired her.
And you know what? The more I think about it, the less I blame Breitbart. After all, why should we blame him? Because he's a sensationalist with an agenda? I hate to tell you this, you innocent reader you, but that's part of a proud journalistic tradition going back to Pulitzer and Hearst. And it's continued today not just by Breitbart but by Olbermann and O'Reilly, Hannity and Maddow. Should we blame him because he got the facts wrong? Well, even the best journalists do that - 30 years of faithful news reporting didn't prevent Dan Rather from botching a report on George W. Bush's national guard service. Viewed in isolation, this incident is little different from that one from a journalistic perspective.
So what's the problem with Breitbart? Two things, both related:
1) He's really, really, really bad at his job.
2) Decision-makers and news consumers give him far more trust than he deserves.
See, I have no problem with journalism that has an agenda. That's frequently the best kind of reporting, because it's not constrained by some imagined duty to be "even-handed." But dammit, if you're gonna be a sensationalist with an agenda, at least get your facts straight! Breitbart is now 0 for 2 on his big stories. The ACORN videos he posted have been demonstrated to be falsified by everyone from the GAO to the CA attorney general's office, and the Sherrod video was demonstrated - within hours - to be edited to give a false impression. The thing is, a talented agenda journalist would never have stooped to that level. There were plenty of skeletons in ACORN's closet that begged to be excavated, especially regarding their inner financial dealings. You didn't need the frat party pimps-'n'-hoes routine to do a good hatchet job on them. And if you're trying to make the point that the NAACP hates white people, there's gotta be a better way to do it than to smear a low-level functionary, right?
That's what differentiates Breitbart from the people I listed earlier. They at least understand how to present existing facts in such a way that it tells the story the journalist wants to tell. Breitbart's so damn lazy that he just makes up his own facts. Which leads me to the really dangerous part, which is #2.
Folks, Breitbart is what he is. He's not going to change. So why should anyone give him more credit than they give other sources? In this Sherrod incident, the point isn't that Breitbart falsely edited a video. He's gonna do that. The point is that otherwise respectable journalists fell all over themselves reporting this story, and otherwise respectable leaders fell all over themselves reacting to it, without bothering to consider the source of the story and giving it the double-checking it deserves. Fortunately for us, some enterprising journalists remembered the ACORN debacle and stopped the story before it got too out of hand, but by then the damage was done.
Which is why the biggest blame has to fall on the NAACP and Vilsack for their reactions to this whole thing. Expecting Breitbart to be honest and competent is foolish. Expecting Fox News to not run with something that makes liberals look bad is also foolish. That's why the best thing to do when faced with a story as sensational as the Sherrod story is to wait on it. Withhold judgment until the story has played itself out. Had the NAACP waited twelve hours to make its statement, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.
So the next time Breitbart says something, we should all just take a deep breath, digest the whole thing, search for context, and keep an eye out for double-checking to come in from the other side - or do it ourselves, if we have the resources. And really, the same should go for any news reports, whether they're from an incompetent like Breitbart, a respected agenda journalist like Maddow or O'Reilly, or a mainstream source like the Washington Post. (Did we learn nothing from the "Gee Dead" incident, people?)
Good journalism starts a conversation. And who makes a decision on an issue when the conversation on it is just starting?
Couldn't find the Blues Traveler song I wanted to post, so here's an awesome live version of my favorite song of theirs.
I'm of two minds about this whole thing. Part of me wants to blame this whole thing on Breitbart and his fact-free smear on a low-level USDA employee, but that feels strangely insufficient. Because I also feel like this whole incident is mainly the fault of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and the Obama administration lackeys who took Breitbart at his word and fired her.
And you know what? The more I think about it, the less I blame Breitbart. After all, why should we blame him? Because he's a sensationalist with an agenda? I hate to tell you this, you innocent reader you, but that's part of a proud journalistic tradition going back to Pulitzer and Hearst. And it's continued today not just by Breitbart but by Olbermann and O'Reilly, Hannity and Maddow. Should we blame him because he got the facts wrong? Well, even the best journalists do that - 30 years of faithful news reporting didn't prevent Dan Rather from botching a report on George W. Bush's national guard service. Viewed in isolation, this incident is little different from that one from a journalistic perspective.
So what's the problem with Breitbart? Two things, both related:
1) He's really, really, really bad at his job.
2) Decision-makers and news consumers give him far more trust than he deserves.
See, I have no problem with journalism that has an agenda. That's frequently the best kind of reporting, because it's not constrained by some imagined duty to be "even-handed." But dammit, if you're gonna be a sensationalist with an agenda, at least get your facts straight! Breitbart is now 0 for 2 on his big stories. The ACORN videos he posted have been demonstrated to be falsified by everyone from the GAO to the CA attorney general's office, and the Sherrod video was demonstrated - within hours - to be edited to give a false impression. The thing is, a talented agenda journalist would never have stooped to that level. There were plenty of skeletons in ACORN's closet that begged to be excavated, especially regarding their inner financial dealings. You didn't need the frat party pimps-'n'-hoes routine to do a good hatchet job on them. And if you're trying to make the point that the NAACP hates white people, there's gotta be a better way to do it than to smear a low-level functionary, right?
That's what differentiates Breitbart from the people I listed earlier. They at least understand how to present existing facts in such a way that it tells the story the journalist wants to tell. Breitbart's so damn lazy that he just makes up his own facts. Which leads me to the really dangerous part, which is #2.
Folks, Breitbart is what he is. He's not going to change. So why should anyone give him more credit than they give other sources? In this Sherrod incident, the point isn't that Breitbart falsely edited a video. He's gonna do that. The point is that otherwise respectable journalists fell all over themselves reporting this story, and otherwise respectable leaders fell all over themselves reacting to it, without bothering to consider the source of the story and giving it the double-checking it deserves. Fortunately for us, some enterprising journalists remembered the ACORN debacle and stopped the story before it got too out of hand, but by then the damage was done.
Which is why the biggest blame has to fall on the NAACP and Vilsack for their reactions to this whole thing. Expecting Breitbart to be honest and competent is foolish. Expecting Fox News to not run with something that makes liberals look bad is also foolish. That's why the best thing to do when faced with a story as sensational as the Sherrod story is to wait on it. Withhold judgment until the story has played itself out. Had the NAACP waited twelve hours to make its statement, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.
So the next time Breitbart says something, we should all just take a deep breath, digest the whole thing, search for context, and keep an eye out for double-checking to come in from the other side - or do it ourselves, if we have the resources. And really, the same should go for any news reports, whether they're from an incompetent like Breitbart, a respected agenda journalist like Maddow or O'Reilly, or a mainstream source like the Washington Post. (Did we learn nothing from the "Gee Dead" incident, people?)
Good journalism starts a conversation. And who makes a decision on an issue when the conversation on it is just starting?
Couldn't find the Blues Traveler song I wanted to post, so here's an awesome live version of my favorite song of theirs.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Mixed Bag on Free Speech
A federal appeals court for the New York-based Second Circuit ruled that the FCC's fleeting expletive rules are unconstitutional and should be struck down. Any time the FCC takes it on the chin, I celebrate, and so I love this decision. In the words of Bono, it's fucking brilliant. What's weird, though, is that the Supreme Court upheld those very same rules in a case decided just a year ago. I don't know whether the Second Circuit has the ability to challenge the Supreme Court so soon after the latter's decision, but that's highly unusual, right? The explanation I can think of is that the Supremes upheld the FCC's right to censor expletives but that the Second Circuit found that the specific way in which they were doing so was unconstitutional. I'll be looking forward to seeing how this all ends, though considering the free-speech inclination of this Court I'm not optimistic.
Speaking of things I'm not optimistic about, there's a huge danger to free speech percolating in the federal courts: The feds are trying Buttman. (Thanks to Jacob for the link.) Buttman is an extraordinarily successful pornographer whose oeuvre apparently includes milk enemas. (I'll take Amanda Hess' word for that one.) Now while I do think Buttman - real name John Stagliano - should face a lifetime in prison for improper wasting of delicious, delicious chocolate milk, the decision to put him - or anyone, for that matter - on trial for obscenity is extremely worrisome.
Let's pause for a second while we read Martin Sheen making my argument for me because I can't find the damn video:
Second, it's not a big deal. What do you think happens when a kid learns a cuss word? An angel's wings shrivel up? Part of her soul dies? Fuck that. I fail to see what the big deal around cuss words is. A kid who yells "fuck" because he stubbed his toe isn't hurting anyone. And a kid can be plenty hurtful while speaking the Queen's perfect English - just ask anyone who went through elementary and middle school. You want to protect kids? Teach them not to be bullying assholes.
