System System System

by matttbastard

Before being given an up-close and personal introduction to the undercarriage of the Obama campaign bus, the ScaryAngry(Insubordinate)Pariah preached some serious gospel this past Thursday:

[Obama's] a politician, I’m a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they’re two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do.

And what do politicians do? They shake hands with the devil:

The same Beltway lobbyists, corporate donors and public relations firms, the same weapons manufacturers, defense contractors, nuclear power companies and Wall Street interests that give Clinton and John McCain money, give Obama money. They happen, in fact, to give Obama more. And the corporate state, which is carrying out a coup d’état in slow motion, believes it will prosper in Obama’s hands. If not, he would not be a viable candidate. We have come full circle, back to the age of the robber barons and railroad magnates of the late 19th century who selected members of corrupt state assemblies to be their pliable senators and congressmen and sent them off to Washington to do their bidding.

There have been some important investigations into Obama’s links with major corporations, including Ken Silverstein’s November 2006 article “Barack Obama Inc: The Birth of a Washington Machine” in Harper’s magazine. Newsweek has also detailed many of Obama’s major corporate contributors. Obama’s Leadership PAC includes John Gorman of Texas-based Tejas Securities, a major supporter of Senate Democrats as well as the Bush presidential campaigns. It includes Winston & Strawn, the Chicago-based law and lobbying firm. It also includes the corporate law firms Kirkland & Ellis, and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fundraisers for Obama as well as donors. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Henry Crown and Co., an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense, are all funding the Illinois senator.

Individual contributors to Obama come from major lobbyist groups such as those of Jeffrey Peck (whose clients include MasterCard, the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and Rich Tarplin (Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers). Exelon, a leading nuclear plant operator, based in Illinois, is a long-time donor to the Obama campaign. Exelon executives and employees have contributed at least $227,000 to Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fundraisers. Obama has also accepted more than $213,000 from individuals (and their spouses) who work for companies in the oil and gas industry, and two of Obama’s bundlers are senior oil company executives who have raised between $50,000 and $100,000. I could go on, but you get the point.

Obama, as you will see if you examine his voting record, has repeatedly rewarded those who reward him. As a senator he has promoted nuclear energy as “green.” He has been lauded by the nuclear power industry, which is determined to resume building nuclear power plants across the country. He has voted to continue to fund the Iraq war. He opposed Rep. John Murtha’s call for immediate withdrawal. He refused to join the 13 senators who voted against confirming Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state. He voted in July 2005 to reauthorize the Patriot Act. He did not support an amendment that was part of a bankruptcy bill that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. He did not support the single-payer health care bill HR676, sponsored by Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. He supports the death penalty. He worked tirelessly in the Senate in 2005 to pass a class-action “reform” bill that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms, which make up Obama’s second-biggest single bloc of donors. The law, with the Orwellian title the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits. This has long been a cherished goal of large corporations as well as the Bush administration. It effectively denies redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporate challenges. It moves these cases into corporate-friendly federal courts dominated by Republican judges. Even Hillary Clinton voted against this naked effort to allow corporations to carry out flagrant discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations.

Even I’m finding it hard to be comforted by the (far from baseless) assertion that an Obama (or a Clinton) administration would be “better” than one helmed by John Sidney McSame.  This is not to say that I’m coming out for Nader (gah!), nor am I encouraging people to sit out the general or waste their vote on a third party vanity candidate.  But I can’t help but lament the sad-yet-undeniable fact that the only viable options American voters have to choose from are all feeding from–and eagerly refilling–the same corporate trough.

Sweet Jesus, I hate this goddamn election.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

The Rules: Coda

by matttbastard

Well, we all knew this was coming the moment Rev. Wright dropped the state terrorism bomb and dared to say something positive about Farrakhan [insert sputtering, self-righteous indignation here].

Ben Smith:

In Winston-Salem, Obama sharply attacks Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the substance of his remarks yesterday, a far sharper disavowal than he gave in Philadelphia last month.

The core of his message: That Wright was not only offensive, but the polar opposite of Obama’s own views and politics.

“I have spent my entire adult life trying to bridge the gap between different kinds of people. That’s in my DNA, trying to promote mutual understanding to insist that we all share common hopes and common dreams as Americans and as human beings. That’s who I am, that’s what I believe, and that’s what this campaign has been about,” Obama said.

“I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday,” he said.

Yep, that muted rumble you heard several hours ago was the sound of 50 million anxious (white) Obama supporters collectively exhaling. (Am I the only one who is sick to fucking death of how wankerrific Bell Curve-cheerleader Andrew Sullivan constantly offers unsolicited advice on race relations to the junior Senator from Illinois? Hey, get back to us when you’ve finally decided to denounce and reject Eugenics, Sully.)

John Cole nails it:

So Jeremiah Wright has acted like a jackass the past few days, and he may have acted supremely selfishly by hurting Obama’s electoral chances. Regardless, he may be a flawed man, but that does not undo all the good he has done over the years. I don’t know of any bloggers with thirty years of service to the poor and the indigent. Get back to me when Chris Matthews feeds hungry people for three decades. And even with all his flaws, Jeremiah Wright did give us this quality bit of entertainment, and I have to admit to enjoying someone treat the media with the respect they deserve (which is to be mocked, have eyes rolled at them, and taunted as Wright did yesterday at the Press Club).

Maybe it is because I am totally and unrepentantly in the tank for Obama, but I just can’t get worked up over what his pastor said. Maybe it is because I am not religious, and I am used to religious people saying things that sound crazy. Or maybe I just refuse to spend any more time and energy getting worked up over and denouncing, distancing, and rejecting the wrong people- people who really don’t matter in the big scheme of things. If you have a memo from Jeremiah Wright to John Yoo showing how we should become a rogue nation, let me know. If you have pictures of Jeremiah Wright voting against the GI Bill, send it to me. If you have evidence of Jeremiah Wright training junior soldiers on the finer aspects of stacking and torturing naked Iraqi captives, pass them on.

Until then, I just can’t seem to get all worked up about the crazy scary black preacher that Obama has to “throw under the bus.”

Once again, say it loud and proud, brethren: it’s only worthy of great weeping and gnashing of teeth if a Scary Black Man™ says it. At this point, one has to wonder if John Sidney McCain couldn’t brazenly pull a Zirkle and still walk away with his straight-talking Maverick credentials fully intact.

Sweet Jesus, I hate this election (and all God’s children said “a-fucking-men”).

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Guilt Has Nothing To Do With It

by matttbastard

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Question time

by  boomgate

I’ve been wondering, for those that write on this blog type thingy, when you write do you write for an audience or write for yourself? Does the fact that other people might read what you are writing effect how or what you post? Does it matter if no one reads it?

For me, I have to say it’s a little from column a, a little from column b. I have posted long ranting things for my sake, thinking no one else would interested in yet end up with a number of replies. The reverse isalso  true, where I have posted things where I was sure would receive comments and nada. Sometimes I do find it really helpful getting someone else’s opinion and perspective of on things, especially if a certain issue in my life is causing stress. At the same, because I know other people are reading this I am guilty of self censorship, which I’m not sure is a good thing or not.

Anyhoo, any thoughts would be good :)

All I Really Needed to Know I Learned From Conservative Private Members Bills

by matttbastard

Via Fern Hill, JJ points out the following little educational tidbit contained in Bill C-537, the latest piece of stealth anti-choice legislation to be privately introduced by yet another one of those fetus-fetishizing MPs lurking in the Conservative backbench (hidden agenda wha?):

This enactment protects the right of health care practitioners and other persons to refuse, without fear of reprisal or other discriminatory coercion, to participate in medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is inviolable. …‘human life’ means the human organism at any stage of development, beginning at fertilization or creation.

