Sexism -- Yikes!

Wednesday, September 3, 2008. The Daily Show.

Popcorn anyone?

This is as much fun as I've had in weeks.

Look gang... They threw a hail-Mary. It failed.

Relax. Enjoy the show. We're winning. That doesn't mean don't work hard. But...

BREATHE. It's going to be alright.

There's more...

DAILY BEIJING OLYMPICS THREAD FOR 13 AUGUST 2008

Daily Beijing Olympics Thread for 13 August 2008

Here's your daily subjective report on the Olympics and a chance to converse about it in comments. For the suggested guidelines, please read the opening paragraphs of my my original post.

SPOILER NOTE: Some results will be reported below for the competition of yesterday, so be forewarned.

FEEDBACK: It's so predictable. I self-identify as disabled and at least one person thinks that means it's okay to call me retarded. This is classic able-bodied oppression. I do not have a mental or cognitive disability (although I did for part of one year, after anoxia during a surgery). If I did, I'd say so without shame. It's not funny and it's not "less than", it's simply a difference. Retard, on the other hand, is a hate term and is not welcome here. I'm leaving the comment up to make my point, but future hate speech directed against physical difference will disappear, poof.

I think commenting on the rigid feminization of certain sports is entirely appropriate, just as commenting on race and class as it limits those who can be at the Olympics is what a political blog should be doing. I used humor to change the pace, but I think it must have gone over at least one person's head: Pointing out sexism and classism is NOT part of the problem, despite the American myth that silence is the only (middle-class) way to be "nice". White, male, and upper class are default normal in this country. If you point out something contrary to the default, if you ask for attention to be directed toward the areas where people are still fucking dying daily because they are targeted in these areas, it is not identity politics or causing trouble, it is clarity and conscience which offers hope to every person who isn't comfortably included in (or allied with) the "default" categories.

Using "political correctness" as an attempted insult immediately marks you as having been stunted by the thinking of the Right, as begun by Reagan. Liberal, politically correct, compassion, and global are not terms of disparagement to me and other radicals. Political correctness is, at its baseline, a sincere attempt to avoid language, thinking and behavior which contributes to the oppression of others. If it seems hilarious or too much work to you, well, as Dr. Phil says, you might wanna take a look at that.

I also have a little trouble with the term "heatherish", which has the feel of pretending that the internalized oppression aimed by members of a target group at one another is what keeps those of in the target group oppressed and "in line". My self-reminder in any analysis is: Check the power flow, dummy. Me noticing how terrified these young women are of looking "not right" is NOT the oppression (which is a blend of class and gender).

One commenter made a great point, about objective scoring vs. subjective. Another commenter (at my own blog) made a related point when she voiced appreciation for the commentators who are taking the time to explain the sport to us as the action goes along. Understanding why deductions occur helps make it a much more enjoyable, shared experience -- and, incidentally, reveals where subjectivity has too much leeway. I'm still outraged that Torvill & Dean didn't win their ice-dancing competition years ago, and whether it was judge corruption or simple disagreement about technique, the presence of subjective scoring there allowed a decision that almost no one found fair.

Thanks to the white-water fans who explained more about why Benjamin Boukpeti's win was so exciting, and about how the current course is equalizing gender in this particular sport. And, again, thanks to earlier commenters who gave me a smidgen of education about fencing: When I watched the women's team saber finals today, I understood a great deal more and got very caught up in the action.

Back to the question of attire: Much was made of Michael Phelps having to swim last night with goggles full of water, which effectively blinded him for 100 meters. To his credit, he still turned in a world record time. Since he is poised to break Mark Spitz's record, the Today show featured an interview with Mark Spitz, who was extremely gracious and supportive. I remembered him (all the swimmers then) racing without goggles, so I went to Youtube and found a video of the 1972 games, below. It's blurry but does show all the men wore no goggles or hats, had often shaggy hair (including Spitz's mustache, which I don't think we'd ever see today), and not all of them had the skimpy Speedo that Spitz wore. There was a lot of talk about how revealing his suit was, as I remember, but he said it played a role in his superior swim times and, of course, he was right about that.



In December 1974, my partner and I with our four-year-old daughter were traveling through South Texas and we stopped at the Magic Time Machine restaurant in San Antonio (which is still there). This is a TGI Friday's kinda place whose gimmick is that all the staff dresses up like characters from history or current pop culture. We were shown to a table by a guy dressed as Benjamin Franklin and invited to go to the "salad car" right away. Folks dressed in wildly different costumes flowed back and forth, and our daughter was a little frightened by it all -- she didn't recognize most of who the actors were supposed to be portraying.