Third, if obscenity in porn is "damaging" to kids, I have to ask... exactly how are kids getting a hold of explicit pornography anyway? Do you just leave your Buttman videos on the goddamn coffee table? Oh, sorry honey, I thought I was showing you "Thomas and the Really Brave Engine" but instead you're watching "Anal Angels 18: Junk in the Trunk." My bad. It really doesn't seem like it's that hard to keep from showing your kids porn, and by the time they're old enough to take the initiative to find porn themselves it's probably not so "damaging" or whatever, now is it? It's not the government's fucking job to raise your kids. It's yours. Hide your porn stash, turn the TV off anything you find objectionable, and buy one of those channel blockers if you must. For example, I don't let my kid watch "The 700 Club," because fuck that shit. That's obscenity right there. But you can choose your own path. If you don't want your kid exposed to awards shows where THERE MIGHT BE CUSSING, don't let your kid watch them. Don't try to take it away from those of us mature adults who are perfectly capable of enjoying (or not enjoying) porn and cussing for what it is.
And finally, which would you rather have your kid learn?
1) Adults say some funny sounding words and do some really freaky disgusting stuff naked.
2) Words written on a page 220 years ago are utterly meaningless.
Think about your priorities, people. I'm okay with my daughter accidentally learning 1) as long as she never, ever, thinks 2) is okay.
Yeah, I said it. A kid learning about weird sex isn't a big deal. Proper parenting can put that into context for kids. Chances are if you talk openly and honestly about what they've seen accidentally then they'll be okay - just don't overreact. A kid learning that the right to free speech can be violated at will, however, is a tragedy. And by prosecuting pornographers and punishing swearers on TV, that's exactly what we're teaching them. Munroe's Law applies here - consenting adults selling videos of their weird sex to other consenting adults isn't a danger to society. Kids accidentally seeing those videos isn't a danger to our society. Rendering the Constitution meaningless because we find the actions of other consenting adults "icky" and because we need to Protect Our Children? That's fuckin' danger.
Speaking of things I'm not optimistic about, there's a huge danger to free speech percolating in the federal courts: The feds are trying Buttman. (Thanks to Jacob for the link.) Buttman is an extraordinarily successful pornographer whose oeuvre apparently includes milk enemas. (I'll take Amanda Hess' word for that one.) Now while I do think Buttman - real name John Stagliano - should face a lifetime in prison for improper wasting of delicious, delicious chocolate milk, the decision to put him - or anyone, for that matter - on trial for obscenity is extremely worrisome.
Let's pause for a second while we read Martin Sheen making my argument for me because I can't find the damn video:
John Van Dyke: If our children can buy pornography on any street corner for five dollars, isn't that too high a price to pay for free speech?Folks, when the First Amendment says "no law," it damn well means it. No "oh but maybe it'll offend my delicate sensibilities" exceptions allowed. And no "think of the children!" exceptions either. FCC chair Julius Genachowski opines in that first link:
President Josiah Bartlet: No.
John Van Dyke: Really?
President Josiah Bartlet: On the other hand, I think that five dollars is too high a price to pay for pornography.
We’re reviewing the court’s decision in light of our commitment to protect children, empower parents, and uphold the First Amendment.First thing. If you think kids are going to be sheltered from expletives by the FCC, you're a fucking idiot. My two-year-old doesn't watch TV outside of the Backyardigans and some sporting events, and she'll still learn to cuss. You know why? Because she's around me half the time, and occasionally, Daddy has to put something together while she watches, and that leads to some expletives that are frequently more than fleeting. You think giving Bono a fine for dropping an F-bomb is gonna stop your kids from swearing? Fuck no. Guess what? Even if you're Mr./Ms. Perfect Daddy or Mommy who never swears, your kid's gonna have friends and they're gonna be able to swear. Chances are your kid will know four cuss words before they even know who Bono is.
Second, it's not a big deal. What do you think happens when a kid learns a cuss word? An angel's wings shrivel up? Part of her soul dies? Fuck that. I fail to see what the big deal around cuss words is. A kid who yells "fuck" because he stubbed his toe isn't hurting anyone. And a kid can be plenty hurtful while speaking the Queen's perfect English - just ask anyone who went through elementary and middle school. You want to protect kids? Teach them not to be bullying assholes.
Third, if obscenity in porn is "damaging" to kids, I have to ask... exactly how are kids getting a hold of explicit pornography anyway? Do you just leave your Buttman videos on the goddamn coffee table? Oh, sorry honey, I thought I was showing you "Thomas and the Really Brave Engine" but instead you're watching "Anal Angels 18: Junk in the Trunk." My bad. It really doesn't seem like it's that hard to keep from showing your kids porn, and by the time they're old enough to take the initiative to find porn themselves it's probably not so "damaging" or whatever, now is it? It's not the government's fucking job to raise your kids. It's yours. Hide your porn stash, turn the TV off anything you find objectionable, and buy one of those channel blockers if you must. For example, I don't let my kid watch "The 700 Club," because fuck that shit. That's obscenity right there. But you can choose your own path. If you don't want your kid exposed to awards shows where THERE MIGHT BE CUSSING, don't let your kid watch them. Don't try to take it away from those of us mature adults who are perfectly capable of enjoying (or not enjoying) porn and cussing for what it is.
And finally, which would you rather have your kid learn?
1) Adults say some funny sounding words and do some really freaky disgusting stuff naked.
2) Words written on a page 220 years ago are utterly meaningless.
Think about your priorities, people. I'm okay with my daughter accidentally learning 1) as long as she never, ever, thinks 2) is okay.
Yeah, I said it. A kid learning about weird sex isn't a big deal. Proper parenting can put that into context for kids. Chances are if you talk openly and honestly about what they've seen accidentally then they'll be okay - just don't overreact. A kid learning that the right to free speech can be violated at will, however, is a tragedy. And by prosecuting pornographers and punishing swearers on TV, that's exactly what we're teaching them. Munroe's Law applies here - consenting adults selling videos of their weird sex to other consenting adults isn't a danger to society. Kids accidentally seeing those videos isn't a danger to our society. Rendering the Constitution meaningless because we find the actions of other consenting adults "icky" and because we need to Protect Our Children? That's fuckin' danger.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Your Daily Timesuck
This site is a good way to procrastinate for a little while. It theoretically analyzes your writing to see what famous author you write like, but I think it just spits out random names. My last few posts got Dan Brown (really? I suck that much?), Chuck Palahniuk, James Fenimore Cooper, Douglas Adams (seriously the highlight of my day), Stephen King, P.G. Wodehouse, H.P. Lovecraft, and Kurt Vonnegut.
I had some fun feeding this thing actual quotes from authors. Adams came back as Adams, but Palahniuk consistently came back as King, and Asimov came back as Jane Austen.
I had some fun feeding this thing actual quotes from authors. Adams came back as Adams, but Palahniuk consistently came back as King, and Asimov came back as Jane Austen.
Culture wars and "forced liberation"
So. The Burqopocalypse is upon us in France. Their lower house, the National Assembly, passed a sweeping ban on Muslim face veils by the absurd margin of 335 to 1. Considering how rarely 335 French people ever agree on anything, I'd say this shows how popular the ban on such clothing is in France.
And not just in France either; Egyptian Mona Eltahawy loves the idea:
We Americans, by and large, view our country less as a culture and more as a collection of high-minded ideals - free speech, freedom of religion, equality before the law, etc. The only people who talk about "culture" as a requirement to be American are right-wing windbags who prattle on about what it means to be a "real American," and how that usually involves not living like a liberal. This is because American culture is far from static - we've been spending 230 years being influenced by everyone from the native Americans and the English colonists to the Irish and Italians to the Mexicans and Indians. We eat eggs and sausage for breakfast, tacos for lunch, and chicken tikka masala for dinner and think absolutely nothing of it. By contrast, Western Europe has a lot narrower range of influences and is thus a lot more culturally homogeneous. (So what's interesting is that our right-wing culture warriors have more in common with Western Europeans than they'd care to admit - you listen to Sarkozy or any other French politician talk about the burqa ban, and you could just as easily be listening to Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney.)
And that, in a nutshell, is why I prefer America to its European allies and would even if I hadn't been born here. In America, our natural inclination is to provide everyone with the freedom to define their own lives, to accept or reject elements of our culture on their own terms. Instead of forcing women to drop the burqa, which smacks of the cultural imperialism of a colonial power exerted upon foreigners at home, we present a burqa-free life as an option to be accepted or rejected on an individual basis. The liberation that comes from dumping misogyny on your own terms is more difficult to reach, yes, but far more valuable than the forced liberation the French offer.
Forced liberation is, after all, a paradox, one that will be seen in Muslim immigrants' minds as more forced and less liberation. The French, by attempting to enforce "culture," have managed to make equality seem like oppression, while simply allowing women to wear the burqa if they choose but confronting them with options would make equality seem like an appealing, liberating choice (to the women, at least). And that's the tragedy of the European model... and the beauty of the American one.