Huh. And to think that all these years I was under the mistaken impression that life didn’t begin until 40. Well, that’s the last time I’ll ever internalize a pithy (if catchy) life lesson given by a lying so-and-so like Sophie Tucker (who quite obviously felt that the lives of anyone 39 and under held little-to-no value [insert hyperbolic Godwin violation here]).

Go read Alison, Fern, pale [edit: and Prole], the regina mom, Laura @ we move to canada, 900 ft Jesus, and my fellow genteel purveyor of bipartisan comity, Canadian Cynic, for more details on this latest incremental assault on reproductive freedom–and then commence to agitatin’.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Popcorn Sunday: No End In Sight

by matttbastard

Chronological look at the fiasco in Iraq, especially decisions made in the spring of 2003 – and the backgrounds of those making decisions – immediately following the overthrow of Saddam: no occupation plan, an inadequate team to run the country, insufficient troops to keep order, and three edicts from the White House announced by [Bremner] when he took over: no provisional Iraqi government, de-Ba’athification, and disbanding the Iraqi armed services. The film has chapters (from History to Consequences), and the talking heads are reporters, academics, soldiers, military brass, and former Bush-administration officials, including several who were in Baghdad in 2003.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Now That’s a Good Idea (She Said, She Said)

by matttbastard

The magnificent Littlem, bumped from comments:

For those who have proven themselves allies by support of their convictions by their actions and words, please permit me to offer my respect and gratitude.

Some suggestions:

If you have friends that work as
- university administrators
- tenured professors
- lecturers

you can let them know that the attitudes that are espoused in [It's a Jungle Out There] as perpetuated by the illustrations are NOT attitudes that should be supported and disseminated in institutions of higher learning.

If you have friends that work at
- Borders
- Amazon
- Barnes and Noble
- Powells

you can let them know that this is not a voice that should be supported — and that you have let prospective large-scale purchasers KNOW that it should not be supported — until such time as the offensive images are pulled and a new edition of the book is issued without them.

If you have friends that work in
- the mainstream press
- the offline alternative press

you can let them know that the attitudes that are espoused in the book as perpetuated by the illustrations are NOT attitudes that should be supported and disseminated in public institutions or public lectures.

There are things (when and if one is not falling down tired) that can be done in addition to bloggers who write in support of justice and equity, and powerful withdrawal — like BFP’s — to demonstrate that there are voices that should not be marginalized, dismissed or ignored, and some things that should NEVER appear, in a culture that says it supports equity and justice for all people.

PREACH!

Related: WOC PhD with a lengthy but absolutely necessary post detailing why the girlcott of Seal Press needs to continue (h/t Ravenmn); Daisy and Sudy on how we got to wherever the fuck we are now.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Sean Bell

by sassywho
From Vivir Latino:

About an hour ago, the three New York City Police officers charged with an array of charges for the November 25th, 2006 shooting death of 23 year old groom Sean Bell, were cleared of all charges. Unarmed, Sean Bell died in a hail of 50 some bullets outside a strip club where he was having his bachelor party.

I am gobsmacked by the denial of justice to not only Sean Bell and his family, but also to the communities that have been paralyzed by the legacy of police violence. Sean Bell’s death was not an accident; accidents do not involve 50 bullets. This was not a tragic misunderstanding or a situation gone awry; rather it was a brutal example of a life that has less worth because of the color of his skin. Kevin Powell talks about the structures in our society that breed these tragedies,

This is not to suggest that all police officers are trigger-happy and inhumane, because I do not believe that. They have a difficult and important job, and many of them do that job well, and maintain outstanding relationships with our communities. I know officers like that. But what I am saying is that New York, America, this society as a whole, still views the lives of Black people, of Latino people, of people of color, of women, of poor or working-class people, as less than valuable. It does not matter that two of the three officers charged in the Sean Bell case were officers of color and one White. What matters is the mindset of racism that permeates the New York Police Department, and far too many police departments across America. Shooting in self-defense is one thing, but it is never okay to shoot first and ask questions later, not even if a police officer “feels” threatened, not even if the source of that “feeling” is a Black or Latino person.

There is talk of a civil case and possibly the Justice Department getting involved, but this isn’t just about finding solace and recognition through other legal channels. This is about the institutions that authorized 3 men to open fire on the unarmed and the Judge who reinforced that authority.

Amanda Marcotte and Seal Press Respond

by matttbastard

From Amanda Marcotte:

I’m sorry. Plain and simple. I didn’t pick the offensive imagery in my book, but I should have caught it sooner than now. I didn’t and there’s no excuse. It was my first book, I was excited and happy, but I needed to have a more critical eye. I would do anything to remove racist images from the first printing of the book if I could, and I am relieved and happy to say that they will be removed from future printings. Seal Press has their note of apology up too, and they accept full responsibility for these mistakes. I really recommend reading it.

I can understand why anyone would choose to boycott a book with these images, and I respect that choice. Hopefully, once they are removed, people will reconsider supporting the book if they like the content. I, for one, will be ripping the pages out of my copy but keeping them as a reminder to be alert. Thank you to everyone who’s engaged in a conversation that’s been tough for me but productive nonetheless.

This is pretty much what I’ve got to say. I welcome your feedback below. I imagine things might get pretty intense, so I may not choose to say much more than this, but know that I’m reading and listening and respect your thoughts very much. Once again, I apologize for the images, my overlooking them, and any hurt this may have caused.

From the Seal Press blog:

A Public Apology

To Our Readers, Our Friends, Our Critics,

We are taking action immediately to remove the offensive images from It’s A Jungle Out There. We are currently reprinting, and we will make these changes now. We apologize for any pain or concern these images have caused.

We do not believe it is appropriate for a book about feminism, albeit a book of humor, to have any images or illustrations that are offensive to anyone.

Some have asked the valid question, “What were you thinking?”

Please know that neither the cover, nor the interior images, were meant to make any serious statement. We were hoping for a campy, retro package to complement the author’s humor. That is all. We were not thinking.

As an organization, we need to look seriously at the effects of white privilege. We will be looking for anti-racist trainings offered here in the Bay Area. We want to incorporate race analysis into our work.

In the meantime, please know that all involved in the publishing of It’s A Jungle Out There, from editorial to production were not trying to send a message to anyone about our feelings regarding race. If taken seriously as a representation of our intentions, these images are also not very feminist. By putting the big blonde in the skimpy bathing suit with the big breasts, the tiny waist, and the weapon on our cover, we are also not asserting that she is any kind of standard that anyone should aspire to. This 1950s Marvel comic is not an accurate reflection of our beauty standards, our beliefs regarding one’s right to bear arms, nor our perspectives on race relations, foreign policy, or environmental policy.

We also extend this apology to the author, Amanda Marcotte, who did not select these images for her book. Writing humor is very difficult. While our intention was to complement your words, we see that these images have had the opposite effect, and for that, we are sorry.

Sincerely and humbly,

Krista Lyons-Gould and Brooke Warner

[edit: subsequently appended to original [non] apology, h/t Mandolin:

Please note that, upon reflection, we realize that the second to the last paragraph of this post doesn’t do a good job of conveying our intended meaning. We do not want to delete it, but we do want to make a note around our intent, since its purpose was to further articulate the “what were they thinking?” question. We apologize that this paragraph undermines our apology. We acknowledge that the images are racist and not okay under any circumstances. We are wholeheartedly sincere in our apology, and the actions we’ve laid out above will be acted upon immediately.]

