In San Francisco, a transsexual was brutally murdered. Like all murders, this is tragic; and in this case, it seems likely that the murder was an act of anti-transsexual hatred.

So how does Mike Savage — one of the most popular and listened-to right-wingers in America — react? With a torrent of incoherent anti-transsexual hatred, naturally. From his March 20th radio show:

Lynch said it appeared the victim had been in the process of becoming a woman.” Yeah, process of becoming a woman — psychopath, should have been in a back ward in a straitjacket for years, howling on major medication. …

…And then they go into “she said transgender victims” going on and on “extremely violent” going on and on “are frequently left partially clothed or completely nude, it’s making a statement and humiliating the victim,” blah-blah-blah. I am so beyond fed up with freaks…

…But you know what? You’re never gonna make me respect the freak. I don’t want to respect the freak. The freak ought to be glad that they’re allowed to walk around without begging for something. You know, I’m sick and tired of the whole country begging, bending over backwards for the junkie, the freak, the pervert, the illegal immigrant. All of them are better than everybody else. Sick. Everything is upside down.

I’ve occasionally encountered sentiments like this among lefties and feminists, but never from someone with prominence and popularity among lefties comparable to Savage’s among right-wingers.

Curtsy: Box Turtle Bulletin and The View From (Ab)Normal Heights.

It’s on YouTube, and it’s awesome.

Curtsy: Cool Beans. As Bean says, Joy Nash, I love you!

Also, check out the term paper on “Fat and Oppression” she wrote a few years ago. There’s some especially interesting stuff in light of the discussions of “oppression” we’ve been having here recently. And also this factoid:

FAT!SO? author, Wann, cites a study reported in the International Journal of Obesity stating that “a whopping 95 percent of the people who lose weight on diets gain back every pound within three years… Other researchers have found failure rates for diets as high as 98 percent.”  But what’s really astonishing is that, as Poulton explains, “we blame the 95-98 percent failure rate of diets on dieters instead of applying basic cause-and-effect logic” (84). Success is practically a freak occurrence, and yet we still see dieting as a plausible option for losing weight and “changing lives.”

At the blog “Feminist Critics,” Hugh — whose view, if I’ve understood it correctly, is that both women and men are oppressed by the gender system, but women are oppressed more — writes:

This post shows that some of the objections to the notion of the oppression of men also serve as objections to various examples of what feminists consider to be oppression of women. My Double Standard Detector is going off. Either feminists should admit that men are oppressed, or they should relinquish some of their claims of the oppression of women. What feminists can’t do (rationally at least) is employ a broad conceptualization of oppression in characterizing harms towards women, while simultaneously constricting that conceptualization of oppression to exclude harms towards men.

Are women actually oppressed? Are men? I don’t know, and the answer depends on how we conceptualize “oppression.” Yet however we conceptualize it, we need to use the same standard for both sexes, rather than switching standards whenever it is politically convenient.

I agree that inappropriate double-standards should be avoided. However, I think that Hugh’s argument is based on his misunderstanding of how feminist theorists talk about “oppression.” (Hugh is by no means alone in this; feminists often discuss concepts like “oppression” in sloppy and imprecise ways, too. I certainly have. Most of us aren’t academic theorists, after all.)¹

Hugh writes:

I only bring up the term “oppression” because feminists use it to characterize harms to women, but not harms to men.

Note that Hugh consistently talks about “oppression” as if it’s another word for “harm.” But I don’t think that’s how feminist theorists use the word. Marilyn Frye, in her essay “Oppression,” writes:

When the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing, the word “oppression” is being stretched to meaninglessness; it is treated as though its scope includes any and all human experience of limitation or suffering, no matter the cause, degree or consequence. Once such usage has been put over on us, then if ever we deny that any person or group is oppressed, we seem to imply that we think they never suffer and have no feelings. […] But this is nonsense. Human beings can be miserable without being oppressed, and it is perfectly consistent to deny that a person or group is oppressed without denying that they have feelings or that they suffer.

Frye could not have more clearly stated that suffering (which, as Frye uses it, is quite similar to how Hugh uses “harms”) in and of itself is not oppression. Similarly, in his book The Gender Knot (pdf link), Allan Johnson writes:

…If we say a group can oppress or persecute itself we turn the concept of social oppression into a mere synonym for socially caused suffering, which it isn’t.

My point isn’t that I agree with every aspect of Johnson or Frye’s discussion, but that they clearly argue that oppression is something significantly different from suffering (and also, I think it’s reasonable to infer, different from harms). If I’m correct about that, then Hugh’s argument seems inapplicable to what these feminist theorists are really arguing.

If I say “both this glass eye and this hammer are hard surfaces, but the ocean is not,” it doesn’t make sense to respond that I’m using a double-standard, merely because the marble, the hammer, and the ocean are all blue. Yes, they are all blue; but since “color” isn’t the metric I’m using to make distinctions, the accusation of a double-standard merely shows that my critic has failed to comprehend my argument.

I think the best way of thinking about “oppression” is that the word refers to systems of determining who gets to comprise the dominant or controlling class, not to specific instances of harm.² Specific harms are not oppression in and of themselves; they are part of systems of oppression. (Since the same harms can be simultaneously part of the system, and results of the system, the system of oppression is a vicious cycle).

In this view, someone who says “X is an example of the oppression of cartoonists” is mistaken. X might be a result of the oppression of cartoonists, but X is not oppression.

Hugh writes:

One example is the argument that men cannot be oppressed by themselves. Yet there are many examples of women harming women (e.g. female genital mutilation) that are considered by feminists to be oppression. If women can oppress women on the dimension of gender, then men can oppress men.

