politics

After John Koster's "On The Rape Thing" Remarks I'm Contributing to His Opponent - "You Know What I Mean," John?

It's bad enough when assholes in predictable, far-away-from-me places like Indiana, Missouri, and lifelong-government-beneficiary-and-Ayn-Rand-fan, but I always expect better from even the most conservative reaches of Washington State.  Silly me.  Evan McMorris-Santoro has the scoop.

John Koster, Republican nominee in Washington’s First Congressional District, was captured on tape over the weekend explaining why he is opposed to abortion in the case of incest and rape. Incest he said, was “so rare.” Then he turned to rape.

“On the rape thing, it’s like, how does putting more violence onto a woman’s body and taking the life of an innocent child that’s the consequence of this crime, how does that make it better?” Koster said. “You know what I mean?”

Source: TalkingPointsMemo

Koster's opponent, Democratic candidate Suzan DelBene, wasn't my first choice for the nearby Congressional District 1.  I supported and would have preferred Darcy Burner. 

But!

So a little while ago I donated to the DelBene's campaign.  If you feel the same way  you can donate to DelBene too.

To be fair, in the unlikely event it had been DelBene who'd said something so egregiously, viciously thuggish I'd have sent money to Koster.  But of course she didn't say anything nearly so ugly.  Instead he inexcusably did. 


Tags:

Paul Ryan Also Believes Burglary Is a Method of Interior Design and That Ayn Rand...

...is the author of a method of political philosophy rather than the author of bodice ripping fiction.

For Rand worshipers consent is compromise. For Rand worshipers compromise is only for the weak.  For Rand worshipers the strong don't compromise they take.  Therefore in Rand's impoverished little moral universe "legitimate" rape, which 'wingers are always so careful to distinguish, is the only legitimate "method of conception."

And, of course, Paul Ryan is a Rand worshiper.


Tags:

Lessons From The Secret Service / Cargagena Sex-Worker Case: Who Benefits Most When Sex Work is Illegal?

Something to keep in mind about the recent Secret Service / Sex-worker scandal in Cartagena, Columbia. When an American tried to pay a sex worker only $30 after previously agreeing to pay her $800 she complained to the police.

She complained to the police.

If you're an American take a minute to wrap your head around that.  Take more than a minute if you need to.  And you might.  But let's look at that again.

She. Complained. To the police.

The possibility that a sex worker would complain to the police almost certainly never occurred to the American.

The possibility that the police would listen to her probably never crossed his mind.

Because in America, where that kind of sex work is universally illegal it just doesn't work that way.

Because every American customer, let alone every American criminal/sexual predator, knows that no American sex worker dares go to the police no matter how badly they're treated.

And of course it's not just American customers and predators who can't wrap their head around the concept.  Nominal sex-worker defenders who can speak only in terms of "prostituted women" don't seem to get it either.  Nor is the general public, immersed as we are in cop shows, "gritty urban realism" metaphors, "heart of gold hooker" movies like Pretty Girl, and Krucher Ashton videos, likely to have much luck either.

So.

Small wonder then the American Secret Service agent thought he could get away with treating a Colombian sex worker the way he would treat (has treated?) sex workers at home or elsewhere abroad.

I mean, even if you "know" sex work is legal in the "3rd-world" town* you're visiting it's unlikely it would occur to you that if you bilk a sex worker she'll complain to the police.

The American made a bad decision to effectively rob a sex worker.  Unfortunately for him a decision under Colombian law makes it safe for sex workers to complain to the police.

Standard disclaimer: One can oppose sex work as an industry and still celebrate social, civil, and legal protection for those who practice it.  Further, the social transformations required to end the sex work industry does not require that sex work itself remain illegal.  And finally, one can oppose the sex work industry and still recognize who benefits most from laws prohibiting it.

* Note: Socioeconomically speaking Cargagena, Columbia is considered a thriving, multi-industry middle-to-upper-middle class city that regularly hosts international economic and trade summits.


Tags:

So... Would You Give a Man-Hating, All-Women Team the Right to Review and Discipline an All Male Organization?

