Archives

May 31, 2003

Call the FCC. NOW!

Contact info is on this page. Call, fax, or e-mail by Monday at the latest. There is more information on TalkLeft about how "the FCC, under Michael Powell's leadership, is aiming to remove the last vestiges of regulation on our media. The bottom line will be a media that is owned by very few -- and the likelihood of their corporate agenda reflecting the liberal ideology is nil. They see political endorsements on the horizen with further consolidation and deregulation, as well as a host of other problems."

posted at 9:38 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

More Fathers' Rights Lies

[Before reading this you may want to read Part One - How Fathers' Rights Advocates Misrepresent Child Sexual Abuse Statistics].

Ampersand laid to rest another common misrepresentation perpetrated by fathers' rights advocates. that mothers win custody in contested cases five times as often as fathers. This is simply not true. Research in "Dividing the Child" by Eleanor E. Maccoby and Robert H. Mnookin has been twisted in order to promote that falsehood. Barry provided an excerpt from the book that had more than adequately shot down the father' rights lies.

[From Dividing the Child] We have found that although mothers receive sole physical custody in the vast majority of cases, the proportion of joint or father custody outcomes approaches 50 percent for high-conflict families. At first blush, this finding would appear to disprove allegations that the California divorce process reflects and perpetuates gender bias. Why, after all, shouldn't a 50-50 distribution of outcomes suggest gender neutrality? Both advocates for women's rights and advocates for fathers' rights would probably reject this reading of our findings, and in fact the presence or absence of gender bias in the legal process is not so simple to establish. A fathers' rights group might well argue that since the overall gender ratio in cases where there are conflicting requests is 2 to 1, the law in action still reflects a maternal presumption. Why, after all, would fathers who conceded custody at lower levels of the conflict pyramid have settled for less than they wanted if they believed they had a 50 percent chance? Advocates for women, on the other hand, would counter that our findings demonstrate that escalation of legal conflict over custody clearly operates to the benefit of fathers. As we demonstrated in Chapter 3 before divorce mothers are the primary caretakers of children far more often than men. Thus, a 50-50 distribution of outcomes should be considered neither fair nor neutral. Rather, a "fair" distribution of outcomes should reflect differences in the care-taking base rate for mothers and fathers. [S�]Alternatively, suppose that, on the merits, custody claims of mothers were, on the average, no stronger than the claims of fathers. (Imagine a judge going into her chambers and flipping a coin in all contested cases.) The outcome ratios might still vary by conflict level if most mothers simply cared more about the custodial outcomes than most fathers, and were therefore more prepared to escalate the conflict to a higher level rather than settle for less than their preferred custodial alternative. Because it takes time and energy to work one's way up the conflict pyramid, this would imply that only in a small minority of families would the father be prepared to pay the price, even though those who did so might have a 50 percent chance of prevailing. [S�]But one thing does seem reasonably clear: our finding that the gender ratio of custody decrees at the top approaches 50-50 even though the overall ratio among conflicted cases is closer to 2 to 1 in favor of mothers demonstrates neither the presence nor the absence of gender bias.

In order to support the "mothers win/bias against dads" fallacy, fathers' rights advocates lump settlement cases with cases that must be decided by a judge. They don't say that the vast majority of cases (more than 90%) do not appear in front of a judge. Those that did in the Maccoby and Mnookin study accounted for only about 3.7% of the couples examined. A woman who took a class with Professor Mnookin went into detail about the study's findings:

"[I]n the vast majority of these cases, the parties resolved the custody dispute themselves without court adjudication. Prof. Mnookin went over this study in detail, and told us that this same study found that for the actions where the parents needed a court adjudication or settled the case during the custody trial (as opposed to previously coming to a negotiated agreement), the results were roughly 50/50 between the mother and the father - hardly an imbalance in women's (or men's, for that matter) favor! In other words, though fathers may not get custody half the time when they request it, they do get custody half the time when they fight for it."

The irony is that this quote appeared on a very old Men's Issues Page. The woman who wrote it provided additional statistics related to father-custody:

Phyllis Chesler, Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody 66 (1986) (of 60 mothers who had been their children's primary caretakers and whose custody was challenged, 70% lost custody to fathers, "83% of whom had not previously been involved in primary child care, 67% of whom had paid no child support, 62% of whom had physically abused their wives during marriage or divorce, 57% of whom had engaged in anti-mother brainwashing campaigns, and 37% of whom had kidnapped their children") Nancy Polikoff, Why Are Mothers Losing? 7 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 235, 236 (1982) (citing various studies showing father success rates ranging from 38% to 63%)

These additional cites on the same subject are from "Myths and Facts On Fatherhood and Family Law" (located at Liznotes):

"Despite the powerful stereotypes working against fathers, they are significantly more successful than is commonly believed. The Massachusetts [gender bias] task force, for example, reported that fathers receive primary or joint custody in more than 70 percent of contested cases." Schafran, Lynn Hecht, "Gender Bias in Family Courts," American Bar Association Family Advocate, Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 26 Ruth I. Abrams & John M. Greaney, Report of the Gender Bias Study of the Supreme Judicial Court [of Massachusetts] 62-63 (1983), also citing similar finding from California and other parts of the nation. "The various gender bias commissions found that at the trial court level in contested custody cases, fathers won more than half the time.  This is especially significant in light of the fact that not only do fathers win more often in court when they take these cases to trial, but also that an overwhelmingly higher percentage of fathers gain primary custody -- by any means -- than were ever the primary caregiver of their children during marriage.  Statistically, this dashes the argument that 'only the strongest cases are taken to trial,' and in fact indicates an extraordinary bias against mothers and the value of mothering and mothers' work." liznote re the more than 40 state gender bias task force reports. Available from the National Judicial Education Program, 9 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013.

A fathers' rights advocate weakly responded that the reason dads settle is that they are encouraged by their lawyers to weigh the costs of settlement with the costs of litigation. The insinuation is that dads are told that due to rampant court bias against men that they stand no chance of winning, so it's better that they just give up. This is far from true. Both parents had long ago established their respective parenting roles, and mothers most often had acted in the primary caregiving capacity. It's not bias against dads for courts to recognize that it is in the best interests of the children for mom to continue in that capacity upon divorce. Most dads either recognize that relationship from the beginning and agree with mother-custody, or their lawyers try to help them understand how their own choices have played out. A good lawyer will do his or her best to encourage a parent to see the situation as accurately as possible. A good lawyer also recognizes how much children are harmed by endless and malicious custody litigation. Maccoby & Mnookin's research into joint custody has shown how children are harmed in high-conflict cases.

A bad lawyer will encourage a man to contest custody because he "wants it" -- meanwhile taking dad's money to pay for his new jet skis when that money could have gone to supporting the children. Bad dads don't need a lawyer to talk them into fighting for custody. A Florida Bar Journal article pointed out that "abusive fathers are far more likely than nonabusive parents to fight for child custody, not pay child support, and kidnap children."

When a dad requests custody, he doesn't necessarily get it. However, when he fights for it -- as in keeping the mother in an endless, revolving door of litigation -- they get some form of custody at least 50% of the time, even if they had been absent, abusive, neglectful, disinterested until the custody hearing, or simply not the primary parent. The figure for Massachusetts is 70%. This same dynamic was described in Ampersand's excerpt from "Dividing the Child."

When a dad wins custody, that doesn't necessarily mean that he is the best parent for the job. Sometimes he is the best parent for the job -- primary caregiving dads, although rare, deserve custody and they tend to get it. If parents are able to work together, joint custody may be an option, but studies have shown it's not a panacea. There's also the pesky issue of the reduction in child support. Joint custody need be only a low as 35% in some states for the otherwise noncustodial parent to qualify for the reduction. Fathers' rights advocates know this. They have coached each other to fight for joint physical custody to get their child support lowered or eliminated.

There was one factor that Maccoby and Mnookin left out of their argument. It is not only a matter of time and energy to 'work one's way up the conflict pyramid." It's also a matter of money. Fathers much more so than mothers have the financial means to engage in continuous litigation until they get what they want.

Maccoby and Mnookin did not take into consideration that "commentators have long recognized the ugly possibility that, in the face of such costs, a parent might feel constrained to make concessions in the division of marital property or child support in order to avoid the risk of losing custody rights. [Trish's note: This link takes a long time to download.]

The footnote for this statement cited research by Robert Mnookin: "The potential for such tradeoffs was first shown in Robert H. Mnookin & Lewis Kornhauser, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce (1979) ... "The dangers of strategic use of custody rules to disadvantage the parent with the strongest interest in keeping custody was more specifically developed in Scott, supra note 20, at 643-56, which relies on the insights of game theory. The Reporter for chapter 2 acknowledges this "concern" and cites a survey of attorneys in which almost half acknowledged that they had "represented female clients who conceded property rights in order to avoid a child-custody dispute." ... To be sure, one important California study found no evidence of tradeoffs between custody arrangements and child support awards. Maccoby & Mnookin ... Yet, that study does little to undermine the general perception that custody tradeoffs exist, for they would be far more likely to affect marital property and alimony awards than child support amounts - which are generally subject, as in California, to rigid statewide formulas. See id. at 157 (citing child support schedules as "likely" explanation for lack of evidence of strategic behavior). See also Lee E. Teitelbaum, Divorce, Custody, Gender, and the Limits of Law: On Dividing the Child, ... arguing that Maccoby & Mnookin study does not contradict the notion that "bargaining in the shadow of the law" characterizes marital dissolution.

Everything I've posted is the tip of the iceberg. There is much more information about the types of custody awarded and how children are affected by high levels of conflict in their families (suffice to say it's not good). There's just too much to go into in this one post.