“We were not thinking.”

Ok, I haven’t had much chance to look at other responses to this latest development, but my first gut reaction is to ask the obvious: “why weren’t you thinking?” I can’t begin to count the number of white feminists/allies who say they had read through the book–to say nothing of the publisher–and never even noticed the fucking spearchuckers in the chapter headings. And if the answer is “white privilege” (as I suspect it to be), then we’ve circled back yet again to the original problem, which is the systemic marginalization and silencing of WOC voices and concerns (whether deliberately or inadvertently/indifferently) by an overwhelmingly oblivious white middle class feminist mainstream.

So where the fuck do we go from here, apart from (sincerely and humbly) continuing along the well-trodden path of least resistance?

Update: Memo to Seal Press: Non-apologies. Are. Not. Fucking. Good. Enough.

As Ebog Johnson said in comments @ Alas:

That apology over at Seal Press’ blog is straight out of the Jane “Blackface Joe” Hamsher school of racial apologies. They should have just gone the full Bill Clinton and wagged their finger at us about how they’re being Mau-Mau’d or race-carded.

They are quick studies, though. The promise to take a class is nice EEOC/HR jujitsu. By allocating funds to diversity education, they not only get to do public penance, but also get to insulate themselves internally should any colored Seal Press employee ever get to thinking that the place is a racially hostile workplace. (This of course assumes they have any colored employees.)

Some people really never learn.

Werd. Half-assed CYA strategies solely enacted to minimize privilege-blowback shouldn’t be immediately rewarded with the benefit of the doubt (nor the legitimacy afforded by giving up your hard earned dollars to a corporation that still doesn’t fucking get it). Keep those letters coming, folks.

Update 2 04.26: Jill’s mea culpa:

I’m really glad that Seal will issue a re-print, minus the images, and that they’ve issued an apology. I’m glad that Amanda issued an apology. I’m leaving up my original post about the book, not because I still stand by it 100%, but because I believe in keeping things like that on the record. I think it looks a lot shadier to change it and pretend that nothing happened, and that I was in the right all along. I wasn’t. Erasing the post won’t erase the disappointment and the hurt that the post, and my endorsement, caused. I’m leaving that post up, and augmenting it with this one, as a record of that.

I want to be clear that I’m not trying to railroad Amanda, even if that’s how I suspect she’ll feel. Amanda is a friend of mine, and she’s a friend for lots of reasons — she’s smart, she’s funny, and she does great feminist work every day. I continue to admire her, and the body of work that she has produced. I’ve read her since she was at Mousewords. I was thrilled when she got a bigger platform. I link to her stuff all the time. I was excited she got a book deal, and I looked forward to reading her book. I also don’t know what it’s like to be in her position — she has been through the right-wing machine, and she came out of it ok. The fact that she wasn’t crushed by it, and that she came out swinging, speaks volumes about her strength of character. I think it also shaped how she responds to conflict now. So I hope she knows that this post comes from a place of love and respect.

But sometimes, friends need to tell other friends to do better.

One thing I appreciate about this community is that we push each other to be better, even in the face of supreme fuck-ups. In the other book thread, people could have just said, “Fuck you, Jill,” and that would have been a legitimate response. People could have said, “You are going about this in an ass-backwards way, because you are blinded by your privilege and you are hopeless.” They would have been right, at least about the privilege part (I hope not about the hopeless part). But people didn’t do that. They spelled out their grievances. They explained things. They got angry, but it was justified. And I didn’t do the right thing right away. I’m sure there will be people for whom even this won’t be satisfactory; it’ll be not enough, or too little too late, or not exactly what they wanted or expected from me. That’s ok, and I think I need to realize that I cannot make everyone happy, as much as I want to. I am not going to be able to answer every call to action. I am not going to always be able to tell my friends what they want to hear. But I want to not lay awake at night, sick to my stomach, because I’m sitting on the fence. And I’ve sat on the fence here, and I effectively crossed a picket line when I promoted that book.

For the most part, as angry and hurt as people were, they trusted me enough to come here and talk. I can’t explain how grateful I am for that. And I don’t want to be a disappointment.

Read the whole damn thing.  If only the braintrust @ Seal Press possessed even a fraction of Jill’s awesomeness.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

How to Write for Slate Magazine

by matttbastard

Shorter Chris Wilson:  “Hey, ma, lookit me — I’m contrarian!”

Jesus jumping on a rusty pogo-stick — I really, really hope this is simply bad satire.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Garry Wills – Was America Founded on Christianity?

by matttbastard

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

I Write Letters (and You Can, Too!)

Dear Seal Press,

There’s nothing “groundbreaking” (nor *cough* “subversive” or “ironic”) about undeniably racist imagery. What the bloody blue hell were you thinking?

Warmest regards,

matttbastard

P.S. You might want to think about amending your tagline. I suggest going with a classic truth-in-advertising motif. How about: “Superficial pablum. By white women. For white women”?

Related: You can write letters too!

General Inquiries:

Seal Press
<!–1400 65th Street, Suite 250
Emeryville, CA 94608
1700 4th Street
Berkeley, California 94710
(510) 595-3664

Perseus Books Group (Headquarters)
387 Park Avenue South
12th Floor
New York, NY 10016
(212) 340-8100

Publicity:

Seal Press Publicity Department
510-595-3664
avalon.publicity@perseusbooks.com

International – General Inquiries

Canada

Toronto 559 College Street, Unit 402
Toronto, Ontario
M6G 1A9 Canada
800-747-8147 (Canada only)
416-934-9900
Fax: 416-934-1410

Graham Fidler
Executive Vice President
graham@pgcbooks.ca
voice mail: ext. 203
416-934-9900

Suzanne Wice
Sales and Marketing Manager
suzanne@pgcbooks.ca
voice mail: ext. 207
416-934-9900

Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Provinces

Martin and Associates:
Michael Martin and Margot Stokreef
Phone: 416-769-3947
Fax: 416-769-5967

Susan Rogers
Phone: 416-762-1230
Fax: 416-769-5967

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba

Michael Reynolds and Associates:
Michael Reynolds and Kim Herter (Vancouver)
Phone: 604-688-6918
Fax: 604-687-4624

Heather Parsons (Calgary)
Phone: 403-233-8771
Fax: 403-233-8772

Trent Olson (Manitoba and Saskatchewan)
Phone: (204) 292-1631
Fax: (888) 821-8569

Rest of World Perseus Books Group
International Sales
Eleven Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: (617) 252-5211
Fax: (617) 525-5265

Update 04/25: Holly hits it out of the park once again:

Seal Press recently caught a lot of flak after two of their representatives made themselves look very, very bad by thoroughly failing to engage in any kind of productive dialogue with women of color who vocally criticized the lack of racial representation in their catalog. And now this. The publishing world is a hard place these days for a feminist press — it’s hard to figure out how to be an ally to disenfranchised voices and still make ends meet. Yes. But those excuses don’t even make sense this time around. If you’ve gotta put retro cartoons on your covers to sell books, fine. But how many retro cartoon images are there in the world that don’t have hoary old racist, colonialist tropes splattered all over them? Believe me, there are plenty. Not every one is as problematic as these.

[...]

