“Top Al Qaeda Commander” Reportedly Bites The Dust. Again. Yawn.
by matttbastard
Number three with a bullet for (at least) the seventh time. Sheesh–being promoted to Al Qaeda’s 3rd in command is like wearing a red shirt on the original Star Trek. But, in an interesting plot twist, the usual unnamed Western officials seem to have since revised Al-Libi’s stature to “”not far below the importance of the top two al Qaeda leaders” — Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri” (CNN) and “”in the top half dozen figures in Al Qaeda”" (The LA Times)–which means that the real 3rd-from-the-top may still be on the lam.
[Insert snarky 'dead or alive' one-liner here]
A Random Thought While Watching The Reagan Library Debate
by matttbastard
Am I the only one who wants to gouge his eyes out with knitting needles whenever John McCain says “I’m going to give you a little straight talk” before launching into a pander-iffic applause line?
Related: Matt Welch and Johann Hari attempt to derail the media-engineered Man Crush Express.
John Edwards Drops Out
by matttbastard
(Originally uploaded by by John Edwards 2008)
Earlier today, Jonathan Cohn posted a moving eulogy for the Edwards campaign over at The Plank (while New Democrat dipshit Ed Kilgore subsequently took the opportunity to dance a merry jig on populism’s grave), but it was Aunt B. who highlighted the most ominous consequence of Edwards’ departure:
[W]hite Democratic men will be in the unprecedented position, for the first time in American history, of choosing between their race and their gender!
Hey, at least Hulk Hogan is comfortable stepping outside his comfort zone (h/t Jason Zengerle):
Whatcha gonna do, Kilgore?
Updated 01.31: via the unfortunately despondent skdadl-with-one-’sk’ (*hugs*), John Edwards’ concession speech, fittingly given at the same place he kicked off his campaign: the 9th ward of the Big Easy.
Hump Day Music Spotlight: I Ain’t Never Scared
by matttbastard
Claude VonStroke – Who’s Afraid of Detroit? (dirtybird)
Compare and Contrast: Defining ‘Success’
by matttbastard
While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago. (Applause.) When we met last year, many said that containing the violence was impossible. A year later, high profile terrorist attacks are down, civilian deaths are down, sectarian killings are down.
When we met last year, militia extremists — some armed and trained by Iran — were wreaking havoc in large areas of Iraq. A year later, coalition and Iraqi forces have killed or captured hundreds of militia fighters. And Iraqis of all backgrounds increasingly realize that defeating these militia fighters is critical to the future of their country.
When we met last year, al Qaeda had sanctuaries in many areas of Iraq, and their leaders had just offered American forces safe passage out of the country. Today, it is al Qaeda that is searching for safe passage. They have been driven from many of the strongholds they once held, and over the past year, we’ve captured or killed thousands of extremists in Iraq, including hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders and operatives.
Last month, Osama bin Laden released a tape in which he railed against Iraqi tribal leaders who have turned on al Qaeda and admitted that coalition forces are growing stronger in Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated. (Applause.)
When we met last year, our troop levels in Iraq were on the rise. Today, because of the progress just described, we are implementing a policy of “return on success,” and the surge forces we sent to Iraq are beginning to come home.
- US President George W. Bush, 2008 State of the Union Address
In only one respect has the surge achieved undeniable success: It has ensured that U.S. troops won’t be coming home anytime soon. This was one of the main points of the exercise in the first place. As AEI military analyst Thomas Donnelly has acknowledged with admirable candor, “part of the purpose of the surge was to redefine the Washington narrative,” thereby deflecting calls for a complete withdrawal of U.S. combat forces. Hawks who had pooh-poohed the risks of invasion now portrayed the risks of withdrawal as too awful to contemplate. But a prerequisite to perpetuating the war — and leaving it to the next president — was to get Iraq off the front pages and out of the nightly news. At least in this context, the surge qualifies as a masterstroke.
Andrew Bacevich, Surge to Nowhere
Related: Dahr Jamail talks to some of the missing voices in the Iraq debate; Al Qaeda may be “on the run in Iraq”, but, as Nir Rosen reports, support for the movement is surging in Lebanon.
Psst–Toni Morrison Was Being Ironic*
by matttbastard
Shorter NY Times: “A couple of black people standing in front of a building in Harlem are still down with Bubba!”
h/t Racialicious
*Ok, read the “first black president” line in context, then check out Sherrilyn Ifill, Elizabeth Alexander, and Melissa Harris-Lacewell. BTW, Morrison just endorsed Obama. Maybe irony really is dead.
A Landmark Victory For Reproductive Liberty
by matttbastard
On January 28th, 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada tendered a watershed decision in the case of R. v. Morgentaler, rendering Canada’s restrictive abortion law null and void.
Judy Rebick recalls the moment she received word that the had court struck down the law:
It was freezing cold. A group of pro-choice activists were standing in front of the clinic along with a mob of media waiting to hear the news from our comrades in Ottawa. They were supposed to call the clinic as soon as the decision came down and the clinic staff would let us know. We didn’t have cell phones in those days.
A reporter called me aside and said she had just heard on her radio that the Supreme Court had struck down the law on the grounds that it interfered with women’s right to security of the person. I didn’t believe her. We thought the Court might very well strike down the law but we figured it would be on the technical grounds of lack of equal access. A decision based on the Charter guarantee of security of the person was too much to hope for. After all, the major argument of the pro-choice movement was that a woman had the right to control her own body and this was close.
Indeed the majority decision written by Chief Justice Brian Dickson stated:
“State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress, at least in the criminal law context, constitutes a breach of security of the person. Section 251 (the old abortion law) clearly interferes with a woman’s physical and bodily integrity. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a fetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman’s body and thus an infringement of security of the person.”
It was a profound and incredibly long lasting victory that for us was of equal significance to the winning of the right to vote a couple of generations before. In essence, the highest court of the land said that the abortion law violated women’s right to control her own body free from state interference.
Berlynn points to the minority report, written by the late Justice Bertha Wilson, which goes even further in highlighting her recognition that abortion is a necessity:
This decision is one that will have profound psychological, economic and social consequences for the pregnant woman. The circumstances giving rise to it can be complex and varied and there may be, and usually are, powerful considerations militating in opposite directions. It is a decision that deeply reflects the way the woman thinks about herself and her relationship to others and to society at large. It is not just a medical decision; it is a profound social and ethical one as well. Her response to it will be the response of the whole person.
Today we rightly celebrate the vindication of a woman’s right to exercise the “profound social and ethical” decision of controlling her reproductive destiny without fear of condemnation by the state. But we should also remember that, for too many women in Canada, the struggle for reproductive autonomy is far from over. 20 years after R. v. Morgentaler, access is still far from universal:
In Canada, access to health services is guaranteed by the Canada Health Act. Abortion is considered a safe, legal, insured and funded service, meaning that a woman should not have to pay for abortion services in Canada.
However, access is variable across the country and women are charged fees at some facilities. For example:
- There are no abortion services in Prince Edward Island.