And not just in France either; Egyptian Mona Eltahawy loves the idea:
I support banning the burqa because I believe it equates piety with the disappearance of women. The closer you are to God, the less I see of you -- and I find that idea extremely dangerous. It comes from an ideology that basically wants to hide women away. What really strikes me is that a lot of people say that they support a woman's right to choose to wear a burqa because it's her natural right. But I often tell them that what they're doing is supporting an ideology that does not believe in a woman's right to do anything. We're talking about women who cannot travel alone, cannot drive, cannot even go into a hospital without a man with them. And yet there is basically one right that we are fighting for these women to have, and that is the right to cover their faces.But this law is only incidentally a positive blow for women's rights. It's really a more sinister campaign against Muslims and for "French values," as Eltahawy herself admits:
But what really disturbs me about the European context is that the ban is driven almost solely by xenophobic right wingers who I know very well don't give a toss about women's rights. What they're doing is they're hijacking an issue that they know is very emotive and very easy to sell to Europeans who are scared about immigration, Europeans who are scared about the economy, Europeans who don't understand people who look and sound different than them.First, let's be honest about the burqa. It's a misogynistic tradition that is only tangentially related to Islam. The Qur'an's dress code says nothing about forcing women to cover themselves head to toe - hell, the traditional headscarf (hijab) isn't even required by the Qur'an! The burqa is an imposition of the unsavory heavily woman-hating aspects of Arab culture and not of Islam itself. Which brings us to culture, the real reason for the burqa ban, as voiced by the parliamentary report that led to it:
"The wearing of the full veil is a challenge to our republic. This is unacceptable," the report on Tuesday said. "We must condemn this excess."The law is not about women's rights per se - it's about defining what is and is not "French." Living your life in a certain approved way is important to the health of the republic. And here you see a couple of things: first, why this CNN article reports that majorities in Western Europe favor a burqa ban while two-thirds of Americans do not, and second, the similarities Eurosnobs have with right-wing Americans.
We Americans, by and large, view our country less as a culture and more as a collection of high-minded ideals - free speech, freedom of religion, equality before the law, etc. The only people who talk about "culture" as a requirement to be American are right-wing windbags who prattle on about what it means to be a "real American," and how that usually involves not living like a liberal. This is because American culture is far from static - we've been spending 230 years being influenced by everyone from the native Americans and the English colonists to the Irish and Italians to the Mexicans and Indians. We eat eggs and sausage for breakfast, tacos for lunch, and chicken tikka masala for dinner and think absolutely nothing of it. By contrast, Western Europe has a lot narrower range of influences and is thus a lot more culturally homogeneous. (So what's interesting is that our right-wing culture warriors have more in common with Western Europeans than they'd care to admit - you listen to Sarkozy or any other French politician talk about the burqa ban, and you could just as easily be listening to Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney.)
And that, in a nutshell, is why I prefer America to its European allies and would even if I hadn't been born here. In America, our natural inclination is to provide everyone with the freedom to define their own lives, to accept or reject elements of our culture on their own terms. Instead of forcing women to drop the burqa, which smacks of the cultural imperialism of a colonial power exerted upon foreigners at home, we present a burqa-free life as an option to be accepted or rejected on an individual basis. The liberation that comes from dumping misogyny on your own terms is more difficult to reach, yes, but far more valuable than the forced liberation the French offer.
Forced liberation is, after all, a paradox, one that will be seen in Muslim immigrants' minds as more forced and less liberation. The French, by attempting to enforce "culture," have managed to make equality seem like oppression, while simply allowing women to wear the burqa if they choose but confronting them with options would make equality seem like an appealing, liberating choice (to the women, at least). And that's the tragedy of the European model... and the beauty of the American one.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Beware the AVOCADO OF DOOM.
I'll post on the French Burqopocalypse tomorrow once I've had time to digest it. But for now, the Wall Street Journal wants you to know that your favorite Mexican-inspired dips MIGHT BE OUT TO KILL YOU DEAD:
So how long do you think it'll take before some dumbshit elected official reads this article and decides he/she has to Do Something, and proposes a stupid law? I'm thinking that it'll either a) require that all salsa and guacamole be pasteurized, which really doesn't make any sense but that never stopped someone who wanted to Do Something before; b) require all salsa and guac be spiked with penicillin; c) outlaw the free salsa given out at Mexican restaurants because THEY'RE FEEDING YOU POISON; or d) outlaw Mexican food altogether (though I hear Arizona's trying that one for completely different reasons). I'm setting the over/under at three weeks.
And oh yeah. Funny how salsa and guac get called out for being uncooked foods but good ol' American salads don't. Just sayin'.
Hot or mild, the salsa and guacamole Americans love to order in restaurants may be packing an unexpected kick, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Nothing like a little scare journalism to liven up a slow July news day, eh?
The dishes were blamed for one in 25 identified outbreaks of food poisoning at restaurants between 1998 and 2008—more than twice the rate of the previous decade, the CDC said. Often, the outbreaks were traced to raw hot peppers, tomatoes and cilantro—common ingredients in salsa and guacamole.
Uncooked foods, such as salsa and guacamole, are risky because there is no heat to wipe out bad bacteria, says Lisa McBeth, who supervises food safety for the Qdoba Mexican Grill chain, based in Wheat Ridge, Colo.
So how long do you think it'll take before some dumbshit elected official reads this article and decides he/she has to Do Something, and proposes a stupid law? I'm thinking that it'll either a) require that all salsa and guacamole be pasteurized, which really doesn't make any sense but that never stopped someone who wanted to Do Something before; b) require all salsa and guac be spiked with penicillin; c) outlaw the free salsa given out at Mexican restaurants because THEY'RE FEEDING YOU POISON; or d) outlaw Mexican food altogether (though I hear Arizona's trying that one for completely different reasons). I'm setting the over/under at three weeks.
And oh yeah. Funny how salsa and guac get called out for being uncooked foods but good ol' American salads don't. Just sayin'.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Read The Damn First Amendment, Fool
It honestly surprises me how ham-handed some people in positions of power can be with regard to Constitutional rights, especially the First Amendment, and especially in schools. The First Amendment, for all its bluntness, comes with a healthy dollop of nuance when it comes to religion. The state may not support religion, but it may not prevent others from freely exercising theirs. When people are told that, say, teachers can't support religion while they're teaching, they take that as meaning that no one can express religious belief in a classroom, ever. That, of course, is wrong - free exercise and no establishment are a both/and proposition. You can't honor one and not honor the other if you want to remain on the Constitution's good side.
So it is with this case from Plano, TX. A teacher decided that she had to prevent her kids from distributing Jesus literature in her classroom and is getting sued for it. The case is right now on a mundane legality - is the teacher subject to qualified immunity for her actions? - but it's a fairly straightforward Constitutional case. Most of us who care about the First Amendment can see that an elementary school student has the right to free exercise and free speech when it comes to her religion.
This sort of thing is what shows the conservative "they're trying to take God out of our schools" talking point to be a bald-faced lie. The Establishment Clause does not require the scrubbing of mentions of religion from all public places - in fact, the Free Exercise Clause guarantees that such a scrubbing will not occur. So next time someone whines about "taking God out of the public sphere," please direct them to the Constitution immediately.
So it is with this case from Plano, TX. A teacher decided that she had to prevent her kids from distributing Jesus literature in her classroom and is getting sued for it. The case is right now on a mundane legality - is the teacher subject to qualified immunity for her actions? - but it's a fairly straightforward Constitutional case. Most of us who care about the First Amendment can see that an elementary school student has the right to free exercise and free speech when it comes to her religion.
This sort of thing is what shows the conservative "they're trying to take God out of our schools" talking point to be a bald-faced lie. The Establishment Clause does not require the scrubbing of mentions of religion from all public places - in fact, the Free Exercise Clause guarantees that such a scrubbing will not occur. So next time someone whines about "taking God out of the public sphere," please direct them to the Constitution immediately.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
The Daily D'Oh
Like many of you, dear readers, I watch The Daily Show regularly (or used to, before going to bed at 11:30 every night meant sleep deprivation at the hands of a two-year-old who insists on getting up at 6 AM). And so, like many of you, I had a somewhat knee-jerk reaction when I heard about Jezebel's Irin Carmon (who, come to think of it, made an appearance in another recent blog post of mine, so congratulations Ms. Carmon, you're now important enough to appear on this blog read by, like, six people) accusing The Daily Show of sexism.
"Hey, that's not right," I thought. "The Daily Show is liberal. They're the good, tolerant, love-everyone people who make fun of sexists. They're not sexists themselves, right? That's impossible."
Then I bothered to, you know, read the damn article. And it's not just one possibly disgruntled employee - Carmon exhaustively catalogs complaints by numerous people who left the show, enough to conclusively demonstrate that there's probably a pattern going on here. Among the accusations: they hire predominately male correspondents and writers, their environment isn't really woman friendly, and so on. The article cites the hiring of the decidedly mediocre Olivia Munn over several presumably funnier women (whom Matt criticized in a recent comment) as proof that the producers weren't interested in hiring funny women, just in hiring women who look good catering to men.