The gender system is perpetuated by both women and men, and both women and men suffer under it. However, that doesn’t mean that the relationship of women oppressing women within the system is identical to that of men oppressing men within the system.³

When women perpetuate the system of oppressing women, such as in FGM, the conflict (if there is any conflict at all) is not over which woman gets to dominate the society. Neither woman will get to dominate the society; the gender system guarantees that virtually all members of the dominating class will be men.

In contrast, most examples of men contributing to the oppression of other men are instances of men attempting to become dominant, or to ensure that other men don’t become dominant. To quote from Adam Jones’ essay “Gendercide and Genocide”:

…In gendercides against men… the wider collectivity is “culled” and “sifted” to isolate a minority considered threatening, according to the blanket application of diverse variables (usually gender and age). Furthermore, the “challenge” and “threat” to “the dominant group” captures something of the competitive and belligerent character of intra-male politics, the principal challenge of which has always been to suppress perceived male rivals or competitors.

What makes the gender system one of oppression of women is that, even though both women and men act in ways that perpetuate the system, the system’s effect is that the dominating class will be nearly all male.⁴

Note as well that viewing oppression as a system of dominance does not make any claim about who is hurt more, or who suffers more. Suffering and harm are among the results of oppression, but they are not the metrics by which oppression is measured.

What’s unsatisfying about my own analysis, so far, is that a definition of oppression must refer not only to dominance, but also to injustice. Otherwise, we’d have to conclude that even holding an election — which is, after all, a means of determining who will be in a controlling class — is perpetuating a system of oppression.

We can, however, incorporate the concept of injustice into a conception of oppression as a system of dominance. For instance, swiping aspects of Caroline New’s definition of oppression (pdf link) (which I quoted in an earlier post) and combining it with the view that oppression is about systems of dominance and control, I came up with this definition of oppression:

Oppression is a system whereby a group “X” is systematically mistreated in comparison to non-Xs in a given social context, and in which members of group “X” are effectively prevented from joining the dominating or controlling class of society in significant numbers.

As I think I’ve demonstrated, it is possible to create a feminist definition of “oppression” which does not rely either on double-standards or on denying that men experience harm and suffering as a result of the gender system.

(This post is a cleaned-up version of a comment I left on Hugh’s post; Hugh has since replied to me there. There’s also a related post by Hugh here, which I responded to in Hugh’s comments here.)

(I’ve decided not to make the comments for this post “Feminist only.” However, I will be moderating closely whenever I’m online. Rudeness will not be tolerated, personal attacks will not be tolerated, and snide implications that feminists are man-hating bigots — even when delivered in “civil” language — will not be tolerated.)

1. I want to add this disclaimer: My thoughts on “oppression” are actively in development. Therefore, my views stated today may well be inconsistent with views I’ve stated in the past, or the views I state an hour from now. (back)
2. Although I didn’t reread any works by Catharine MacKinnon while writing this post, I want to point out that this post — and, indeed, any feminist discussion of oppression and dominance — doubtless owes a great debt to MacKinnon’s work. (back)
3. I don’t think Hugh disagrees with me on this specific point. (back)
4. To be clear, I am claiming that the members of the dominating or controlling class will be nearly all male; I am not claiming that all or most men get to be members of that class. (back)

A few days ago I posted about the House of Representatives vote for an Iraq withdrawal timetable.  I asked how far this would go.  Well now the Senate has also voted for a timetable, a nonbinding timetable, which is better than nothing but not too courageous if you ask me.  Here is a quote:

As drafted, the legislation called for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a non-binding goal that calls for the combat troops to be gone within a year. The measure also includes a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly — provisions designed to attract support from Nelson and Sen. Mark Pryor (news, bio, voting record) of Arkansas. Despite the change, Pryor voted to delete the timeline. The vote was a critical test for Reid and the new Democratic majority in the Senate nearly three months after they took power. Despite several attempts, they had yet to win approval for any legislation challenging Bush’s policies. Republicans prevented debate over the winter on non-binding measures critical of Bush’s decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops. That led to the 50-48 vote derailing a bill that called for a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days but set only a non-binding target of March 31, 2008, for the departure of the final combat forces.

What do you think? (Ah-hem Robert.)

This is a guest post, reprinted (with permission, of course!) from Liberal Catnip. Thanks to Catnip for letting me repost this on “Alas.”

March 19, 2003
President Bush Addresses the Nation
The Oval Office

10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger. […] Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

March 19, 2007

Betrayed: The Iraqis who trusted America the most, The New Yorker:

Most of the people Othman and Laith knew had left Iraq. House by house, Baghdad was being abandoned. Othman was considering his options: move his parents from their house (in an insurgent stronghold) to his sister’s house (in the midst of civil war); move his parents and brothers to Syria (where there was no work) and live with his friend in Jordan (going crazy with boredom while watching his savings dwindle); go to London and ask for asylum (and probably be sent back); stay in Baghdad for six more months until he could begin a scholarship that he’d won, to study journalism in America (or get killed waiting). Beneath his calm good humor, Othman was paralyzed—he didn’t want to leave Baghdad and his family, but staying had become impossible. Every day, he changed his mind.

From the hotel window, Othman could see the palace domes of the Green Zone directly across the Tigris River. “It’s sad,” he told me. “With all the hopes that we had, and all the dreams, I was totally against the word ‘invasion.’ Wherever I go, I was defending the Americans and strongly saying, ‘America was here to make a change.’ Now I have my doubts.”

Laith was more blunt: “Sometimes, I feel like we’re standing in line for a ticket, waiting to die.”

ABC News: Voices From Iraq 2007: Ebbing Hope in a Landscape of Loss, ABC News:

Eighty percent of Iraqis report attacks nearby — car bombs, snipers, kidnappings, armed forces fighting each other or abusing civilians. It’s worst by far in the capital of Baghdad, but by no means confined there.