- In New Brunswick, to have a publicly funded abortion a woman has to have approval from two doctors to have an abortion in the hospital. If she has an abortion at the clinic, then she will have to pay as the province will not pay for abortions outside publicly funded facilities, such as hospitals.
- New Brunswick funds only abortion care provided by obstetrician/gynecologists, not family physicians as is common throughout the rest of Canada.
Some of these barriers may violate the Canada Health Act and the intent of the decriminalization of abortion in Canada.
Abortion is funded under provincial and territorial health plans, and coverage varies regionally.
According to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, even though “two-thirds of all abortions are done in a hospital and covered by Medicare”, today “less than one in five hospitals provide abortions, making it difficult for women to access safe and timely abortion services.” This especially affects those women who are financially insolvent and/or reside in remote/rural areas of Canada by placing “undue physical and financial stress on women when forced to travel long distances, find accommodation, take time away from work and, in some cases, have to pay for the abortion themselves.” Furthermore, as Joyce Arthur noted this past November, there are a number of anti-choice activists in Canada who would eagerly re-criminalize abortion altogether, penalizing women (and abortion providers) for engaging in Charter-protected reproductive liberty:
In a disturbing section of November’s The Interim (“Canada’s Life and Family newspaper”), five prominent anti-choice spokespersons plus an anti-choice columnist consider the question of criminal punishment for abortion, if abortion were to be made illegal again. Shockingly, four out of six believe women should be prosecuted and sent to jail, while the other two want women subjected to mental health treatment. All six want abortion providers to be prosecuted for murder
The majority of Canadians would likely be horrified by the idea of sending women to jail for having abortions. Most reasonable people would see it as abhorrent and heartlessly punitive – not to mention totally unrealistic, given the large numbers of women who resort to abortion even when it’s illegal. But the unimaginable prospect and horrific consequences of trying to arrest and jail 100,000 women a year in Canada alone do not seem to faze anti-choicers.
April Reign captures the cruel folly of such proposed measures:
There is a mistaken belief that if abortion were completely outlawed no more abortions would ever be preformed. This of course is ridiculous nonsense. Women have always practised birth control and abortion. And would continue to do so.
Of course, anti-choicers don’t desire the outlawing an essential (gender-exclusive) medical procedure because they actually care about the purported “rights” of the unborn:
For all their talk about valuing babies and life, anti-choicers have demonstrated time and again that they could actually care less. They’re more interested in punishing women for sex and in maintaining a male-dominated family model. And they’re only “pro-life” up until the moment of birth — then you’re on your own.
[...]
There are no two ways about this one — when abortion is illegal, women are killed and maimed. Some 80,000 women die as a result of illegal abortion every year; hundreds of thousands more are injured. Women around the world suffer when pro-life laws rule the land. And “pro-lifers” could care less. Illegal abortion is the cause of 25% of all maternal deaths in Latin America, 12% in Asia, and 13% in sub-Saharan Africa. Women’s lives, apparently, aren’t covered by that whole “pro-life” thing.
Make no mistake: now more than ever, a woman’s body is a moral battle ground. We can’t cede any ground to anti-choice zealots who would fallaciously and callously equate potential people with human beings, acorns with oak trees–no matter how “reasonable” compromise may seem in theory (especially to those who don’t possess a uterus–”objectifying [the decision], thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche which are at the heart of the dilemma,” as Justice Wilson further noted in her Minority Report). Those who believe in the rights of women as being 100% insoluble–the whole loaf or nothing, no allowance for seemingly tiny nibbles, until there’s nothing left but crumbs–must remain ever vigilant and assertive in the wake of the baby lobby’s concerted assault on a woman’s bodily sovereignty.
Update: More Choice Day posts from: Alison @ Creekside, Dave and The Rev @ The Beav, skdadl-with-one-’sk’, Daev @ Designated Protest Zone, Lulu, pale @ ACR, JJ Hippie, Canadian Cynic (also here), Dr Dawg, The Regina Mom, Kuri, Fern, dBO, Mike @ Rational Reasons, Antonia, Miss Vicky, 900ft Jesus, Chet Scoville, F-email Fightback and BJ Bjornsen.
Update 2: Even more from Red Jenny and That Buzz Between Your Legs.
Updated 3: More! More! More! (h/t Antonia Z) Justice is a Woman With A Sword, Megan’s Place, Aurelia (absolute must-read) and The Pedgehog.
Update 4: Welcome Feministe readers! Make yourselves at home, drinks are in the fridge, etc.
Update 5: Great quote over @ Yappa Ding Ding.
Update 6: Always worth teh wait for teh Kitteh.
Update 7: Two more late entries: CathiefromCanada and Purtek.
Update 8: Nikita @ Ranting and Raving is succinct and on point:
This is an immeasurably important choice and we must be on guard to ensure it does not get taken away from us.
Preach!
Still Waiting For The Punchline
by matttbastard
Ok, I’m not even going to try and construct a clever one-liner; just go to ACR, read, and try to remember: racism is, like, so 20th century–except in the Hamptons, where they apparently never received the post-everything memo.
Yeah.
Update 01/28: Nice try with the memory holez tricksiness, Independent editors. Luckily the Googles don’t forget so easily.
Oh, and there seems to be a pattern of peddling racist caricatures @ this rag:
(h/t Gigi.)
You know the drill–Thunderbird is go, kiddies:
Rick Murphy, Editor
rmurphy@indyeastend.com
Jerry Della Femina, Publisher
Jerry@DFJP.com
James J. Mackin, Publisher
jim@indyeastend.com
Kitty Merrill, News Editor
kmerrill@indyeastend.com
Carey London, Editor
clondon@indyeastend.com
Lisa Finn, Associate Editor
lfinn@indyeastend.com
Empty Set
by matttbastard
On the road till Sunday night; expect sporadic/minimal blogging. Until then, enjoy the choonz and check out Birth Pangs up-to-the-minute coverage of yesterday’s terrorist threat against Henry Morgentaler. Yeah, what’s a 20th anniversary celebration without the requisite retro anti-choicer death threat to liven up the party?
Yes, He’s Still Running, Thank Reason.
by matttbastard
Now that Keebler Kucinich has dropped out of the race, my main man Mike is the only (ahem) major US presidential candidate left who is in favour of impeachment:
Impeachment Statement by Presidential Candidate Senator Mike Gravel
While I’ve been outspoken in favor of the Impeachment of Vice President Cheney and President Bush since last July, today I’m announcing my very strong and unqualified support for Impeachment.
I want to very clearly and emphatically affirm the imperative of Impeachment as the Presidential Campaign begins to move into high gear and as the media is busy anointing the “front runners.”
As a Candidate for President, and most importantly as an American, I firmly believe that our most important and highest priority, both as individual American citizens and as a whole Nation, is to protect, defend, and nourish the foundation of American Democracy: the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Every other issue is of secondary importance.