The women who do work there - 40% of the total staff, actually - weren't necessarily impressed, and so offered this rebuke. Furthermore, Carmon cites longtime correspondent and noted female Samantha Bee as saying her gender has been "no impediment." Women aren't systematically kept down - the show hires completely on merit.
So who's right? Let's start with Carmon's quote of Madeleine Smithberg, the co-creator of the show who had a falling-out with Stewart in 2003:
Amanda Hess has a great take on this controversy that chalks this whole controversy up to ignorance. Stewart and the rest of The Daily Show's producers operate unaware of the larger forces of sexism that drive their hiring practices. They honestly believe that they're hiring the best people for the job, and that these people mostly happen to be male, not knowing that women are systematically kept out of the running by the way the entertainment industry operates.
Since we're talking entertainment industry, let's use a tortured movie analogy to explain what's going on here:
Jon Stewart, in this case, is Neo, operating blindly within a sexist system that he, for whatever reason, can't see. He believes himself to be doing good, but doesn't know what's really going on so can't fight against it. Carmon, then, would be Morpheus, showing Stewart the harsh reality of his world and offering him the chance to change it. Of course Stewart and the rest of The Daily Show's producers, actors, and fans are going to react badly, just as Neo originally wouldn't hear of Morpheus' "you're controlled by computers" bullshit. But eventually, just as Neo had to choose between remaining part of the system or trying to change it (in pill form), Stewart and his fans will have to choose between continuing to operate as if institutional sexism didn't exist and understanding that reality and going out of our way to change it.
I can choose the red pill, but I have no power over this kind of stuff and so it wouldn't do a damn bit of good. Let's hope Stewart does the same.
"Hey, that's not right," I thought. "The Daily Show is liberal. They're the good, tolerant, love-everyone people who make fun of sexists. They're not sexists themselves, right? That's impossible."
Then I bothered to, you know, read the damn article. And it's not just one possibly disgruntled employee - Carmon exhaustively catalogs complaints by numerous people who left the show, enough to conclusively demonstrate that there's probably a pattern going on here. Among the accusations: they hire predominately male correspondents and writers, their environment isn't really woman friendly, and so on. The article cites the hiring of the decidedly mediocre Olivia Munn over several presumably funnier women (whom Matt criticized in a recent comment) as proof that the producers weren't interested in hiring funny women, just in hiring women who look good catering to men.
The women who do work there - 40% of the total staff, actually - weren't necessarily impressed, and so offered this rebuke. Furthermore, Carmon cites longtime correspondent and noted female Samantha Bee as saying her gender has been "no impediment." Women aren't systematically kept down - the show hires completely on merit.
So who's right? Let's start with Carmon's quote of Madeleine Smithberg, the co-creator of the show who had a falling-out with Stewart in 2003:
"I don't think Jon is sexist," she says. "I don't think that there is a double standard at the Daily Show. I do think that by the time it gets to the Daily Show it's already been through the horrible sexist double standard of the universe. You're not hiring someone right out of school. By the time they get to the candidates of the Daily Show, the herd has been thinned by the larger societal forces." Of the greater talent pool of comedians, she said, "All that's left are white men and Aziz Ansari."So maybe The Daily Show does believe that it hires on merit. I find this highly likely, in fact. The entertainment industry is oddly dominated by people who think that entertainment has to cater almost exclusively to men. Take a gander at this amazing article by former screenwriter Jennifer Kesler about why two women aren't allowed to talk to each other in a movie unless it's about a man. (Think about it. Find me some movies that pass this test. I'll wait.) That whole site is dedicated to the sexism of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, so a little other reading there and you'll begin to understand the environment in which The Daily Show operates.
"The planet is sexist," Smithberg adds. "At least in comedy we don't have genital mutilation. That we know of."
Amanda Hess has a great take on this controversy that chalks this whole controversy up to ignorance. Stewart and the rest of The Daily Show's producers operate unaware of the larger forces of sexism that drive their hiring practices. They honestly believe that they're hiring the best people for the job, and that these people mostly happen to be male, not knowing that women are systematically kept out of the running by the way the entertainment industry operates.
Since we're talking entertainment industry, let's use a tortured movie analogy to explain what's going on here:
Jon Stewart, in this case, is Neo, operating blindly within a sexist system that he, for whatever reason, can't see. He believes himself to be doing good, but doesn't know what's really going on so can't fight against it. Carmon, then, would be Morpheus, showing Stewart the harsh reality of his world and offering him the chance to change it. Of course Stewart and the rest of The Daily Show's producers, actors, and fans are going to react badly, just as Neo originally wouldn't hear of Morpheus' "you're controlled by computers" bullshit. But eventually, just as Neo had to choose between remaining part of the system or trying to change it (in pill form), Stewart and his fans will have to choose between continuing to operate as if institutional sexism didn't exist and understanding that reality and going out of our way to change it.
I can choose the red pill, but I have no power over this kind of stuff and so it wouldn't do a damn bit of good. Let's hope Stewart does the same.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
The Security State in Action
It's really a sad state of affairs when I hear that there's a bomb scare on I-40 and immediately know, without hearing anything else, that it's fake, and that probably something fell off a car somewhere and people freaked the fuck out. Of course, I was right. Cynicism pays, people.
Oh, apparently a deputy shot himself in the arm responding to the foam thingy too. I don't know why I'm laughing at this. I just am.
Oh, apparently a deputy shot himself in the arm responding to the foam thingy too. I don't know why I'm laughing at this. I just am.
On Soccer and Attractive People
Anyone who follows straight female soccer fans on Twitter has seen at least a few tweets about the hotness/notness of several of the players. (Cristiano Ronaldo, Landon Donovan, and, oddly, Yoann Gourcuff seem to be the ones most mentioned among my tweeps.) I, personally, like it - I'm not used to seeing men drooled over in the same way we straight men drool over women. It's a refreshing step towards equality. But the question still arises: is this:
different from this:
(That's Brandi Chastain, for those of you who don't remember the '99 Women's World Cup at which she scored the winning PK in the shootout final against China.)
My thought is no, of course not. But Irin at Jezebel explains why there's some doubt:
Good points, all, and I understand that women are judged based on their looks at a far higher rate than are men (although men are also judged on their height and amount of hair loss). And I'll accept that women's sports are taken less seriously than men's - I've had to remind several fellow soccer fans that the Women's World Cup is next year, and that we have a shot at winning. But do those of us who pay attention to women's athletics really have trouble taking female athletes seriously? And can we really be worried that straight male fans of the sport are objectifying the athletes?
Irin goes on to discuss the reasons why she enjoys ogling male soccer players, and among them is this rather telling one:
The worry, I suppose, is that men would dismiss a female athlete who they don't find attractive. I'm not sure I agree. I'm not particularly attracted to Abby Wambach, but damn, can she find the back of the net. She's a gifted goal scorer and that's what matters. (And considering the problems our men's team has with strikers, this is no small issue. I honestly wonder who's going to step up and score goals if Wambach has to be out. Can I trust Heather O'Reilly? Or Lauren Cheney? Wait, I'm getting sidetracked.)
I understand that the assumption is always going to be that a man who comments on a woman's attractiveness is dismissive of other aspects of her personality. This tends to not be true of my group of friends, but I also recognize that most women have experienced this sort of disparagement before. So I don't begrudge women the right to make that assumption. Hell, if I were in their shoes I'd make the same assumption, no doubt. But is that going to stop me from talking about how hot Cat Whitehill is? No. I know that I respect her as a defender (for both the USWNT and the Washington Freedom) and I'll just have to hope that my female friends will trust me when I say that I do.
different from this:
(That's Brandi Chastain, for those of you who don't remember the '99 Women's World Cup at which she scored the winning PK in the shootout final against China.)
My thought is no, of course not. But Irin at Jezebel explains why there's some doubt:
In our current universe, men do not have trouble being taken seriously based on their looks or perceived sexiness, nor is their worth in society primarily judged by them. Our drooling over Benny Feilhaber isn't just a drop in the bucket — it also won't contribute to the overall oppression of men, soccer playing or otherwise. They will not be told their primary value is based on whether women want to fuck them. They will not be paid less on the dollar or subject to violence in representation or acts. They will not be treated like meat or chattel. Period.(Benny Feilhaber? Really?)
Good points, all, and I understand that women are judged based on their looks at a far higher rate than are men (although men are also judged on their height and amount of hair loss). And I'll accept that women's sports are taken less seriously than men's - I've had to remind several fellow soccer fans that the Women's World Cup is next year, and that we have a shot at winning. But do those of us who pay attention to women's athletics really have trouble taking female athletes seriously? And can we really be worried that straight male fans of the sport are objectifying the athletes?