According to this morning's Seattle Times

The Vatican orthodoxy watchdog announced Wednesday a full-scale overhaul of the largest umbrella group for nuns in the United States, accusing the group of taking positions that undermine Roman Catholic teaching on the priesthood and homosexuality while promoting "certain radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

Would the Catholic Church ever consider chartering nuns to investigate and discipline priests and bishops for taking positions that also undermine Roman Catholic teachings on the priesthood and homosexuality while also promoting "certain misogynist and/or pedophilic themes incompatible with Catholic faith?"

No. They wouldn't because regardless of the merits the optics of giving an exclusive-to-women enterprise complete dominion over an exclusive-to-men one would seem arbitrary, capricious, unfair, punitive, and wrong. And probably sexist.

So why on this great blue marble does the Catholic Church think it's a good idea to give a skutload of men complete dominion over an order they themselves have restricted entirely to women?

Yes, yes, I'm aware that according to the Bishop's doctrines raping a woman or sodomizing a child is a repentable venal sin whereas saving a pregnant woman's life is an unrepentable mortal one. And so as a matter of degree one could accept the notion that reviewing the policies of nuns would be more in order than a similar review of policies for priests. (I'm not saying I'd rank them the same, just that on paper you could see differences in priority.)

And yes, I'm aware that since homosexuality in both sexes are considered wrong it could be completely coincidental that the Bishops chose first to review an order of nuns before a corresponding review of an order of priests. (I'm not saying I'd rank them the same, just that again on paper I could see how you might tackle one before tackling the other.)

What I don't get, however, is the batshit insane optics of appointing an all-male team to...

oversee the overhaul of [an organization of priests], which will include rewriting the group's statutes, reviewing all its plans and programs — including approving speakers — and ensuring the organization properly follows Catholic prayer and ritual.

How about, oh, maybe, if you think an overhaul is really needed, for the Church to appoint a team of priests and nuns to do the job?

I'm...

I'm trying to be fair here, and I'm obviously trying to limit the scope of my objections to a purely procedural level, but since it would stick in my craw if the Church appointed only nuns to crack down, hard, on American priests it similarly sticks in my craw that they're appointing only priests to crack down hard on nuns.


Tags:

Could the Upcoming Conservatives' War on College Be Related to Their Current War on Women?

Paul Waldman says

When Rick Santorum went after the University of California the other day, it might have seemed like a one-off, fact-free hors d'ouvre of resentment, the kind of criticism of elitist liberal professors that we've come to expect from conservative culture warriors like him. Sara Robinson, however, sees this as the first shot in a coming war on public universities, following up as it did on a report from the Hoover Institution about how the academy is dominated by liberals.

Source: TAPPED

I wonder if it's got anything to do with the fact that since at least 2002 more women than men have been applying to and attending college and graduate school.


Tags:

Blue Gal's Mother's Day Ad Proposal for Limbaugh Sponsor ProFlowers.com

Image by Fran of BlueGal. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Photoshopped Image by Fran of Blue Gal. Used under a Creative Commons license.

 

Ok, so there's no reason to believe that every ad that appears on one of Limbaugh's programs is intentionally purchased for his program. For instance a lot of advertising is purchased in wholesale "network buys" from Bain Capital's Clear Channel broadcast conglomerate and Clear Channel then arbitrarily assigns ads to different time slots regardless of what kind of crap they're playing.

Some companies that have found themselves broadcast on Limbaugh are clearly horrified and appear to be taking steps to withdraw even accidental association with the Republican party-machine boss.

Other companies?  Not so much.

BlueGal, who posted the spoof ad, above, has been pretty irked by ProFlowers.com's disclaimer that they "don't endorse the views expressed by Rush Limbaugh."  A view described by some as "more circumspect." 

This "circumspection" is probably the closest ProFlowers.com can come to distancing themselves, not least because elsewhere on their website ProFlowers.com's Limbaugh connections run deep! They evidently offer deep discounts to customers who use "radio codes" from the program. They also recently offered what ProFlowers.com called a "Rush Superfecta" Valentines Day package.

Anyway, that makes their disclaimers sound perhaps a little less circumspect and maybe something closer to disingenuous.