Although Amanda has long been one of my favorite bloggers, any enjoyment I once got out of reading her snappy takedowns of misogyny is rapidly turning to ashes in my mouth. And that’s why I can’t sleep, why I feel like throwing up. Like a lot of bloggers these days, I’m no longer even sure if I feel comfortable calling myself a feminist, since it seems like the popular definition of that word in so many circles has come to mean “feminism first, every other issue second.” And that’s a formula that inevitably leads to a feminism for the few. A feminism for the small numbers of women who don’t deal with intersections of one, two or ten other kinds of shit getting heaped on us every day, too many to calculate “which is most important.” It’s not a kind of feminism that works for most of the women on this planet. But you know, brownfemipower already said all this in her sign-off, I don’t need to repeat her thoughts. Just add my name to the list of those who are no longer sure if we can simply “take feminism back.” Or even if it’s worth it.

Also see Lauredhel @ Hoyden About Town, Maia @ Alas, a Blog, Ilyka, The Rotund, Galling Galla, Burning Words and Natalia. Oh, and I join Mandolin and Amp in endorsing Sylvia’s sound advice:

If you really like the quality and style of Amanda’s writing but question the use of the imagery, don’t buy the book, go to the publisher (Seal Press hurr) and tell them why you’re not buying the book, and see if you can get a reprint with just as much irony without any racism. And buy it then. I think that’s possible, especially since there’s no longer King Kong on the cover.

Personally, I wouldn’t read, buy nor endorse the book even without the images (for similar reasons as Oh outlined here, along with the previous conduct towards/marginalization of WOC by Seal Press), but YMMV.

Finally, contra Hugo, this isn’t merely a matter of “perception”. The images gratuitously featured as chapter headings in It’s a Jungle Out There are racist. Full fucking stop.

And what Angry Black Woman said.

Update 2: More science courtesy karnythia @ ABW’s pad:

Frankly we’re at a point where it’s time for feminism to either get it together, or for us to leave it where it is and continue on with our own progressive movements. There’s been some talk for years about how feminism is comprised of multiple movements and until now that’s been enough for me. But I think that I’ve been deluding myself by thinking that the behavior of the allies that do get it trumps the hurt spawned by the bigots calling themselves feminists. I can’t take calls for sisterhood or solidarity seriously from white feminists at this point and I’m sure someone is going to call that attitude racist. And that’s their lookout, but I can’t stand in sisterhood with someone that’s (maybe) willing to knife me in the back and it’s taking too much effort to try to weed out the ones that are really allies from the ones that are only claiming the title.

Read the whole damn thing.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

TOMORROW: Hardstock ’08

by matttbastard

Hardstock 08 -a special benefit for Scott Harding

Be there or be…er, not on the Left Coast (eg, like your’s truly, although I shall be rocking out in spirit).

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Riding Off Into the Sunset

by matttbastard

Uncle Steve on his lame-duck BFF:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper praised outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush for never promising anything he could not deliver as the two began a 48-hour North American leaders’ summit.

But it was unclear Monday whether anything will be promised, much less delivered, during the fourth annual Security and Prosperty[sic] Partnership meeting among Harper, Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

[…]

“What I appreciate most, what I’ve appreciated in our relationship over the past couple of years, is the fact that whether we agree or disagree, we’re always able to talk very frankly, very upfront,” Harper said at a photo opportunity Monday after an hour-long meeting with Bush.

“The president has never promised me anything he couldn’t deliver and that’s always appreciated.”

Ok.  I’m certainly not privy to what has gone on over the years during Dubya and Dear Leader’s “frank” and “upfront” conversations, so take my BDS-addled opinion with a healthy chunk of rock salt. Still, I’m not holding my breath while I await the arrival of that pony named “Democracy in the Middle East” (along with its dapple-grey sidekick, “Weapons of Mass Destruction”) that was supposed to have been delivered sometime after the fall of Baghdad.

h/t Lulu

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

OMGWTFBBQ Issues?!?111

by matttbastard

Michael Bérubé examines Clinton and Obama’s respective disability policy platforms.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

“Your only guarantee is your fear of the unknown”

by mattttbastard

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Guest Post: “Privilege limits imagination”

by Kay Olson

[edit 04.23: originally posted as a comment in response to this post - mb]

With everything that has happened recently in the feminist blogworld (Seal Press, discussions of intellectual appropriation, BFP quitting her blog), and Angry Black Woman’s proposal for a Carnival of Allies, I’ve been thinking a lot on “empathy”, what exactly it is and how far it can get us in understanding each other.

In being effective allies, I don’t believe empathy can get us where we want to go. It’s a good place to start. Probably the best and only place to begin, but even with a generous definition of empathy as something that encompasses all manner of attempt to put oneself in another’s shoes, it still relies on the limits of an individual’s imagination. One has to be able to think of whose shoes to stand in and have some inkling of how they might feel. And privilege limits imagination.

Privilege is the ability to look around a room and not notice who is missing, because they weren’t invited, couldn’t take time off work, didn’t have the means to get there, or weren’t allowed in the building because of, oh, dress code or lack of ramps. CripChick notes in comments to her own post that she doesn’t feel able to participate in a discussion like the one over at Feministe that questions her own right to parent, and she’s not alone in that sentiment. Why show up for a debate where your personhood is in question? Why keep blogging when you (and the people you write about) are not given equal footing in discussions about your own lives? Why keep trying to bulldoze your way into parties where your absence/silence is apparently unnoticed?

What I’m saying is that the misplaced empathy and the silencing: they’re related, you know.

Writer/activist Kay Olson blogs at The Gimp Parade and Alas, a Blog.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

To one of my favoritist people

who is also one hell of a bastard. Happy Birthday Mattt!

- sassywho

Misplaced Empathy

by matttbastard

Via Daisy: Brand-spankin’ new Feministe contributer Cara highlights a story that FRIDA has followed in detail (h/t cripchick), all about “KEJ”, a disabled Illinois woman whose legal guardian was petitioning to have KEJ sterilized against her will (for KEJ’s own good, of course *cough*). Thankfully, a state appellate court recently ruled in KEJ’s favour, affirming her right to bodily autonomy. Score one for the good guys, right?

Right?

Well, hold on, tiger. According to some oh-so-enlightened commenters, maybe we’re being too hasty in championing the reproductive liberty of a disabled woman. Cripchick selects the following gems (and deserves some kind of an award for not justifiably engulfing the original thread in an inferno of righteous magma):

“…Who exactly IS supposed to raise a child born to a woman who is truly incapable of doing so on her own? I realize that abuses have been and may still be rampant, and many disabilities do not affect a person’s ability to parent, but honestly, if this woman gets pregnant, who’s on the hook for raising that child? The aunt, who is already caring for KEJ?”

- Comment 4, by Ruth

“Who in the world is going to raise that child? Our tax dollars? Relatives dragooned into service through state power or shame? What if the disability is congenital and the child needs as much or more care than the parent? I agree with your basic point, that forced sterilization is something to be avoided. But people who are emotionally, or physically, or financially incapable of providing a decent quality of life for their children shouldn’t reproduce.”

- Comment 8, by felagund

“…I do think it would be unfair to push that child on someone else (the mother’s parents or private caretakers). It’s unfair to the others, and it’s unfair to the child. It’s like giving a puppy to your friend, but your friend doesn’t have the time/patience/love/etc. to take care of it and pushes it off on her roommate, who grudgingly obliges because her roommate doesn’t want the puppy to be unhappy and starve to death. That’s not how children should be brought up!”