The personal toll is enormous. More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who’s been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress. […] The survey’s results are deeply distressing from an American perspective as well: The number of Iraqis who call it “acceptable” to attack U.S. and coalition forces, 17 percent in early 2004, has tripled to 51 percent now, led by near unanimity among Sunni Arabs. And 78 percent of Iraqis now oppose the presence of U.S. forces on their soil, though far fewer favor an immediate pullout.

Iraqis see hope drain away, USA Today:

Some Iraqis say they regret having borne children to be brought up amid such hardship.

Zina Abdulhameed Rajab, a Shiite doctor, is so alarmed by the children she has treated who were injured on their way to school that she is keeping her 2- and 4-year-old sons at home. Her mother has moved in to help babysit.

“Whenever I watch my kids laughing or playing, I can’t be so happy from inside my heart because I don’t know what the next day will bring,” she said. “I really regret the birth of my kids here.”

She added: “I wish I could put them back inside me so I would know all the time where they are and how they are doing.”

The regrets of the man who brought down Saddam, The Guardian:

His hands were bleeding and his eyes filled with tears as, four years ago, he slammed a sledgehammer into the tiled plinth that held a 20ft bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. Then Kadhim al-Jubouri spoke of his joy at being the leader of the crowd that toppled the statue in Baghdad’s Firdous Square. Now, he is filled with nothing but regret.

The moment became symbolic across the world as it signalled the fall of the dictator. Wearing a black vest, Mr al-Jubouri, an Iraqi weightlifting champion, pounded through the concrete in an attempt to smash the statue and all it meant to him. Now, on the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq, he says: “I really regret bringing down the statue. The Americans are worse than the dictatorship. Every day is worse than the previous day.”

From hope to despair in Baghdad, BBC News:

Read the rest of this entry »

Last Wednesday I think I doubled my life-time total of geek points. It went something like this:

1. I bought a single issue comic book
2. that I’d pre-ordered,
3. from a comic book store,
4. on the first day it was released.
5. I had a conversation with the guy in the store about the quality of the book
6. that ended with me saying “of course it’s good it’s written by Joss Whedon.”

I am now the proud owner of the first issue of Buffy: Season 8. I even have it in my hands, which is rare - it’s been lent out to various people pretty constantly since I bought it.

I’ve never tried to review a comic book before, and it seems to be quite a difficult exercise. I’ve only got a very small part of the story. It’s like reviewing a TV show at the end of the first Act

I’ll start with the art-work - it’s not as bad as I’d thought it would be. The preview art showed the most obvious distortions of women who already have a body-type. It helps that I like the cover, while the proportions are annoying, the basic image is of Buffy strong and confident. Or maybe I’m getting desensitised already

As for the words (far more important to me, since they were the bits done by Joss), I’m excited. There’s not much there, and I’m nitpicking all over the place. But it’s definitely worth reading, and I’m excited about what’s going to happen next.

Now the problems:

• Xander the general of the slayer army - it’s not OK to have only one man in an organisation and have him in a leadership position. I’m fairly sure that goes against the message of at least two season finales (3 and 7).

• Amy? Really? That really disappoints me, and makes it clear that Joss’s thinking of her more as an object than a character - hey she’s someone we can bring back - people have heard of her so they’ll be excited. In the high school episodes Amy was a great character, and The Witch is one of the most successful metaphors they ever put together. I don’t see why they had to do this to the girl who was so excited about eating brownies. I’m aware that this is actually an objection to Season Six - so I’ll add, I didn’t actually need to be reminded of the Magic!Crack plot-line - I’m doing a good job of blocking that out - just like I block out Spike’s existence post Seeing Red.
• I trust Joss enough to believe that Dawn didn’t actually become a giant by having sex with a thricewise, because we really don’t need to go there again.

So those are my gripes. I love the dialogue (of course I love the dialogue, Joss wrote it). I’m very excited that the US military are treating Buffy like a terrorist cell - definitely a plot with a lot of potential.* I like where Buffy is emotionally, it seems quite realistic to me - the thing about changing the world is that when you do it the world’s all different. Sounds like a good starting point.

* Although hopefully less annoying than the actual potentials.

This is a pretty astonishing story. Rachel blogged recently about Shaquanda Cotton, a Black 14-year-old girl sentenced to seven years in Juvie Prison in Texas for shoving a hall monitor. Cotton’s mother is an activist who has often criticized the school system; her theory is that her daughter’s punishment was actually about punishing her for activism. If this new story is accurate in what it implies, Cotton’s case was part of a pattern. Shaquanda Cotton is, according to a Chicago Tribune story, one of the most likely candidates for release.

Curtsy to Chittlin’s and Chopsticks; head over there to read the complete story.

CHICAGO TRIBUNE UPDATE
Texas reviews scandal-plagued juvenile prison system
By Howard WittTribune senior correspondent
March 26, 2007, 8:02 PM CDTHOUSTON –

The sentences of many of the 4,700 delinquent youths now being held in Texas’ juvenile prisons might have been arbitrarily and unfairly extended by prison authorities and thousands could be freed in a matter of weeks as part of a sweeping overhaul of the scandal-plagued juvenile system, state officials say.Jay Kimbrough, a special master appointed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry to investigate the system after allegations surfaced that some prison officials were coercing imprisoned youths for sex, said he would assemble a committee to review the sentence of every youth in the system.

The goal, Kimbrough said, is to release any youth whose sentence was improperly extended without justification or in retaliation for filing complaints. In his initial review of sentences, Kimbrough said, he had found many questionable extensions, adding that some experts estimate that more 60 percent of the state’s youthful inmates might be languishing under wrongful detention.