Irin goes on to discuss the reasons why she enjoys ogling male soccer players, and among them is this rather telling one:
4) They're having fun doing what they love.We can go farther and say this - she recognizes that these men have value beyond their appearance. They're talented soccer players who are known for doing something besides putting on a show for women. And so when they do put on a show, as they do on the Vanity Fair cover I posted earlier, the world recognizes that they're soccer players who also happen to be hot. I'd point out that the same should be said for Chastain, a talented defender who also just happens to be hot. And that's the same way I and my fellow US women's team fans look at the women who play on that team. Sure, Hope Solo's hot, but what matters is that she keeps the ball from going in the net. (And that she doesn't talk smack about Brianna Scurry. Let's keep the USWNT a no-jackass zone please.) These women enjoy playing soccer, they're good at it, and yes, many of them look very, very good doing so. So what's the problem with me enjoying their looks as well as their talent?
This needs little explanation. No sexyface, no corpse-like poses, just spontaneous shirt-shedding and teammate grabbing.
The worry, I suppose, is that men would dismiss a female athlete who they don't find attractive. I'm not sure I agree. I'm not particularly attracted to Abby Wambach, but damn, can she find the back of the net. She's a gifted goal scorer and that's what matters. (And considering the problems our men's team has with strikers, this is no small issue. I honestly wonder who's going to step up and score goals if Wambach has to be out. Can I trust Heather O'Reilly? Or Lauren Cheney? Wait, I'm getting sidetracked.)
I understand that the assumption is always going to be that a man who comments on a woman's attractiveness is dismissive of other aspects of her personality. This tends to not be true of my group of friends, but I also recognize that most women have experienced this sort of disparagement before. So I don't begrudge women the right to make that assumption. Hell, if I were in their shoes I'd make the same assumption, no doubt. But is that going to stop me from talking about how hot Cat Whitehill is? No. I know that I respect her as a defender (for both the USWNT and the Washington Freedom) and I'll just have to hope that my female friends will trust me when I say that I do.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
More Supreme Court Hackery
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, recently decided to decimate the First Amendment in order to give a big fat present to the terror fearmongers. The case in question was whether the government's "material support" law, which forbids Americans from giving money, "training," or "expert advice and assistance" to organizations that are deemed to be "terrorist organizations" by the federal government, is Constitutional. Stevens joined the Court's right-wingers in saying they were - Breyer dissented, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor. The case is Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.
To his credit, Roberts' opinion does say that advocating for said groups was Constitutionally protected, but that the law doesn't forbid that. Even if we take him at his word, though, the decision is still odious. The main reason, of course, is that the decision to designate some group as a "terrorist group" has little to no check on it. The Law.com article I linked claims that the Tamil Tigers and the Kurdistan Workers' Party were designated as terrorist groups "by Madeleine Albright," who - it must be noted - was not elected by anyone. I don't know whether representatives of the Tigers or the KKP were allowed to challenge such a designation, but such an extralegal process doesn't seem like it has an appeals process. And keep in mind that the abuse of such a list is not far-fetched; the African National Congress (the party of Nelson Mandela and current ruling party in South Africa) was up until very recently on the list. Which would mean that, had the ANC not been removed from the list in 2008, the US men's soccer team could have been arrested for participating in the World Cup (which aids the South African government).
Absurd, right? But even if we trust the State Department to choose the right organizations to list as "terrorist groups," and even if we think providing aid to their violent activities is wrong, we still have a problem, and the problem is this - most terrorist groups aren't solely violent. Many, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, have significant humanitarian components that operate separately from their blow-shit-up components. The law, and the ruling upholding the law, hinges on the idea that aiding the legal activities of these organizations is also to aid their illegal, vile activities.
You'll recognize in here the same conservative argument about abortion funding that came up during the health care debate. Opponents of abortion criticized federal subsidies for health insurance on the grounds that giving a woman a subsidy for non-abortion-inclusive health coverage and allowing her to buy her own abortion coverage separately would be essentially the same as giving a direct subsidy for abortion coverage. The idea is that aid is fungible - you give money but you can't control where it goes. Aid to one part of an organization frees up money for use in another.
And here's where I call "hack" on the Court's conservatives (or at least three of them), because they ruled the exact opposite in the 1997 case Agostini v. Felton. Agostini allowed government employees to teach in religious schools as long as they were involved solely in secular instruction. (The opinion is here). Agostini is also generally read to approve funding for religious organizations that use the money for non-religious, secular purposes. And that's where the hackery comes in - according to Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, aid is not fungible when it is going to fund part of a religious organization, but it is fungible when it is going to fund part of a terrorist organization. And if they truly believe what they ruled in Agostini, they would have to allow funding and assistance to the humanitarian portions of a terrorist organization, because that aid isn't going toward illegal activity.
The only way to square that circle is to determine that "material support" isn't constitutionally protected speech or free association, and so government can put whatever restrictions it wants on it. But here, again, the conservatives have undermined themselves rather recently. The Citizens United decision, among other things, upheld the idea that monetary donations are protected under the First Amendment free speech clause, and on the winning side of that decision were Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy (along with Roberts and Alito, who did not participate in Agostini and so escape the "hack" label for now).
So when Jeff Sessions rants about "judges who use their power to redefine the meaning of the words of our Constitution and laws in ways that, not surprisingly, have the result of advancing the judge’s preferred social policies for the country," it's fair to ask who he's really describing here.
One final Supreme Court note - the Court issued a decision in the Christian Legal Society v. Hastings case, where a student group ran afoul of a public university's non-discrimination policy and was thus denied funding. They themselves sued the university on the grounds that they were being discriminated against on the basis of a religion. An unsuprising 5-4 majority ruled that the group was not owed funding and recognition by the university (though clearly they could continue to exist as a group). I discussed this case briefly in a previous post and sided with the student group; it's a complex, difficult case, though, and I'm not too upset about the decision going one way or the other.
To his credit, Roberts' opinion does say that advocating for said groups was Constitutionally protected, but that the law doesn't forbid that. Even if we take him at his word, though, the decision is still odious. The main reason, of course, is that the decision to designate some group as a "terrorist group" has little to no check on it. The Law.com article I linked claims that the Tamil Tigers and the Kurdistan Workers' Party were designated as terrorist groups "by Madeleine Albright," who - it must be noted - was not elected by anyone. I don't know whether representatives of the Tigers or the KKP were allowed to challenge such a designation, but such an extralegal process doesn't seem like it has an appeals process. And keep in mind that the abuse of such a list is not far-fetched; the African National Congress (the party of Nelson Mandela and current ruling party in South Africa) was up until very recently on the list. Which would mean that, had the ANC not been removed from the list in 2008, the US men's soccer team could have been arrested for participating in the World Cup (which aids the South African government).
Absurd, right? But even if we trust the State Department to choose the right organizations to list as "terrorist groups," and even if we think providing aid to their violent activities is wrong, we still have a problem, and the problem is this - most terrorist groups aren't solely violent. Many, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, have significant humanitarian components that operate separately from their blow-shit-up components. The law, and the ruling upholding the law, hinges on the idea that aiding the legal activities of these organizations is also to aid their illegal, vile activities.
You'll recognize in here the same conservative argument about abortion funding that came up during the health care debate. Opponents of abortion criticized federal subsidies for health insurance on the grounds that giving a woman a subsidy for non-abortion-inclusive health coverage and allowing her to buy her own abortion coverage separately would be essentially the same as giving a direct subsidy for abortion coverage. The idea is that aid is fungible - you give money but you can't control where it goes. Aid to one part of an organization frees up money for use in another.
And here's where I call "hack" on the Court's conservatives (or at least three of them), because they ruled the exact opposite in the 1997 case Agostini v. Felton. Agostini allowed government employees to teach in religious schools as long as they were involved solely in secular instruction. (The opinion is here). Agostini is also generally read to approve funding for religious organizations that use the money for non-religious, secular purposes. And that's where the hackery comes in - according to Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, aid is not fungible when it is going to fund part of a religious organization, but it is fungible when it is going to fund part of a terrorist organization. And if they truly believe what they ruled in Agostini, they would have to allow funding and assistance to the humanitarian portions of a terrorist organization, because that aid isn't going toward illegal activity.
The only way to square that circle is to determine that "material support" isn't constitutionally protected speech or free association, and so government can put whatever restrictions it wants on it. But here, again, the conservatives have undermined themselves rather recently. The Citizens United decision, among other things, upheld the idea that monetary donations are protected under the First Amendment free speech clause, and on the winning side of that decision were Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy (along with Roberts and Alito, who did not participate in Agostini and so escape the "hack" label for now).
So when Jeff Sessions rants about "judges who use their power to redefine the meaning of the words of our Constitution and laws in ways that, not surprisingly, have the result of advancing the judge’s preferred social policies for the country," it's fair to ask who he's really describing here.