- Comment 14 by danakitty

cripchick nails it:

Many commenters on the Feministe thread have rightfully pointed out how close the argument that disabled women should not be mothers is to the long history of policies and policing based on the idea that poor women should not be mothers. By talking about who will raise or pay for the child we are already talking about class— class and disability, like race, are very much tied together. I believe there are certain aspects of disability (poverty, housing, employment) that can somewhat be canceled out by class and white privilege (look at Christopher Reeve) but recognizing this does not give people the right to determine who are “good” parents and “bad” parents. Though the discussion is on disability, it is very much about criminalizing a perceived poor woman for wanting to have children.

[...]

The ableism in these threads always scare me. Partially because it’s on feminist blogs, partially because the internet allows people to say what they really feel. KEJ’s case is a victory but I’m still left to question whether we’re making any progress.

I’m sure many people reading this remember the disturbing-yet-perversely-enlightening trainwreck that occurred at Alas, a Blog a while back over The Ashley Treatment. The ablism being expressed by many commenters who I normally have respect for was utterly disheartening. One couldn’t help but note the cruel irony of watching people who would in any other case unequivocally stand up for a woman’s bodily sovereignty suddenly balk at the notion–all because the person in scenarios such as these who many able-bodied individuals automatically relate to is the able-bodied caretaker, rather than the disabled woman.

And, once again, the empathy has unfortunately (but not surprisingly) been entirely misplaced. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the “I’m not for forced sterilization but…” peeps have chosen to let their privilege (and, I would contend, ablist squick) blind them to the basic principles of bodily autonomy that are so obviously at stake here.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

On Jack Bauer and US Interrogation Policy

by matttbastard

I know this has already been revealed by Philippe Sands in the April May issue of Vanity Fair. However, after reading this excerpt from Sands’ upcoming book, Torture Team: Deception, Cruelty And The Compromise Of Law, I still can’t fathom the callous indifference of the sick fucking bastards who drew up the blueprints for US torture policy:

[Major General Michael E Dunlavey, former head of military interrogations at Guantánamo] told me that at the end of September a group of the most senior Washington lawyers visited Guantánamo, including David Addington, the vice president’s lawyer, Gonzales and Haynes. “They brought ideas with them which had been given from sources in DC.” When the new techniques were more or less finalised, Dunlavey needed them to be approved by Lieutenant Colonel Diane Beaver, his staff judge advocate in Guantánamo. “We had talked and talked, brainstormed, then we drew up a list,” he said. The list was passed on to Diane Beaver.”

[...]

Beaver told me she arrived in Guantánamo in June 2002. In September that year there was a series of brainstorming meetings, some of which were led by Beaver, to gather possible new interrogation techniques. Ideas came from all over the place, she said. Discussion was wide-ranging. Beaver mentioned one source that I didn’t immediately follow up with her: “24 – Jack Bauer.”

It was only when I got home that I realised she was referring to the main character in Fox’s hugely popular TV series, 24. Bauer is a fictitious member of the Counter Terrorism Unit in LA who helped to prevent many terror attacks on the US; for him, torture and even killing are justifiable means to achieve the desired result. Just about every episode had a torture scene in which aggressive techniques of interrogations were used to obtain information.

Jack Bauer had many friends at Guantánamo Bay, Beaver said, “he gave people lots of ideas.” She believed the series contributed to an environment in which those at Guantánamo were encouraged to see themselves as being on the frontline – and to go further than they otherwise might.

Under Beaver’s guidance, a list of ideas slowly emerged. Potential techniques included taking the detainees out of their usual environment, so they didn’t know where they were or where they were going; the use of hoods and goggles; the use of sexual tension, which was “culturally taboo, disrespectful, humiliating and potentially unexpected”; creating psychological drama. Beaver recalled that smothering was thought to be particularly effective, and that Dunlavey, who’d been in Vietnam, was in favour because he knew it worked.

The younger men would get particularly agitated, excited even: “You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas.” A wan smile crossed Beaver’s face. “And I said to myself, you know what, I don’t have a dick to get hard. I can stay detached.”

Beaver confirmed what Dunlavey had told me, that a delegation of senior lawyers came down to Guantánamo well before the list of techniques was sent up to Washington. They talked to the intelligence people, they even watched some interrogations. The message from the visitors was that they should do “whatever needed to be done”, meaning a green light from the very top – from the lawyers for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the CIA.

“Jack Bauer had many friends at Guantánamo Bay, Beaver said, “he gave people lots of ideas. “”

“You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas.”

“[W]hatever needed to be done”.

International law and years of precedent, casually tossed under the post-9/11 bus by junior sadists (after being given the “green light from the very top”) obsessed with a fictional fucking TV show; words fail me.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

I Write Letters

Dear Ruth,

2002 called; it wants its favourite strawfeminist meme back.

Love,

mattt-fucking-bastard

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Silence of sex workers

by sassywho

Renegade Evolution may be uninvited to this debate:

On Monday, April 21st, at 5:30 pm, in the Andrews Building on the Campus of William and Mary College, there will be a debate focusing on…you guessed it, porn (and presumably other sex work related stuff).

On the Anti Side, we shall have John Foubert, who is a professor of education at the college who adamantly and publicly opposed the Sex Workers Art Show. He is a self-identified feminist, and he believes that viewing pornography increases male sexual violence against women. He also believes that the SWAS is pornography, and thus that having it on campus increases the likelihood of rape for women at this school. He’s also the founder of the national all-male sexual assault prevention group 1-in-4 (http://oneinfourusa.org/). Also on the anti side will be Samantha (Sam) Berg. She’s the creator of the web-site genderberg.com. She also seems to have coined the term “pornstitution,” and is a co-founder of the Antiporn Activist Network, and “has dedicated herself to educating people about the inherent harms of sexual capitalism.”

Apparently some prefer that sex workers know their place within a certain dogma, which excludes academic debate(?)

So, I seems I might be uninvited to the forum at William and Mary. Why? Because apparently, Sam Berg, who has been booked as a panelist longer than I and is traveling further than I, is uncomfortable with me being there. Apparently, once upon a time I said I wanted to push her in front of a truck.

Something radical feminists so often forget is that sex workers have voices that can neither be synthesized nor collected under their umbrella. Those voices do not need your permission, nor approval and there is something very wrong with your movement if you can’t recognize that.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Bob Watson on Reforming Agriculture

by matttbastard

Related: International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report calls for “world leaders to urgently reform farming rules to boost the state of global agriculture and prevent a food crisis that could threaten international security and the fight against poverty”: The Guardian.  (Report summary here, key findings here.)   Also see this op-ed by George Monbiot, who advises that “[i]f you care about hunger, eat less meat”, and Michael Grunwald on “The Clean Energy Scam”

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Quote of the Day: Redefining What’s Possible

by matttbastard

One of the great dangers of the Bush administration is that it will permanently alter our sense of what is possible or acceptable. You can see an analog of this when people say things like: Bush won’t be able to do X, or: he will have to do Y, where these statements do not refer to physical necessity or impossibility. (E.g., if memory serves, when the surge began, some Republicans said: if it doesn’t work, Bush will have to withdraw.) The sense in which people who say such things think that Bush “has to” or “can’t” do something or other is just that there are certain things we do not believe that any President would do, and others we think he must do. There are lines we assume he would never cross.