Such a mass emptying of a state’s juvenile jails would be unprecedented, experts said. Among the leading candidates for early release is Shaquanda Cotton, a 14-year-old black girl from the small east Texas town of Paris, who was sent to prison for up to 7 years for shoving a hall monitor at her high school while other young white offenders convicted of more serious crimes received probation in the town’s courts.

Again, Chittlin’s and Chopsticks has the complete story.

Well, smeared only a little bit. With magic marker ink. Sydney was the one that did it; tune in next week to see what Sydney did to herself with the markers. (Well, with a little help from her friends.)

More below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have a student writing a paper on Jewish Feminism.  In particular, she is interested in how Orthodox and Conservative Jewish women resist sexist practices within the religion.  She is also interested in articles, books, organizations, or authors who challenge sexism in Judaism and promote feminist ideas.  If you have any suggestions as to where she can go for information, I would really appreciate your help.

I’m am not at all well versed in this area, but I know we have to have some readers out there who can help with this.  Please post any references in the comments section, and I will forward them on to the student.

Sharon emailed me about the story of Shaquanda Cotton and asked that I put it up.  I have seen several other bloggers posting about her case (Here, Here, Here, Here). Here’s an excerpt from the Chicago Tribune that summarizes her case:

And then there is the case that most troubles Cherry and leaders of the Texas NAACP, involving a 14-year-old black freshman, Shaquanda Cotton, who shoved a hall monitor at Paris High School in a dispute over entering the building before the school day had officially begun.

The youth had no prior arrest record, and the hall monitor–a 58-year-old teacher’s aide–was not seriously injured. But Shaquanda was tried in March 2006 in the town’s juvenile court, convicted of “assault on a public servant” and sentenced by Lamar County Judge Chuck Superville to prison for up to 7 years, until she turns 21.

Just three months earlier, Superville sentenced a 14-year-old white girl, convicted of arson for burning down her family’s house, to probation.

“All Shaquanda did was grab somebody and she will be in jail for 5 or 6 years?” said Gary Bledsoe, an Austin attorney who is president of the state NAACP branch. “It’s like they are sending a signal to black folks in Paris that you stay in your place in this community, in the shadows, intimidated.”

Personally, I think pushing a hall monitor is a serious offense, but not an offense that could lead to up to 7 years in juvenile prison.  Maybe something like a suspension even being sent to alternative school, but not 7 years in jail, especially when the teenager in question doesn’t have a prior criminal record.

However, when I read about the case further, I even began to question those more conventional punishments.  Here is why:

In the past five years, black parents have filed at least a dozen discrimination complaints against the school district with the federal Education Department, asserting that their children, who constitute 40 percent of the district’s nearly 4,000 students, were singled out for excessive discipline. 

In this particular case her mother believes that Shaquanda was targeted by school officials after the mother protested the school’s practices.  When I read about the number of discrimination complaints leveled at the schools, I was shocked.  It takes quite a bit of time and energy to file a complaint like this, which sets off red flags related to the schools practices. The US Department of Education has been investigating the school:

But the federal investigations of the school district are not so clear-cut, and they are not finished. In one 2004 finding, Education Department officials determined that black students at a Paris middle school were being written up for disciplinary infractions more than twice as often as white students–and eight times as often in one category, “class disruption.”

The Education Department asked the U.S. Justice Department to try to mediate disputes between black parents and the district, but school officials pulled out of the process last December before it was concluded.

And in April 2006, the Education Department notified Paris school officials that it was opening a new, comprehensive review to determine “whether the district discriminated against African-American students on the basis of race” between 2004 and 2006. Federal officials say that investigation is still in progress.

If you want more information about this case or would like to find contacts for the case, you can link to Sharon’s site.  She has a comprehensive list of links.

My friend Rowan and I have a bit of an Emma Thompson thing going. We’re planning a grand rewatch of all her movies (except Maybe Baby and Henry V) that will end with Sense and Sensibility. Tonight we were watching Much Ado About Nothing. I don’t think I’d seen it since it came out when I was 15. It was the first movie I ever went to see twice at the cinema - I loved it.

Seeing it tonight was a little different; I no longer consider Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branagh the perfect celebrity couple (which is good because neither do they). But we found one plot-line distressing.

Like most Shakespeare plots it’s quite ridiculous. Claudio and Hero are betrothed and the villian* sets it up so Claudio will think that Hero is having sex with another man. Claudio confronts Hero at the wedding, throws her across the room. Her father is also abusive. Hero then pretends to be dead, but than makes no sense at all.

We couldn’t listen to it; we changed the language to Polish so we wouldn’t have to deal with how awful Hero’s situation was. There were some nice moments - Emma Thompson was taking it all seriously, and Kenneth Branagh was backing her up, and choosing the abused women over his abusive friend.

But then Claudio and Hero marry - and we’re supposed to be joyful about it.

There is a version of this play that I could watch - where the horror of Hero’s situation was given weight, where their marriage is not a joyful event, but one the audience dreads. I feel the same way about Taming of the Shrew, from what I’ve read a feminist version of the play is usually one where Katherine implies she has some sort of power. I disagree, a feminist version would be one that played those events absolutely straight. Taming of the Shrew is a tragedy; a tragedy that occurs far more often than young lovers commit suicide because their parents don’t like each other.

* Played by Keanu Reeves! He’s only the second worst actor in the movie too - Robert Sean Leonard plays Claudio and we cracked up when he tried to act sad when it was revealed how wrong he was.

Here is the late breaking news.

WASHINGTON - A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.

Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

“The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.”