I’ve chosen to run for President to effect what I consider to be much needed change. When people go to Internet websites that match them with the candidates that best reflect their own concerns and priorities, a very large number of voters find that I am the candidate best advocating the issues they most care about.
However, today I want to unequivocally state: without Impeachment first, what I or any other worthy Presidential candidate wants to accomplish is very unlikely to happen. Our words will in fact become another empty campaign promise and another sad political fantasy.
Why am I making such a statement?
Let’s review a few supremely important and disturbing facts:
Without Impeachment before we choose the next Administration, we as a Nation will be setting a legal precedent. We will saying yes to the systematic destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights engineered by Vice President Cheney and President Bush, and will be formally agreeing to the end of American Democracy. We, as Americans, will be giving our approval and consent to the idea that the Vice President and President are indeed above the law, that they are in fact a law unto themselves.
The Cheney and Bush Administration has openly boasted about their supposed right to break the law. This administration has claimed that it has the right to spy on Americans without a warrant. This administration has decided that it has no obligation to respond to any lawful subpoenas from Congress, and that it may invoke Presidential signing statements to declare its right to ignore any Federal Law. This administration thinks it has the authority to arbitrarily strip any American of his or her citizenship.
This administration has illegally declared that it has supreme overriding authority. The Vice President and the President have accumulated and consolidated unprecedented power that has replaced the co-equal system of checks and balances mandated by the Constitution with a new Imperial Presidency. This imperialism has given the President far-reaching powers that our founding fathers would quickly recognize as tyranny.
The illegitimate authority of this newly constructed imperial Presidency – this Supreme Commander-in-Chief created by Cheney and Bush – has replaced the Rule-of-Law based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Our system of co-equal branches of government, the unique and revolutionary principle of American Democracy, the great leap of faith that people could actually govern themselves, has been subverted. It is now almost dead.
America, the world’s oldest Democracy, is an astonishingly brilliant system of government based on carefully crafted and refined checks and balances between co-equal branches of government. The civil liberties given birth by this revolutionary form of government over 200 years ago are rapidly ending.
Our political elite, those we have entrusted to be the people’s representatives, have failed. Their oath of office, to protect and defend the Constitution, has been disregarded in the light of political power.
When we have a Vice President and President who openly declare they are above the law of the land, above the Constitution, how can we as Americans pretend that we live in a Democracy?
If We The People do not take action to demand accountability in the form of Impeachment, we become passive accomplices to the silent overthrow of American Democracy.
It is now time for the People to become leaders. We must teach our elected representatives to act in accordance with their oath of office and effect immediate impeachment of those who have committed these crimes against the Constitution.
If we do not act now we are all personally endorsing, sanctioning, and indeed celebrating, the end of the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus and all other fundamental civil liberties and democratic values. Such values have been the foundation of American Democracy for over 200 years.
The media-anointed “front-running” Presidential Candidates simply do not have the courage to tell the American public the truth.
If we elect any candidate from any party without first impeaching this outlaw Administration, we endorse and elect a new Imperial President of the United States. This cements into place a failed Democracy whose citizens have passively chosen to relinquish the cherished freedoms millions have fought and died to protect.
Do we really believe that we can trust the next President to give back the dramatically expanded power of the Unitary Executive? Once absolute power has been granted, it is never relinquished voluntarily.
We need to stop kidding ourselves. Let us summon 1% of the courage that those who landed on the beaches of Normandy had and recognize what is painfully obvious to the rest of the World: we are rapidly losing every fundamental freedom we thought we were fighting the “terrorists” to protect.
In six short years, the Vice President and the President have actively conspired to commit the most grievous crimes against our Constitution and the personal freedoms it guarantees. America has gone from being perhaps the most admired and respected nation on the planet to becoming the ultimate rogue state. The world’s only remaining superpower is now feared as the greatest threat to world peace.
The Constitutional system of checks and balances that are the foundation of our civil liberties have been gutted. America has become the only “civilized” state to declare its right to arbitrarily imprison, torture, and spy on anyone it chooses to, including its own citizens. We are also the only state to officially declare a right to wage lethal preemptive war on any nation that dares to threaten its exclusive superpower status.
Every democratic nation has the government that is created by active participation of its citizens. Impeachment is the only option for us, as Americans, to effectively wake ourselves up from this collective nightmare. It is the only way for us to demonstrate to ourselves and the rest of the world that we are the Americans we like to believe we are. We need to demonstrate that we actually can summon the courage to live up to our self-proclaimed ideals.
Enough is enough. This is NOT allowed.
There is a lot of very good news that makes me tremendously hopeful that we as a nation are starting to wake up and insist our Congressional representatives act to make Impeachment happen now.
Our corporate controlled media works very hard to portray impeachment as a fringe issue not worthy of serious consideration, even though polls show the negative approval ratings of this administration have surpassed all historic records. Reputable national polling shows that 54% want the Vice President impeached and 45% of voters favor Impeachment for the President.
We The People are indeed waking up – we have learned not to rely on the old top-down corporate media dinosaurs to tell us what they have decided is “the news.” Fortunately, We The People have an amazing network of online alternative information sources. These rapidly evolving reality-based, user-driven, independent media sites have made us our own news editors.We The People are now realizing that we must act now to take the initiative to demand that our elected representatives in Congress initiate immediate Impeachment hearings. From the bottom-up, we have begun the process to restore the Rule-of-Law in America.
Here’s what we can all do now to take effective action:
Join your fellow Americans and Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary committee, by signing his petition that asks all other members of the Judiciary Committee to join his call for immediate hearings on the Impeachment of the Vice President.Support and donate to these Impeachment Groups:
Support and donate to my campaign and tell your friends.
Support and donate to the other Presidential candidates who are also publicly and courageously calling for Impeachment.
Let the other Presidential Candidates know why you are not willing to support or contribute to their campaign: that you refuse to support anyone who isn’t willing to tell the truth to the American people about what has happened to their Democracy.
Join together to organize and petition your Congressperson to be true to their oath office: to uphold their most fundamental and sacred duty to protect and defend the Constitution by Impeaching the Vice President and President. Together we will restore the Rule-of-Law in America.
Senator Mike Gravel
Candidate for President
Related: Via Jon Schwarz, The Real News on impeachment; my Yankee brethren can still sign the Wexler Wants Hearings petition.
Canadian F-Word Blog Awards: Nominations are now open!
by matttbastard
Oh, and as Prole explains, there’s now an opportunity to participate in the awards, help out a deserving organization in need of financial assistance and maybe win an awesome prize:
Because feminists know that walking the walk is just as important as talking the talk, we are proud to announce the Canadian F-word Blog Awards fundraising initiative for WISE. WISE, or Wellbeing thru Inclusion Socially and Economically, is a national movement whose goals are:
- Raising the collective voice of women who are living in poverty due to policies of exclusion;
- Changing public understanding of poverty: from that of socioeconomic inevitability, to a condition of social and economic exclusion;
- Encouraging community members to work with us to reduce poverty in our neighbourhoods to the benefit of all;
- Ensuring that policymakers understand the worsening economic situation of an increasing number of Canadians to have a systemic cause, one that they can be instrumental in changing.