Tags:

Issa No-Women Hearings: You Know It's Reaching a Point of Parody When Your Biker and Hillbilly Facebook Friends Start Noticing

Photo via AddictingInfo.org. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Image via AddictingInfo.org.

So thanks to the network effects inherent in Facebook and, I guess, inexpensive cable modems, I've slowly become friends, or at least friends of friends, with a surprising number of men and women from my previous life back in Southern Appalachia.  Most of the men, at least, don't post much, and when they do it's almost stereotypically about bars they used to drink in, or guitars they wish they had, or about high gas prices, or (a lot of them) about the 12-Step Meetings they're attending and/or sponsoring others through.  Oh, and/or a lot of Pot-Farmville posts. You know, salt of the earth type guys but not really particularly connected to current events.  (This on my personal real-name account, not my basically neglected and otherwise unused figleaf one.)  In other words people pretty much just like me before we went our separate ways, and who turned out the ways we did more due to chance than apitutde, ambition, or intent.

Anyway, when I got home today and logged in to Facebook again (hey, evidently like a lot of other people I'm starting to find work!) something was different.

All those guys?  The ones who still drink whatever's cheapest in totally non-ironically-named bars and fix their Ford and Dodge slant-six cars themselves?  The ones who call each other "pee-pencil peckered sons of bitches" when they're mad?  The ones who've been through bad divorces and don't like to go to Red Lobster even after a wedding because it's too fancy?

Four or five of those guys were posting or reposting those photos of that buttwad all-male panel Darryl Issa called up in Congress to talk about how it's immoral for insurance to pay for contraception for women that have been making the rounds all day.

They were not, um, supportive either of Issa or the male panelists or that it was a good idea for a whole row of men to sit around brassing off about how depriving women of healthcare as a matter of "religious freedom."

That's... pretty different.

It's not like these guys were ever likely to vote for Republicans.  They're more likely not to vote at all!

But this got their attention.

If you're a right-wing extremist with an eye on the November elections that can't be good a good sign.

Update: I don't want to give the impression these are all guys who live so close together they've all got the same in-laws. One of them lives in northern Alabama, another in east Tennessee. One's been in Montana for more than 20 years. Another's actually from the middle-Appalachians, in Rick Santorum's rural Pennsylvania. I'm just saying it's weird to hear from any of them in a given month. To hear from all of them in one day, and all about the same thing, is... pretty unusual!

Anyone else noticed anything like this or is it really just a total fluke that I happened to see it?

Update #2: Also to be clear (because there seems to be some confusion) I'm not saying it's unusual for these people to say these things because "people like them" don't support women's rights or women's health.  Instead it's ususual because they rarely comment on politics at all.


Tags:

From the Komen Corporate Partners Page, Plus a List of Companies That Just Learned They're Partners With Hard-Core Anti-Choicers

Update: As I predicted last night (as did most spectators), the recent uproar has caused Komen to back down. And since they've a) backed down in a particularly smarmy way and b) they haven't asked the acidly anti-choice vice president who brought this fiasco down on their heads to resign, I would argue that they still haven't even begun to restore the placid apolitical credibility expected by corporate sponsors whether they're very large and well-heeled or small and serving progressive markets. Furthermore, the Foundation has only retracted one reason they gave as the "main reason" for defunding Planned Parenthood -- the "under investigation by Congressional witch-hunters" one. They remain silent on the other "really, this is the main reason" reason -- that beginning yesterday they're only funding organizations that provide on-site mammograms (if their initials also contain the letter P.) In other words, I'm not really seeing any change.

Image via Barbara Kelley at Undecided. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Image via Barbara Kelley at Undecided.

Well, this line from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Corporate Partners Page sounds a little creepier than the flacks who wrote it originally intended

Our corporate partners provide us with the opportunity to reach people where they live, work, and play.

Um, yeah. To reach people where they live, work, and play and... jam crappy hate-filled and, frankly, spiteful messages down their throats.