But this administration does not recognize the existence of any such lines. They do not “have to” withdraw just because none of their plans have worked, the army is breaking, and the war has next to no popular support. They would “have to” withdraw only if someone put a gun to their collective heads and forced them to. They do not “have to” obey the law or the Constitution: they will only if they are literally compelled to. Likewise, they do not “have to” respect even the most basic principles of decency and humanity, even when obligated to do so by US law and treaties we have signed, which are, according to the Constitution, the law of the land. Neither moral suasion nor legal obligation seem to matter to them. The only sense in which they “have to” do anything is the sense involving physical necessity.

[...]

The Bush administration threatens us with the catastrophe of losing our sense that there are things the government cannot do every time they do one of those things. I never, ever want to go along with their redefinition of what is possible, which is why I refuse to stop being outraged when something like this happens.

- Hilzoy, Approving Torture: Better Late Than Never?

Related: Scott Horton on “The Torture Team”; Philippe Sands examines “how the torture at Guantánamo began, and how it spread”; Philip Gourevitch and Errol Morris profile Sabrina Harman, “[t]he woman behind the camera at Abu Ghraib”; Jeremy Waldon reviews Cass Sunstein’s Worst Case Scenarios; and David Bromwich looks at “Euphemism and American Violence”.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

PSA: Protest Against Bill C-484 (Updated Details)

by matttbastard

Via sick_city @ Bread and Roses:

Ottawa, ON – May 3rd, 2008 – On May 3rd, 2008 from 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM a protest opposing Bill C-484 will take place at the Human Rights Monument. Bill C-484, “The Unborn Victims of Crime Act,” has passed its second reading in Parliament as of March 5th, 2008. The bill creates a separate offence for killing a foetus when a pregnant woman is murdered. It gives an unborn foetus some human rights in these cases, which is a cause for concern in the pro-choice community. Under current Canadian Law, human foetuses are not considered persons(s) until they are born alive. If Bill C-484 should pass, the laws would be in conflict because the foetus would be considered a person and therefore the right to a legal abortion would come into question, as well as the rights of pregnant women in general. The law is clearly not concerned with the roots of violence against women and thus this bill would be a detriment to women’s rights. Similar laws have been passed in the U.S. resulting in dozens of women being punished for trying to “harm their child”. Let’s not let this happen in Canada.

We believe that the Government should look to pass laws that increase the sentencing upon those who commit violent acts against women, instead of passing laws just for foetuses that give women no ounce of protection and infringe on their rights.

Women and men are encouraged to come join us and the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada at the Human Rights Monument on May 3rd, 2008 to show their solidarity. *We are encouraging supporters across Canada to hold similar protests as a sign of nationwide solidarity against Bill C-484.*

*Contact :* opposebillc484@gmail.com

Ottawa, Ontario – le 3 mai, 2008 de 12 h à 15 h protestation à l’opposition du projet de loi C-484 aura lieu à le monument canadien pour les droits de la personne. Affichez C-484, « Loi modifiant le Code criminel (blesser ou causer la mort d’un enfant non encore né au cours de la perpétration d’une infraction) » a passé sa deuxième lecture au parlement en date du 5 mars, 2008. Le projet de loi crée une offense séparée pour tuer un foetus quand une femme enceinte est assassinée. Elle donne à un foetus à venir quelques droits de l’homme dans ces caisses, qui est un sujet d’inquiétude dans la communauté de pro-choix. En vertu de la loi canadienne courante, des foetus humains ne sont pas considérés comme personnes) jusqu’à ce qu’ils soient vivants soutenus. Si le projet de loi C-484 passe, les lois seraient en conflit parce que le foetus serait considéré une personne et donc le droit à un avortement légal hériterait la question, aussi bien que les droits des femmes enceintes en général.

La loi n’est pas véritablement concernée par les racines de la violence contre des femmes et ce projet de loi serait ainsi un détriment vers les droits des femmes. Des lois semblables ont été passées aux États-Unis ayant pour résultat des douzaines de femmes étant punies pour qu’essayer « nuise à
leur enfant ». Ne laissons pas ceci se produire au Canada. Nous croyons que le gouvernement devrait regarder pour passer les lois qui augmentent la condamnation sur ceux qui commettent des actes violents contre des femmes, au lieu de passer des lois juste pour les foetus qui ne donnent à des femmes aucune protection.

Des femmes et les hommes sont encouragés à venir joignent nous et la Coalition de droites d’avortement du Canada à le monument canadien pour les droits de la personne le 3 mai, 2008
pour montrer leur solidarité. *Nous encourageons des défenseurs à travers le Canada à tenir des protestations semblables comme signe de la solidarité dans tout le pays contre le projet de loi C-484.*

*Contact :* opposebillc484@gmail.com

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Quote of the Day: Make Their Ears Bleed

by matttbastard

Enough of this bullshit and enough of keeping the eye off the prize. Worrying about the election is shit at the moment; it will happen regardless, and even if a Democrat wins, we’re going to have to worry about restoring credibility in government. This utter bullshit about democracy and freedom in the middle east has got to fucking stop until we address the sheer blasphemy that was done in the name of our supposedly moral country.

Keep screaming it until their damn ears bleed: Bush and his cabinet approved torture.

- Space Cowboy, Scream It from the Highest Mountain: “DO SOMETHING!“

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Four More Years

by matttbastard

h/t Kyle

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

FMSQ Considers Bill C-484 May Eliminate Decades of Social Consensus and Jurisprudence

by matttbastard

FMSQ press release:

Montreal, April 15, 2008 – The Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec (the FMSQ) has vigorously denounced Bill C-484, the “Unborn Victims of Crime Act”. This Private Member’s Bill, piloted by Ken Epp, an Alberta MP, was tabled on November 21, 2007 and passed the House of Commons second reading on March 5, 2008, virtually unnoticed. If the Bill passes final reading, it could have serious repercussions on the practice of medicine.

The FMSQ fully concurs that a violent crime against anyone, let alone a pregnant woman, is heinous and unacceptable. But, on the pretext of wanting to toughen sentences handed down in cases of physical attacks on pregnant women, this Bill could implicitly confer legal status on a fetus, which has none under the current legislation.

It will be remembered that on January 28, 1988 after more than twenty years of divisions, incessant and costly legal proceedings and 15 months of deliberations, the Supreme Court of Canada finally settled the matter by striking down section 251 of the Criminal Code and ruling that a woman and her fetus are considered to be a single physical person. Consequently, the woman’s legal status is the only one that applies. The FMSQ considers that Bill C-484 introduces a new legal concept that could, once again, create a conflict between the rights of the fetus and those of the pregnant woman.

In the Federation’s opinion, over and above the virtues claimed for Bill C-484, a persistent attempt can be seen on the Conservative side to relaunch a debate that ended 20 years ago and to reopen the door to the criminalization of abortion. As far back as 1989, a Bill passed by the Commons but defeated by the Senate attempted to restrict abortion to instances where it was required for health reasons and to impose a maximum term of two years’ imprisonment on physicians who contravened the law.

Endorsing this Bill would be equivalent to reopening an unwanted debate with an unpredictable outcome, yet with all the attendant consequences for medical practice. The Federation considers that if it is desired to toughen the sentences of persons committing such crimes, this can be done by making the appropriate changes to the existing legislation. It is also perfectly possible for legislators to strengthen the impact of sentences through stricter enforcement.