Jean Kilborne, I hope you’re reading (I know she probably isn’t, but I figured I would give her a shout out anyways.). I’ve got some pictures you can add to your award winning films on misogynistic media.

First, we have last night’s episode of America’s Next Top Model, where the photo shoot consisted of simulations of murdered models. Jill mentioned it over at Feministe, and Jennifer at WIMN’s Voices has a much longer post, including this link to the actual pictures. The pictures also include the comments of the judging panel, which adds another touch of misogyny to the photo shoot. I saw the episode last night and dropped my jaw in amazement.

A few weeks ago the NYT magazine featured another blatantly misogynistic fashion spread. This spread included women in nooses and bondage. I was able to find the blogger Musings of a Working Mom who posted a few of the pictures on her site (You can see all of the photos here.). The photo from above is one example from the NYT Magazine.

I say we start a letter writing campaign. If you want to email the New York Times Magazine about their photo shoot. Here is the email: magazine@nytimes.com

America’s Next Top Model is sponsored by a few companies. One such company is Sprint. I found the name and email of some folks at Sprint. I’m not really sure exactly who one is supposed to contact, but you could CC an email to each of these folks:

Sprint Nextel Executive Services
866-398-4606
executive.offices@sprint.com

Director of Consumer and Business Communications Laura Lisec
Laura.m.Lisec@sprint.com

I had a hell of a time finding contacts for Cover Girl, but they also sponsor ANTM if you can find a contact. In fact, if anyone knows the right people to contact, feel free to tell me in the comments section.

From the Gannett News Service:

House Republican Leader John Boehner would have appointed Rep. Wayne Gilchrest to the bipartisan Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming — but only if the Maryland Republican would say humans are not causing climate change, Gilchrest said.

“I said, ‘John, I can’t do that,’ ” Gilchrest, R-1st-Md., said in an interview. […]

Gilchrest didn’t make the committee. Neither did other Republican moderates or science-minded members, whose guidance centrist GOP members usually seek on the issue. […]

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a research scientist from Maryland, and Michigan’s Rep. Vern Ehlers, the first research physicist to serve in Congress, also made cases for a seat, but weren’t appointed, he said.

“Roy Blunt said he didn’t think there was enough evidence to suggest that humans are causing global warming,” Gilchrest said. “Right there, holy cow, there’s like 9,000 scientists to three on that one.”

According to Raw Story, all six Republican choices to sit on the panel are global warming denialists. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the ranking minority member of the committee, said in a statement: “Recent fluctuations in the Earth’s climates and temperatures have led to numerous sensational headlines describing an eminent doomsday scenario.”¹

Fortunately, the six Republican denialists will be outnumbered on the committee by nine Democrats who haven’t been actively selected for their anti-reality delusions, so maybe this committee could actually get something worthwhile done (although I have no illusions that anything the Dems propose will be enough). But still, it indicates a lot about the current corruption of the Republican party: it’s not just that they don’t select the best people for the job. They actually make being incompetent and stupid a requirement.

1. An “eminent” doomsday scenario? What is that, a doomsday scenario with an impeccable reputation compared to the other doomsday scenarios? The Representative needs office help who know the difference between “eminent” and “imminent.” Yeesh. (back)

As usual, people are encouraged to link to their own posts in the comments, if they want to.

Racialicious presents The 10th Erase Racism Carnival!

New To The Blogroll: Feminism 101

How Many Of The 50 States Can You Name In Ten Minutes?
Thanks, Bean!

RighteousBabe: Disability vs. Defect And Democrats
This “Kos” diary by a disabled rights activist is one of the best posts I’ve read in the last few weeks (gotta remember this one when it comes time for Koufax Awards); curtsy to a few people, including Blue, Charles, and Brownfemipower.

The Gimp Parade: How I Only Barely Escaped Being Killed By Institutionalization
Another one that deserves a Koufax nomination. After you’ve read it, if you want more background on this subject, I highly recommend Harriet Johnson’s essay The Disability Gulag.

LA Times: The Glass Ceiling Is Alive And Well

There’s been a lot of talk in recent years about women leaving corporate America, unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary to advance. Maybe. But college-educated women still earn just 75 cents for every dollar their male peers take home, and corporate women are twice as likely as men to have staff jobs rather than the operating jobs that give them the experience to rise. Yet women are starting businesses at twice the rate of men, and those businesses are growing at twice the rate of all firms. Given those statistics, it seems far more likely that women are leaving corporations because they are not allowed into corridors of real power even after they’ve made the sacrifices. [Curtsy: Feministe.]

Neatorama: The Ten Most Magnificent Trees In The World

The Debate Link: Americans Are More Likely To Approve Of Terrorism Against Enemies Than Almost All Others

Sara Speaking: Behold The Awesome Fridge Against Privilege!

Muttering In A Corner: The Internets And I Muse At Great Length On The Topic Of Rape
An excellent gathering of links and quotes, with further thoughts added by Defenestrated.

Tikun Olam: Analysis of Obama’s speech to AIPAC
A lot of progressives have expressed disappointment with Obama’s speech to AIPAC, but there are bright spots as well.

Zingerella: What Is The Patriarchy, Anyway?

Feministing: Children Benefit When Dads Take Time Off From Work

A report published today by the Equal Opportunities Commission and based on research tracking 19,000 children born in 2000 and 2001 found emotional and behavioural problems were more common by the time youngsters reached the age of three if their fathers had not taken time off work when they were born, or had not used flexible working to have a more positive role in their upbringing. [Curtsy: Trinifar]

Hugo Schweitzer Schwyzer: “Architects Of Our Own Adversity”
A meditation about men, complicity and suffering set off by a recent post on “Alas.”