One final Supreme Court note - the Court issued a decision in the Christian Legal Society v. Hastings case, where a student group ran afoul of a public university's non-discrimination policy and was thus denied funding. They themselves sued the university on the grounds that they were being discriminated against on the basis of a religion. An unsuprising 5-4 majority ruled that the group was not owed funding and recognition by the university (though clearly they could continue to exist as a group). I discussed this case briefly in a previous post and sided with the student group; it's a complex, difficult case, though, and I'm not too upset about the decision going one way or the other.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Get Rid Of Slimy huckabeeS
When I made the assertion that opposition to gay marriage comes from people saying "eww, icky," I got a lot of opposition from Matt. Well, Matt, here's well-known gay marriage opponent Mike Huckabee basically saying his opposition to gay marriage is because it's icky.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
World Cup Time!
The World Cup starts tomorrow, and with that I figured I'd put in my two cents worth as to who's going to get out of their groups and who's going to win. I'll get back to politics later.
Group A: South Africa, France, Mexico, Uruguay
Flip a coin. Seriously, any one of these teams could advance or crash and burn. South Africa isn't good, but they're about where we were in 1994 when we hosted the Cup - and we advanced. They have a true world-class star in Everton's Steven Pienaar and, oh yeah, home field advantage. They won't be driven nuts by those beehive-sounding vuvuzelas at least. Thierry Henry, er, handed France their qualification, but they still have a pretty talented team (and a crazy coach who uses astrology to choose his team. You think I'm kidding). Uruguay's an odd team - Nate Silver ranks them ninth while FIFA puts them at 16th. Diego Forlan can score, and they have a solid defense. Mexico's fun to watch, and fun to hate, and also kinda young (Cuauhtemoc Blanco notwithstanding). They had some hiccups in qualifying but went on a tear towards the end. I'll pick Uruguay and South Africa for the hell of it, but I really have no idea.
Group B: Argentina, Greece, Nigeria, South Korea
I don't think the madness of Maradona is enough to keep a completely loaded Argentina team from reaching the knockout stages, especially against this motley group of contenders, so they're in. As far as the others are concerned? You can never count out Greece, but I don't think you're getting out of this group unless you score some goals and Greece just doesn't like doing that. South Korea is Greece's polar opposite - 10 men in front of the ball? - but you have to play defense too and they're just too vulnerable on the counter. So that leaves gloriously inconsistent Nigeria as my second choice.
Group C: England, USA, Slovenia, Algeria
You're not going to find a group more clear-cut than this one. England and USA both have legitimate teams, while Slovenia and Algeria are both deeply flawed. That having been said, both the US and England have histories of crapping the bed when it matters most, so if one of them goes wonky Slovenia could make some waves. But I'll be safe and pick the obvious advancers here: USA and England.
Group D: Germany, Australia, Ghana, Serbia
Ah, another flip-a-coin group. Serbia's got a hell of a back line, but I have no idea who's going to be scoring the goals. Ghana just lost Michael Essien, which is a huge loss for them and puts a giant hole in their midfield. The Socceroos don't have a lot of scoring threats either outside of Tim Cahill, so they'll need to defend well - and the Americans just tore huge holes in their defense in a friendly. So that leaves a questionable but talented Germany team as the likely leader, but who goes after? I'll go with the surprise here: Australia gets just enough from Cahill to advance from an offensively challenged group.
Group E: Cameroon, Denmark, Netherlands, Japan
Even without Arjen Robben, the Dutch have enough firepower to run roughshod over this group. Remember, they don't usually crap out until the knockout stages. By then the mutual loathing between Wesley Sneijder and Robin van Persie will boil over, and if there's any karma in the world leg-breaking fucker Nigel de Jong will be laid up in a Johannesburg hospital. While I shouldn't count out Nicklas Bendtner and the Danes, I think the tear Samuel Eto'o has been on the last few years will give Cameroon just enough to advance. (Don't discount Alexander Song's contribution either.) I doubt Japan will do much here.
Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia
I would have picked the creaking, offense-challenged Italian grass-diving squad to lose in a first-round upset if I could find a team in their group that could beat them. Sadly, they're up against offense-challenged Paraguay, the weakest team in the tournament in New Zealand (who I half expect to say "fuck it" halfway through Match 2 and pick up the ball and start playing rugby), and the half of the former Czechoslovakia that no one knows anything about. Paraguay performed well enough in South American qualifying to make me a believer, but look for a surprise showing from Slovakia who qualified well in Europe.
Group G: Brazil, Ivory Coast, Portugal, North Korea
Poor North Korea. Ok, no, not really. But you really do have to wonder how their national media are gonna spin getting stuck with teams ranked first (Brazil), seventh (Portugal), and 14th (Cote d'Ivoire), and likely getting their asses kicked in all three matches. Brazil doesn't play the joga bonito anymore, opting for a rough counterattacking style, but they're still really good and have enough going forward between Kaka and Luis Fabiano to beat anyone. Portugal and Ivory Coast are both dealing with injuries - Portugal to midfielder Nani, Ivory Coast to striker and national savior Didier Drogba. Drogba's going to try to be a badass and come back from his injury in time to play, so I'll pick Ivory Coast in a surprise over Portugal. If Drogba doesn't come back - or comes back and is ineffective - forget I wrote this.
Group H: Spain, Chile, Honduras, Switzerland
This group is pretty clear cut.Barcelona Plus Fernando Torres Spain is too stacked not to win this group - soon-to-be-former Arsenal superstar Cesc Fabregas doesn't even start, that's how stacked Spain is. Zonal Marking tabs Chile as the most tactically interesting team here, and that's enough for me. Switzerland and Honduras both lost key players to injury - Frei for the Swiss, Palacios and Costly for the Catrachos - and I just don't see enough depth behind them to beat out the Chileans for that second spot.
So that's all I got. I'll be back after group play to predict a winner.
Just for fun, an oldie but goodie:
Group A: South Africa, France, Mexico, Uruguay
Flip a coin. Seriously, any one of these teams could advance or crash and burn. South Africa isn't good, but they're about where we were in 1994 when we hosted the Cup - and we advanced. They have a true world-class star in Everton's Steven Pienaar and, oh yeah, home field advantage. They won't be driven nuts by those beehive-sounding vuvuzelas at least. Thierry Henry, er, handed France their qualification, but they still have a pretty talented team (and a crazy coach who uses astrology to choose his team. You think I'm kidding). Uruguay's an odd team - Nate Silver ranks them ninth while FIFA puts them at 16th. Diego Forlan can score, and they have a solid defense. Mexico's fun to watch, and fun to hate, and also kinda young (Cuauhtemoc Blanco notwithstanding). They had some hiccups in qualifying but went on a tear towards the end. I'll pick Uruguay and South Africa for the hell of it, but I really have no idea.
Group B: Argentina, Greece, Nigeria, South Korea
I don't think the madness of Maradona is enough to keep a completely loaded Argentina team from reaching the knockout stages, especially against this motley group of contenders, so they're in. As far as the others are concerned? You can never count out Greece, but I don't think you're getting out of this group unless you score some goals and Greece just doesn't like doing that. South Korea is Greece's polar opposite - 10 men in front of the ball? - but you have to play defense too and they're just too vulnerable on the counter. So that leaves gloriously inconsistent Nigeria as my second choice.
Group C: England, USA, Slovenia, Algeria
You're not going to find a group more clear-cut than this one. England and USA both have legitimate teams, while Slovenia and Algeria are both deeply flawed. That having been said, both the US and England have histories of crapping the bed when it matters most, so if one of them goes wonky Slovenia could make some waves. But I'll be safe and pick the obvious advancers here: USA and England.
Group D: Germany, Australia, Ghana, Serbia
Ah, another flip-a-coin group. Serbia's got a hell of a back line, but I have no idea who's going to be scoring the goals. Ghana just lost Michael Essien, which is a huge loss for them and puts a giant hole in their midfield. The Socceroos don't have a lot of scoring threats either outside of Tim Cahill, so they'll need to defend well - and the Americans just tore huge holes in their defense in a friendly. So that leaves a questionable but talented Germany team as the likely leader, but who goes after? I'll go with the surprise here: Australia gets just enough from Cahill to advance from an offensively challenged group.
Group E: Cameroon, Denmark, Netherlands, Japan
Even without Arjen Robben, the Dutch have enough firepower to run roughshod over this group. Remember, they don't usually crap out until the knockout stages. By then the mutual loathing between Wesley Sneijder and Robin van Persie will boil over, and if there's any karma in the world leg-breaking fucker Nigel de Jong will be laid up in a Johannesburg hospital. While I shouldn't count out Nicklas Bendtner and the Danes, I think the tear Samuel Eto'o has been on the last few years will give Cameroon just enough to advance. (Don't discount Alexander Song's contribution either.) I doubt Japan will do much here.