Since its election, the Conservative government has tabled not one but two Bills (Bills C-291 and C-484) with the intent of amending the Criminal Code so that charges can be laid in all cases resulting in the violent death of an unborn child. At the second reading, some 147 MPs voted in favour of Bill C-484, 118 of them Conservatives. A majority of Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party members voted their party lines against passage of the Bill.

“We were astounded to learn that the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada did not find it advisable to take an official stand on this matter and allowed party members a free vote. Some LPC members therefore voted in favour of the Bill, while others, including the Leader, Stéphane Dion, were not present on this important occasion”.

Dr. Barrette, the FMSQ President, has invited the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Commons to take a clear stand on this matter. “Mr. Dion is a strong supporter of clarity: now is the time to prove it! We urge him to make his position clear and call upon his caucus to vote unanimously against Bill C-484.”

In a letter to various members of the House of Commons, including the Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, the FMSQ strongly urged them to protect the gains already made and respect the social consensus by relegating Bill C-484, once and for all, to the oblivion it deserves.

The FMSQ considers that this Bill raises major political and social issues. “This tediously long process, in and of itself, calls for extreme caution. To disregard this sombre and troubled period clouding our legal, social and constitutional systems would indicate a total utter lack of concern”.

The FMSQ urges everyone who shares its point of view to make their Member of Parliament aware of that fact through the special Internet site available at: http://www.fmsq.org/c-484.

The Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec numbers more than 8,000 members in Québec, representing 35 medical specialties. The sole organization recognized by government with respect to negotiating medical specialists’ collective agreements, the FMSQ is also consulted on all aspects of the organization of medical care in Québec.

Score one for the anti-fetus lobby.

h/t dbO, Joyce Arthur and Lagatta @ Bread and Roses

Update: more from fern hill and Impolitical, who gives the Liberals a well-deserved rhetorical kick in the ass for allowing C-484 (“a piece of Conservative ideological claptrap”) to pass second reading:

This issue plays poorly in progressive Quebec, not to mention with the women of Canada. C-484 needs to be defeated and the Liberals need to get on it.

Look, Stephane, we all know how much the Grits love backing down. But, as Impolitical noted, this is a motherfucking private member’s bill; it’s defeat will not bring down the government (eek!) So for once–just once–show some goddamn backbone, do your fucking job, and stand up to the Stephen Harper Party.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

“I am a little tired of prosecuting Mrs Bardot.”

by boomgate

Oh, look–Bridget Bardot is being racist again.

How surprising.

[link corrected]

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

‘A green light from the very top.’

by matttbastard

“After a short while, gentlemen, we shall all meet again. Such is the fate of all men.” It was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lessons that this long course in human wickedness had taught us — the lesson of the fearsome, word-and-thought-defying banality of evil.

- Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem

More from Marty Lederman on the so-called March 14th memo.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

‘Top Down Quality Control’

by matttbastard

From the ACLU:

Mehboob Ahmad is a 35-year-old citizen of Afghanistan. Ahmad was detained by U.S. military for approximately five months from June to November 2003. He was held at various locations in Afghanistan, including the Gardez firebase and the Bagram Air Base. During his detention, Ahmad was tortured and subjected to otherwise cruel and degrading treatment by U.S. military personnel.

More than a year since his release, Ahmad still suffers from leg pain and sometimes cannot move his limbs when he awakes, as a result of the physical abuse and torture he suffered while in U.S. custody. Painful techniques used on Ahmad included hanging him upside-down from the ceiling with a chain, and repeatedly pushing and kicking him while he knelt on a wooden pole with his hands chained to the ceiling.

Ahmad was also sexually and psychologically traumatized by U.S. military personnel. He was forced to strip and stay naked for long periods of time, was probed anally and was threatened with a snarling and barking dog at close range. Interrogators taunted Ahmad by directing insults at his mother and sister and implying that soldiers would rape his wife. He was also threatened with transport to Guantánamo.

Like other detainees, Ahmad was subjected to extreme sensory deprivation and isolation. He was forced to wear sound-blocking earphones; he was forced to wear black, opaque goggles almost continuously for more than a month, and was not allowed to speak with other detainees for the five months that he was in custody.

Flashback – Jane Mayer on the CIA’s secret interrogation program:

As the C.I.A. captured and interrogated other Al Qaeda figures, it established a protocol of psychological coercion. The program tied together many strands of the agency’s secret history of Cold War-era experiments in behavioral science. (In June, the C.I.A. declassified long-held secret documents known as the Family Jewels, which shed light on C.I.A. drug experiments on rats and monkeys, and on the infamous case of Frank R. Olson, an agency employee who leaped to his death from a hotel window in 1953, nine days after he was unwittingly drugged with LSD.) The C.I.A.’s most useful research focussed on the surprisingly powerful effects of psychological manipulations, such as extreme sensory deprivation. According to Alfred McCoy, a history professor at the University of Wisconsin, in Madison, who has written a history of the C.I.A.’s experiments in coercing subjects, the agency learned that “if subjects are confined without light, odors, sound, or any fixed references of time and place, very deep breakdowns can be provoked.”

Agency scientists found that in just a few hours some subjects suspended in water tanks—or confined in isolated rooms wearing blacked-out goggles and earmuffs—regressed to semi-psychotic states. Moreover, McCoy said, detainees become so desperate for human interaction that “they bond with the interrogator like a father, or like a drowning man having a lifesaver thrown at him. If you deprive people of all their senses, they’ll turn to you like their daddy.” McCoy added that “after the Cold War we put away those tools. There was bipartisan reform. We backed away from those dark days. Then, under the pressure of the war on terror, they didn’t just bring back the old psychological techniques—they perfected them.”

The C.I.A.’s interrogation program is remarkable for its mechanistic aura. “It’s one of the most sophisticated, refined programs of torture ever,” an outside expert familiar with the protocol said. “At every stage, there was a rigid attention to detail. Procedure was adhered to almost to the letter. There was top-down quality control, and such a set routine that you get to the point where you know what each detainee is going to say, because you’ve heard it before. It was almost automated. People were utterly dehumanized. People fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling.”

[...]

Among the few C.I.A. officials who knew the details of the detention and interrogation program, there was a tense debate about where to draw the line in terms of treatment. John Brennan, [former CIA director George] Tenet’s former chief of staff, said, “It all comes down to individual moral barometers.” Waterboarding, in particular, troubled many officials, from both a moral and a legal perspective. Until 2002, when Bush Administration lawyers asserted that waterboarding was a permissible interrogation technique for “enemy combatants,” it was classified as a form of torture, and treated as a serious criminal offense. American soldiers were court-martialled for waterboarding captives as recently as the Vietnam War.

Yeah, but will any of it lead to organ failure? Survey says: “We do not torture.”

Related: Frontline on “The Torture Question”; Dan Froomkin on the implications of statements regarding the CIA’s secret interrogation program made by the president during the now-infamous ABC interview:

If you consider what the government did to be torture, which is a crime according to U.S. and international law, Bush’s statement shifts his role from being an accessory after the fact to being part of a conspiracy to commit.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Die Die Die, My Darlings (OMG UNICORM!)

by matttbastard

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Before the Memos

by matttbastard

Flashback: On Murat Kurnaz:

Murat Kurnaz was picked up in Pakistan in December 2001, before then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales signed off on the torture memo. Kurnaz and hundreds of others were subjected to “illegal torture” (what a concept) before Bybee and Yoo drafted a memo that would protect the torturers from prosecution. The expanded legal definition of torture in their memo doesn’t provide cover for those agents who tortured Kurnaz immediately after he was detained.