Right-wing hysteria notwithstanding, Planned Parenthood has long enjoyed thoroughly bipartisan support. Prestigious support at that! For instance the late Prescott Bush, former senator, former board member of Fortune 500 banks and manufacturers, father of one President and grandfather of another, was also Planned Parenthood's founding treasurer. And today it still enjoys considerable personal and corporate support from companies large and small across America. And why not? After all, until about a day ago the Komen Foundation supported Planned Parenthood as well.

If you visit their page and look down the list you'll find many, many companies that have supported Komen -- some having gone so far as to re-brand their products in Komen's signature pink!

But if you look down the list you'll also find that many of those same companies also support Planned Parenthood -- both through corporate direct giving, through executive board members, through charitable funds-matching, and other sources.

I'd never, ever consider boycotting a company who'd just been blindsided by the underhanded scheming of a previously singularly uncontroversially benign organization.

But if, say, I worked for one of those sponsors, particularly one that's also supported Planned Parenthood in the past, or if I served on one of their boards or advisory committees, or if I was a shareholder, or if I was a client, I might quietly inquire higher up whether it was still in my company's interest to continue sponsoring Komen.

It doesn't even have to be a matter of whether one is pro-choice or anti-choice, by the way. What really matters, to a lot of those large firms, is perception, stability, predictability, and lack of controversy. Not to put too fine a point on it, here, but if Komen fishtails back the other way tomorrow (I'm guessing the odds are better than 50/50) that just further indicates they no longer can be counted on to be consistent, non-politically-charged, or able to stay on message.

It only takes a little bit of Googling to find... quite a few companies that may have found themselves involuntarily embroiled in Komen's new entirely political agenda. Check them out.

3M, ACH Food Companies, AT&T, Alternative Apparel
American Airlines, Anchor Bay, Ansell Healthcare, Ask.com
Avcor, Avon, BIC, Bank of America
Battelle, Beemster Cheese, Belk, Berkley Packaging
Black & Decker, BoConcept, Boar’s Head, Bob Evans
Boots, Boston Proper, Boston Warehouse, Brinker
Brown Shoe, Caché, Caltrate, Canari Cyclewear
Caribou Coffee, Carlisle Collection, Caterpillar, Century Payments
CenturyLink, Chasing Fireflies, Chesapeake Bay Candle Co, Citizen Watch
Clean Ones, Clear Channel, ClearVision Optical, Coach
Coldwater Creek, Collegiate Shipping, Corning, Crayola
Dallas Cowboys, Dell, Deluxe Checks, Designs by Lolita
Deuce Brand, Discover Financial Services, Disney on Ice, Donna Karan
Dots, Eggland's Best, Emdeon, Energizer
Este Lauder, EuroBlooms, Evian, Evite
Exercise TV, Exhale Enterprises, FUZE, Fable Designs
Foot Solutions, Ford Gum, Ford, Forever 21
Freed’s Bakery, Frito-Lay, GUESS, Garden State Growers
General Mills, Georgia-Pacific, Global Filtration, Globe Electric
Goldtouch, Graphique de France, HUE, Hallmark
Hampshire Designers, Hand & Nail Harmony, Hanes, Helzberg Diamonds
Hewlett-Packard, Holland America Line, Honest Tea, HonorBib
Hunter Boot, Igloo, Imperial Headwear, Inliten
Interfresh, Jason Aldean, Jersey Mike's Subs, Kent International
Kentucky Fried Chicken, Kentucky Oaks Ladies First, Key Brands, KeyBank
King’s Hawaiian Bakery, KitchenAid, Kobian, Kodak
Koi Design, Kraft, Kyocera, LPGA
La Madeleine, LaCroix, Liberty Mutual, Lifetime Brands
Louisville Stoneware, Lowe’s, Macy's, Major League Baseball
MegaGoods, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Merck, Meredith Corporation
Microsoft, Mobile Edge, Mohawk Flooring, Mottega
Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, NBC Today Show, Napa Valley Naturals, Nature's Flowers
Nestle , New Balance, New Global Charities, NewBalance
Nordstrom, Not Your Daughter's Jeans, Nuun, Oil Can Henry's
Old Navy, On The Border, Oracle, Oreck
Oregon Cherry Growers, Inc., Oriental Trading Company, Otis Spunkmeyer, Palmer's
Pandora Jewelry, Paris Accessories, Payless, Pepperidge Farm
Pepsico, Philips, Pier 1 Imports, Pinnacle
Planet Smooties, Postmark, Pottery Barn Kids, Premium Outlets
Pretzel Crisps, Princess Cruises, Progresso Soup, Prolacta Bioscience
Provide Commerce, Purina, REMAX, Rally for the Cure®
Ralph Lauren, Redken, RiceSelect, Rich Products
SELF, Saks Fifth Avenue Samsung, Santa Barbara Design Studio
Sarah Fisher Racing, Savvi, ShoeDazzle, Shoutback Concepts
Shuman Produce, Simon Malls, Skinny Cow, SodaStream
Specialized Bicycle Components, Springs Global, Stanley , Stanley Steemer
Stein Mart, Stylemark, Sy Kessler Sales, T-Mobile
Teasdale Quality Foods, TeleTech Holdings, The Columbus Dispatch, The Hillman Group
The Maryland Jockey Club, The Mohawk Group, The Republic of Tea, Tiger Balm
Tim Hortons, Titleist, Trident Seafoods, True Religion Brand Jeans
Tubbs Snowshoes, U.S. Bobsled and Skeleton Federation, Verbatim, Wacoal America
Walgreens, Wells Lamont, Woman Within, Yoplait
Young Dental, Zumba Fitness