WISE is one of many organizations who have been mightily screwed by Canada’s Eww Government’s cruel and unnecessary cuts to the SWC, because of the need to toss some raw meat to their socially conservative, classist, anti-woman base. WISE needs your generous help more than ever to continue providing leadership, training, awareness, and advocacy for low income women across Canada.
We know that you would help women in need out of the goodness of your heart – there is no doubt about that. However, to sweeten the deal, we have added a super-fantastic raffle which will entice you to give more!
For each $10 donation to WISE – via paypal or cheque only – you will be entered into a drawing, i.e. if you donate $100, you will get 10 chances in the drawing. *Cheques must be mailed and received at WISE’s BC address no later than February 20 so that we can verify your donation.Doubtless you’re asking yourself,”Prole, what might I win?” Well I hope you’re sitting down…
It’s a pair of fabulous, bodacious, hand-knit (by moi) Teutonic Titpillows!
These two-of-a-kind beauties will be the talk of your town, or at least your home! Your friends will be sick with envy, and your neighbors will be scandalized! So don’t delay, get your credit card or chequebook ready and show WISE, and the world, the spirit of generosity and advocacy that makes up Canada’s feminist online community!
- One drawing entry per $10 donation
- Donations accepted via PayPal or cheque, payable to WISE and mailed to:
WISE
PO Box 613
Duncan BC V9L 3X9
- Cheques MUST be received by WISE no later than February 20 if you wish to be entered into the drawing
- Drawing held on February 24, in conjunction with the announcement of the CFWBA winners
- Donations are not tax-deductable
Open those wallets and give ’til it hurts - your sisters deserve your help!
Click here for more on WISE’s dire financial situation. Pony up some dough and don’t forget to nominate your favourite feminist blogs!
Stephen Harper Party Secretly Halts Detainee Transfers
by matttbastard
Well, how ’bout that–mattt speaks, Harper listens. Retroactively. Without mentioning the fact that transfers actually had ceased several months ago (and after having cast despicable aspirations on those who noted that torture was taking place on Canada’s watch).
I suppose an apology is in order.
Ok, here goes *deep breath*
I’m sorry for correctly presuming that our country really is being held hostage by a bunch of lying, willfully indifferent right-wing authoritarians. I’m sorry that our government could give a good goddamn about international law and human rights, as long as their torture-luvin’ masters down south keep handing out cookies. And I’m really sorry that the Tories reserve the right to resume transfers at any time without prior notice.
Wow. I feel purged after getting that off my chest. Uncle Steve and Co. should give it a try sometime.
Yeah, and a pony.
The government’s handling of this issue tells you a lot about their character. Their instinct is to deny, cover up, circle the wagons, point partisan fingers elsewhere. Then, once they’re in a pickle, reverse course only when absolutely legally necessary. Like on the eve of a court hearing.
[...]
It’s an ugly, ugly government comprised of inhuman partisans we’ve got representing us
ABC News: Obama ‘Bout Ta Pop a Cap in Jeff Zeleny’s Azz!
by matttbastard
Last night on Political Radar, Sunlen Miller of ABC News breathlessly recounted a “testy” exchange between Barack Obama and NY Times reporter Jeff Zeleny re: Bill Clinton’s recent attempts at race baiting aggressive campaigning on behalf of Senator Clinton:
“I am trying to make sure that his statements by [President Clinton] are answered. Don’t you think that’s important?” Obama shot back, while walking away.
When Zeleny yelled a follow up question suggesting the Illinois senator had not answered the question, Obama fired back angrily, “Don’t try cheap stunts like that.”
Obama then walked away and shook hands with the mass of voters that surrounded him.
A few minutes later, Obama came back and confronted Zeleny again.
“I will answer your question though off the record, would you like to talk off the record?” Obama asked. Zeleny refused to go off the record and then motioned toward the gaggle of TV cameras gathered around him.
“Shot back.”
“Fired back angrily.”
“Confronted Zeleny.”
Shit, Poindexter was damn lucky BHO didn’t go all OJ on his Wonderbread behind!
Ok, to recap the Official Beltway Narrative™: poor Jeff Zeleny bravely faced the wrath of The Angry Black Man, (leather) gloves off stylez, bwoi!
Billary betta pray Baby Bam ain’t strapped in S.C this Saturday.
Sweet Jesus, I hate teh MSM.
(Wow, I’ve been channelling Melissa McEwan quite a bit lately. Hope she don’t get all litigious on my angry negro booty.)
PSA: 20th Anniversary of the Morgentaler Supreme Court Decision
by matttbastard
Via Choice Joyce @ Bread and Roses:
Events Commemorating the 20th Anniversary of the Morgentaler Decision
Toronto, Friday, January 25, 8:30 am – 5 pm. Symposium to Mark the 20th Anniversary of R v. Morgentaler, Of What Difference: Reflections on the Judgment and Abortion in Canada Today. This symposium will examine the significance of the judgment today: What difference has it made to women, providers, and the politics of abortion in Canada? Sponsored by NAF Canada and the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. Location: Flavelle Classroom C, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto. Free registration. Register and find details at: www.law.utoronto.ca/conferences/ofwhatdifference.html. Contacts: Dawn Fowler, dfowler@prochoice.org or Joanna Erdman, joanna.erdman@utoronto.ca
Toronto, Friday, January 25, 7:30pm. Fundraising Reception for National Abortion Federation Canada ‘s Patient Assistance Fund. Many women lack the resources to pay for costs associated with abortion care, such as transportation, childcare, and medications. Also, some women cannot access medical coverage and require financial support. Donations to this fund will allow NAF Canada to provide financial assistance when it is urgently needed. Textile Museum of Canada, 55 Centre Avenue. $30 per ticket or $50 for two tickets. RSVP by January 24 to dfowler@prochoice.org or 250-598-1858.
Toronto, Saturday, January 26, 7pm. Another World is Possible: Cultures of Resistance. An evening of music, art, film, and poetry inspired by diverse struggles for justice as part of the World Social Forum Global Day of Action, and a special tribute to the reproductive choice movement on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Morgentaler Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in Canada. Featuring Dionne Brand, LAL, Marcelo Puente and Heather Chetwind, Choice Monologues, Ulla Laidlaw, PATAC (Phillipine Theatre Group), Global Aware Photo Exhibit, video on World Social Forum by Velcrow Ripper, and many other artists and performers. Free admission. Ryerson Student Campus Center, 55 Gould St. More info: www.ryerson.ca/tsf Contact: Michelle.langlois@ryerson.ca
Ottawa, Monday, January 28, noon-1 pm. Planned Parenthood Ottawa will be peacefully standing outside the Morgentaler Clinic at 65 Bank Street to thank Dr. Henry Morgentaler and to remind everyone that there is still an ongoing struggle for accessibility nation-wide. If you would like to join us, please do. Bring pro-choice signs, bring your friends, sisters, brothers, coworkers, and neighboors. We anticipate anti-choice groups to be there as well. Also, on Tuesday, January 22, from 3pm-9pm, please come to a poster-making session for the rally at Planned Parenthood Ottawa, 251 Bank Street, Suite 201. Materials provided. Invitation and details: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=21600536808
Ottawa, Wednesday, January 30, 7-9:30 pm. Gala Night, featuring Honourable Senator Lucie Pepin, Judy Rebick, video presentation from Dr. Henry Morgentaler, and performers Lesley Hoyles (singer), the Asinabika Women’s Drumming Circle, and introducing Peggy Cooke, winner of the Pro-Choice Canada Contest. Free admission, but limited to 200 people. Location: House of Commons, Centre Block, Room 200. Invitation-only event: you must RSVP before Jan 28 to Tracey Bellingham at info@canadiansforchoice.ca or 613-789-9958 ext 222 or toll-free 1-888-642-2725, ext 222.