Group F: Italy, Paraguay, New Zealand, Slovakia
I would have picked the creaking, offense-challenged Italian grass-diving squad to lose in a first-round upset if I could find a team in their group that could beat them. Sadly, they're up against offense-challenged Paraguay, the weakest team in the tournament in New Zealand (who I half expect to say "fuck it" halfway through Match 2 and pick up the ball and start playing rugby), and the half of the former Czechoslovakia that no one knows anything about. Paraguay performed well enough in South American qualifying to make me a believer, but look for a surprise showing from Slovakia who qualified well in Europe.
Group G: Brazil, Ivory Coast, Portugal, North Korea
Poor North Korea. Ok, no, not really. But you really do have to wonder how their national media are gonna spin getting stuck with teams ranked first (Brazil), seventh (Portugal), and 14th (Cote d'Ivoire), and likely getting their asses kicked in all three matches. Brazil doesn't play the joga bonito anymore, opting for a rough counterattacking style, but they're still really good and have enough going forward between Kaka and Luis Fabiano to beat anyone. Portugal and Ivory Coast are both dealing with injuries - Portugal to midfielder Nani, Ivory Coast to striker and national savior Didier Drogba. Drogba's going to try to be a badass and come back from his injury in time to play, so I'll pick Ivory Coast in a surprise over Portugal. If Drogba doesn't come back - or comes back and is ineffective - forget I wrote this.
Group H: Spain, Chile, Honduras, Switzerland
This group is pretty clear cut.
So that's all I got. I'll be back after group play to predict a winner.
Just for fun, an oldie but goodie:
BP Spills Coffee
Here's a hilarious video about what happens when BP spills coffee. Vanderbilt people will recognize former Tonguencheek/Patron Saints member Zhubin Parang about halfway through.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Mosque of Amontillado
Is there any reason for anyone to oppose the proposed Islamic center in downtown Manhattan besides naked bigotry?
The shenanigans over the mural in Prescott, AZ have gotten all of the bigotry headlines, perhaps because it's so obvious as to be just painful. But I think the business going on in New York right now is more important and more disturbing.
Look at these protests again. They're occurring not in some backwater but in the most cosmopolitan city in America. It's not like New Yorkers have never seen a Muslim before. They probably pass hundreds of Muslims on the way to work every day. And yet, here are some of the things people say against this project:
Claiming that a mosque shouldn't be built close to the site of the 9/11 attacks is bigotry, pure and simple. You're taking the responsibility for the attack off the 20 or so dumbshits who hijacked those planes and putting it on all Muslims, and that's just not right.
But.
That having been said, I want to add this. Being a bigot doesn't necessarily make you a bad person - just a flawed one. And we're all flawed. We may not recognize what we feel as bigotry even when it is. The best we can do is recognize that implicit hatred for an outsider group is wrong and rectify it once that feeling is identified within us. The sort of bigotry on display here doesn't remind me of the Klan or the Aryan Nations or something - rather, it reminds me of Bob Hoskins' character in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? A cartoon killed his brother, so he misguidedly directs his rage at all cartoons. But "cartoons" didn't kill his brother, a single cartoon did. He's not a bad person (clearly) but he is a bigot. And that's okay - we don't hate or even dislike Eddie Valiant, we just wish he didn't hate cartoons so much because it's clearly irrational. So it is with these New Yorkers who oppose this mosque. We don't dislike these guys - we just wish they didn't hate Muslims so much. "Muslims" in general didn't blow up the WTC - 20 idiot Muslims did.
And that's perhaps what makes this story more important than the hateful bigotry on display in Prescott. While we have trouble identifying with racists like Steve Blair, the New Yorker protestors display the kind of bigotry we could easily imagine falling into ourselves under the right circumstances. We may never turn into Steve Blair, but tragedy and a healthy dose of very human irrationality could easily turn us into the people protesting this mosque. Throw in a group of people that exists outside the mainstream and makes an easy target, and presto. We need to discuss events like the mosque protests - and call them out for what they are - because we know we're susceptible to the same urges. The only thing preventing us from becoming bigots ourselves is consistently telling ourselves that such bigotry is wrong.
The shenanigans over the mural in Prescott, AZ have gotten all of the bigotry headlines, perhaps because it's so obvious as to be just painful. But I think the business going on in New York right now is more important and more disturbing.
Look at these protests again. They're occurring not in some backwater but in the most cosmopolitan city in America. It's not like New Yorkers have never seen a Muslim before. They probably pass hundreds of Muslims on the way to work every day. And yet, here are some of the things people say against this project:
I don't think that they would build a German cultural center right near Auschwitz. Just because you're looking at what happened to the people that died there. That's all that should be focused on.How is this not bigotry? This buffoon is basically blaming all Muslims for what happened on 9/11 - it's stereotyping and hatred of the outsider at its very worst.
Claiming that a mosque shouldn't be built close to the site of the 9/11 attacks is bigotry, pure and simple. You're taking the responsibility for the attack off the 20 or so dumbshits who hijacked those planes and putting it on all Muslims, and that's just not right.
But.
That having been said, I want to add this. Being a bigot doesn't necessarily make you a bad person - just a flawed one. And we're all flawed. We may not recognize what we feel as bigotry even when it is. The best we can do is recognize that implicit hatred for an outsider group is wrong and rectify it once that feeling is identified within us. The sort of bigotry on display here doesn't remind me of the Klan or the Aryan Nations or something - rather, it reminds me of Bob Hoskins' character in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? A cartoon killed his brother, so he misguidedly directs his rage at all cartoons. But "cartoons" didn't kill his brother, a single cartoon did. He's not a bad person (clearly) but he is a bigot. And that's okay - we don't hate or even dislike Eddie Valiant, we just wish he didn't hate cartoons so much because it's clearly irrational. So it is with these New Yorkers who oppose this mosque. We don't dislike these guys - we just wish they didn't hate Muslims so much. "Muslims" in general didn't blow up the WTC - 20 idiot Muslims did.
And that's perhaps what makes this story more important than the hateful bigotry on display in Prescott. While we have trouble identifying with racists like Steve Blair, the New Yorker protestors display the kind of bigotry we could easily imagine falling into ourselves under the right circumstances. We may never turn into Steve Blair, but tragedy and a healthy dose of very human irrationality could easily turn us into the people protesting this mosque. Throw in a group of people that exists outside the mainstream and makes an easy target, and presto. We need to discuss events like the mosque protests - and call them out for what they are - because we know we're susceptible to the same urges. The only thing preventing us from becoming bigots ourselves is consistently telling ourselves that such bigotry is wrong.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Glad You Could Join Us
I haven't posted on the Gaza flotilla mess yet because I'm kind of still processing it. There are so many different competing descriptions of what happened that I needed some time to settle on a narrative that I think makes sense. So here's my thoughts.
- There weren't weapons or rockets or anything of the sort on those boats. Those were aid boats. After all, don't you think Israel would have crowed about it to high heaven if there had been terrorist supplies on board? Israel's silence as to what they found on those vessels speaks volumes. Those were aid boats, Israel knows they screwed up in attacking them, and now they're trying some CYA maneuvers that aren't working anywhere outside here.
- As such, the video showing people on board the ships attacking Israeli commandos has to be taken with a grain of salt. This kinda reminds me of a Cory Maye-type situation here. If you had a bunch of military-looking people descending on you and a piece of rubber hose happened to be nearby, don't you just start hacking away?
- That having been said, the justified attacks on Israel's conduct in the raid have been laced with a ton of overwrought language. And yes, it reeks of anti-Semitism (ahem, Helen Thomas). Michael Chabon has the best response yet, pointing out that Israel, like every other nation, acts stupidly and irresponsibly from time to time, so it's stupid to hold them to a higher standard. I think this misses a little - if Israel wishes to be considered a Jewish state, it should conduct itself with Jewish morality, which most certainly doesn't include treating others as second-class citizens no matter what. But it also points out a lot of the hypocrisy at work here. Gazans aren't poor pathetic blameless victims. Turkey pisses and moans, but it's not like Turkey doesn't have a skeleton or two in its closet. So while we criticize Israel, let's all be careful not to try to claim moral superiority for ourselves or our nations. Hell, I'm writing this on a computer made from materials that fund child rape in the Congo and I'm going to call myself morally superior to Bibi Netanyahu? Come on. We can criticize one another's unjust actions as equals, without the tortured "I'm-better-than-you" posturing.
This event, more than anything, is actually a hopeful signal - perhaps the Palestinian independence movement has finally decided to join us here in the modern era. In the modern era, you don't win a fight against an extremely powerful enemy by using violence, even if you have legitimate gripes (and the Palestinians certainly do). All violence does is piss the other guy off and harden his resolve. It's like punching a professional cage fighter in the stomach - sure, it feels good, but the whole thing is just gonna end with your head getting stomped on.
(A blogger from the Economist disagrees, but I don't think he makes his point particularly well. If anything, he's saying that "just enough" violence is effective, but I don't think so. The use of the makeshift weaponry just gave Israel and its blind defenders in America a chance to write the protest off as the same-old-same-old work of terrorists - and strategically speaking, the posturing of the rest of the world is all but meaningless if America bunkers in with the Israelis. The decision of the passengers to pick up weapons was the lone blemish on an otherwise brilliantly conceived confrontation. They're new at this - they'll learn.)