Tim Wise Rebuts “The Color Of Crime”
Criticism of the claim that there is an epidemic of anti-white crime by blacks. (For many examples of this claim, read through the astonishingly numerous and racist comments to this blog post.)

The Debate Link: Criticism of a Court Ruling That Found That Insurance Companies Do Not Have To Cover Contraception

The London Review of Books: The similarities between Iraq and Darfur are remarkable.

Liberal Catnip: The Politics Of Powerlessness

It seems that unless you have a large, visible wound or a tumour you can flash on an x-ray, they simply cannot accept that you might actually suffer from pain and other equally annoying symptoms every day. And, even if we did have those things to show them, they seem to always come up with a story - either theirs (which is not similar) or someone else’s (like Lance Armstrong’s amazing feats, for examples) as proof that you should just get over it, rise up and live a normal life. You’re either a loser or a hero.

ArtNet: White Walls, Glass Ceilings
Excellent article about the ongoing sexism keeping many female artists out of art galleries.

Union of Concerned Scientists: Existing, On-The-Road Technology Can Create Greenhouse-Friendly Minivans and SUVs
The big auto companies are suing, claiming that it’s not possible to create vehicles that can mee the new emissions standards of some states; the UCS proves that not only is it possible, but the technology is already being made and sold by the auto companies. Curtsy: How To Save The World.

Ebogjonson: Time-Lapse Photo Of A “Tempest” Game Session

Yet Another Study Linking Age And Opposition To Marriage Equality

De Novo: Why It’s Wrong For A Women’s Music Festival To Exclude Transwomen
An extremely well-argued piece. Curtsy: The Debate Link.

Femniste: Why A Health Exemption Isn’t Good Enough
Jill posts about a Polish case in which a woman went mostly blind for lack of an abortion; doctors refused to perform the procedure, even though it was legal. For what it’s worth, this woman has just won a lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights. (She was awarded $33,000 from the Polish government. Doesn’t seem like nearly enough, does it?) (I blogged about this and other cases of “abortion ban overreach” a couple of years ago).

Magic Kitty: Lindey Lohan Upskirt, Britney Crotch Shots!
Brilliant. Make sure to click through on some of the links. Curtsy: Ilyka.

Screw Bronze: Lesbian goth, gothic self harmers, cutters & a love story

My baby-goth tendencies came out a few years later when I became a “biter”; of those kids who when pushed over the edge tends to bite. I, however, only ever tried to bite one place; the jugular. Many was the time my older brother, having teased and tormented me just one too many times would have his mocking laughter turn to screams for my parents as he held my arcing body back while I twisted and strained closer and closer to his neck. My parents always reached us in time. They tried to get me a stuffed animal to rip the throat out instead. “It’s not the same.” I told them after a few bites.

Salon: Soros and others to fund alternative Jewish lobbyist group
Although most Jews in the US are liberal or lefty, the biggest Jewish lobbying groups — especially AIPAC — have been right-wing, so this could be a good development, if it doesn’t fall through.

The Nietzsche Family Circus
Thanks to Neal Skorpen for the tip.

McSweeney’s: An Open Letter To Mr. James Thatcher, Brand Manager, Procter & Gamble, Regarding Always Maxi Pads
Curtsy: Sufficient Scruples

Boing Boing: Man Tricks Nigerian Email Scammers Into Re-enacting Monty Python Sketch.

World Changing: Interesting article/photo essay describing a free kitchen in Dehli
An article about “the Gurdwara Bangla Sahib kitchen, a Sikh temple which serves [free] meals to around 10,000 people every single day.” Curtsy: Boing Boing.

Crooked Timber: Contemplating A World In Which The US Had To Live Up To Basic International Labor Organization Standards

Media Matters: Even with Dems controlling Congress, Sunday News Shows Still Favor Conservatives
A year ago, the four major news networks excused bringing on more Conservatives than Liberals as guests by saying that they had to interview the party in power more often. But since the 2006 elections, we’ve had a split government, and yet 3 of the 4 networks have continued to overwhelmingly favor conservatives as guests.

Indexed is brilliant.
I can’t even begin to describe it, but Jessica Hagy is clearly some sort of genius.

CCFinlay: Winners of the contest to make the word “scrotum” more acceptable through poetry.

I’ve added two new checkbox plug-ins.¹

The first is a “subscribe to comments” plug-in (I’ve had this one before, but it got dropped at some point and was never restored). This is one I’ve found useful when I’ve left comments on a blog that I don’t visit often.

The second is the Comment Rules Wordpress Plugin, which Daran of “Feminist Critics” created by modifying an already-existing plugin.² Here’s a picture of the new plugin at work:

Because this notice appears right by the comments box - rather than dozens of screenfuls of comments away, which is where the old notice appeared — I think this should limit or eliminate the problem of non-feminists forgetting about the rule in the longer threads. It’ll also take some burden off of the moderators to enforce the rule, since I think the checkbox requirement will make it more self-enforcing.

Many thanks to Daran; especially considering his idealogical aversion (to put it mildly) to feminism, it was extremely generous of him to make this plugin at my request.

1. I’ve also added a third plugin, which will mean more pingbacks will be registered, but it means I have to register “Alas” with Technorati. In order to do that, I need to put this link in a post temporarily: Technorati Profile. Just ignore that link, please. (back)
2. The already-existing plugin Daran modified was Comment Policy Wordpress Plugin, by George Notaras. (back)

This is my shameless attempt to get some help brainstorming an essay. If this is out of line, Amp, feel free to take the post down.

Two years ago - and it’s scary how the time has slipped past - I was in the very early stages of pregnancy, and I never seemed to have any energy left. By afternoon, I was often so exhausted I just took to my bed and slept for several hours. When I told my then-boyfriend, he called me lazy.