Regina, Monday, January 28, 12:30-2:30 pm. Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the Morgentaler Case. Enjoy tea and anniversary cake. Free admission. Location: Women’s Centre, University of Regina. More info: water_lover2001@hotmail.com Also, in the days leading up to the event, there will be a “coat hanger campaign” to promote awareness of abortion rights.
Vancouver – Monday, January 28, 6-10 pm. The Morgentaler Decision: Before and Beyond. Celebrate the 20th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision that finally gave Canadian women true reproductive choice. Reception, cash bar, speaker’s panel with Jackie Larkin, Nitya Iyer and Shelagh Day. New documentary film “Henry.” Location: SFU Harbour Centre, 515 W. Hastings St., Vancouver. Free admission. Poster with details: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Morgentaler-Jan-28-08-flyer.pdf More info: jharthur@shaw.ca
Related: Sweet Jesus, I hate David Frum.
Update: JJ preaches gospel:
Thanks to Dr. Morgentaler we have unrestricted reproductive choice. Thanks to Chantal Daigle, nobody can fuck with that choice by using (abusing) the legal system to force women to be unwilling incubators. Remember “freedom is on the march” and “let freedom reign” and “they hate us for our freedom”? Freedom is good!
A-fuckin’-men!
Happy Birthday Roe V. Wade
by sassywho
It’s the 35th anniversary of Roe V. Wade and Blog For Choice; NARAL wants to know why we vote pro-choice. After 35 years of legalization it’s hard to imagine why this very personal and intimate medical procedure is necessary of such vigilance in its continued support. Our public discourse is painted in caricatures and broadcasted with soundbites; there is little room for nuance or real women.
The average person can picture someone that has had an abortion, and very well may vote with her in mind. She’s the virginal woman whose fetus suffers a fetal abnormality, she’s the slut who can’t keep track of her lovers much less her cycle, she’s the rape victim, she’s the cancer patient, she’s the woman that birth control failed, she’s the drug addict, she’s the impoverished mother, she’s the incest victim, she’s the diabetes patient, she’s the irresponsible but promising college student, she’s the woman of ethnic background, she’s the career-driven bitch, she’s the vain one, she’s the taxed mother with 4 other children, she’s the mentally unstable woman, she’s the woman carrying the child of someone other than her husband, she’s the woman left by her lover; she’s the woman that many voters may pity.
While her circumstance may be acknowledged, she is not. If she was treated as a fully sentient, independent and whole individual do you believe that she would be forced to justify her choice to the phoned in straw polls every 4 years? A woman’s womb has become a permanent fixture in the town square, and the village is full of righteous shopkeepers. If she dare exercise her rights she had better be prepared to justify it to those around her with tales of woe or be forced to forgo inherent occupancy of her own body. How is this exchange any different than being declared mentally incompetent in order to obtain an abortion 40 years ago?
The justifications that women have been subjected to have been enacted through mandated wait times, parental consent, spousal approval, and even insurance coverage; a battle that also includes birth control. Voting pro-choice doesn’t focus exclusively on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, it also subscribes to the belief that a woman is wholly capable to make the choice that is right for her within the recognized limits of the law. Unfortunately we live in a society where others(and there are plenty of them) believe women are less important than their potential to produce.
I vote pro-choice because I believe in women, their health, and the notion that every child in the world is a wanted one. I believe that women already cater to their loved ones enough to take into account what their wishes are, already care about making the world a better place to be resourceful in their paths, and know themselves well enough to have the wisdom that only comes from being the heiress of a uterus. I vote pro-choice because I trust women.
Re: Detainee Transfers–What Impolitical Said.
by matttbastard
Stop the detainee transfers. Now.
Compelling evidence that Canadian-transferred detainees are still being tortured in Afghan prisons emerged Monday from the government’s own follow-up inspection reports, documents it has long tried to keep secret.
In one harrowing account, an Afghan turned over by Canadian soldiers told of being beaten unconscious and tortured in the secret police prison in Kandahar. He showed Canadian diplomats fresh welts and then backed up his story by revealing where the electrical cable and the rubber hose that had been used on him were hidden.
“Under the chair we found a large piece of braided electrical cable as well as a rubber hose,” reads the subsequent diplomatic cable marked “secret” and distributed to some of the most senior officials in the Canadian government and officers in the Canadian military.
The Globe and Mail has established that the report of the case is recent, written after a Nov. 5, 2007, inspection of the National Directorate of Security prison in Kandahar. That was six months after a supposedly improved transfer agreement was put in place to monitor detainee treatment. The agreement was designed to address problems raised by critics about the ill treatment of prisoners taken by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan and handed over to Afghan authorities with insufficient follow-up.
This evidence brings a violation of the Geneva Conventions directly into our house. Canada cannot be participating in such violations and should immediately signify to the Afghan government that enough is enough. We need to put an end to this barbarism now. That’s what we should do. It’s what Canadian values, humanity, morality, and the rule of law require.
Pogge’s bang on here–”Maybe that DFAIT training manual should have included Canada on that list of countries that torture.”
Indeed. This is beyond “embarrassing”. This is shameful.
The Manley Report: Stay the Course, Part Infinity
by matttbastard
Teh shocking newz! Manley Report sez: NO END BUT VICTORY!
matttbastard sez:
As intimated, I’m not at all surprised by the recommendations (extend the military mission past 2009 as long as NATO ponies up more troops and kewl new toys).
It’s not just that the outcome was never in doubt. Stephen Harper commissioned an ex-politician whose views of the Afghan mission mirrored Harper’s from the outset. But that doesn’t matter: had the report been prepared by Maude Barlow, Jack Layton and the ghost of Mahatma Gandhi, the impact on the Harper government would have been the same: Very Interesting. Thanks For Your Work. We Will Study Your Recommendations. Meanwhile, We’ll Do What We Were Going To Do Anyway.
In other words, once again (right-wing) ideology trumps (objective) reality. The Great Game is rigged, regardless of who plays. Welcome to faith-based governance, Stephen Harper Party stylez.
