blogging

Time to punish those Congressmen who failed to pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect it!

I'm sure a lot of guys would just shrug at Bush's uninvited and unwelcome attempt at massaging German Chancellor Andrea Merkel's shoulders.

On Majikthise, Lindsay notes:

Every woman will recognize the guy who sidles up and starts "casually" giving you a backrub without even looking at you, because he wants to preserve deniability in case you freak out. Like any practiced groper, Bush stares right past Merkel as she recoils from his touch. The play fails, but he just moves on, eyes averted, like it's her problem. ("Oh my God, there's a hysterical woman displaying inappropriate behavior! I'll just pretend I don't notice her egregious gaffe.")

terrance on Republic of T points out that Bush has also kissed and groped men. And of course there's the smoochy relationship he has with Joe Lieberman.

As a gay man, I’ve had my share of unwelcome gropes. (And I’ve been know to grab a groper by the wrist, turn him to face me, and ask him what he thought he was doing.) It’s not funny or flattering. At best it’s assuming a familiarity that doesn’t exist between two people. At worst it’s a way of dehumanizing someone reducing them to a body part to be groped, and it’s a way of asserting dominance; an unspoken way of saying “I can put my hands on you any time I want, and there’s not much you can do about it.”

In comments on Republic of T, "Steve" writes:

I gotta be honest…youre statements are mind-blowingly childish. Get a life…get a job…get something to do instead of sit on your ass all day and come up with stupid things to bitch about. Is Bush an idiot? Did he act a fool in doing what he did? The answer to both is clearly Yes. Did he have misogynist intent? Did he do it to degrade Merkel? The answer to both is No.

You see, this is how male privilege is defended. It's the "oh he didn't mean anything by it" argument. Women are supposed to just smile when a man decides he would like to massage her or fondle her or grope her or, well, fill in the blank, fellas. "Steve" just does not get it, because he cannot see beyond his own comfort.

"Kathy" has a great reply:

I worked in business for many years and mostly with men in the industry I was in and I recognize this readily. I am grateful for your understanding commentary. It is so insulting. It is a way for a man who is insecure about women to put a woman in her place. If you don’t think so, imagine Bush doing this to Vladimir Putin! First, he wouldn’t have the nerve and second what do think Putin would do? This is the German chancellor for goodness sake! Are you kidding me??!!!! Bush may not be drinking but he is certainly acts like a guy in a bar who has issues with women (I have never met an anti-choice person - especially men - who didn’t have mommy issues).

"Jeff" comes up with the most absurd apologia:

’ll tell you what the big deal is. It’s called phallophobia. It’s an irrational fear of male sexuality. Some man touches some woman to which she chooses to find uncomfortable and it’s time to roll out the hyperbole!

Why the German head of state should just accept Bush's "male sexuality" -- or any woman should just accept any man's sexual expression through touching her body -- is beyond me. But hey, "Jeff" is not only blinded by his privilege, he's offended that anyone should challenge it.

By the way, "Jeff": what you call "phallophobia" has a grounding in reality. It's called rape, harassment, molestation and violence towards women. Of course you wouldn't think it's a big deal. After all, you're not being manhandled in that way. --And if you were, I bet you'd do a lot more than shrug your shoulders, as Chancellor Merkel did.

To me, President Bush has always been scary -- even the idea of "President Bush" was scary to me well before November 2000 -- but now he's gotten personally offensive (to Merkel) and, well, rather embarrassing for America. Can't the guy just keep his hands (and bombs) to himself?

Via Truthdig.

The nineteenth issue of The Carnival of Feminists is out today at team-blog Figure: Demystifying the Feminist Mystique.

Posted by Alisha, the introduction reads:

"Welcome to the 19th edition of the Carnival of Feminists! It has really been a pleasure to read all of the nominations and to discover some new blogs we knew nothing about.

Our theme for this Carnival is 'Feminism and Career' and we definitely came across some exceedingly interesting posts on the subject. This happens to be a topic that we here at Figure: Demystifying the Feminist Mystique hold near and dear to our hearts. However, we also wanted to recognize that a career does not necessarily have to be an office job…"

Click through to read the issue.

Next Issue...

The next issue of The Carnival of Feminists will be hosted by Kactus at Super Babymama on August 2nd. The theme to issue 20 will be poverty and class.

You can submit nominations via the Blog Carnival submission form.

To find out more about the carnival, how frequently it appears, and to read past issues, visit the official Carnival of Feminists blog.

To volunteer to host an issue, please contact the Carnival Organizer, Natalie Bennett.

Utterly "grotesque" statements like this:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But before the war in Iraq many argued that going into Iraq would stir up a hornet’s nest. The administration strongly disagreed and here’s what Vice President Cheney had to say in August 2002.

CHENEY (VIDEO): I believe the opposite is true. Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region, extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad, moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli/Palestinian peace process would be enhanced.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Extremists now appear to have been emboldened. The moderates appear to be in retreat. There is no peace process. There is war. How do you answer administration critics who say that the administration’s actions have unleashed, have helped unleash the very hostilities you hoped to contain?

RICE: Well, first of all, those hostilities were not very well contained as we found out on September 11th, so the notion that policies that finally confront extremism are actually causing extremism, I find grotesque.
This kind of Newspeak is the worst kind of political weaseling. After what will most likely be eight years of the Cheney-Bush swagger, the last person we need in the White House is their rationalizer against reality.

Is it any wonder that they don't get it? In case you missed it, Washington Week had a special edition tonight where they ostensibly took on the question, "Is our political system broken?" The only problem was that they kept looking at it through their narrow prism of "left" and "right".

For about 20 minutes (with the rest of the time devoted to corporate sponsors), we had the pleasure of listening to James Bennet, the new editor of The Atlantic, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, and Priscilla Painton, executive editor of Time Magazine while they mused over the Big Ideas of Democracy. (Yes, de Tocqueville was mentioned not once but twice. One cannot accuse these mighty journalists of not being learned.)

We learned that the blogosphere is responsible for the trivializing of American politics. We learned that politicians are simply too hateful. We learned that the American people are just too apathetic. We learned just how bad talk radio is.

There was casual mention of cable news programs, let's be fair. But that was 20 years ago -- nothing that is relevant today. And certainly not at all relevant to High Minded shows like Washington Week.

And yet, and yet....

...Everything came down to the "right" and the "left." Apparently the politicians and the Fourth Estate are all centrists, but the blogosphere is forcing acrimony from -- yes, you guessed it -- the "right" and the "left."

That left me wondering: Am I on the right or on the left? After all, right and left seem to define politics, at least according to these "experts." And as a blogger, well, I must be the worst of the worst -- an extremist!

I'm against the war on Iraq. That puts me on the left. But I was for the war on Afghanistan. Does that put me on the right? However, I'm for rebuilding Afghanistan and building its economy so that the Taliban has little to stand on.

I'm for the reduction of some taxes, so that puts me on the right. But I believe the poor should be given the greatest tax breaks, which puts me on the left. I believe in encouraging small businesses, which puts me on the right, but I believe small business is helped by things like national healthcare (because healthy workers are in business' self-interest), which puts me on the left, and a balanced budget, which puts me on the right (except for those "rightists" who think pork is a holy mission from God).

I'm for improved education by means of giving more independence to schools, which puts me on the right. But I don't think you can starve schools into improvement, which puts me on the left.

I strongly believe in the Constitution, which makes me an American. I believe the Constitution includes the entire Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment (left) and Second Amendment (right). I believe a woman is not a breeder slave of the State, which puts me way way on the left, apparently, if I'm to listen to the pundits. And I believe it's nobody's business -- especially not the Government's -- what happens in a private home (right), including the bedroom (left).

I'm against liberal activist judges (right), but I'm also against conservative activist judges (left).

I believe George W. Bush is probably the worst president this country has ever had (left), and I believe that many, if not most, of the Congressional Democrats aren't worth a bucket of spit (right). (Sorry for the vividness there, but the way they blather, it's the image I get.)

I despise the arrogant blindness of the mainstream media (left and right) -- perhaps that's why I'm labeled by them as being the primary cause of the demise of American politics.

So what is it, Gwen? Am I on the "right" or on the "left" when I believe the conservatives aren't conservative enough and the liberals aren't liberal enough, while believing that there is indeed way too much conflict and strife in Washington?

Maybe the problem is that we keep trying to define our politics along a binary axis -- as if everyone can be plotted along a yardstick, all in line, all in a row, easy to parse, easy to define. Maybe the problem, Gwen, is that even the television news programs with the most promise fall on such easy paradigms.

Needless to say, this week's show -- set as it was at the Aspen Ideas Festival -- was ironically placed, as the ideas were few.

And just like with the prefabricated political "debates" we see every election season, the best questions came not from the reporters but from the audience (who all were presumably just a bunch of radicals to be pegged somewhere along that political yardstick).

The big thing not mentioned in all this brief spectacle? Corporate influence on politics. That's right, the 800 pound gorilla was not mentioned at all. Nary a mention of K Street lobbying dominating legislative efforts (including actually writing the bills our representatives "vote" on). Not a word about how big money distorts political campaigns. Of course, being a blogger, I suppose I'm the cause of the "trivializing of politics" (or some such absurd claim), so let the "experts" from Washington pass judgment.

I've been a big fan of Gwen and Washington Week, but this week they proved just how out of touch they really are. It was all rather disappointing.

Yes, Gwen, our political system is broken. Maybe if you guys listened instead of talked, you might have learned something. Of course, being from television, the idea of listening to the opinions of the citizens whom Politics ostensibly serves is too much of a radical idea. Politics was just so much better when We the People could only bitch over the newspaper or shout at the television. This blogging business has gotta go.

I love you, Gwen, but sometimes you really really just don't get it.