[Don't miss Part One - How Fathers' Rights Advocates Misrepresent Child Sexual Abuse Statistics].

posted at 7:00 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

They Finally Admit To Lying: WMDs Were An Excuse To Start The War

Bush officials cited Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction and the threat they posed as the primary reason the U.S. and coalition forces started the war. Saddam spent billions of dollars to manufacture chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons, they said. He must be stopped. Bush officials linked the 9/11 terrorist attacks to Iraq in order to drive this point home, despite the fact that no connection exists between the two. In fact, the terrorists were Saudi -- supposedly our allies.

Paul Wolfowitz lied through his teeth when he said "I've never - you know, apropos of the WMD thing--I can't recall (m)any intelligence assessments that have been as unanimous as the judgment about Iraqi chemical and biological weapons. And even the terrorism one at the end of the day, Tenet spoke to it in that letter he sent to the SASC last fall and obviously Powell spoke to it quite clearly in his talk at the UN, but there have been times when we seem like we're ... or people say, I don't think it's fair actually, but people say that we shouldn't focus so much on WMD. I really do think we've always had all three reasons, together."

Whiskey Bar provides an effective quote-by-quote breakdown of those assessments made by Bush administration officials since August, 2002. We the People have been subjected to the insistence that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" (Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002). Ari Fleischer knew "for a fact that there are weapons there" (January 9, 2003). Project for the New American Century neo-conservative ideologue Robert Kagain boasted that "obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty." So, off to war we went.

More than two months and many deaths later, no weapons have ever been found. Army General Tommy Franks is charged with committing war crimes. Claims include "a failure of U.S. troops to prevent the looting of hospitals after the Saddam's fall and the alleged U.S. bombing of a crowded market in Baghdad, which Iraqi officials claimed killed more than 60 people."

The reason this administration has immersed this country into a war -- and is currently bankrupting us in order to finance it -- has been a lie.

Immediately, the backpedaling began. How convenient that Donald Rumsfeld says that the weapons may never be found because the Iraqis have probably destroyed them. Two trucks have been named by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency as the "strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biowarfare programme." Little attention has been paid to "one former UN inspector said that the trucks would have been a very inefficient way to produce anthrax."

The Pentagon has attacked Vanity Fair for misquoting a statement made by Paul Wolfowitz: "for bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," The Pentagon claims he was taken out of context. What he really said was "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason."

That's grasping at straws. Wolfowitz admitted that, for "bureaucratic reasons," the "core reason" settled on was weapons of mass destruction.

Weapons of mass destruction were a convenience excuse to start the war.

He backpedaled to Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung: "There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually, I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one, which is the connection between the first two."

DeYoung asked him what he meant by "bureaucratic reasons." Here's his reply:

"The truth is, we've always had all three of those reasons, and in fact, if you look at Powell's presentation, there have always been all three. There has been a tendency to emphasize the weapons of mass destruction issue. But, as I said in the fuller quote, the real thing that has concerned the President from the beginning and which I think is even the "axis" that's referred to in the "axis of evil" is the connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. So in a way, that's always been the main thing. But if you look at where the intelligence community tends to go, the issue about weapons of mass destruction has never been in controversy. Whereas there's been a lot of arguing back and forth about how much Iraq is involved in terrorism. At the end of the day, it's actually the connection between the two that was seen as completely different in the light of September 11th."

He never adequately answered her question. She pressed on, asking "But do you think that you might have oversold the whole WMD thing last fall? With the sort of, not only do they have production facilities, they actually have weapons that are ready to be used?" He continued to evade the issue, stating "I don't think so. I mean, I think we were working from, as I told you, one of the most widely shared intelligence assessments I know of."

To whom does Wolfowitz refer when he says "we?" He means the neo-conservative ideologues like himself who head the Bush administration.

The alleged connection between the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Saddam Hussein has been fabricated by neo-conservative ideologues, including Paul Wolfowitz, as a means for providing the Bush administration with a handy excuse to engage in war. The Project for the New American Century outright admitted this in writing on September 20, 2001 -- nine days after the terrorist attacks.(bold emphasis below is mine)

We agree with Secretary of State Powell's recent statement that Saddam Hussein "is one of the leading terrorists on the face of the EarthS�" It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a "safe zone" in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means."

The following neo-conservatives signed PNAC's "Statement of Purpose." This list is populated with high-ranking Bush administration officials, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Let those names sink in. These are the people who are destroying America.

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Impeach Bush now. Get these people out of power before it is too late.

Update: Ampersand quotes IdahoEv, who reminds liberals to "keep their eyes on the prize." Evan is right that liberals should not get caught up in whether or not Iraq had WMD. Don't forget that U. S. companies provided supplies that enabled Iraq to manufacture those weapons in the first place (remember the Iran/Iraq war?). Bechtel was one of those companies. That is not the important issue. What matters is "Bush's contention was that there were many weapons, an active program, and more importantly that those weapons posed a threat either directly or via connections to terrorist groups." Those were the reasons given to sanction the war.

posted at 3:10 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

How Fathers' Rights Advocates Misrepresent Child Sexual Abuse Statistics

Seems Frank at I Protest needs a cyber fly-swatter. A gnat has been filling his comments section with insults and propaganda. I've had my own dealings with this particular gnat over the years. I won't waste my time or yours going into details. He's not worth it. I would like to address misrepresentations about child sexual abuse that have been perpetrated by fathers' right advocates. They do not provide insight and recommendations to combat child sexual abuse when they cite abuse and neglect statistics. They cite them in order to bash feminists and single and divorced mothers.

The women-bashers conveniently neglect to mention that most men, women, stepdads, and men involved with mom do not abuse children at all. They also don't mention that child abuse rates, including those for child sexual abuse, have steadily declined, primarily as a result of increased education and awareness of abuse. According to the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, child sexual abuse cases in the United States dropped 31 percent from 1992 to 1998. Most states showed declines of at least 30 percent.

The Department of Health and Human Services found that 11.3 percent of child abuse victims had been sexually abused. Male parents were identified as "the perpetrators of sexual abuse for the highest percentage of victims."

When Frank wrote "twenty to fifty percent of sexual abuse cases are committed by the male parent or other male blood relative" he had the range correct. Nearly half of the victims has been abused by someone outside the family. This is especially the case if the victim is male. Boys are more likely to be abused by strangers, teachers, and friends than by family members. The falsehood made by Frank's troll that non-family members perpetrate the largest share of child sexual abuse only reinforces the "stranger in a trenchcoat" myth.

Frank was on the right track regarding the male parent or male blood relative as perpetrator, but child abuse statistics can be tricky to decipher because of the way the perpetrator's relationship to the child is broken down. It is not true that biological fathers perpetrate less than 10% of child sexual abuse, as Frank's troll had claimed. "Just over one-fourth" of sexually abused children were abused by a birth parent. Since most perpetrators are male, this means that dads are much more likely to commit incest than moms. Dads perpetrate approximately 25% of child sexual abuse, not less than 10%. In addition, "a sexually abused child was most likely to sustain a serious injury or impairment when a birth parent was the perpetrator." One-fourth of the victims had been abused by someone entrusted with their care who was not a birth parent ("other than a birth parent or parent- substitute"). Since most perpetrators are male, this primarily means male blood relatives, stepdads, and mom's boyfriend.

Fathers' rights advocates don't think things through when they slam mothers with "most sexual abusers are stepdads and the guy mom is shacking up with." Don't they realize that they bash men with that kind of talk? I would think that men's advocates would avoid bashing men, especially if they claim they want to "educate" or "help." Many of these male advocates are noncustodial dads themselves. It's highly unlikely that they view themselves as potential threats to little girls and boys who are not their biological offspring. What if they "shack up with" or marry a woman with children? By their own definitions, they place those children at risk of sexual abuse. If a dad has children with his new woman who has children fathered by other men, will he molest only his stepchildren while being a "responsible father" to his biological children? It's highly doubtful that a man has a molestation switch in his head that he turns on and off, depending on the DNA of the children involved.

The same applies to the female fathers' rights advocates who point fingers at single and divorced moms. When they bash moms for allegedly exposing their children to male predators, they conveniently leave themselves out of the argument. The men they date and marry would never abuse children they've brought into the relationship. God forbid, if they are unfortunate enough to have hooked up with a man who does molest their children, chances are they will be condemned for falsely accusing these "innocent" men of abuse should they attempt to protect their children.

Oh, but that's diffffferent!!!. Only those bitch ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and those lazy and irresponsible single moms place their children in danger. The father's rights view of sexual abuse is full of gaping holes. A close look reveals how conveniently two-faced their arguments are. Divorced and single moms "routinely" expose their children to sexual predators -- unless they are in a relationship with a fathers' rights advocate. If the mom in question is involved with or divorcing a man supportive of the fathers' rights movement, she will be accused of making false allegations of abuse if she claims he had molested the children. After all, according to the fathers' rights party line, false allegations of abuse are "rampant" and moms "routinely" make them to get their way in court. It's a vicious circle, with all scenarios favoring the fathers' rights advocate.

In their zeal to denigrate single and divorced mothers, they malign men, especially dads. Status as stepdad or "mom's boyfriend" does not translate to "will molest her children." Robin Fretwell Wilson's report "Children At Risk: The Sexual Exploitation of Female Children After Divorce" cited dysfunction such as "gender, marital conflict, parental attachment, paternal overprotection, and parental alcoholism" as well as "conflicted parent-child relationships, parental substance or alcohol abuse, and emotional instability" as being associated with increased risk of molestation. This report also pointed out that "stepparents have positive effects on children's well being. They not only provide emotional support, they also provide additional financial support."

We can churn statistics until the sun explodes. Fathers' rights advocates who blame mothers do nothing to increase awareness about child sexual abuse. They do not provide valid discourse or solutions. "Children At Risk" addressed a very important concern ignored by the mom-bashers:

The absence of either parent, not the father alone, increases the risk of child molestation. Of the few studies in existence about children in father-custody households, 58% of girls younger than 18 are shown to be at risk in father-headed households when the mother is absent for a period of time during their childhood. Finkelhorn has concluded that "missing a mother is the most damaging kind of disruption." The mother's death has also been predictive of child sexual abuse by someone outside the family, in part due to her lack of supervision of the child.

This does not mean that dads with custody will molest their children. It does not mean that custodial moms willingly place their children at risk. It means that sexual predators seek out single and divorced parents of both genders. Studies have shown that single and divorced parents are frequently unaware of the risks associated with predators who feed on their vulnerabilities. It has been shown that education and awareness of abuse has resulted in today's lower rates of all forms of child abuse, including child sexual abuse. Rather than bash mothers, one proven way to combat child sexual abuse is to increase the education and abuse awareness of the population most vulnerable to the exploitation of their children -- single and divorced parents of both genders.

I'm glad that Frank has decided to no longer respond to the troll. I agree with him that the troll is "pathetic." Life's too short to deal with bloglodytes.

posted at 12:59 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

May 29, 2003

Yippee-Kay-Yay!!!!

Alas, A Blog is finally back.

posted at 7:30 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Getting to the Bottom of the Museum Looting in Iraq

Senior UNESCO official Mounir Bouchenaki led the team on a four day mission in Baghdad that attempted to assess the damage to the archeological museum, the national library, the archives, and other key sites after the city was looted.

A member of that team, John Russell, dean of the Massachusetts College of Art, spoke at a press conference on May 19. He disagreed with UNESCO chief Kiochiro Matsuura, who said that "only hundreds of items were stolen from the museum in Baghdad, rather than the tens of thousands first thought." Russell said that it will be a matter of "months if not a year or more" to inventory the contents of the storage rooms. Some of the treasures may be inside of a flooded vault at the Central Bank."It is a big mistake to heave a sigh of relief and say it is not so bad. It is bad enough. It is not time for complacency," Russell said. "Major monuments are known to be gone, the captions in the art history books will have to be rewritten," he added.

This underplay is what Jeanne at Body and Soul meant by the "it was only 25 pots" lie. I agree with her statements: "It won't be as bad as it first seemed, thank God, but it won't be as minimal as some American officials suggested either. That's important to remember, because some right-wingers are already attempting to keep the "it was only 25 pots" lie going. And while no sane person could suggest that the reports of looting turned out to be "wrong, not just in point of fact, but wrong in every way a report can be wrong" -- Christopher Hitchens did."

It's definitely not a minor loss as portrayed by the right wing and U. S. officials. While "tens of thousands" of artifacts may not be lost, UNESCO'S first evaluation indicated that "2,000 to 3,000 objects may be missing from the National Museum in Baghdad alone and that the entire contents of the National Library are lost beyong retrieval. In addition, more than 1,500 modern paintings and sculptures from the city's Museum of Fine Arts are still missing and only 400 have been recovered." The Inter Press News Agency, stated much the same thing, as well as the astounding news that U. S. occupying forces had denied Jean-Marie Armoult from the Bibliotheque National de France a visa to participate in the UNESCO mission -- because he is French, and France opposed the war.

Scholars at The Oriental Institute are "compiling a comprehensive database of missing artifacts. The database is categorized by material and type. The objects appearing on the database are known to have been in the Baghdad Museum or in other provincial museums. Their status is unknown. Their appearance on the database does not mean that they have been stolen.

Here is Interpol's list objects that may have been stolen. Interpol posted an earlier list of stolen Iraq art.

Looted artifacts aren't the only losses that may be experienced by Iraq. The ancient settlement of Ashur is threatened by the construction of a huge dam that Saddam Hussein's government began work on two years ago. If construction is completed as scheduled in 2006, "Ashur would turn into a few muddy islands poking up from the reservoir. Statuary, libraries of cuneiform tablets, and hundreds of unexcavated buidling wlil melt into mud if the plan goes forward." The problem is that the dam would bring water, electricity, and jobs to Baghdad. Turkish dams have cut off water farther upstream, leaving the citizens of Baghdad with low water levels at the Tigris.

Archeology.org's page "Taking Stock in Baghdad" provides regular updates about the search for missing and stolen objects and other Iraqi-related archeological news.

posted at 7:10 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Shitting and Pissing in the Blogosphere

I hope this isn't a new trend, like cat-blogging. Cat-blogging is cute. This is just plain gross. It also seems to be a guy thing.

Gut Rumbles is posting about the time he shit his pants. I am not making this up. That may explain why he calls his blog "Gut Rumbles." Yuck. He seems proud of this feat. I bet he can belch the alphabet, too. I read more of his blog. This guy got up on the wrong side of the century. He hates women. He hates cats. He loathes feminists. He seem to be the type who lives for Monster Truck rallies. I bet he has a beer can collection.

Of course, he's a right-wing, self-proclaimed Cracker. What a surprise!

I'm a feminist.I'm a woman. I am owned by six cats. I bet he'd hate me.

Anton is pissing himself. I think he has too much time on his hands. Either that or he dipped into the Ripple a little too much. Here's what's got him beside himself:

Well, actually no. I wouldn't do something like that. Actually, yeah, I could...or rather maybe I did but forgot...on purpose. OK, you got me. I have pissed myself. I don't remember when. I really don't but when I do, I'll admit it. I've never shit myself though. Well, maybe a little, little bit, but sure as hell not as bad as he did. But I almost pissed myself today because his post was so darn funny. The guy should shit himself everyday, I need the laugh.

He's talking about Gutrumbles' post. He thinks its funny. I guess you have to be there to appreciate it. Whatever.

posted at 12:14 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Dean Esmay is Host for Carnival of the Vanities This Week

He included the link to a post I submitted. This is the first time I ever participated in Carnival of the Vanities. Go see the rest of the submissions. They're quite good.

posted at 10: 47 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

"Bruce Almighty" Asshat Viewers Make Phone Calls To God

Wanda Walker is pissed.

She has been inundated with prank phone calls from people who saw the Jim Carrey film, "Bruce Almighty."

They call asking if she is God.

Some are just curious and she's nice enough to them. Others have been pests. She said people have been calling her constantly, asking stupid questions like, "Are you God?" She snaps back "What do you think?" Sometimes she'll just hang up. For the people who keep calling her over and over again, she'll slam the receiver against her counter. I guess she's never heard of blowing a police whistle to render the idiot temporarily deaf.

Walker isn't the only person stuck with God's telephone number. The Saint-Louis Post-Dispatch explained: "In the movie, God endows a TV newsman played by Carrey with divine powers. God's phone number pops up repeatedly on the newsman's pager whenever the Lord tries to summon him. The movie uses the very real phone exchange of "776," tossing aside the film convention of using "555" as a harmless, bogus one."

I feel sorry for the woman whose cell phone has been jammed with crank calls. She has to pay for them. She's threatened to sue Universal Pictures for the mess.

I hope she wins.

posted at 10: 42 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

May 27, 2003

Dr. Richard Gardner, Who Coined "Parental Alienation Syndrome," Has Died

Father's rights and false allegations of abuse groups are passing around notices that Richard Gardner died suddenly this past Sunday. One was forwarded to me by a child welfare advocate. PAS is not recognized as a valid syndrome by the American Medical Association. Despite that fact, PAS and more generalized versions of "alienation" continue to be used against mothers in divorce, custody, and visitation cases.

For more about PAS, please visit this page on my web site. I include links to numerous articles.

Richard Gardner's "Parental Alienation Syndrome" - Resources for Mothers Who are Charged With Junk Science

posted at 6:26 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Definitely Worth A Look

Republicans Flaunt The Rules

Jeanne at Body and Soul links to a New York Times opinion about how Republicans flaunt the rules in a blatant grab for power.

U. S. Pays Offshore Firms One Billion Dollars

Companies which have moved offshore to avoid paying US taxes are making a billion dollars a year from US government contracts, an Associated Press investigation has found," per Frank's post at I Protest. Check this out: "Democrats in the US Senate have twice tried to stop such companies from getting contracts with the new Department of Homeland Security, but each time their amendments to budget bills have been blocked by Republicans."

What a surprise.

Frank asks: "One might wonder about the relationship those Senate Republicans might have with the companies involved."

Good question.

Charles Pickering Pities Racist

Charles Pickering goes to bat for a cross-burner at Talk Left.. TalkLeft rightly points out that "It's not whether the defendant deserved a seven year sentence. It's that the Judge apparently tried to subvert the system to enforce his own views in an individual case. That's the very kind of judicial activism that the Democrats have been complaining about. We need judges who will uphold the law even when they disagree with it." The comments section includes remarks by several people who claim that racism is not at issue here. Baloney. Defendent Swan, with hs buddy Branch, "built a cross six feet across and eight feet high and doused it with fuel, all the while using racial epithets." Swan's explanation? "I was just pulling a prank. I wasn't meaning anything by it." That's the same as telling a woman who gets outraged and upset over being called a bow-legged cunt bitch that she has no sense of humor for not being able to take a joke.

More on this at Silver Rights.

Gore Vidol on 9/11, The 2000 Presidential Election, and the War in Iraq

Gore Vidal, as usual, doesn't mince words when it comes to "The United States of Amnesia," via Cursor. He was interviewed on NPR awhile back and discussed the Project for the New American Century.

posted at 5:34 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

What's A Nice Feminist Like You Doing Watching Stuff Like This?!??

Pop that popcorn and open that box of Sno-Caps! I've become a huge fan of new-wave Asian horror cinema. Everyone already knows about "The Ring," which was remade for American audiences. "Ring" is the movie that brought Asian horror cinema the most attention. I've seen more than my share of these movies. They are hard to find. eBay has them. If you purchase them, make sure they are compatible with your DVD player. In America, that means "All Code" or "Region 0." If the film is "Region 3," you won't be able to play it without a Region 3 DVD player. I'm not sure how this works for a VCR, since I buy DVDs. For maximum enjoyment, watch them in the original language with English subtitles.

If you're interested, here are some recommendations:

The Ring Trilogy -- "Ring 2" begins where "The Ring" leaves off. I'd recommend watching the Japanese version of "Ring" before watching "Ring 2" to keep track of character names and some minor differences from the American version. "Ring 0," the prequel, was okay but not one of my favorites. It helped explain the history of the characters, notably Sadako (the "ghost"). There are two more "Ring" films in this series but I have not seen them.

Uzumaki (Spiral) -- Based on the manga by the same name. The residents of a small coastal town become obsessed with spirals. This is a very wierd and kooky movie but it's loads of fun. It's my favorite, even over "Ring."

Dark Water -- This one is currently being remade for American audiences. Very spooky tale about a divorced mother and her daughter who move into a fallen-down apartment building full of creepy puddles of water, creepier water stains on the ceiling that won't go away, and glances of the creepiest little girl in a yellow rain slicker. Excellent film. I'm curious to see how the remake handles it.

Kourei (Seance) -- Remake of the classic film "Seance on a Wet Afternoon." This one is more of a murder mystery than a horror movie. Quite good.

Audition -- Lesson for all: Guys, if your idea of a perfect wife is a woman who is "beautiful, classy, and obedient," you'll get what you deserve. Especially if you set up a fake audition for a movie without telling the women the "audition" is nothing more than your personal meat market. This one is slow, but the ending had me crawling up the back of my chair!! I still cringe when I think of her whispering ki-ti, ki-ti, ki-ti, ki-ti, ki-ti . I found this one at Blockbuster.

Tomie -- Another movie based on manga. This movie should win the award for "The Most Incoherent Subtitles Ever Made." Through all the confusion, it's possible to figure out the plot, which is about several murders of schoolgirls who have the same name -- Tomie Kawakami. Are they the same woman? I can't say more without giving away the story. It's interesting, despite screwy subtitles like two schoolgirls saying "Are you irrational? I'm not irrational!" You might want to watch the other movies before tackling this one.

Tell Me Something -- Korean shocker about a series of dismemberment murders of men who are tied in some way to Chae Su-Yeon. She dated each of them over the years. What's even loopier is that the body parts are mixed-and-matched -- they aren't from the same person. I will never look at green plastic garbage bags sitting on the side of the highway in quite the same way ever again. I found the ending confusing and disappointing, and so did some other fans of the genre. This one can be rented at Blockbuster.

The Eye -- Chinese gem about a blind woman whose successful corneal transplant gives her more "sight" than she bargained for. To steal the line from "The Sixth Sense," she "sees dead people." She searches for information about the cornea donor. The movie handles the story in a very creative and satisfying fashion.

Another Heaven -- Odd series of murders in which the victims brains go missing. Some bizarre, humorous moments throughout, especially regarding cooking. Fangoria liked this one. I found it at Blockbuster.

Kairo (Pulse) -- I would love to see this, but I cannot find a version I can play on my DVD player. So far, all I've seen are Region 3 DVDs.I haven't found it on tape - - yet. I hear it's one of the best in the genre, even better than "Ring." This one is similar to "Ring," but it involves a series of mysterious deaths and disappearances that are linked to visiting an Internet web site. The screen asks "do you want to see a real ghost?" and then the fun begins. Sound familiar? That's right, it's been remade in the U. S. into that crashing bore "Fear.Dot.Com," which apparently doesn't do the original justice. I hear Kairo is fantastic, but I can't find a copy of it. Someday I will...

posted at 5:34 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

I Should Have Taken The Blue Pill

I have been sick with the flu for nearly a week now. I also have an article deadline today. That's why I didn't post on Memorial Day.

I saw Matrix Reloaded on Sunday. I liked it, although I didn't like it as much as the first one. The Matrix Revolutions, due out in time for the Christmas holidays, should fill in the holes left in the second.

One thing is for sure: It's safe to say that Keanu Reeves has completely shed his "Bill and Ted" persona once and for all. Excellent!

I doubt I'd really need to warn everyone that I may give away the plot since so many have already seen it, but here goes anyway, just in case....

SPOILER ALERT!!!!

*

*

*

*

Okay. You've been warned.

This is going to sound odd, but my favorite character is Agent Smith. Neither movie is complete without hearing Agent Smith sneer "Hello, Mr. Anderson." Half the fun is that I have a hard time imagining him wearing anything other than a dress that looks like a crystal chandelier, all lit up.





I wondered how many of the millions of Agent Smiths jettisoned through the matrix ended up as some idiot's e-mail attachment? Agent_Smith.exe. Ha! He had much more fun kicking the piss out of Neo.

One thing that bothered me was that the women in the movie (aside of the Oracle) seemed to exist only to pine for the men who are busy saving the human race. Trinity could hold her own, but her main focus as defined by the script was being Neo's main squeeze. The big scene for Persephone, played by Malena's Monica Bellucci, was her kiss with Neo. Most of her "acting" was done by her breasts. I wished Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith) appeared more in the movie. A strong character, she had much potential over and above the tug-of-war for her affections between Morpheus and Commander Lock. Likewise for Zee, originally to be played by Aaliyah before she died. Nona Gaye got the part. She was interesting but not in the movie enough.

While the women pined, the men pontificated. There was a little too much philosoblather that, in my opinion, slowed the pace. Only the French can make an existential action movie (not counting Ronin. John Frankenheimer was a fan of French existential action film director, Jean-Pierre Melville.)

You may find it hard to believe that I liked it, but I did. I wanted a popcorn movie. One where I could park my flu at the door, sit back, and have a good time. That's what I did.

How many of you who already saw the movie sat through the long list of credits to catch the easter egg at the end? Not many? That's what I thought. For those who have no clue what I'm talking about, an easter egg is an inside-joke secret inserted into a movie, a video game, a DVD, a television show, etc. In an earlier post, I described one that appeared in CSI: Miami. Following what seemed like days of credits was the trailer for Matrix Revolutions. If you missed it and would like to see it, it's here.

posted at 8:59 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

May 25, 2003

Let's Hear It For The French!

I must admit that I rooted for the French when so-called patriotic Americans called them "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" due to their opposition to the Bush administration's warmongering. Now I have another reason for liking the French.

We Americans have long pondered why the French seem to be in much better physical shape than us, despite their love for cream-laden dishes, butter, red wine, scrumptious pastries, and fast food. France's obesity rate today tops 10 percent. The American rate is three times that.

The difference may be in a century of French state programs such as the puericulture movement, which focused on improving prenatal and maternal health. According to an article by the International Herald Tribune (IHT), at the heart of these programs is knowing when, where, and how much to eat. Today, puericulture and not red wine is believed to be behind the low rates of cardio-vascular disease and obesity in France. IHT described puericulture as follows:

"By far the most effective advocate was Augusta Moll-Weiss, who wrote books about home economics that were considered definitive. For Moll-Weiss, the key to good childhood health was parental control of the table. Children, she insisted, should always eat at set times. Portions should be moderate; seconds were out of the question. Snacking was forbidden. Virtually every young French child was raised based on her advice.

Such boundary-setting continues today. Simply put, the state regulates the excesses of modern life. You will not find Coca-Cola in a French middle school."

That's very true. Idlewords posted examples French and American school lunch menus in March. French children were treated to grilled fish with lemon, sauteed chicken with mustard, and cucumber salad with herbs.

What were American children served? A Zweigel's hot dog, Tyson's chicken fingers, and a double cheeseburger with Fritos. What I found especially interesting was the heavy corporate presence in American children's school lunches. It seemed to be much more important to make money for Zweigel or Tyson than it was to ensure children received a well-balanced diet. This isn't surprising, coming from the country whose former president, Ronald Reagan, tried to pass off catsup as a vegetable for federal school lunch programs.

posted at 11:35 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

The Fathers' Rights Movement

I just found Frank's blog, I Protest, and I like it very much. I discovered him during the back-and-forth blog banter about the Seattle teacher who called a kid a "nigger." He visited my web site, The Women's Network, and discovered The Fathers' Rights Movement: In Their Own Words, from Liznotes. He was understandably nauseated at what he found there. He wrote:

Reading these quotes, one would think that feminism is responsible for every ill known to man, from athlete's foot to dandruff, from Stalinism to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany in the 1930's. These men (and I use the term very loosely) defend pedophilia and child molestation, advocate repealing the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage), literally advocate the death of feminists and call any woman who might have the temerity to disagree with them a "slut" or a "feminazi," or worse. I just wonder what they would call me? Probably something like "a traitor to my sex." But better to be called a traitor than to be a traitor to my own humanity.

It seems we had visited similar Usenet groups that were populated with the sort of flukeworms that denigrated women and feminists as described above. I wish those views were held only by fringe groups, but they are not.

The "fatherlessness" garbage they rant about has influenced modern welfare reform. The Department of Health and Human Services had enlisted fathers' rights groups with those same noxious views in reviewing welfare reform programs and policies, in particular the Responsible Fatherhood initiatives. The propaganda circulated by these groups has negatively impacted family law, making life very difficult for women and children. They have tied up courts and legislators with demands for joint custody (or "shared parenting") and the submission of bogus expert medical testimony and punitive "friendly parent" provisions that discriminate against mothers.

Frank's visceral reaction to the "In Their Own Words" pages was understandable, since he admitted that he had been molested as a child. I've addressed pedophilia and some "experts" who are sympathetic to the fathers' rights movement in earlier blog posts: here and here. This was during the time Michael Jackson was in the news for admitting that he slept with boys.

I agree with Frank that the abusive, control-freak type of men who overwhelmingly populate the more noxious father's rights groups (or at the very least support the movement's agenda) do not get custody of their children because they are not good fathers. That said, I feel it necessary to state that most fathers do not get custody of their children, but it is not because they are not good dads. It's because the mothers most often had long ago established themselves as the primary caregiving parent. 90% of divorces settle out of court. Most dads recognize the parental roles already established, and agree that mom should have custody upon divorce. Courts also tend to recognize the roles both parents had freely chosen, and rule in a similar manner. It isn't a matter of courts discriminating against fathers. It's about parenting roles men and women choose while together, living their lives, and raising their children.

Despite the way the majority of divorces are handled, the small percentage of dads who make custody an issue in court get some form of it more than half the time, even if they had been absent, abusive, neglectful, or simply not the primary caregiver. These dads do not get custody because they are the best parent for the job. They get it because they demanded it, and their ex's did not have the financial means to fight back in court. The court reform movement works to stop that kind of power inequity from destroying the lives of primary caregiving mothers and their children. If dads want custody or if they want to "share" the parenting of their children upon divorce, they must work towards bona-fide, equally shared parenting or primary caregiving from the moment their children are born, not years later in a courtroom.

posted at 10:33 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Poor Donald Rumsfeld (a.k.a. General Tommy Franks Is Retiring Amid War Crimes Charges)

In response to my earlier post about Gen. Tommy Franks retiring, J. at Silver Rights doubts that he "all that marketable to the general public. As the details of the Iraqi invasion leak out and the occupation goes from bad to worse, the illusion of a heroic war is going to fade. I believe that is already starting to happen."

I agree that as the illusion of a heroic war fades, Franks may become less marketable to the general public. The war crimes charges certainly don't improve his marketability quotient. I see another issue at play here as well: Franks isn't the only military official turning his back on Donald Rumsfeld.

It seems that Rumsfeld has some difficulty filling key military positions. I recall that Tommy Franks was not Rumsfeld's first choice to head U. S. Central Command, but I don't remember who he preferred or why. There were ideological differences between the two that chafed Rumsfeld. If any bloggers who are reading this can provide via e-mail more information, or tell me that I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to post it.

Apparently, Franks was not Rumsfeld's first choice for the Army's Chief of Staff position, either. Current vice chief of staff, Gen. John Keane, turned it down. Yes, I know it's normal to go through several people before a position is filled, but Rumsfeld has the added disadvantage that he is not particularly well-liked. Case in point: current Army chief of staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, whose term ends in June. Shinseki has been on Rumsfeld's shit list for going over his head to President Bush and Congress in stating that "several hundred thousand forces" would be necessary to stabilize Iraq after a war.

CNN reported that on April 25, Rumsfeld fired Secretary of the Army Thomas White, the latest in his efforts to downsize the Army and replace key positions with his hand-selected people. Reuters stated that White handed in his resignation.

White had his own personal baggage -- he was vice-chairman of Enron Power Corp. In 2001, White wanted private contractors to run energy utilities on military bases. He told Associated Press that he saw "no reason whatsoever why the Army is in the energy business." I can see why -- he became independently wealthy as vice-chair. He resigned "after controversies over his role in the failed energy trader Enron Corp. and support for an artillery system killed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

CNN's Robert Novak reported that "Rumsfeld is forcing a thinner Army, and does not want a service secretary allied with "dinosaur" generals backing "heavy" forces with plenty of armor and artillery. That makes Rumsfeld unpopular with Army generals, but they are not alone. He has antagonized other services' officers, senators and House members, Secretary Colin Powell and his State Department colleagues, Pentagon journalists and even White House aides. Only the people idolize Rumsfeld as a victorious war minister, pushing his popular appeal over 70 percent."

High-ranking Pentagon officials despise Rumsfeld. I recall watching a 60 Minutes segment in which a Pentagon official had severely criticized Rumsfeld's approach to the war in Iraq. Rumsfeld listened to his civilian advisors (most notably Project for the New American Century buddy Paul Wolfowitz) and ignored the experienced leaders in the Pentagon. The general high-ranking consensus was that Rumsfeld had underestimated the manpower and supplies necessary for the troops to do their jobs. Rumsfeld was concerned with the bottom-line; he ran the war as if it were a business. He did not take into account the unpredictable nature of war. The Pentagon knew how grossly misinformed that view was. A Salt Lake Tribune article provided more detail. "Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Eric Shinseki went over the secretary's head and complained to President Bush that Rumsfeld had not allocated the requested ground troops to conduct operations in Iraq. As a result, the 60,000 combat troops fighting in Iraq were held up and an additional 140,000 troops had to be rushed to the region so the offensive could continue. Shinseki was right, but Rumsfeld dodged the bullet, disingenuously claiming all had gone according to Gen. Tommy Franks' plan."

Enron. War crimes charges. Testosterone-fueled territorial pissing. The fading illusion of a heroic war. It's obvious why Rumsfeld is having such a hard time filling in those slots. Cripe, even his own German relatives want nothing to do with him. It's all one great big vicious circle, and the world will remain trapped in it until something is done to remove these people from power.

posted at 9:00 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

May 23, 2003

The AIDS Bill: All Talk And No Substance

Jeanne at Body and Soul suspected that the AIDS bill the Senate passed last week sounded better than it really was, and she was right. She wrote:

[S]tudies by two think tanks concluded that other "increases" in funding for development aid are also playing hide-and-seek. As in the case of the money for AIDS prevention and treatment, Bush announced an impressive program, then made an actual commitment to only a fraction of the amount announced.

The Bush administration has a poor history when it comes to combatting AIDS. Despite lofty pronouncements during his State of the Union Address, White House budget director Mitch Daniels had already persuaded Bill Frist to reduce global AIDS relief 60% in June, 2002. Frist was the one who originally proposed at least $500 million in relief, but at the last minute before voting, following pressure from Republicans and the White House, he scaled back his own plan.

Don't forget conservative Christian activist Jerry Thacker who stepped down from consideration for a post on Bush's presidential advisory panel on AIDS for stating that AIDS is a "gay plague" and that the gay lifestyle is a "deathstyle."

posted at 7:36 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Another One Bites The Dust

What's going on here? Why are so many Bush appointees bailing out?

Ari Fleischer is going bye-bye. Christine Todd Whitman is leaving her EPA post to "spend time with her family." Now, Karmalized has a link to news that Army General Tommy Franks has decided to retire after turning down an offer to serve as the Army's chief of staff. Franks plans to do the talk show/book tour circuit. Yesterday, "Secretary of the Army Thomas E. White abruptly resigned without explanation after a meeting with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz." Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki and Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John Keane are due to retire shortly. The vacancies will clear the way for Donald Rumsfeld to hand-pick leaders.

One reason Franks is retiring could be that he is facing war crimes charges. Claims against Franks include "a failure of U.S. troops to prevent the looting of hospitals after the Saddam's fall and the alleged U.S. bombing of a crowded market in Baghdad, which Iraqi officials claimed killed more than 60 people."

posted at 6:45 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Archeologists Find Six Bodies At Stonehenge

No, it's not a multiple murder. The remains are that of four adults and two children who are believed to have lived around 2300 B.C. They were found about a half mile from the remains of a Bronze Age archer unearthed last year.

posted at 10:04 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

You Named The Rat Basil???

A Manchester UK cafe has based itself on one of my favorite Brit-coms, Fawlty Towers. Owner and Fawlty Towers fan Phil Wood bought the cafe four months ago and called it Fawlty's. Apparently, patrons who also enjoy the show go expecting to be abused. Wood says "We do all kinds of daft stuff. This guy came in with a shopping bag today so I went over and searched it to check he hadn't brought in his own sandwiches. He loved it, he absolutely loved it." The cafe has become so popular that "now people come in expecting me to jump around like some frenetic grasshopper."

If I ever make it over there, I hope it's the day Wood and his staff cart the dead guest in and out of the kitchen. Or he leaves a moose head at the main desk that seems to say "I can speak English! I learned it in a book!"

posted at 9:58 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

For Those Sending Me E-mail...

I am temporarily unable to access my adelphia.net mail because my laptop is being repaired. For the time being, please send (or forward mail to my adelphia address) to my AOL address: Asherah@aol.com

Sorry 'bout the inconvenience.

posted at 6:45 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

Blog Controversy Over The Use Of The N-Word

For anyone who has spent the last week commingling with the little birdies in their blooming spring gardens and not keeping up with the news, a Seattle high school teacher has been suspended with pay after allegedly calling a student a "nigger." The teacher, Brian Emanuels, had reacted to a student calling a class exercise "gay," a word which sometimes is used as an aspersion against homosexuals. In this case, the student apparently meant "uncool." Emanuels tried to show the student, who is black, the error of his ways by removing him from the classroom so that they could discuss the matter. Following the conversation, as the student walked back into the class, he said "This n- - - - - can come back in the classroom." The NAACP has stepped in and urged that Emanuels be fired and that Seattle Public Schools revisit the anti-harassment policy.

Blogger reaction has run the gamut from Stefan Sharansky (Shark Blog) saying "Emanuels' use of the N-word was not meant to harass anybody, but was merely a clumsy attempt to teach a lesson in tolerance," to J. at SilverRights calling Sharansky a bigot for "applauding a teacher who called an African-American student a 'nigger.' Twice." J. also comments here, here, and here. I hope I haven't missed any.

I'm ashamed to admit this, but initially I had sided with Sharansky. I have heard teenagers, especially teenaged boys, describe something they don't like as "gay." This is rather common usage today. They think they aren't offending anyone. Despite their claims that they are not slurring gay people, the negative connotation of that word remains, especially when they refer to things and people they view as sissified. I did not approve of the way Emanuels had handled the situation, but I understood his point. He had tried to make an analogy the student would understand.

Upon further consideration. I've changed my mind. I was wrong.

Emanuels is a white and solidly middle class. He had worked for fifteen years in computer product development and management for Microsoft. Two years ago, he gave up his lucrative career to teach computer science to poor high school kids. He has never been at the receiving end of the N-word, nor can he appreciate the full impact of what it means. He does not comprehend the power imbalance that already exists in comparing his life to his student's lives. He is the Great White Savior placating the savages that has its roots in Albert Schweitzer's patronizing attitude towards his patients in Africa, as described by J. at SilverRights.

I don't agree with Frank at I Protest that "gay" is "hardly worth consideration, let alone punishment." By his own admission, he's not around adolescents at all. I am. I've seen how they use that term, and I find it offensive. One thing critics of the slur "gay" do not always consider is that the word debases the feminine. Not only is it offensive to gays, it negatively impacts girls. Anything "girly" is also likely to be viewed as "gay," and not in a good way. I believe the use of that word encourages those who use it (and those who suffer at the receiving end of it) to devalue girls and women. That said, I agree with Frank that using "nigger" was a disproportionate response. "Nigger" it offensive and racist beyond par, and most inappropriate to use in a classroom regardless of the intent Emanuels had in using it.

Barry at Alas, A Blog took this view a step farther and questioned Emanuels's competence and judgment as a teacher. Not only that, how the school system responds will set a precedent for how the school reacts to racist incidents in the future. Barry wrote:

The problem is, how the school system responds to this incident won't just effect Emanuels; it sets a precedent for how the school acts in the future. What happens when the next teacher disparagingly refers to a black student as a "nigger," and claims that his intentions were good, too? It's important - hell, it's essential - that any teacher who acts as Emanuels did be put through hell and back.

Does it seem unfair that a well-meaning teacher faces punishment, and might even lose his job? Consider this: teachers can - and should - be fired and hired based on many things in addition to their intentions. Let's continue assuming that Emanuels meant well: What does it say about his competence and judgment as a teacher, that he called a black student "nigger"? I'd say that's a demonstration of stunning incompetence; and there's nothing wrong with disciplining incompetent teachers, regardless of their alleged good intentions.

Bartcop posted a letter from a reader who brought up a controversial episode of "Boston Public," which in some ways mirrors Emanuels' situation. The reader wrote:

I used to think like you regarding the word "nigger." I felt that so long as using it serves to illustrate how profoundly offensive the term is, it is justified to discuss it. That is until I saw an episode of "Boston Public" where a white teacher was having a class discussion regarding the word. I was on the white teacher's side of the conflict, until towards the end where Marla (a black teacher) said that until any person is on the receiving end of that term in its most negative connotation, no one can know the true meaning of the word and how hateful that word truly is. Spike Lee, in an ironic twist, hinted that white folks who have the best of intentions "have not earned the right to say it." I don't know about that; but there truly is a difference between an African American saying it derogatorily, and a white man saying it with the best of intentions.

The word is offensive in any context because of the baggage attached to it.

In February, 2002, Lycos and Fox Television sponsored a two hour online discussion following the "Boston Public" episode. In the episode, which I watched, white teacher Danny Hanson and his class discussed the use of the word "nigger," a discussion that caused a ruckus between the other teachers (notably black teacher Marla Hendricks), the principal, and some parents. The word-of-mouth about the episode inspired protest before it had even aired. In response, Lycos and Fox Television sponsored the online discussion. Participants included Darnell M. Hunt, PhD, and Lecia J. Brooks. Dr. Hunt is the Director of the Center for African American Studies and Professor of Sociology at UCLA. Lecia J. Brooks is the Director of Special Projects for the National Conference for Community and Justice - Los Angeles Region, and is currently serving as co-chair for the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations' Network Against Hate Crime.

Dr. Hunt noted the disproportionate impact of "gay" vs. "nigger." He stated the following:

"[G]ay" probably doesn't mean the same thing for most people today that it did in the 1950s. But the "N-word" is another matter altogether. It has played such an important role in marking the subordination of blacks in our nation's racial hierarchy that its utterance will have a major impact on Americans until racial inequality is a distant memory. In other words, it will be controversial well into the foreseeable future." Not only is the term an insult, it is "meant to empower the person who uses it against a Black target. In a way, it affirms the superiority of whiteness over blackness."

The power imbalance played out in the "Boston Public" episode in scenes between white teacher Hansen and principal Stephen Harper, who is black. These scenes would not have had the same impact had both teacher and principal been white. At first, Hansen came across as the good guy for doing his best to teach his students, and his superior Harper and especially teacher Marla Hendricks seemed to stand in his way. It was the reasonable "White Savior" pitted against emotionally-based criticism. Dr. Hunt elaborated:

"It seemed as if the teacher was being established as the "hero" of the episode against the principal who was trying to get in his way of teaching it. You have this exchange set up between the teacher and the principal whereby it seemed the teacher's positions were based on reason and logic, and the principal's position was based on emotion. And the episode never really resolved it, because we don't get to see how the discussion unfolds. Unfortunately, this juxtaposition between reason, logic vs. emotion echoes a longstanding "understanding" between fundamental differences between whites and blacks. Where whites represent the intellectual and Blacks the emotional."

Dr. Hunt said "the thing we often overlook in the post-civil rights era, is that racism isn't just about attitudes. And it isn't just about the actions of individuals. Racism has everything to do with group relations, it has everything to do with a dominant group systematically taking advantage of a subordinate group. And if you look at data from our most recent census, you'll see that there are still important elements of this systemic domination in place today."

I feel a little uncomfortable discussing this issue because I'm white. I've never been called a "nigger." The closest I've come to a term as bigoted as that one is when I've been called a "cunt." "Cunt," while vicious and hateful, does not have the historic connotation and the air of superiority inherent in "nigger." I agree that I could not possibly know the full, hateful meaning of that word because I am not in a position to be harmed by it, therefore it is not my place to "educate." I have found this entire discussion very valuable personally. I chose to participate because I've learned a great deal from it.

posted at 9:32 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

May 21, 2003

Another Rat Leaving A Sinking Ship?

Christine Todd Whitman is right behind Ari, stepping on the backs of his steel-toed loafers and kicking him in the shins. Hesiod at Counterspin announced that, effective on June 27, she will resign as administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. She says she's leaving to "spend time with her family."

UPDATE: Daily Kos is much crankier than I am. One possible replacement is Josephine Cooper, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Kos wrote:

Ha ha! Why not really say "fuck it" and nominate the president of the American Association of Corporate Polluters to head the Agency?

Indeed.

posted at 1:13 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

More Corporate Palm-Greasing - MCI/WorldCom Gets Iraq Contract

The Agonist bulletin board heaps scorn upon MCI/WorldCom for winning the bid to rebuild Iraq's mobile phone network.

Remember WorldCom? Remember the $9 billion in inflated revenues? The loss of pension funds? The layoffs?

Most people call that fraud.

Rather than recommend a chapter 7 filing, the SEC allowed WorldCom to settle, paying shareholders $500 million.

Mitch Marcus, founder of Boycott MCI/WorldCom, told The Register that this was a "slap on the wrist":

"The SEC had the opportunity here to recommend that WorldCom/MCI be liquidated through Chapter 7, as opposed to smoothly running the gauntlet via Chapter 11, and/or recommend that the Department of Justice commense criminal proceedings. The SEC dropped the ball and forced state Attorneys General to step in and take the tough, no-nonsense steps that the federal government should have in the first place...   "Nonetheless, the settlement sends a very strong message to the General Services Administration (GSA).  If the GSA debarred  Arthur Andersen (fined just $7 million by the SEC), there should be no doubt but that the GSA should cut off WorldCom/MCI from the federal contracting gravy train.  WorldCom/MCI is manifestly unfit to continue as a company and, at an absolute minimum, there is no reason why U.S. taxpayers should be the disgraced firm's No. 1 customer. In fact, there are today 500 million new reasons why the GSA and all the consumers should boycott WorldCom/MCI."

posted at 10:16 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

May 20, 2003

What's Next? A Wet Dog In A Microwave?

There is a really sick entry about "art" at Venomous Kate. Apparently the "artist" was found not guilty of animal cruelty for his exhibit of goldfish in a blender that patrons could turn on. That reminded me of "artist" Damien Hirst. His "masterpiece" at the Eyestorm Gallery included "empty beer bottles, a paint smeared palette, torn and stained newspapers, half-full coffee cups, partially eaten sandwiches, and candy wrappers."

The gallery's janitor didn't recognize "art" when he saw it, and he threw it in the trash.

Dave Barry mentioned Hirst and other "artists" in one of his columns.

posted at 8:50 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

May 19, 2003

Feminists Are Damned If They Do, Damned If They Don't: Part II

This is a continuation of my thoughts about the Nicholas Kristof's New York Times editorial that incorrectly claimed that feminists have not been concerned with third-world women's health issues, in particular obstetric fistula. Please see my previous post and my comments in the Alas, A Blog comments section.

It seems to me that it remains okay in today's American society to malign women. Someone who reads Kristof's editorial may not even think twice about what he said about feminism. His misrepresentation would be taken at face value. Everyone "knows" American feminists don't care about women outside the U. S. I don't think readers would be so quick to accept such a slur if the organization in question was the NAACP, B'ni Brith, or even a men's rights group. Regarding women's issues, why target feminism? Why not ask what groups like the Independent Women's Forum or the Women's Freedom Network have done to bring public attention to obstetric fistula? What about so-called right-to-life groups? Why not ask the anti-abortion crowd what is has done to help third-world women avoid this disorder in order to save their "unborn children?" Of course those groups are not given the same scrutiny. When it comes to blaming women's groups for not "doing the right thing," attack a feminist group.

In delving further into the common misconception that feminists have shown little interest in women living in third-world countries, I was aghast by the vitriolic attacks by some of those who have made those claims. I believe they have not so much misunderstood feminist action but have purposefully misrepresented it. It's bad enough that American feminists have not been given credit for the hard work they have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's bad enough that the Feminist Majority has not been given credit for the work it has done over the past few years to bring assistance to women suffering from obstetric fistula. It's worse that their work has been maligned when not ignored -- all in the name of bashing feminism.

Bean reiterated these points in the Alas comments section. She wrote:

"The fact remains that feminists are far from ignoring this issue. The FMF has done extensive work on this issue. Even NOW, arguably the most liberal (feminist) and American-centric organization there is, has discussed these issues. There was absolutely NO need to throw in a false, dismissive, and insulting comment in the article. This is the reason that so many Americans refuse to take the label feminist -- not because feminists take exception when lied about and insulted."

Overall, as I've stated in my previous post and in the Alas comments section, Nicholas Kristof's editorial was excellent. While I am grateful that publishing such a piece in the New York Times will undoubtedly bring obstetric fistula to the attention of a mass audience, I simply did not like the way he had misrepresented feminist work on that issue. Even so, his comments were mild compared to some of the other's I've seen.

In her editorial "Multiculturalism vs. Feminism" for Reason Magazine (Oct. 18, 2001), anti-feminist Cathy Young uses an oft-repeated slur when she pretends that American women have already achieved equality. She wrote: "...all too often, left-wing feminists evade the issue - for instance, downplaying the contrast between the status of women in the West and in much of the world by focusing on the inequalities Western women still face, as if there were any real equivalency here."

In bashing Barbara Ehrenreich, she ridicules the hard work feminism must continue to do today for American women by making an ill-conceived comparison between the glass ceiling and honor killings.

Young wrote: "During the 1995 United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing, Time magazine columnist Barbara Ehrenreich wrote that the United States shouldn't get too smug about its women's rights record, considering that American women are still far from achieving parity with men in business or politics. Of course, women who risk being murdered by their ''dishonored'' relatives for the crime of being raped could only wish they had something like the glass ceiling to worry about."

In both statements, she falsely claims that feminists have done little to help women living in third-world countries.

In "Arm the Afghan Women," [The Libertarian Enterprise, November 26, 2001], anti-feminist Wendy McElroy condemned feminism for allegedly reducing Afghan women to victim status. She claimed: "This is why feminists who champion Afghan women by dwelling exclusively upon their victimization and helplessness are doing them a disservice. It is the same feminist logic that cries out against rape while promoting gun control laws that would leave women defenseless. The opposite of victimization is empowerment."

What does she recommend to empower Afghan women? Allow them to buy guns.

"Give an Afghan woman the right to own a gun and you protect her long after the current tragedy has become old news," she wrote. "A gun in the hand of a mother who is protecting her child may be the most humanitarian relief of all."

Yeah, that would prove helpful.

The point is that feminist groups, in particular the Feminist Majority, have done a great deal to help women living in third world countries, especially those in Afghanistan.Robert Sheer noted that "... it's the Feminist Majority, more than any other organization in the U.S., that sounded the alarm that the Taliban's suppression of freedom, led by its harsh treatment of women, posed "a threat to humanity" that extended beyond the borders of Afghanistan and that 'the Taliban and [Osama] bin Laden are interdependent and inextricable.'"

The Feminist Majority's support of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has been ridiculed by pundits and anti-feminists alike.

With that in mind, take note of Article 12 of the CEDAW document [bold my emphasis]:

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of health care in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, access to health care services, including those related to family planning. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, States Parties shall ensure to women appropriate services in connection with pregnancy, confinement and the post-natal period, granting free services where necessary, as well as adequate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation.

Think of those provisions the next time an editorial claims that feminists are not concerned with women's "traditional child-bearing role" inside or outside the U. S. Also keep in mind that anti-feminists have frequently criticized feminist participation in CEDAW, deeming it unnecessary political posturing.

154 countries have ratified CEDAW. The U. S. is not one of them.

Cathy Young conceded in her Reason editorial "Multiculturalism vs. Feminism" that "...women's groups in North America and Europe have done some admirable work documenting and publicizing the horrific oppression of women under the Taliban," but her comment is lost amid her attacks against University of British Columbia women's studies professor, Sunera Thobani, whom she called a "kook." Thobani spoke about Western imperialism at a feminist conference; a speech for which she had received a standing ovation.

Terry O'Neil referred to Thobani as a " first-class hater" whose "high-decibel speech at the beginning of one of those all-too-frequent feminist conferences about the alleged evils of the patriarchy; in this case, the patriarchal justice system." He described her speech as "vitriol."

Ross McLennan displayed palpable hostility in his piece for the Winnipeg Sun. He called Thobani the "former fuhrer" of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. He describing her as "[h]ysterical, spittle-spewing Sunera Thobani, the feminist equivalent to the Taliban, is busy making an asp of herself again." He described the feminist conference and standing ovation in this manner: "...lashed herself and an appreciative crowd of fellow Amazons into an orgasmic paroxysm of anti-American passion..."

He lashed out even more in ridiculing her claim that the conference was about "breaking the silence." With a great deal of venom, he wrote, "It turned out to be more like breaking wind, considering the thunderous explosion of noxious claptrap that burst from Thobani as Fry returned to sitting on her thumbs while Wonder Woman raked her claws across America's already bloodied visage."

What did Thobani say that inspired such maliciousness from Young, O'Neill, and McLennan?

Professor Sunera Thobani gave her speech at the Conference, "Women's Resistance: From Victimization to Criminalization," held in Ottawa, on October 1, 2001. Keep in mind that this was shortly after the American terrorist attack. Also keep in mind that this was two years before coalition forces invaded Iraq.

Thobani's speech resonates today, in light of the aftermath of the war in Iraq, the influence of the Project for the New American Century on American foreign policy, the imperialist activities of the Bush administration, and the questionable corporate conflicts-of interests in Iraq's "rebuilding." I hope those anti-feminists have eaten their words.

Here are excerpts from Thobani's speech:

There will be no emancipation for women anywhere on this planet until the Western domination of this planet is ended. Love thy neighbour. Love thy neighbour, we need to heed those words. Especially as all of us are being herded into the possibility of a massive war at the behest of the United States. We need to hear those words even more clearly today. Today in the world the United States in the most dangerous and the most powerful global forces unleashing prolific levels of violence all over the world." From Chile to El Salvador, to Nicaragua to Iraq, the path of U.S. foreign policy is soaked in blood. We have seen and all of us have seen, felt, the dramatic pain of watching those attacks and trying to grasp the facts of the numbers of peoples who died. We feel the pain of that every day we have been watching it on television. But do we feel any pain for the victims of U.S. aggression? Two-hundred thousand people killed only in the initial war on Iraq. That bombing of Iraq has continued for 10 years now. Do we feel the pain of all the children in Iraq who are dying from the sanctions that were imposed by the United States? Do we feel that pain on an everyday level? Share it with our families and our communities and talk about it on every platform that is available to us? Do we feel the pain of Palestinians who now for 50 years have been living in refugee camps? US foreign policy is soaked in blood. And other countries of the West including shamefully Canada, cannot line up fast enough behind it. All want to sign up now as Americans and I think it is the responsibility of the women's movement in this country to stop that, to fight against it. These policies are hell-bent on the West maintaining its control over the world's resources. At whatever cost to the people.... Pursuing American corporate interest should not be Canada's national interest. This new fight, this new war against terrorism, that is being launched, it's very old. And it is a very old fight of the West against the rest. Consider the language which is being used.... Calling the perpetrators evil doers, irrational, calling them the forces of darkness, uncivilized, intent on destroying civilization, intent on destroying democracy..... That hate freedom we are told. Every person of colour, and I would want to say also every Aboriginal person, will recognize that language. The language of us letting civilization representing the forces of darkness, this language is rooted in the colonial legacy. It was used to justify our colonization by Europe...... We were colonized in the name of the West bringing civilization, democracy, bringing freedom to us. All of us recognize who is being talked about when that language is being used. The terms crusade, infinite justice, cowboy imagery of dead or alive posters, we all know what they mean. The West, people in the West also recognize who this fight is against. Cries heard all over the Western world, we are all Americans now. People who are saying that recognize who this fight is against. People who are attacking Muslims, any persons of colour who looks like they could be from the Middle East, without distinguishing, recognizing who this fight is against. These are not slips of the tongue that Bush quickly tries to reject. They reveal a thinking, a mindset. And it is horrific to think that the fate of the world hangs on the plans of people like that. On the plans of people like that. This will be a big mistake for us if we just accept that these are slips of mind, just slips of the tongue. They're not. They reveal the thinking, and the thinking is based on dominating the rest of the world in the name of bringing freedom and civilization to it.

Read the entire speech and let her comments sink in, especially in our current post-Iraq War world.

posted at 8:15 PM by Trish Wilson | Link

May 18, 2003

Feminists Are Damned If They Do, Damned If They Don't

[Part Two of this post is here.]

Bean and Jeanne (Kewl. I rhymed. LOL) raised their eyebrows over these comments within an otherwise excellent editorial by Nicholas Kristof about obstetric fistulas:

I don't understand why most feminist organizations in the West have never shown interest in these women either. ... perhaps the issue doesn't galvanize women's groups because fistulas relate to a traditional child-bearing role.

LanguageHat took Bean to task in the Alas, A Blog comments section. LH wrote:

Jesus Christ. Here a columnist takes time out from his busy schedule (he could be blathering about Iraq like everybody else) to write about a horrifying and almost unknown (here) condition afflicting only women, in so powerful a way that I (for one) after reading it went immediately to the website and sent them money -- and he gets bashed for saying feminists haven't been paying enough attention to it! At least bean says "it's admirable that he would take the time to write about it" before going on to slander him ("One has to wonder if the author is deliberately manipulating the facts..."); the commenters just leap right in and start bashing (MDtoMN, are you under the impression that Kristof is a conservative? Or is anyone who doesn't follow the whole party line a "conservative"?).

LH continued: "Sorry, but "working to prevent not only this particular tragedy, but similar tragedies -- not to mention the causes of this and similar tragedies" doesn't cut it; Kristof isn't saying feminists don't talk about root causes, he's saying they don't talk about *this particular condition* -- and not that no feminist has ever mentioned it (you can probably find a reference somewhere in a yellowing issue of MS), but that "most feminist organizations in the West have never shown interest in these women."

To Kristof and LanguageHat, I say.... whaaa...???

The Feminist Majority has brought attention to both obstetric fistulas and Bush's pending cut in funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) -- a cut meant to please right-wing anti-abortion zealots.

Here's part of a response I made to Alas's comment's section:

UNFPA Seeks to Fight Fistula in Africa

Bush Makes UNFPA Funding Cut Official

Urge Bush To Restore UNFPA Funding

To heist LanguageHat's phrasing, it could just as easily be argued that the Feminist Majority "took time out from its busy schedule (rather than blathering about golf like the media pundits who choose golf to define what they think is wrong with feminist activism) ... to write about a horrifying and almost unknown (here) condition afflicting only women."

That portion in Kristof's editorial (which otherwise was excellent) reminds me of the misrepresentations made by the media and the right-wing in claiming that feminists had shown no interest in the plight of women in Afghanistan, when the truth was that the Feminist Majority had done more than any other organization to bring attention to that issue. In the same vein, feminist groups such as Feminist Majority have been criticized for supposedly paying too much attention to female genital mutilation, all the while supposedly ignoring what women need in the U.S.

Geez, we feminists can't please anybody. :)

[Part Two of this post is here.]

posted at 11:36 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Evidence of Long-Lost Jewish Communities Unearthed in Southern Italy and Sicily.

Archeologists have made valuable finds in that provide much information about Jewish life in Italy and Sicily prior to the 16th century.

The quality and clarity foreshadow even more important finds likely to come. The catacomb is only one of dozens of Jewish sites, artifacts, documents, rare books and manuscripts being discovered, analyzed and restored in southern Italy and Sicily. This work by scholars and government authorities is beginning to flesh out the largely unknown story of vibrant yet long-lost communities of Jews that inhabited the region from Roman times to the end of the Middle Ages. Jews were expelled from southern Italy, known then as the Kingdom of Naples, in the 16th century. Few returned even after the ban was lifted in the 18th century. Historians associated with the excavation believe the catacomb may be the largest ever found in Western Europe. Hundreds of niches have already been cleared, the bones either looted or reburied according to ritual law. What is striking is that the inscriptions on the burial slabs found to date are almost totally in Greek. There is little or no Hebrew. When Hebrew is used, the characters mostly spell out Greek or Latin words. Both Greek and Latin were commonly used in that part of Italy at the time. This suggests an assimilated life for the Jews who may have lived here outside Venosa between the third and seventh centuries A.D. "Our Jews were not separated from everyone else in those early centuries," said Dr. Cesare Colafemmina, visiting professor of Hebrew and Hebraic literature at the University of Calabria.

posted at 10:39 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Banging Head On Desk....

Tossed off at the end of a Washington Post article about what may be the first deficit in my home state, Maryland, in more than a decade was this beaut:

As legislative leaders received the gloomy budget news yesterday in Annapolis, about eight Maryland lawmakers -- and one from Virginia -- gathered in St. Thomas, the Virgin Islands, at taxpayer expense to discuss the budget crisis with colleagues from other states. Miller and House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) yesterday defended their decision to authorize lawmakers' airfare and up to $205 each per day for the delegation to stay at the Marriott Frenchman's Reef. Both said that they are scaling back out-of-state travel but they believe it's important for key lawmakers to meet with policy experts and stay abreast of model legislation. The trip is not a junket, Miller said. "I'm sure the reason they scheduled it in the Virgin Islands is because nobody would go to Pittsburgh," he said.

What, Ocean City isn't good enough for those folk anymore? I bet the Texas Democrats would have stayed at a Holiday Inn in Pittsburgh instead of Oklahoma, but it was too far away.

posted at 10:14 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

Media Manipulation, Bush Style

The White House is well known for its media manipulation. Heck, the entire political process is one big media tweak-fest going back long before cameras focused in an unflattering manner on Richard Nixon sweating during his debate with a dry and composed JFK. That event was a classic.

Angry Bear mentioned a few recent manipulations by Bush and company (courtesy of a New York times article):

[Scroll down to "Media Handlers" (May 16). Angry Bear's permalinks aren't working.]

* "...On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis, White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr. Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his tax cut." [emphasis mine]. * "...For a speech that Mr. Bush delivered last summer at Mount Rushmore, the White House positioned the best platform for television crews off to one side, not head on as other White Houses have done, so that the cameras caught Mr. Bush in profile, his face perfectly aligned with the four presidents carved in stone." * "...Mr. Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the [Abraham Lincoln] event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated shirt colors over Mr. Bush's right shoulder and the "Mission Accomplished" banner placed to perfectly capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot."

Here's one Angry Bear and the Times forgot: Bush's speech in front of the backdrop of boxes stamped "Made In U.S.A."



The plan was to show that he supported small American businesses harmed in a slumping economy. However, in the real shop, the boxes were made in China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. So, someone went around and taped over those boxes so the viewing public wouldn't get a mixed message.

They got it anyway, and talk about it to this day.

posted at 9:45 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

May 17, 2003

The New York Times/Jayson Blair: Follow-Up

I agree with Angry Bear's assessment that "[b]ecause of slavery and Jim Crow, Black Americans have only had a bit less than 40 years to develop legacies and old boys networks and connections, which is a bit less than the 400 or so years white Americans have had. So I said that, on balance, affirmative action is a reasonable counter-balance. If you looked closely enough, I am sure that for every Jayson Blair out there, you could find an instance where affirmative action lead to a minority being hired instead of the boss's imbecilic nephew." He was responding to a CalPundit post in which Kevin stated that "[s]tipulating for the moment that affirmative action programs can indeed have the effect of promoting moderately less qualified blacks over some whites, it's also true that our society already has enormous preferences built in for white folks Ð and conservatives rarely even acknowledge this, let alone accept it as a problem." [via Mac-a-ro-nies]

The preferences built in for white folks not only give them access to opportunities and capital that Black Americans have not had, these same preferences, connections, and old boys networks have enabled people to greet the boss's imbecilic (white) nephew and white reporters like Barnicle and Stephen Glass with indifference.

posted at 10:51 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

The New York Times/Jayson Blair

When I first encountered the New York Times scandal, I did not notice that Jayson Blair was black. I saw the story as a rather aggregious example of plagiarism and deceit on part of yet another member of the media. That could be because I first read about it on Sean-Paul Kelley's The Agonist. Sean-Paul had been scolded for plagiarism himself, something that imbued a sense of irony into the New York Times debaucle from my point of view.

Although Blair's race was not an issue for me, it became an issue for media pundits who wanted to use him as a battering ram against diversity and affirmative action.

Barry at Alas, a Blog pointed me to a Washington Post op-ed by Terry Neal, who wrote that "[t]he reaction to the Blair story was predictable. When the story broke, many minority reporters I know said in private conversations among themselves that it would take only a day or two before some people erupted in paroxysms of indignation and anger about the effort to diversify newsrooms." He was right, and he quoted several reporters who have done exactly that. He pointed out that when the reporter was white, there has not been the same level of indignation and anger. Cases in point: Mike Barnicle (Boston Globe), Raad Cawthon (Philly Inquirer), and Ruth Shalit and Stephen Glass (New Republic).

Here are a few New York Times reporters and incidents he could have added to his list:

British Times correspondent Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for falsely reporting that there had been no famine in the Ukraine in the 1930's. This month is the " seventieth anniversary of the high point of an artificial famine engineered by Stalin's regime which, by some accounts, cost more than 10 million lives." Ukrainians have begun a mail campaign to strip Duranty of his Pulitzer for his false reporting.

Last week, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Francis Sweeney filed a law suit against the New York Times and reporter Fox Butterfield, accusing them of "publishing a false and defamatory report of Sweeney's involvement in the Sam Sheppard case. In particular, Sweeney says his reputation was damaged by a report in April 2000. It accused him of pressuring prosecutors to vigorously defend against a lawsuit filed by Sheppard's son to prove the doctor's innocence in the 1954 slaying of Marilyn Sheppard."

Fairness in Accuracy and Reporting linked to several New York Times articles that "played down opposition to war and exaggerated support for George W. Bush's Iraq policy--in ways that ranged from questionable to dishonest."

FAIR called New York Times reporter Barbara Crossette's coverage of Iraq sanctions "journalistic malpractice." FAIR accused Crossette of purposefully taking quotes out of context and for misreporting the "oil for food" program. In September 2002, FAIR noted that the Times, The Washington Post, and the Boston Globe gave front-page accounts "revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes." However, after the Bush administration "placed the inspectors at the center of its rationale for going to war, these same papers have become noticeably queasy about recalling UNSCOM's past spying." Barbara Crossette came into FAIR's radar again: "The UNSCOM team, explained the New York Times' Barbara Crossette in an August 3 story, was replaced "after Mr. Hussein accused the old commission of being an American spy operation and refused to deal with it." She gave no hint that Saddam's "accusation" was reported as fact by her Times colleague, Tim Weiner, in a front-page story three years earlier."

Even a rag that has accused the New York Times of being a left-wing "propaganda sheet" (something it isn't) provided numerous examples of the Times' history of questionable and deceitful reporting. Roger Simon applauded Instapundit for "having removed his knock off of the Times' "All the News That's Fit to Print" from his blog. He's right -- it's gone.

posted at 10:20 AM by Trish Wilson | Link

May 15, 2003

What Price Motherhood?

A fair article about reports on a growing mothers' movement in the U. S. which was posted at Ms. Musings included a disturbing element from my point of view: the New York-based Motherhood Project is sponsored by the Institute For American Values. IAV is a right-wing "family values" fatherhood organization founded by David "Fatherless America" Blankenhorn. That's the same IAV that promotes marriage in welfare reform, disseminates mother-bashing "fatherlessness" statistics, and receives conservative family foundation funding, including Scaife.

Read more about IAV here. Also read my article "Deconstructing Fatherhood Pro