On Voting For Choice
by matttbastard
Q. Why do you vote pro-choice?
A. Because reproductive liberty is a woman’s right, and women’s rights are human rights; human rights are absolute.
Why do you vote pro-choice?
Blog For Choice: 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade
by matttbastard
Roe v. Wade built on the social and legal trends in the country at that time to make abortion legal, more accessible and safe. This reflected the growing concern about women seeking abortions despite the risks to their health and safety.
Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and ’60s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967
When abortion was illegal, it was primarily higher income, white women who were able to travel or arrange to obtain safe abortions. Death rates clearly reflect racial and income disparities: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion. In comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women. The mortality rate due to illegal abortion was 12 times higher from 1972 to 1974 for nonwhite women than for white women nationwide.
Today, as we celebrate the anniversary, we celebrate the many powerful improvements in the health and general well-being of women and families as a result of the right to legal, safe abortion. The right to make childbearing decisions has enabled women to pursue educational and employment opportunities that were often unthinkable before.
Health risks are vastly reduced: In 1965, 17 percent of all deaths due to pregnancy and childbirth were the result of illegal abortion.
Today, fewer than 0.3 percent of women undergoing legal abortion procedures sustain a serious complication.
Jane Parker, Now’s time for vigilance over women’s rights
For most Americans, it’s difficult to imagine that abortion in the U.S. could actually be criminalized once again.
While legal scholars and journalists debate the likelihood of a Roe reversal, healthcare providers like Planned Parenthood must seriously consider the outcome of such a devastating legal action.
According to a recent report from The Center for Reproductive Rights, the consequences of overturning Roe sound frighteningly similar to pre-Roe days when women risked their lives in order to control their reproductive destiny.
[...]
If Roe fell, abortion law would revert to the states, where emboldened anti-choice hard-liners have already unleashed a pre-emptive battle.
According to the CRR study, 21 states are poised to immediately ban abortion should Roe be overturned, and six states already have laws on the books to criminalize women who self-induce, with consequences that include fines and imprisonment.
[...]
The incremental approach of the abortion-rights opponents is working. They considered it a major victory when last April the newly composed U.S. Supreme Court broke with over 30 years of precedent and upheld the first federal abortion ban since Roe that does not include an exception for the woman’s health.
Let’s be clear. Banning abortion won’t reduce the need for it. It will, however, result in untold misery, and possibly even death, for women desperate to obtain the service.
Cheryl Rollings, Roe Reversal Would Bring Untold Misery
Download the CRR report, What if Roe Fell? (PDF)
In the thirty-five years since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, two trends have emerged in the legal landscape around reproductive rights—in the United States, a troubling retreat from longstanding commitments to the principles of Roe; and around the world, a growing recognition of women’s fundamental human right to reproductive health and self-determination. Once in the vanguard, the United States Supreme Court has reneged on the robust constitutional protections embedded in Roe. While in sharp contrast, legal protections for reproductive rights internationally have increasingly been moving ahead.
To cite just a few recent examples, on April 24, 2007, Mexico City lawmakers voted to legalize abortion, recognizing the right as central to women’s health. A few months earlier, Portugal adopted a similar measure. And in 2006, the Constitutional Court of Colombia declared unconstitutional the country’s blanket criminalization of abortion. Citing fundamental rights to life, health, equality, liberty and bodily integrity, the Court held that “reproductive rights have finally been recognized as human rights.”
Yet in the face of such global progress, the United States, whose Constitution is one of the world’s first and most majestic human rights documents, is sliding backwards, away from its promises of equality and freedom, back towards a society in which women are presumed not to know their best interests. This attitude was reflected in the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, which all but invited anti-choice extremist to step up their assault on Roe.
In 1973, Roe v. Wade gave strength to the global struggle for women’s equality and dignity. And though the debate over abortion in the United States is as heated and political today as ever, we at the Center for Reproductive Rights pledge to remain vigilant in our work, advancing laws and policies that protect not only the right to abortion, but also the right to comprehensive sex education, safe and healthy pregnancy, and the full range of safe and effective contraception both here in the U.S. and around the world.
More Blog For Choice posts throughout the day!
Should the Big Dog Be Muzzled?
by matttbastard
Josh Marshall is concerned:
In the week or so leading up to the Nevada caucus I feel like I heard more from and about Bill Clinton than I did about Hillary Clinton. Is that the media’s doing rather than the campaign’s? Maybe. But I don’t find the argument convincing and I’m not sure it would matter if it were true. What seems difficult to deny is that his rising profile is threatening her position as the dominant force in her own campaign.
And, as Michael Tomasky notes, that profile hasn’t been a positive one recently:
I don’t know who on this planet has the stature to go face-to-face with Bill Clinton and look him in the eye and tell him he behaved in a discreditable fashion. His wife? His buddy Vernon Jordan? Whoever it is, someone had better stop him. He campaigned against a fellow Democrat no differently than if Obama had been Newt Gingrich. The Clinton campaign may conclude that, numerically and on balance, Bill helped. But, trust me, to the thousands of committed progressives who supported him when he really needed it, who went to the mat for him at his moment of (largely self-inflicted) crisis but who now happen to be supporting someone other than his wife, he’s done himself a tremendous amount of damage.
The final price of victory is the splintering of base Democratic voters. African Americans solidified behind Obama, 79-18%. Hispanics, behind Clinton, 64-23%. Young voters went heavily for Obama. Old voters heavily for Clinton. These divisions threaten to flower into schisms. There will be plenty of time to put the pieces back together. But if Clinton becomes the nominee and black voters feel that Obama was treated unfairly … well, let’s imagine that black voter turnout in November is down by 10% in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio. That could mean the difference between victory and defeat in those three states.
The short term effect of Bill’s ruthlessness on the stump may well lead to Senator Clinton receiving the Democractic nomination. But, like Obama’s courting of independents and dissident Republicans, it is a dangerous strategy to employ during a primary campaign. And, as Tomasky observes, the last thing anyone in either Donkey camp wants is a fissure to open in the Democratic Party base that leads to voters staying home in November due to disgust over tactics employed during the primary season.
As noted in a recent Politico article, the GOP electorate is demoralized and disorganized; this election is the Demoratic Party’s to win or lose. But the circular firing squad mentality that has developed in recent weeks among the two major Democratic candidates gives the Republicans more of a chance in the general election than the party of Lincoln should realistically have. If the US ends up putting a Republican into office in November it will only be because some Democrats let ego overrule pragmatism and lost sight of the ultimate goal.
Into the Rough
by matttbastard
William K. Wolfrum provides further evidence of why those in the almost uniformly lily-white world of professional golf should avoid touching upon (or, more specifically, deliberately minimizing) the knotty subject of race. Geez, forget Kelly Tilghman — you’d hope that a decade on they’d have learned from Fuzzy Zoeller’s infamous (and totally misconstrued) “fried chicken and collard greens” incident:
Privileged Ignorance
by matttbastard
Over @ Shakesville, Portly Dyke (h/t) examines how “we are being systematically de-sensitized to [racial] issues by the MSM.“
An excerpt:
People of color may have a better resistance to this insidiously toxic media message, as they are subject to the actual results of racism every day — and radical white progressives may (I said “may”) have an increased immune-response to this stuff as compared to whites of other political/sociological persuasions. I suspect, though, that all of us have slowly conceded corners of our resolve to the onslaught.