No, battles such as the one the Palestinians are fighting are won by non-violent direct action. Some right-wing moron said that the flotilla was just an attempt to provoke an Israeli response. To that I say - no shit, Sherlock. Of course that's what the flotilla was trying to do! The whole point of non-violent direct action is to make the other guy look bad by forcing the world to see the basic inhumanity of their actions. That's done by provoking such actions in an organized and predictable fashion. The flotilla people knew they would be boarded and probably attacked by the Israelis in the same way that voting rights marchers knew that Bull Connor would turn the fire hoses on them.
The positive PR that Palestinian activists have received from this single incident has dwarfed any positive press they've gotten in the West since 1967 - combined. If they get rid of Hamas' dippy, violent charter and dedicate themselves to peaceful non-violent confrontation, they can shine a light on a lot of other injustices that they face because of their statelessness. If the flotilla crisis is a harbinger of a new Palestinian strategy of non-violence, then that is a wonderful development indeed.
One note, though. I really hope the Palestinians don't get impatient and turn back towards violence again. They have to realize they've been idiots for the past 43 years - it's going to take some time before the rest of the world trusts that they've really given up the execrable "blow shit up" strategy and starts to listen to them.
- There weren't weapons or rockets or anything of the sort on those boats. Those were aid boats. After all, don't you think Israel would have crowed about it to high heaven if there had been terrorist supplies on board? Israel's silence as to what they found on those vessels speaks volumes. Those were aid boats, Israel knows they screwed up in attacking them, and now they're trying some CYA maneuvers that aren't working anywhere outside here.
- As such, the video showing people on board the ships attacking Israeli commandos has to be taken with a grain of salt. This kinda reminds me of a Cory Maye-type situation here. If you had a bunch of military-looking people descending on you and a piece of rubber hose happened to be nearby, don't you just start hacking away?
- That having been said, the justified attacks on Israel's conduct in the raid have been laced with a ton of overwrought language. And yes, it reeks of anti-Semitism (ahem, Helen Thomas). Michael Chabon has the best response yet, pointing out that Israel, like every other nation, acts stupidly and irresponsibly from time to time, so it's stupid to hold them to a higher standard. I think this misses a little - if Israel wishes to be considered a Jewish state, it should conduct itself with Jewish morality, which most certainly doesn't include treating others as second-class citizens no matter what. But it also points out a lot of the hypocrisy at work here. Gazans aren't poor pathetic blameless victims. Turkey pisses and moans, but it's not like Turkey doesn't have a skeleton or two in its closet. So while we criticize Israel, let's all be careful not to try to claim moral superiority for ourselves or our nations. Hell, I'm writing this on a computer made from materials that fund child rape in the Congo and I'm going to call myself morally superior to Bibi Netanyahu? Come on. We can criticize one another's unjust actions as equals, without the tortured "I'm-better-than-you" posturing.
This event, more than anything, is actually a hopeful signal - perhaps the Palestinian independence movement has finally decided to join us here in the modern era. In the modern era, you don't win a fight against an extremely powerful enemy by using violence, even if you have legitimate gripes (and the Palestinians certainly do). All violence does is piss the other guy off and harden his resolve. It's like punching a professional cage fighter in the stomach - sure, it feels good, but the whole thing is just gonna end with your head getting stomped on.
(A blogger from the Economist disagrees, but I don't think he makes his point particularly well. If anything, he's saying that "just enough" violence is effective, but I don't think so. The use of the makeshift weaponry just gave Israel and its blind defenders in America a chance to write the protest off as the same-old-same-old work of terrorists - and strategically speaking, the posturing of the rest of the world is all but meaningless if America bunkers in with the Israelis. The decision of the passengers to pick up weapons was the lone blemish on an otherwise brilliantly conceived confrontation. They're new at this - they'll learn.)
No, battles such as the one the Palestinians are fighting are won by non-violent direct action. Some right-wing moron said that the flotilla was just an attempt to provoke an Israeli response. To that I say - no shit, Sherlock. Of course that's what the flotilla was trying to do! The whole point of non-violent direct action is to make the other guy look bad by forcing the world to see the basic inhumanity of their actions. That's done by provoking such actions in an organized and predictable fashion. The flotilla people knew they would be boarded and probably attacked by the Israelis in the same way that voting rights marchers knew that Bull Connor would turn the fire hoses on them.
The positive PR that Palestinian activists have received from this single incident has dwarfed any positive press they've gotten in the West since 1967 - combined. If they get rid of Hamas' dippy, violent charter and dedicate themselves to peaceful non-violent confrontation, they can shine a light on a lot of other injustices that they face because of their statelessness. If the flotilla crisis is a harbinger of a new Palestinian strategy of non-violence, then that is a wonderful development indeed.
One note, though. I really hope the Palestinians don't get impatient and turn back towards violence again. They have to realize they've been idiots for the past 43 years - it's going to take some time before the rest of the world trusts that they've really given up the execrable "blow shit up" strategy and starts to listen to them.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Citibank Mullahs
Iran's mullahs are cracking down on women's clothes again. They've been arresting women for wearing their veils wrong, having too short a skirt, being too tan, or really whatever goes against their own form of "modesty." What's striking to me is their reason for doing so (besides the mistaken* notion that such dress is non-Islamic):
Well, I'm glad we enlightened Westerners don't think the same way...
Let's step back and appreciate the symmetry here. Both Iran and Citibank are enforcing their modesty codes by telling women that they have to dress modestly because men can't control their own urges. The Citibank employee's lawyer summarizes:
The logic is so backwards it barely warrants a rebuttal. If I (a straight dude) am an employee, it's my responsibility to get my job done, whether the person sitting next to me is a middle-aged balding guy or Keri Russell wearing a string bikini. If I don't get my job done it's my responsibility, not Keri Russell's for being so damn hot.
You want more? Rape apologists use the same damn excuses, saying that some women are raped because of the way they're dressed. I don't know, but I've never been to a beach where there are a lot of scantily clad women and felt the urge to just go around raping people. I might be wrong though.
Look, the "men can't control themselves" line may seem like a dig at men, but it's really an excuse to control women's actions and force them to meet with powerful men's expectations. So can we put this myth to bed already? Most people - men and women - enjoy provoking sexual desire, myself included. (Not that I'm any good at it. That reminds me, I need a haircut. And a new suit.) If we're overtaken by that desire, it's our fault, not the hottie's.
*I say "mistaken" because the dress code honored by most Muslims appears nowhere in the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran merely asks women to dress modestly and cover their breasts. The hijab and burqa are mentioned nowhere.
Iranian women are obliged by law to cover their hair and wear long coats in public. The Islamic veil protects the purity of women, preventing men from viewing them as sex symbols, clerics here say.So the Iranian government purportedly believes that Iranian men are so horrible that even seeing a woman's hair will drive them mad with sexual desire. How odd.
Well, I'm glad we enlightened Westerners don't think the same way...
Debrahlee Lorenzana is filing a lawsuit against Citibank because they fired her, she says, for the strangest reason: she's too hot.Well.
Her bosses told her that "as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly 'too distracting' for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear," she says.
Let's step back and appreciate the symmetry here. Both Iran and Citibank are enforcing their modesty codes by telling women that they have to dress modestly because men can't control their own urges. The Citibank employee's lawyer summarizes:
"It's like saying that we can't think anymore 'cause our penises are standing up—and we cannot think about you except in a sexual manner—and we can't look at you without wanting to have sexual intercourse with you. And it's up to you, gorgeous woman, to lessen your appeal so that we can focus!"Notice how women never suffer from this supposed lack of control, even though in a corporate environment they may be surrounded by attractive men in well-tailored suits.
The logic is so backwards it barely warrants a rebuttal. If I (a straight dude) am an employee, it's my responsibility to get my job done, whether the person sitting next to me is a middle-aged balding guy or Keri Russell wearing a string bikini. If I don't get my job done it's my responsibility, not Keri Russell's for being so damn hot.
You want more? Rape apologists use the same damn excuses, saying that some women are raped because of the way they're dressed. I don't know, but I've never been to a beach where there are a lot of scantily clad women and felt the urge to just go around raping people. I might be wrong though.
Look, the "men can't control themselves" line may seem like a dig at men, but it's really an excuse to control women's actions and force them to meet with powerful men's expectations. So can we put this myth to bed already? Most people - men and women - enjoy provoking sexual desire, myself included. (Not that I'm any good at it. That reminds me, I need a haircut. And a new suit.) If we're overtaken by that desire, it's our fault, not the hottie's.
*I say "mistaken" because the dress code honored by most Muslims appears nowhere in the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran merely asks women to dress modestly and cover their breasts. The hijab and burqa are mentioned nowhere.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)