“Yeah?” I said. “When you can turn fish fingers into people, come back and we’ll talk.”

Any thoughts?

Capital Commerce¹ quotes Edward Lazear, the Chair of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, answering a question about productivity growth:

I wouldn’t necessarily say 3 percent. But I would expect that we could expect to see high rates, perhaps not quite at the 3 percent level, but somewhere higher than 2 percent. I would expect somewhere closer to 3 percent … If I’m thinking about long-term productivity growth and asking, “Do the fundamentals exist for persistent high productivity growth in the upper 2 percent range?” I think we can still be there, again as long as we continue to maintain policies that are consistent with an open economy.

If Bush’s chief economist is right, then there’s no Social Security shortfall.

To understand why, you have to understand that the 75-year shortfall is a prediction made by the trustees of the Social Security Administration. According to the trustees, we will stop being able to pay 100% of Social Security from payroll tax revenues and the trust fund² in 2040. According to the Trustees, “This unfunded obligation represents 1.9 percent of future taxable payroll and 0.7 percent of future GDP, through the end of the 75-year projection period.” This means that unless we raise payroll taxes 2%, after 2040 we will be faced with a choice of either paying for some of Social Security from general taxes, or of cutting Social Security benefits.

Current payroll taxes, for those of us who get paid under $97,500 a year,³ are 6.2%. In addition, a matching payment of 6.2% is paid by employers, for a total payroll tax of 12.4%.⁴ So if we increase the payroll tax 2%, by raising the rate to 7.2% for both employees and employers, the Social Security shortfall would cease to exist. I can’t say that I’m thrilled at the prospect of losing an additional 1% from my paychecks — which for me would be about a loss of about $2.30 a week, or $4.60 a week if we assume that my employer docks my pay to make up for its part of the payroll tax — but it’s not an unbearable expense.

And that’s one way to completely fix the Social Security shortfall. (There are other ways, of course). Not as impossible as we’ve been led to believe, is it?

But in reality, it would probably take considerably less than $4.60 a week out of my paycheck to completely fix the Social Security shortfall.

Predicting the future isn’t simple; the Trustees have to make certain assumptions. One of their assumptions is that productivity increases for the next 75 years will be, on average, 1.7% a year. If they’re right, then the next 75 years will feature the lowest productivity gains in American history. (For comparison, over the last 75 years average productivity has gone up around 3.5% a year).

In other words, the prediction that Social Security will have a shortfall in 2040 is based on pessimistic assumptions about the economy. But what if the next 75 years aren’t actually the worst 75 years in US economic history?⁵ Well, then, the year in which Social Security has a shortfall will be later than 2040… if it ever comes at all. As the graph (which I swiped from Kevin Drum) shows, the predicted “doomsday” for Social Security keeps receding into the future.

In 1994, they were saying that Social Security would have a shortfall in 2029. Today, it’s predicted for 2040. What happened? A few things, but a major factor is productivity. For 16 years, we simply haven’t had the disaster in productivity that the Trustees’ projections are based on.

That brings us back to Edward Lazear’s prediction of near-3% growth in productivity. If he’s right, then maybe there won’t be any Social Security shortfall. Higher productivity means, at least in theory, that workers earn more; workers earning more means that, without raising taxes, payroll tax revenues go up. If we really have “persistent high productivity growth in the upper 2 percent range,” that would reduce the Social Security shortfall to nothing, or to a trivially low amount.⁶

So if the Chair of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers is right, maybe we don’t need to change a thing to save Social Security. But is he right?

Probably not. The reality will almost certainly end up being somewhere between the extremely pessimistic numbers of the Trustees and the extremely optimistic numbers of the Bush administration’s head economist. But the change required to restore Social Security to full solvency will be not be enormous; instead, only minor changes will be required, and those changes don’t have to be made immediately.

(This is the first of an intended series of posts on Social Security.)

1. Curtsy: Economist’s View. (back)
2. Full disclosure: I originally forgot to include “and the trust fund” in this sentence. Thanks to Sam in comments for pointing out the error. (back)
3. Only the first $97,500 of income is subject to payroll taxes. So someone who is paid $195,000 a year pays 3.1% a year in payroll taxes, rather than 6.2% a year. (back)
4. Many economists believe that in effect employees pays the entire 12.4%, because employers pay workers 6.2% less than they would if the employer’s matching payment didn’t exist. I think that’s a bit dubious; it assumes that the wage-setting mechanisms of the labor market are a great deal more efficient than they are in real life. (back)
5. Or are the worst, but not by as large a degree? (back)
6. I admit, I’m oversimplifying a bit. For a less simplistic discussion, see Brad DeLong. (back)

Probably most “Alas” readers have already seen this ad (youtube link), a well-done mashup of a Hilary Clinton speech and and a TV commercial Apple made for the 1984 Olympics.

I enjoyed the ad (I mean, sure, it’s unfair to Clinton, but as a political cartoonist I’m prepared to live with unfairness to politicians in the name of making a gag work). I do think there’s something horrible and 1984-ish about how the major media had anointed Clinton the One To Beat, long before a single vote has been case.

But I was surprised at the ad’s end, when it turned out to be an endorsement of Barak Obama. Obama? He’s part of the problem. He, Clinton, and Edwards are the three candidates for president that Big (Brother) Media are willing to acknowledge. When was the last time you saw an article focusing on Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Gravel or Kucinich? And that’s just within the narrow field of Democratic Party candidates. Who are the likely candidates from the Greens next year? The Libertarians? Is it ridiculous of me to think that a better media might, you know, inform me of this stuff?

There is — or could be — plenty of time. There’s no need for the media to anoint certain candidates winners or front-runners, an obviously self-fulfilling prediction. As it is, however, our media does a better job of warping democracy than facilitating it.