“The beatings began as soon as I was turned over to the Americans,” Kurnaz said. Once in the Americans’ hands, he was transferred to a camp at Kandahar, in Afghanistan, where suspected terrorists were held in tents. His account of his torture at the hands of the Americans–in his book and in interviews–is clear-eyed and consistent. He has repeated it in testimony before a committee of the German parliament, where he was described as a “very credible witness.”

In the prison camp in Kandahar, Kurnaz said, he was hoisted on chains and was forced to hang by his hands while he was being interrogated. He was left hanging for “hours and days” after the interrogators left. An American physician in camouflage would come and check his vital signs to determine if he could withstand more enhanced interrogation.

The doctor’s house call must have failed Kurnaz’s neighbor in the next room. “They were hanging me and pulled me up higher than the other times. I could see the man in the other room. He was hanging, too. Maybe they lifted him higher that time, too, I don’t know. I had heard him moaning and breathing; this is the first time I saw him. He was dead. The color of his body was changed and I could see he was dead.”

Kurnaz said he was also subjected to waterboarding and electric shock. And that beatings were routine and constant. He theorizes that much of the torture was a result of the failure of the American soldiers and agents to capture any real terrorists in the initial sweeps. (He was told that he was sold to the Americans for $3,000 by Pakistani police, who identified him as a terrorist.) “They didn’t have any big fish. And they thought that by torture they could get one of us to say something. ‘I know Osama’ or something like that. Then they could say they had a big fish.”

Ah, the good old days, back when torture was still fucking illegal.

*blink*

Background: more on Kurnaz from Der Spiegel (and here) and CBS News (h/t Kevin Drum).

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Nightmares and Dreamscapes

by matttbastard

ABC News interview with President George W. Bush (h/t pogge & skdadl):

RADDATZ: …ABC News reported this week that your senior national security officials all got together and approved — including Vice President Cheney — all got together and approved enhanced interrogation methods, including waterboarding, for detainees.

BUSH: You mean back in 2003?

RADDATZ: Are you aware of that? Are you aware of that?

BUSH: Was I aware that we were going to use enhanced…

RADDATZ: That they all met together?

BUSH: Of course. They meet together all the time on…

RADDATZ: And approved that?

BUSH: … a variety of issues.

RADDATZ: And approved that?

BUSH: Yes.

RADDATZ: You have no problem with that?

BUSH: In 2003?

RADDATZ: Yes.

BUSH: No. I mean, as a matter of fact, I told the country we did that. And I also told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it. And, no, I didn’t have any problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed knew.

RADDATZ: OK.

BUSH: And guess what? I think it’s very important for the American people to understand who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was. He was the person who ordered the suicide attack — I mean, the 9/11 attacks. And back then, there was all kinds of concerns about people saying, “Well, the administration is not connecting the dots.” You might remember those — that period.

RADDATZ: I remember.

BUSH: Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people. And, yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved. I don’t know what’s new about that; I’m not so sure what’s so startling about that.

Chris Floyd (h/t Chet Scoville):

This pattern has recurred over and over throughout the Bush Administration. Bush and his minions commit crimes and atrocities in secret; they move heaven and earth to conceal their filthy deeds; they squirm and squeal like panicked rats when their some small portion of their evil comes to light; they belch forth a relentless series of self-contradictory lies to cover up, obfuscate or explain away the crimes; and when at last their malefactions can no longer be denied, they trot out the president himself to say: “Yeah, we did it; so what?” And then….nothing happens.

And now nothing is happening again. It is an astounding phenomenon. Bush is the most widely despised president in modern times. The war he launched on false pretenses against Iraq is deeply unpopular, and is plainly bankrupting the country. His economic policies have plunged millions into ruin, want and insecurity. The opposition political party controls the Congress — a bastion they could have used as a bully pulpit to rally the public and as a battering ram to bring down an openly criminal, shamelessly unconstitutional, dangerous, illegitimate regime. And yet….nothing happens.

Tristero:

One final point. As horrifying as this latest news is, I’d like to remind you that we don’t know the half of it. The fact that Bush felt comfortable confirming his own approval of White House torture planning indicates that far more dreadful moral outrages were planned and committed by these bastards. And that those horrors are official United States policy.

This is not some puerile propaganda-disguised-as-entertainment like ’24,’ dear friends, where the guns fire blanks and the blood is ketchup. This is the real thing. People are being tortured with your tax dollars. And let us not forget that there are no “utilitarian” excuses that trump this immorality. “Our” goals are not intrinsically benign and therefore justify these obscenities. Torture has not saved a single American life.

Should Bush, et al immediately be impeached and removed from office for these and other heinous activities? Should he and the others stand trial? Of course they should, it goes without saying. It is a measure of how far removed we are from a representative democracy that, politically, it is simply inconceivable that the top level of planners will ever encounter justice.

Liss:

When that feeling stirs in our guts, that creeping sense that something isn’t right, we must listen to our intuition. We cannot keep our heads down, hold our breath, and wait for it all to be over.

[...]

We must not give up on our right and our responsibility to vote, but voting alone will not solve the problems we face. Those of us who can look beyond our next chance to trek to the voting booth must find other ways of making our voices heard in the interim. When Ukraine’s government attempted to undermine their democratic principles, there was rioting in the streets. When will we riot in the streets? I wonder, anxiously, what it will take to shake us from our immutable belief that democracy will solve the problem of its own inevitable ruination so long as we depend exclusively on its fading potency.

Citizens of a democracy, we are taught, address their concerns and protest bad administrations and their dire policies on election days. We are polite and respectful as we register our dissent in quiet booths with drawn curtains. But maybe, just maybe, the pride we take in our civility will become our greatest shame.

You goddamn right it’s time to make some noise, so that we might awaken the sleeping giant and finally–finally-make something happen.

Update: Larisa Alexandrovna with the first of a projected series of posts on the criminal legacy of the Bush Administration (thanks, skdadl).

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Systemic Banality

by matttbastard

Well, isn’t this lovely — CBC News is reporting that the Feds are trying to block military commission hearings into Afghan detainee transfers: 

In papers filed in Federal Court, government lawyers argue the issue never should have gone as far as it has with the MPCC.

“In a spirit of co-operation, the government did not challenge the jurisdiction of the MPCC to investigate,” the Justice Department said in its Federal Court filing, according to the Globe and Mail.

“This should have given the commission the opportunity to satisfy itself that the…complaint should be dismissed either because it lacked merit or because the commission has no jurisdiction to investigate it,” the department states.

[...]

Government lawyers argue the handling of detainees is a military operation — not a policing issue.

But Amnesty International’s Alex Neve said it is appropriate for the commission to investigate.

“The military police are involved in the detention and transfer of prisoners, they do so in their police capacity,” he said.

He added that the government had indicated it would co-operate.

“So how can it be, one year later now, they change their mind and turn around and say they will contest this? It simply isn’t right.”

Ah, those wacky Little Eichmanns in Ottawa.  Nice to see the small government ideologues have come to realize the inherent value contained within an amoral, labyrinthine bureaucracy.  Nothing says “depraved” like using a last-minute jurisdictional argument to try and suppress torture allegations.

More from pogge, who notes that, according to The Canadian Press, “the government has already provided reams of documents and information -1,300 pages in all – and has delivered 38 witnesses to the commission.”  As pogge aptly observes, “That’s awfully strange behaviour when the entire matter is outside the commission’s jurisdiction, don’t you think?

Yes, I really do think.

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers