Most Comments

  • (20)

    A friend of a friend is in Houston. She's boarding up her house, garaging her car, and is going to ride out the storm. Why? Because she can't get out of town. The highways are clogged with cars. This is not just traffic -- they are not moving.

    And the cars are running out of gas.

    How do you evacuate people when their own cars are blocking the only way to get out by any mode but aircraft?

    I've not seen the news yet today. Maybe this is all on camera. But it sounds like an utter nightmare, and a horror beyond compare if these people are caught in their cars during a storm surge.

    My thoughts and prayers are with them, that everyone can find safety.

  • (20)

    When it's already been clearly established that women's equality is not part of the "important shit," this observation by caliberal on My Left Wing is rather revealing:

    I went to bed last night disgusted by something I read on the late night open thread at Kos. I thought I was overreacting, perhaps, but when I returned this morning I feel the same way so here's my rant.

    Here's what Markos had to say.

    No abortions means more 18 years of child support after a drunken "mistake". Choice isn't a woman-only issue.

    First Markos says if the Democratic Party is the party of abortion he will find another party to affiliate himself with because heaven fucking forbid we would stand up for women's right to have an abortion. Then he dares to say that choice isn't a woman-only issue because some guy might make a drunken "mistake", some guy might just slip and fuck a girl or woman, not use a condom and find himself paying in DOLLARS for the next 18 fucking years.

    Then he links to this by Atrios.

    Fertility May Control You It's time for more men to understand that getting rid of legal abortion increases by quite a lot the chance that one drunk evening will lead to 18 years of child support payments. Alternatively, it decreases the chance that they'll get laid.>

    Fertility may control you, why? Because you may be saddled with making child support payments for crissakes. Nothing about women being raped and forced to give birth. Nothing about young girls being the victims of incest and forced to give birth.

    Men need to understand banning abortion will hurt them in their fucking wallets? And banning abortions will decrease their chance for getting laid?

    This is fucking outrageous. Women's lives mean shit? Women's health means shit? Decrease the chances of getting fucking laid because women will worry they don't have a choice if they do get pregnant? How about personal responsiblity for the sniveling bastards who say such things?

    Over at firedoglake, digby says in an email.

    I just realized that those nuts in South Dakota might be having an unanticipated effect. I am working today and this guy said to me over lunch, "I can't believe that these people are really serious." He's a bit of a putz and he admitted that he'd believed women were exaggerating the threat. I said "I hope you're ready to be daddies, boys. Last time abortion was illegal they didn't have DNA testing" and they all looked stunned.

    Ready to be forced into daddyhood by DNA when women are forced into motherhood because we carry the fetuses. Caught and forced into daddyhood and thus made to pay when before DNA they could just fucking take off and never fucking look back.

    This is those men are fucking worried about? This is how men on left leaning blogs are interpretting the ban on abortions? This is why it's not a woman-only issue?

    I'm so fucking pissed off I want to spit in the faces of these men who say this goddamned shit. They say they're liberal Democrats but they're just like those cowardly son of a bitches who vote Republicans into office. They say they care about women's rights but what they really care about are their fucking wallets. They say they give a shit about women but what they really care about is getting fucking laid.

    [bold emphasis added]
    It's an interesting thread of responses, too.

    Is anyone wondering whether the Big Boys of the so-called "progressive" blogosphere really are strongly behind women's control of their own bodies?

    But wait! Money counts, too, right? sassy texan responds:

    If the issue becomes about men having to pay child support, what's to keep the men who make the laws from changing the law? How about, if the man asks the woman to marry him and she refuses he does not have to pay child support. Tempted to think it could never happen? Well, here we are with one state already banning abortion and many more to go. I'm not putting anything past these people.bluebird of happiness states it plain:

    This is not about men's freedom to get laid or not have to pay child support. It's about whether women end up dead because they're forced to be pregnant against their will.

    If I get pregnant again, it will not be a pretty picture. I'm married and have two kids, and I'm almost 43, and I'm on medication that I need but would have to quit taking - and I've got a bunch of old rotten eggs that have been sitting on the shelf past their expiration date - who knows what kind of baby I would hatch out, or what the exhausting process of gestation would do to my haggard body? Not to mention childbirth itself - my first kid I lost two liters of blood.

    The anti-abortion people value women as incubators to produce cannon fodder for their sickening wars, not as human beings.

    This is about a woman's freedom to control her own body. As they say, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

    What if every time you sex, you risked death, illness, or injury? And the Law told you the solution is to just not have sex, even if there were many ways to prevent those problems? And if the Law wanted to stop you from learning how to protect your own health and safety, so they could prevent you from having sex? And what if you were then raped?
    The question is why this is so hard for so many self-proclaimed "progressives" to understand.

  • (20)

    from Talk to Action

    While the Bible that many South Dakotans are substituting for the Constitution these days maintains that "her price is far above rubies," those same people have decreed that the worth of any woman, no matter how virtuous, plummets at "that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum." From that moment forward, not only her body, her hopes and her dreams, but sometimes -- despite the hollow promise of a tacked-on provision allowing "a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother" – even her very life can be forfeit.

  • (20)

    from Talk to Action

    We all have heard South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli's description of a woman who might qualify for an abortion under the rigid strictures of South Dakota's draconian abortion law – an exemption now immortalized as the Sodomized Virgin Exception.

    Bob Nelson, a contributor to the Rapid City Journal's Mount Blogmore, considers the plight of those young women less fortunate.

    It was an easy rape, she said
    (Though not the way she hoped to wed)
    The stones were sharp against her head,
    (Not her dream of a bridal bed)
    And the dress he tore as he thrust her down
    was not her idea of a wedding gown.

    But really, it was not complex.
    Just some simple brutal sex.
    And though her young life had other plans
    She would bear the child of the gentleman.
    And try to love each smile and dimple,
    And be thankful that the rape was simple.
    And thank the men who made her free.
    Simple men like Napoli.

    No thanks are necessary, little lady. It was their simple pleasure. As Napoli himself says, "If I, as a legislator, can make life better, really help somebody, that's a wonderful feeling."

  • (19)

    * Protect a woman's rights and sovereignty over her own body.\n* Improve public awareness of, and interest in stopping, violence against women.\n* Address cultural phobias of female leadership, power and opinions in executive roles of government and corporations.\n* Forget feminism. We need to get rid of these radicals who are in power now.\n* Change the debate: Reframe the "moral values" debate to include human rights, equal rights and women's rights.\n* Get US foreign policy to make women's rights a priority, instead of an afterthought.\n* Stop the hemorrhaging: Block radical right appointments to the judiciary and cabinet.\n* Use the blogs: Build an internet-based resurgence of feminist activism to address all of these things.\n* Women's rights are just fine. What are you all worked up about? Geez!\n* Other. (Please rant away.)\n

  • (19)

    As I write this, there is an ad running here -- and on many other blogs in what is possibly the largest Blogads buy ever -- for an MSNBC show that has raised some hackles.

    All the ads do if you click on them (you'll have to find them on an advertisement-running blog like Kos or Political Animal to do this) is take you to the MSNBC homepage. If you click on Rita Crosby's "Live & Direct" link captioned "A unique look inside the valley of porn" you get taken to this completely stupid article. I have no idea what Rita has in store for her audience on Wednesday, but judging by the blog ads I'm guessing scantily clad women will be involved.

    And from the comments:

    Overall, it seems we're slowly sliding down the hill back to the bad ol days, in more ways that I care to count. Way too many (mostly younger) men and women see nothing at all wrong with this kind of image of women being projected all over the place.

    I know these women online and very much respect their opinions. So in the interest of transparency, I thought I'd try to offer up my thinking for accepting this ad buy and see what you all thought about it.

    When the ad buy was made, a representative of the ad buy sent a message out to publishers to warn of the ad content. The email said, in part:

    The blogad creative will be changed daily. Because one of the shows on Wednesday night is about porn (hosted by Rita Cosby), a couple of the ads this week might be considered edgy, though obviously nothing a major TV network wouldn't show its own viewers. I'm attaching the curviest ad -- if you are not comfortable with your readers seeing this, please reject the ad today.

    Okay, I admit I went back and forth on this, unsure what to do. And then I thought that the show isn't porn, it's about porn -- a topic that falls well within the realm of feminist debate and discussion.

    And so the show itself -- or what I can glean from the scant descriptions available -- does not itself necessarily offend me so much as to prohibit their ad. But then there's the matter of the ad itself.

    If you saw the ad yesterday, or are looking at this today (Monday), you'll see what the big deal is: a neon silhouette of a naked woman, not at all unlike what you might see on the outside of a strip club or the mud flaps of an erection-minded trucker's rig.

    Too much? I don't know. I do feel that perhaps worse than the popularity of pornography in this country is the shaming of nakedness and sexuality throughout our culture. Uptight sexual attitudes, sexual insecurity and denial of true sexual natures of people I feel results in a vast percentage of violence -- and probably most of the violence perpetrated against women. On television, a bare breast is enough to get a show fined by the FCC, while movies with people getting machine-gunned in gory detail get glowing passes. A naked body is deemed "offensive," while a thousand dead bodies is considered "some violence." Fucking someone up is A-OK, but fucking is labeled pornographic.

    How fucked up is that?

    Ostensibly, the show addresses this. I don't know how well, or in what detail, or with what tone -- and odds are I won't have time to tune in and watch it. But since the ad is for the show, and since the ad is representational -- albeit with sexist overtones (which seem to be a deliberate provocation) -- rather than explicit, I accepted the ad.

    So there it is. I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities. It will be replaced tomorrow with another topic, they tell me. (You can see the images in question at the Our Word link above.)

    But if you have something to say about it, I welcome your comments here. (Open exchange of thoughts is encouraged. But please refrain from sexist, misogynist expression. Pie-inspired epithets and remarks of disparagement against women or stereotyped subgroups are discouraged.)


    Update: Atrios has some thoughts about the quality of MSNBC's implementation of this strategy.

    More updates: A little sarcasm (I think) from Lindsay at Majikthise and a dismissive yawn from Amanda at Pandagon

  • (19)

    ...all you need do is look at Right Wing News' list of "The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States" to cast aside any doubts. Let's go down the list:

    20) Sean Penn Spicoli scores again! This is the first time Madonna's former life partner made the list since 2002, but his publicity trip to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was just too good to pass up. Just think about it: Here we have a very liberal, very pompous actor whose first thought after seeing mega-disaster on TV is, "I bet I could get a lot of press out of this if I went to New Orleans."

    You can laugh at Sean Penn for coming across like an overly-serious Spicoli, but I don't laugh at him for dropping everything and going to New Orleans to help people who were suffering and stranded. Maybe John Hawkins prefers bloviating Brownie -- or anyone who cheers for the gubmint.

    19) The Huffington Post What do you get when you take a bunch of C-List celebrities, irritating politicians, and liberal hacks, almost none of whom are talented writers, and put them all together in one place? Why, you get the Huffington Post where "enormous talents" like Deepak Chopra, Cindy Sheehan, and Larry David write the same drivel that appears on other left-wing blogs, only with 50% less zing, pop, and entertainment value.

    Proper role model: Ann Coulter, who spouts right-wing drivel with pizzazz and an abundance of spittle. (Don't forget the throbbing vein in the forehead.)

    18) Helen Thomas Despite the fact that Helen Thomas is no longer even a reporter, she is still allowed to haunt White House press conferences like some sort of ghost of biased journalists' past. This is despite her nasty attitude and the anti-war sloganeering that she likes to disguise as questions for White House Press Secretary Scott McCellan.

    Damn those hard questions! She must be a ghost! You can't run a proper power-grab with these old crusties sticking their noses into gubmint business!

    17) The Daily Kos Markos Moulitsas Z˙niga and his merry band of moonbat diarists over at the Daily Kos make great, although still annoying, copy. In fact, they're so entertaining that you really don't have to do much more than quote them.

    Actually, I find it quite amusing to see Daily Kos labeled "liberal" given the anti-progressivism that seems to pervade discussion there. But then, to the right wing, anyone left of Franco is a "moonbat." (Hmmm....that makes these folks "Franco Americans"! Uh oh! Spaghetti-Os!)

    16) Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton The peanut farmer and the pervert almost always make the list for breaking tradition and criticizing the current POTUS. However, Republicans are fortunate that they stay in the public eye because it continuously reminds the American people of what lousy Presidents they were.

    Never mind that they're out of office, Clinton and Carter are perennial whipping boys for the wingnuts.
    Given that these wingnuts love Bush and his massive deficit spending almost as much as they loved Reagan and his massive deficit spending, I suppose it would only be consistent of them to hate and despise the only two presidents who actually reduced the national debt during their terms.

    15) Mary Mapes

    Last year, Dan Rather made the most obnoxious liberals list for his relentless promotion and defense of the fake National Guard Memos CBS was flogging. Given that Dan Rather was widely panned for his involvement in "Memogate" and that he no longer has a job at CBS, you'd think everyone else tied into those fake memos would be content to let the whole episode drift into the memory hole.

    But, no, bizarrely, disgraced producer Mary Mapes, who was unceremoniously fired by CBS for the part she played in Memogate, decided to permanently tie herself to the story by writing a book that defended the memos as real and attacking the bloggers who proved it was a forgery.

    Geez, if all you have to do to piss off the right wing is write a book, it's a wonder they don't dehydrate from all their sputtering. I didn't even know who Mary Mapes was until reading this blurb. Of course, not being a dittohead, I'll probably forget about her all over again.

    14) Maureen Dowd

    Maureen Dowd, the ranting New York Times columnist whom Democratic Senator Zell Miller once famously referred to as a, "high brow hussy," wrote a book this year moaning how relationships between men and women in America are all screwed up because she hasn't gotten married yet. Hmmmm, Dowd is well paid, famous, and not bad looking for her age. So, what's left that could explain why she hasn't gotten married?

    Yes, display your chauvinistic patriarchal attitudes in dismissing a woman. That's classy.

    13) The Pro-Tookie Williams Protestors

    Tookie Williams, who happily has now been executed, was never actually a very sympathetic character. He was a cold blooded killer who snuffed out 4 lives and never admitted his guilt or apologized to the families of his victims. Moreover, he co-founded the Crips, one of the biggest human scum piles ever to exist in North America and even after he had supposedly reformed, he never gave the police any help in clearing up the numerous Crip related crimes he must have known about.

    Yet, because Tookie wrote a few lousy children's books that about 12 people read, there were celebrities coming out of the woodwork to plead for his life.

    Again with celebrities. I'm beginning to suspect that this guy's real beef is that he's not a movie star. Too bad. He sure has the ego for it. Of course, who has the time when there are libruls out there being critical of the gubmint? Someone has to do all the hating -- even hating the people you never saw except maybe on a 30-second tv news report. The Hawkins moral: protesting is evil, execution is beautiful.

    12) Harry Reid

    Did Harry Reid have to shut down the Senate with a ridiculous publicity stunt? Did he have to break Senate tradition by threatening to filibuster the judges Bush selects for the Supreme Court? Did he have to lie and claim Social Security is in great shape and doesn't need to be reformed?

    And when did Hawkins stop beating his wife?

    11) Randi Rhodes

    Randi Rhodes is Air America's flakiest liberal host, which is sort of like being the dirtiest pig at a hog farm. Maybe it's nothing to be proud of, but it sure takes some doing. In Rhodes case, not only is she a trench harpy with a nasty disposition, she's also a conspiracy theorist with a peculiar sense of humor.

    Careful, John. Your misogyny is showing again. Nice to know you're an Air America listener. It must be so terrible becoming so enamored with her that you can't just change the station.

    10) Ted Rall

    What would a most annoying liberals list be without Ted Rall, a man who showed up somewhere on the list every year and actually took top honors back in 2003? Unfortunately for Ted, he has been so distasteful, disagreeable, and just plain nails-on-the-chalkboard annoying for so long that it's almost impossible for him to top himself.

    Still, Ted has been busy this year being ... well ... Ted, and he has really had it in for America's soldiers.

    Not only did he urge liberals to "drop the 'support the troops' shtick now," he put together a grotesque cartoon that essentially accused Iraqi war vets of being rapists and torturers.

    Here's someone else I'd never have heard of, if it weren't for the good ol' right-wing "news." Of course, we know that American military and intelligence personnel have been torturing prisoners in a policy that has been staunchly defended by Bush and especially Cheney. But this Rall guy is really evil -- not because he tortures people, but because he drew a cartoon about it!

    9) The Mainstream Media's Katrina Coverage

    When it comes to the coverage of Katrina by the mainstream media, the question isn't what did they get wrong, it's what did they get right? It's bad enough that the media shamelessly blamed FEMA for almost every single problem that happened while ignoring the culpability of the locals because they were Democrats, but the press was about as careful with the facts as the Weekly World News is in one of their stories about Batboy. The press wildly exaggerated the overall number of deaths (They were more than 9000 high), the number of deaths in the Superdome, the racial make-up of the people who died, you name it.

    Yeah, Brownie really was doing a heckuva job, CNN used CGI to make the stranded white people just look black, and only 1300+ people died! I mean, Jesus, how much attention and sympathy should we direct at an un-American city like New Orleans, anyway? Didn't you see the fetus shape in the hurricane clouds?

    8) Newsweek's Quran Down the Toilet Story

    You ever made a mistake at work? Maybe you've shown up 30 minutes late or didn't finish an assignment your boss gave you on time? Well, the guys over at Newsweek can top it.

    They mistakenly claimed that US soldiers flushed a Quran down the toilet and as a result, Muslims across the world became angry at the US and there were riots "throughout much of the Muslim world" (that) "cost at least 15 lives.".

    Yeah. The Quran was only pissed on, kicked and ripped apart, and if Newsweek had only made that perfectly clear, Muslims would have danced in the street instead.

    7) Dick Durbin

    Defining Quote: "...If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." -- Democratic Senator Dick Durbin

    Yes, with one poorly thought out statement, Dick Durbin, the Democratic Whip in the Senate, managed not only to slur our troops doing interrogations by accusing them of being as bad as the torturers in some of the worst regimes in history, he also simultaneously sent a message to Al-Qaeda saying that Americans are such paper tiger wussies that we even get squeamish about making terrorists who want to kill us a little hot or cold.

    Fuck yeah! Torture the muthufuckas! We be bad! We get medieval on evil! You think you've seen evil? America is #1 -- we'll out-evil anybody!

    6) Blanco, Nagin, Landrieu, and Eddie Compass: Oh, my!

    New Orleans was doubly unfortunate on the day that Hurricane Katrina slammed down on them. Not only was the city built below sea level, but it seems like almost everyone in a position of authority in the entire state from the governor on down were the sort of incompetent, 4th rate, clown college drop-outs you wouldn't trust to run a lemonade stand, much less a state.

    But remember, Brownie was doing a heckuva job! Wingnuts love Brownie!

    5) John Murtha

    John "Cut and Run" Murtha is grindingly annoying not just because he wants American soldiers to tuck their tails between their legs and run from Al-Qaeda as fast as possible in Iraq, but also because of the dishonest way he's been promoted.

    The fact Murtha is an ex-marine has been used time and time again as a shield against criticism, as an excuse to falsely claim he's a hawk, and to prop up his credibility when he calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

    Hail the chickenhawks! They may be afraid to fight, but they'll talk tough to appeal to the right wing's fragile ego and pervasive fear of the other. And they'll send other people's kids to go fight their battles. Anyone who speaks against our chickenhawk leaders is just un-American! (Never mind al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq, and hardly is now.)

    4) Ward Churchill

    How could we make it through all the most annoying liberals of 2005 without mentioning the biggest walking, talking example of what's wrong with our education system, pseudo-Indian hippy professor Ward Churchill?

    Here we have a rabidly anti-American lunatic, who has endorsed fragging, compared the people who lost their lives in 9/11 to Adolf Eichman, and who has been accused of lying about being an Indian, copyright infringement, plagiarism, and simply making up research.

    Another name that doesn't ring a bell. Hmmmm.... Are the wingnuts having trouble finding prominent libruls to hate? Or are they just trying to impress us with their enthusiasm and zeal? (Is this Churchill guy even a librul? If our buddy John is right, he sounds more like Ann Coulter or someone from Operation Rescue.)

    3) The New York Times

    The New York Times started off 2005 by calling for the January elections in Iraq to be postponed and then went from there to deliberately trying to scuttle a classified CIA program used to transport Al-Qaeda. That had to be what they were doing since they published lots of unnecessary details like plane tail numbers and the shell companies that were used. Then, in December, the NYT pointed out to Al-Qaeda and the rest of the world the existence of a classified NSA program that listened in on phone calls between the Jihadi and their American pals. This was despite the fact that President Bush personally asked them not to run the story for national security reasons.

    Al-Qaeda should send them a thank-you card.

    Translation: If you report on illegal gubmint spying on Americans and secret torture camps, you just take all the excitement out of dismantling the Constitution. Fucking newspapers! What do they think this is? A democracy?

    2) Howard Dean

    At one point or another, Dean also added that Republicans were 'Evil,' 'Corrupt,' and 'Brain-Dead.'

    Gee, it's almost as if you're a Republican, Howard Dean is going out of his way to let you know that he really, really, despises you.

    Earth to Hawkins: He's not the RNC chairman. He's not speaking to you, he's speaking about you.

    1) Cindy Sheehan

    How did an uninteresting, not particularly well informed woman, with wacky liberal views manage to become the biggest story in America this summer? By deftly wielding the corpse of her own son like a light saber to deflect criticism, gain attention, and fatten her own pockets.

    Damn this woman! Who does she think she is expressing opinions?! Just because she lost a son in a war based on falsified intelligence doesn't mean she has the right to criticize the gubmint! And the gall she has to dare make money! Only pro-gubmint Republican hacks are allowed to get paid to express opinions! What does she think this place is? A democracy?

    Now let's try a simpler exercise: The 20 Most Annoying Conservatives in the United States.

    1. Jack Abramoff

    2.- 20. The Republican Committee on the Advancement of the Culture of Corruption

    21.-??? The Culture of Corruption members at-large

    Geez, that's just too easy.

  • (19)

    Over the past weeks and months, we've seen a lot of rather callous crowing that the right-wing forced-pregnancy push is somehow "good for ______________" (fill in the blank -- liberals, Democrats, you name it). The idea is that overturning Roe will be so awful that the progressive forces will finally be heard.

    Never mentioned is that this red-carpet future for (presumably) Democrats is dyed with the blood of the women who will have died as a result of forced pregnancy laws.

    Last night someone sent me a link that made me want to scream. The Deceiver takes the cake when he writes:

    Of course, the world is talking about the recently-signed-into-law abortion ban in South Dakota. I feel for the women of SD, I really do, but

    -- and when I see that "but," I know what's coming next --

    I had hoped that this move on their legislators' part would remain a tacky political badge run up the flagpole, and nothing more. However, as I was driving home tonight from the 9:30 Club, listening to whatever BBC shit they have on NPR, I heard the news that Planned Parenthood is going to challenge the new law in the courts. This caused me to beat the steering wheel and shout, "Stupid, stupid, stupid!" several times.

    Again. It's not that I don't sympathize with the citizens of SD who are going to suffer the deleterious effects of a law that flies in the face of Freakonomics and imbues rapists with special legal rights.

    It's just that the lives of the women who will be directly impacted by this law are not as important as the meta-agenda.

    It's simply that Planned Parenthood is embarking on the EXACT course the opponents of legal abortion WANT them to. Taking this matter to court is a fine way to make a big showy pageant of deeply held principles, but it's a trap--the path inevitably leads to showdown in the SCOTUS against a panel of judges that are, in all likelihood, not predisposed to rule in favor of abortion rights. It's the one battlefield where victory is certain to be denied and it should be avoided at all costs.

    All costs? Any amount of lives?

    There is a reason Planned Parenthood is taking on the law. Because the law prevents Planned Parenthood from providing healthcare for women. You can't just write off women in South Dakota as martyrs to the cause. It's not our place -- anyone's place -- to do that!

    Right now, with South Dakota's laws on the books, the correct course of action is to make sure no plaintiff of any sort challenges their law. I know that sounds like crazy talk. But right now, this anti-abortion buck stops at the South Dakota border (though I'm well aware that other states are considering moving in the same direction--sadly, these states will also have to be sacrificed to save abortion rights everywhere else).

    I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. It's like arguing that permitting slavery in the South protected freedom in the North.

    Of course they have to fight the law. It could mean an injunction against it, and that would save lives, and I'm sorry, you have to save what lives when you can. You can't just turn your back on people in some futurist gambit based on predictions and guesswork.

    "I'm sorry, Jill. We can't defend your Constitutional rights because we have greater political opportunities in the future. You just don't figure in our calculus. Sorry! Have you considered the power of prayer?"

    But wait -- our Deceiver isn't done:

    What should Planned Parenthood do? Rather then expend money in effort in a shameless waste that will, in all likelihood, end in total defeat in one fell swoop (or, in all fairness, bring that possibility a step closer*), abortion-rights advocates should take the sensible step of making the anti-choice winners pay the price for having won. They should bring as much pressure as they can afford to bear on the legislators who gave this abortion ban its life and chase them from office. Barring that, they should simply let South Dakota twist on the withering vine of their tax base, letting the state buckle under the weight of having to care for unwanted children and all of the malicious consequences cited by Steven Levitt.

    Notice no mention of the women who will pay the price. No, it's all about political power to the Deceiver. Lives don't even figure into the equation for him/her.


    Addendum: Somehow I'm not surprised that The Deceiver buys into the child support argument against overturning Roe. "Guys, abortion saves you money!"

  • (18)

    It's really something to see women behave like a bunch of beer-drinking good ol' boys. Pennywit alerted me to this InDCJournal post about the Daily Kos pie fight, which led me to this blog, and that led me on a merry episode of link-surfing from site to site of women who seem to really hate women. Some highlights:

    Forida Cracker:

    Regarding the Progressive ladies: it turns out Kos really isn't giving them any.

    Amy (in the comments):

    Donnah, at the risk of maybe being labelled a "crude prude" (a crude prude with REALLY big breasts, I might add--if that's not too much of an oxymoron form them over there--much bigger than our esteemed and beloved Mr. Vice President's), I will venture to opine that unless Kos gives Miss Amanda Panda or whatever the fark her name is a microscope pre-coitus, she may have a hard time findin' anything he's got to give her.

    I also feel compelled to venture some speculation as to whether or not she's capable of recieving said gift from Mr. Kos, but changed my mind because that would just be catty.

    Yes, good thing she didn't say it.

    Florida Cracker directed at Amanda's criticism of Kos's chauvinism:

    What's wrong? Kos not giving you any?