Again, it's really, really important to remember this is an easily but hastily compiled list, based on nothing more than Google results. Not all the named companies have been closely associated with Komen. Not all the named companies are still associated with Komen. Many of the companies were partners and/or sponsors with state or local chapters of Komen what have (or I'm sure soon will) dissociate themselves with the extremist turn the national organization has taken. And absolutely, definitely, certainly not all the companies named (or possibly any of them!) can be assumed to actually approve of the new, anti-choice direction coming out of Komen HQ.

I'm... pretty sure, even assuming they take an official position at all, that many and possibly most of these companies would prefer not to have been dragged into this mess.  And if you're associated in a positive way with any of those companies and organizations (or others not on the list) then keep your association positive -- just quietly and calmly express your preference, suggest that there remain other perfectly respectable organizations that could still use corportate sponsorship, and let them know that you're sure that just as in the old days nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, these days nobody's likely to get fired for sponsoring, say, The American Cancer Society instead of Komen.  Meanwhile, if your association with one of these companies or organizations is not positive... eh, please remember you can catch more flies with honey than with bile... and that when someone has perhaps learned to prepare to be antagonized they're even more susceptible to calm words and sound advice.


Tags:

They Won't Pepper Spray You For it (Well, Probably Not) But it Now *Can* Be a Federal Crime to Lie on a Dating-Service Profile

From LadyMissKate on Tumblr. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Photoshopped Image from LadyMissKate on Tumblr. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Anyone care to guess how the paragraph in quotes, below, might directly affect your sex life?

Wall Street Journal columnist Eric Felten points out a fascinating problem with the new federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which intentionally or not, makes it a pretty severe crime to fail to follow (for instance) any of the conditions set out in Apple's seventeen thousand word terms of service agreement that you have to click in order to download an iPhone app or iTune MP3.

No. Federal prosecutors aren't very likely to bring charges. But it's still interesting to note that if the obscenely over-stated law is not overturned or amended that...

As it stands, the statute allows punishment of anyone who "exceeds authorized access" to any computer. According to critics of the law, such as Prof. Kerr (himself once a computer-crime prosecutor at the Justice Department), that vague and broad statutory language makes it a federal offense to violate any Terms of Service agreement. Take the user compact for the dating site Match.com, which states "You will not provide inaccurate, misleading or false information…to any other Member." At the congressional hearing this week, Prof. Kerr argued that, given people's natural propensity to fudge when cataloging their physical assets, "Most Americans who have an Internet dating profile are criminals under the Justice Department's interpretation of the CFAA."

Source: bookofjoe

Postscript note for any anti-government conservatives in the audience. The term you're looking for here isn't "government-bureaucratic overreach," it's "regulatory capture by industry."

Via Joe Stirt,


Tags:

User login