Update: Satan is digging deep into his closet for his warmest mittens and his dense down coat any day I agree with Paul Weyrich. But Weyrich is right to say that massing all (or most of) the primaries in a single, early month could have profoundly anti-democratic effects.

David at “The Debate Link” asks:

If saying that Jews who support Zionism are exhibiting “collective insanity” is not anti-Semitic, what qualifies?

I’d say this comment (which I didn’t let through) submitted to “Alas” by John Samhain may fit the bill:

White people are simpletons and saps who live in a constant B’nai B’rith endorced guilt trip. They are an extremely polite people (also known as saps to all other peoples of the world).

Look at what Amp the jew says (as the accuser): “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t; evil white non-jewish racist if you’re an active white non-jewish anti-racist, evil white non-jewish racist, if you stand for your own.

Amp is a disgusting zionist jew. He seeks to undermine non-jewish white people on all levels of our lives and make our lives more miserable in all of his actions; it’s in his religion; it’s in his blood; he will never have any Guilt for the hate he holds towards his host goyim.

Fro another example, consider this post by an anti-feminist who calls himself “Birdseye”:

If you study history, you will see Jews repeating this same formula over and over and over…likely because it works like a charm with each new, unsuspecting host! They have destroyed one country after another…leaving nothing but dry husks saddled with ironic guilt trips. Guess the formerly-great USofA is next! :D

(Disclaimer: This is just a general observation and I do judge each person by their own individual merits, Jewish or not.)

Despite Birdseye’s last-sentence disclaimer, one thing both these writers have in common is not only a disdain for Jews and Judaism, but a belief that there is something inherently evil about the Jews; what’s wrong with “Amp the jew” is “in his blood,” which is why “you will see Jews repeating this same formula over and over and over.”

My point is, contrary to what David’s question suggests, it remains possible to recognize antsemitism without resorting to David’s formula, which can be in effect summed up as “any very harsh criticism of Israel is antisemitism.” One could instead believe that antisemitism requires a bias against Jews and Judaism, and often believing that there is something inherently evil about being Jewish. Believing that particular Jews are being oppressive in the context of a specific political situation is simply not the same thing.¹

Matthew Yglesias, responding to Alvin Rosenfeld’s much-discussed essay “Progressive” Jewish Thought And The New Anti-Semitism (pdf file), accurately describes the “New Anti-Semitism”:

To be flip about it, the defining characteristic of the “new” anti-semitism seems to be that it isn’t anti-semitism. Certainly, to qualify as a “new anti-semite” it doesn’t seem to be necessary to have a bigoted view of the Jewish religion or of Jewish people as an ethnic or cultural group. The author pretends to argue that hostility to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state is the defining characteristic of the “new” anti-semitism, which is fairly ridiculous on its own terms, but as you read through the examples that’s clearly not what he’s saying. Rather, his view is that some people make what he regards as extreme or over-the-top criticisms of Israel, and that anti-semites would also make such criticisms, so therefore anyone who criticizes Israel too stridently is either practicing anti-semitism or else creating it.

In another “Debate Link” post, David approvingly quotes Rosenfeld’s response to critics:

Among others on the left, though, an often strident anti-Zionism is part of the ideological package that gives them their political identity. Their inclination to liken Israel to Nazi Germany and white-ruled South Africa–and their frequent excoriations of the Jewish state as guilty of “racism,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “war crimes,” and “genocide” draw from a common lexicon of hyperbolically corrosive speech and have helped to fashion an intellectual and political climate that encourages the demonization of Israel and its supporters.

What’s striking is that Rosenfeld doesn’t seem to consider that Israel’s policy choices have been instrumental to fashioning “an intellectual and political climate that encourages the demonization of Israel and its supporters.” No, no; it has nothing to do with the settlements, with the beatings, with the double-standard of law based on race in the occupied territories. What’s much more important for creating the negative view of Israel, apparently, is a small group of British and American leftist Jews, many of them completely obscure before Rosenfeld’s essay made them notable.

More importantly, note how broad a swath of language Rosenfeld suggests should be out of bounds to credible critics of Israel. I can see putting “genocide” out of bounds, but “war crimes?” The concept that Israel may have committed war crimes is now to be considered so out of bounds that the very phrase “war crimes” should never be used by credible critics, according to Rosenfeld? Similarly, are we to conclude that the word “racism” is “hyperbolically corrosive speech” and should thus be considered out of bounds for credible critics of Israel? How very convenient for defenders of Israel, if that’s the case.²

Do I think that demonization of Israel is a good thing? No, I do not. But I think it’s something the Israeli government has brought on itself with its policy choices. (Similarly, demonization of Palestinians is wrong, but it’s been brought on the Palestinians by the acts of Palestinian extremists and terrorists.) And both sides in this conflict have given critics plenty of reason for the use of hysterical, furious and extreme language, without having to believe that those employing such language are motivated by antisemitism or by racism.

You don’t have to have a bias against Jews to think that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories is disgusting and racist, or to think that Israeli conduct should be investigated for possible war crimes. Nor should concern for “fashioning” a negative political environment for Israel be permitted to put questions of Israeli racism, war crimes, and apartheid-like policies outside the boundaries of credible discourse.

1. To be sure, Jacqueline Rose, the author of The Question of Zion, from which the “collective insanity” quote is taken, is an idiot. And it may be that she’s an anti-Semite, despite being Jewish herself. But the mere fact that she’s an idiot who uses over-the-top language to criticize Israel does not, in an of itself, prove antisemitism. (back)
2. I also think the word “apartheid” is one that can be used by reasonable critics, although I choose not to use it myself. I discuss the Israel/Apartheid comparison in this post. (back)