    And then there's this lumping of all women from MaxedOutMama:

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. If most people really could change their sexual orientation half the men in America would be gay. It's safer and more predictable.

    You know, it's one thing to call someone a bitch, or vain, or stupid. It's another thing to buy into and perpetuate myths that women with opinions just need a good fuck. These women sound like the MRA troll we had slithering around here the past few days.

    It certainly strikes me that these anti-feminists are just as strident as anyone around. They're not as "eloquent" as the Coulter or the Malkin, perhaps, but then they're not professionals. They're just calling it like they see it, without O'Reilly manning the organ grinder. By stridently saying striden women just need some dick, are they really saying that they themselves could use more servicing? Why does everything come down to insert tab A into slot B?

    I've never really understood these kinds of attitudes. What makes this different from any other kind of bigotry? I realize that anti-black "wannabees" and anti-semetic Jews have been known and debated over the years. Maybe it's part of that old Groucho line, "I'd never join a club that would have me for a member" -- self-hatred. Or maybe, like many radical leaders of the extremes, they're so devoted to their own gang that they need to dehumanize everyone else -- including people of same gender/race/ethnicity/[whatever] in order to feel better about themselves. Maybe getting fucked has shut them up in the past, and they're projecting. I don't think so. It seems more like a casual buy-in into the stereotypical chauvinist belief that any woman who seems to be unhappy about something really just needs some manly attention.

    It's a tactic used in business, in politics, even in polite company -- Dismiss the woman as a dysfunctional sex object. Leave the serious issues to the men, a woman's business is just to receive the male member, and be grateful.

    Lest anyone think I'm just criticizing these women because they're conservative, I'd like to add that most of the conservative gals I've come across -- even the more wingnutty ones -- don't lapse into such misogynistic wails. (Again, I'm talking of the amateurs, not the professional haters mentioned above.) For example, in my surfing today, I came across Little Miss Attila, who does not seem to employ her namesake's tactics but rather has some interesting posts, like this one.

    I'll also add that while I can post as much snark as the next gal, I'm not an habituee of DU, either. Before the Christianists pulled the GOP from Goldwater to DeLay, I'd considered myself a progressive moderate. In other words, this isn't about politics but about dehumanizing people because of their sex. I know people do it. I just don't get it.

  • (18)

    From an angry post about how radical feminists are hijacking the cause of domestic violence prevention, I ended up here, at a site called "Hate Male Post," one of those crazy "men's rights" bloggers.
    Normally, I just laugh these fuckers off. Because when they use words like man repellant and seriously post beliefs such as this:

    1) Men don't have any rights anymore, and

    2) Unfortunately, many, even the majority of rape and assault claims ARE made up, irregardless (sic) of what NOW and the gender-feminists tell us.

    it makes me want to either vomit or punch a wall.

    But the most recent post on this "men's rights" blog about the problems of the VAWA legislation has a teeny bit of merit (when you ignore the majority of the post, which is so anti-feminist that it gives Jerry Falwell a run for his money).
    Mainly, this: that there is, in fact, an undercurrent of domestic and sexual violence against men, especially sexual, that goes almost universally unreported. While it remains that the majority of these men's perpetrators are also men, there are women violators of this as well.
    I haven't studied the language of VAWA ad nauseum (or at all, really), but it seems to me that the name of the legislation -- Violence Against Women Act -- implies that it may, in fact, not extend these protections to male victims of domestic violence. In that sense, at least, it is perpetuating the underreporting of these incidents.

    These men's rights' groups do have at least some relevance, then, in their pleading for VAWA to be a gender-neutral piece of legislation. This seems reasonable enough.

    So, my question is this:
    Can this be done without minimizing the fact that the majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women? Would neutralizing the gendered language in the legislation make it less effective or less of a "feminist issue"?

    I have my thoughts, but I'd like to hear others.

    (x-posted to where the revolution's gonna begin)