It happens so slowly — so incrementally, that we don’t notice at first — that’s why I love montages — because when you put all the messages together, you realize that…the indoctrination has been huge, and intentional, and vile — and not subtle at all.
Please make sure to read the whole damn thing (including and especially the comments).
The Real Issues
by matttbastard
While I agree that most race and gender based personal attacks do not address real political issues, we should not forget that racial and gender issues are real issues. We should not forget that racism and sexism are still fundamental problems in the US.
[...]
I know many Americans are uncomfortable openly discussing how race and gender influence our political system, but this doesn’t mean that these issues are not “real.” Denial won’t erase social inequality. It’s a shame that many people would rather purge discussion of racism and sexism from the public discourse than actually work to give people an equal shot.
- Rachel @ Rachel’s Tavern, “Let’s Get Back to the Real Issues”
(more real issues after the fold)
Stand Up And Be Counted
by matttbastard
Nevada Fall Out UPDATE: Obama Did NOT Win Delegates…Or Did He?
by matttbastard
Originally uploaded by Barack Obama
According to The Nation, despite getting thumped in today’s Nevada caucuses, the Obama camp claims that Obama still wins 13 national delegates to Clinton’s 12.
The press release:
Senator Obama was awarded 13 delegates to Senator Clinton’s 12. As Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson said, “This is a race for delegates…It is not a battle for individual states. As David knows, we are well past the time when any state will have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process.” [Washington Post, 1/16/08]
While the process of delegate apportionment is extremely complicated, it boils down to this: in the places that Clinton won, there were an even number of delegates that were split between she and Obama. In the places Obama won, there were an odd number of delegates, meaning that he often took two delegates to one for Clinton.
Cillizza also just reported that AP and NBC have both changed their delegate count to reflect the Obama camp’s claim, so apparently this is official [edit: I spoke too soon--see update below...and again. Jesus.]
Of course, as John Nichols’ number crunching shows, Obama’s attempt at spinning the delegate count into a postive is the epitome of “Pyrrhic victory”. Other than African Americans (expect Obama to push that 80% hard going into AA-heavy South Carolina), Clinton dominated nearly every demographic, even left-leaning caucus-goers. But it was women and older caucus-goers–both of which turned out in droves–where junior Senator from New York drew the majority of her support:
According to entry polls, 59 percent of caucus participants were women. Clinton was winning them by a 52-35 margin over Obama.Clinton also benefitted from a generational divide that favored her candidacy. Among voters over 60, she beat Obama 61-28. Among voters under 30, Obama won 57-30. But older voters turned out in far higher numbers: 36 percent of voters were over 60, while just 13 percent were under 30.
White voters, who made up two-thirds of the caucus turnout, favored Clinton 52-31. Obama swept the African-American vote 79-16. But what was really striking was the level of Latino support for Clinton. With New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson out of the race, the Latino vote was very much up for grabs, and the New York senator scored a 64-24 sweep.
Clinton, who lost the Culinary Workers but retained support among unions representing teachers and public employees, narrowly prevailed among union households, by a 43-42 margin.
Clinton also did well among self-described “liberals,” a success that could surprise casual observers of the contest.
Caucus participants who said they were “very liberal” made up 18 percent of the electorate and they favored Clinton 51-35. Participants who said they were “somewhat liberal” made up 29 percent of the electorate and favored Clinton 46-35.
It was much closer among the 10 percent of caucus goers who said they were “somewhat conservative.” This group gave Clinton 46 percent, while Obama took 41 percent.
Ouch. Maybe the independent/Republican-courting “fluff Reagan/demonize Clinton” strategy wasn’t the best one for Obama to employ during a Democratic Party caucus.
Oh, and despite barely managing to get 4% of the vote, Edwards says he’s in it for the duration:
“Congratulations to Senator Clinton for her win in Nevada. Our campaign is very grateful to all those who demonstrated the loyalty and dedication to stand up for John Edwards in the face of very difficult circumstances and long odds, including our brothers and sisters in Nevada from the Carpenters, Steelworkers, Transport Workers, and Communications Workers of America.
“John Edwards is the underdog in this campaign, facing two $100 million candidates. But that is nothing compared to the real underdogs in our country – working men and women, middle class families, and all those who have no voice in Washington.
“John Edwards is in this race to fight for the real underdogs and to make sure the voices of the American people are heard in Washington, not the special interests. That’s why he’s the only candidate in this race who has never taken a dime from PACs or Washington lobbyists; the only candidate who will ban corporate lobbyists from his White House; and the only candidate who is honest enough to say we are in a fight for our country and we need to take on the special interests if we are going to have a country that works for hard-working families and the middle class.
“The race to the nomination is a marathon and not a sprint, and we’re committed to making sure the voices of all the voters in the remaining 47 states are heard. The nomination won’t be decided by win-loss records, but by delegates, and we’re ready to fight for every delegate. Saving the middle class is going to be an epic battle, and that’s a fight John Edwards is ready for.”
Epic? More like quixotic. And this is coming from a Gravel supporter–trust me, we know from chasing windmills.
More from Steve Benen, Kyle and the expected assload of commentators over @ Memeorandum.
Update: Via DDay, don’t believe the Obamabot hype:
OK, I just spoke with Jill Derby, the head of the Nevada State Democratic Party. Regarding the Obama claim that he’ll actually get more delegates out of this, essentially that’s spin. Derby said that the caucuses are an “expression of the support of Nevadans today.” Around 11,000 delegates were elected today. That will be winnowed down at county conventions and eventually at the state convention in May to the 25 that will go to Denver for the DNC. In 2004, Kerry didn’t win every delegate on Election Day, but most of the delegates that eventually went to the DNC were his. Once there’s a presumptive nominee, the delegate numbers are subject to change. It’s non-binding.
Digby updates with the official Nevada Democratic Party statement:
Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby Regarding the Nevada Caucus
(Las Vegas, NV) Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.
Jesus. We really are in bat country. Pass the motherfucking ether.
Update 2: Greg Sargent passes along the following muddy clarification from the Nevada Democratic Party.
“No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”
Got that? The weasels are closing in.
John Edwards, Populism, And The Record
by matttbastard
(originally uploaded by John Edwards 2008)
In an interview published this past Thursday, populist US Senator Russ Feingold accused John Edwards of ideological patent infringement:
The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn’t, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you’re playing the game in Washington and another way when you’re running for president, there’s some of that going on.
As Chris Hayes observes, “Edwards has been pretty forthright about admitting he made bad votes and even, in the case of Iraq, apologizing for them” before going on to note that he’s “never heard any persuasive explanation of why [Edwards] was such a lame senator.” Apologies be damned; I for one find it hard to set aside a 6 year voting record that is the inverse of Edwards’ current policy positions, especially when he’s now asking for the keys to the White House. Whether his Senate decisions were ultimately made based on bad advice, naked ambition, or a fear of alienating his conservative Southern constituency, Edwards can’t expect to be afforded a clean slate simply because he’s now really, really sorry for not acting upon his apparent populist principles when it actually counted.
To be fair to Edwards, the other two (viable) candidates have also shilled a progressive product throughout the campaign that is largely at odds with their respective records in office (and, in the case of Obama, his conservative political philosophy). But Edwards has been the candidate most keen to tether his campaign to populist rhetoric, leaving him more open to charges of hypocrisy. The sudden adoption of a Feingold-esque policy platform smacks of opportunism, a carefully crafted postion calculated to maximize support–which may explain why many leaders in the labour movement have been hesitant to endorse his campaign.
I’m with Jonathan Singer: “when someone with Feingold’s standing…comes out with such blunt and strong language — and backs it up with real tangible facts, in this case in the form of votes on the Senate floor — it’s worth paying heed.”
Update: After Edwards’ ugly third place performance at the Nevada Caucuses today, this issue is largely academic. The only question is whether he should drop out now, or wait till February 5th.
Gravel Calls Out Kucinich For Debate Hypocrisy
by matttbastard
And you thought the front runners were the only ones goin’ at it sans gants:
Oh, snap!
(I’m not shitting you–he’s still running!)
Via OPENERS.
Foreign Correspondents And Sexual Abuse
by matttbastard
Women have risen to the top of war and foreign reportage. They run bureaus in dodgy places and do jobs that are just as dangerous as those that men do. But there is one area where they differ from the boys–sexual harassment and rape. Female reporters are targets in lawless places where guns are common and punishment rare. Yet the compulsion to be part of the macho club is so fierce that women often don’t tell their bosses. Groping hands and lewd come-ons are stoically accepted as part of the job, especially in places where western women are viewed as promiscuous. War zones in particular seem to invite unwanted advances, and sometimes the creeps can be the drivers, guards, and even the sources that one depends on to do the job. Often they are drunk. But female journalists tend to grit their teeth and keep on working, unless it gets worse.
Because of the secrecy around sexual assaults, it’s hard to judge their frequency. Yet I know of a dozen such assaults, including one suffered by a man. Eight of the cases involve forced intercourse, mostly in combat zones. The perpetrators included hotel employees, support staff, colleagues, and the very people who are paid to guarantee safety–policemen and security guards. None of the victims want to be named. For many women, going public can cause further distress. In the words of an American correspondent who awoke in her Baghdad compound to find her security guard’s head in her lap, “I don’t want it out there, for people to look at me and think, ‘Hmmm. This guy did that to her, yuck.’ I don’t want to be viewed in my worst vulnerability.”
The only attempt to quantify this problem has been a slim survey of female war reporters published two years ago by the International News Safety Institute, based in Brussels. Of the twenty-nine respondents who took part, more than half reported sexual harassment on the job. Two said they had experienced sexual abuse. But even when the abuse is rape, few correspondents tell anyone, even friends. The shame runs so deep–and the fear of being pulled off an assignment, especially in a time of shrinking budgets, is so strong–that no one wants intimate violations to resound in a newsroom.
Rodney Pinder, the director of the institute, was struck by how some senior newswomen he approached after the 2005 survey were reluctant to take a stand on rape. “The feedback I got was mainly that women didn’t want to be seen as ‘special’ cases for fear that, a) it affected gender equality and b) it hindered them getting assignments,” he says.
Caroline Neil, who has done safety training with major networks over the past decade, agrees. “The subject has been swept under the carpet. It’s something people don’t like to talk about.”
Just Call Him ‘Hyuk’
by matttbastard
First he gave a shoutout to the Stars ‘n’ Bars; then there was the proposed buttsecks amendment.
Huckabee spoke to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough from Columbia, SC, saying enthusiastically, “South Carolina’s a great place for me. I mean, I know how to eat grits and speak the language. We even know how to talk about eating fried squirrel and stuff like that, so we’re on the same wavelength.”
“Mika, I bet you never did this,” Huckabee went on, addressing Mika Brzezinski. “When I was in college, we used to take a popcorn popper, because that was the only thing they would let us use in the dorm, and we would fry squirrels in a popcorn popper in the dorm room.
A popcorn popper. Now that’s authenticity. As dnA dryly notes, “if there’s anyone who can restore our international standing in the world, it’s this squirrel-eating motherfucker.”
Related: Via CJR Campaign Desk, Laura Meckler on how Hyuk’s unlikely “chaos strategy” has worked to his advantage.
Umbrella Segregation
by matttbastard
Sudy:
This country, my country of origin, is obsessed with Black and White as the only two races, as the only racial conflict, as the only communities of conflict. In every experience of academia, media, and social conversation about race, Black and White are polarized to model the dynamics and yawn-boring patterns of racial tension in the US. Shameless in its ignorance, the United States frequently groups Asians in one category, one hand glossing over our black hair and smudging our skin until its all yellow. I am Brown.
The Latino community continuously gains signficant ground, but Asians are the wallflowers of the race conversation. Deemed pleasantly invisible and poetic in distinct features, Asians are Asians and nothing more, nothing less. If we continue to operate in the same outdated model of an umbrella-ed Asian category, I shudder to think of how many lifetimes it will take until bi-racial and bi-cultured issues will come to surface.
Go.
Carnival Of Feminists #51
by matttbastard
Get your monthly fill of intellectual feminutrition over at Philobiblon, where a (belated) 2nd anniversary celebration is taking place!
h/t Jack Stephens
#rebelleft
GlobalComment
- An American Downton Abbey? ABC’s Gilded Lilys tries on the costume drama s.e. smith
- Sex Online? The Ultra-Orthodox Rally Against the Internet Emily Manuel
- A Study in Pink: Sherlock and Steven Moffat’s Woman Problem s.e. smith
- What’s behind the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece? Feature Writer
- Reflections on an Arab Spring in Peril Nasser Ali Khasawneh
Alterdestiny
- All The Power To The Top noreply@blogger.com (Redbeard)
- Now The Serpent Was More Subtil... noreply@blogger.com (Redbeard)
- Who Made That Butterball For You? noreply@blogger.com (Redbeard)
- Historical Image of the Day noreply@blogger.com (Erik Loomis)
- Reagan by Eugene Jarecki noreply@blogger.com (Redbeard)
WorldBridge: Refugees International’s Blog
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
LabourStart
- Chile: Outsourced Chilean Copper Workers '21st Century Slave Labour'
- Egypt: Union movement finds its own strength; workers are now crafting a new network to secure workplace rights
- Australia: World's richest woman makes more profits by off-shoring Australian jobs
- Korea (North): Amnesty report: 200,000 prisoners in Kim's Gulag
- Cambodia: Security guards clash with workers at factories that supply Levi’s, Gap and H&M
Recent Comments