Back at our table, however, as our waiter approached she cried out with delight "Look! It's Mark Spitz!" Wearing a skimpy Speedo, with that brushy mustache and mop of hair, and seven gold medals bouncing back and forth on his chest, indeed, Mark Spitz's double took our order. My daughter shyly asked if she could touch one of his medals, and he consented graciously. I noticed, however, his skin was slightly blue and there were goosebumps on his arms. He must have been freezing, poor guy.

My daughter talked about meeting Mark Spitz for years, a thrill of her young life. We didn't let on until she was old enough to figure it out for herself.

This Olympics we're seeing an astonishing number of swimming world records broken, not just by Michael Phelps but across the board, even in qualifying heats. One possible cause is the widespread use of Speedo's Fastskin LZR Racer suit, which I think first appeared at the Athens Olympics but appears perfected at this point. Also, the newer Olympic pools manipulate water away from the swimmer, as if they are "swimming downhill". And I've heard that new chemicals to more quickly remove lactic acid from overused muscles gives a strong advantage to current athletes who must perform repetitively in a single day or over a few days.

I mention all this with no intention to draw away credit from the astonishing performances we are seeing. It's a swimming Olympics to remember, for sure. And -- as Mark Spitz's record is bested, let's remember the guy who did what he did without these advantages, without hype or much expected of him at all: Seven gold medals in seven races, with a new world record time in each race. We can't compare him to Phelps or anyone else, really, because that was then and this is now; his race times would not hold up now. We can honor both equally, for what they have done.

As if the commentators were listening to my earlier criticism (which of course they were not), they've done better about explaining instead of gushing and sharing the praise in more directions. I finally found out what Natalie Coughlin is so good on turns (she rotates her body sideways for a stroke, which creates less drag), why a big swimmer with Alain Bernard can negatively affect a smaller swimmer (backwash at the turn), and why Phelp's unusual body is so ideal for swimming (his arm span is 6'7", three inches longer than his height; his feet are size 14 and bend an extra 15 degrees at the ankle, allowing him to use them much more as flippers).

Interestingly, after Jason Lezak won Bronze in the only event where he swam individually at this Olympics, the men's 100m freestyle, he was interviewed by Rowdy Gaines. During the course of the interview, Gaines quite appropriately brought up the most exciting swim of this games so far, Lezak's anchor leg of the 4x100 free relay with a split of 46.06. However, Gaines veered off into Phelpsomania, stating "You got Michael his gold in that event." With a slight smile and a steady voice, Lezak replied "I did not swim that race to win a gold for Michael." Hear, hear! When this was replayed with Bob Costas present, Costas appeared unable to take it in, although Gaines did and seemed to appreciate Lezak drawing a lane in the pool, as it were: He is not Phelps' minion.

And, from what I can see, Phelps is very aware of that. He seems to be close to his male cohorts. It's the press who have attempted to make him into the Only Swimmer that Matters -- and for too many of them, it's for a commercial bottom line, not even from pure love of sport.

Speaking of commercialism: I don't remember previous Olympics' coverage showing every single heat and semifinal as this one has (51 in total). I personally love swimming, but it occurred to me that because of watching all these non-decisive races, I'm missing all the other events that could be covered. Track & Field begin tomorrow, which has a similar multitude of events and voluminous numbers of competitors to be winnowed down to final races. I'll be watching to see if all those heats are aired as well. If not, I'll raise the question of whether this is pure commercialism -- i.e., give viewers only what is most popular -- or, dare I say it, because most of the athletes in swimming are white and most of the athletes in track & field are NOT white? A discussion to be continued, after more observation.

Locally (I live in Austin, Texas) there's a great deal of credit being given to Longhorn Aquatics at the University of Texas, where a huge number of these swimmers train -- some of them not even pros yet, still students at UT. Since I should plug my home town at least once, the following swimmers are from the Longhorn program: Ricky Berens, Hee-Jin Chang (swimming for China), Ian Crocker, Susana Escobar (swimming for Mexico), Brendan Hansen, Kathleen Hersey, Aaron Peirsol, Scott Spann, Garrett Weber-Gale, and Dave Walters.

While I'm plugging, I discovered a blog I read regularly is running GREAT posts about the Olympics with cultural and sociological commentary, covering territory I'm not: Sue Katz Consenting Adult. I especially liked her report on the older athletes who find a niche in some sports, Boomer Olympians.

Also, the Guardian UK wrote a pre-Olympics article which is highly educational and entertaining, Game For Anything, in which they sent eight of their reporters out in crash courses for competitions. These intrepid writers report back on the finer points of steeple chase, front crawl, shot put, fencing, gymnastics, rowing, high jump, and BMX. It's a great read.

Returning to attire: The aforementioned LZR swimsuits show the men swimmers constantly adjusting their shoulder straps and arm holes as compulsively as the women. I was happy to see it's not just us: When you wear a tight garment that lets flesh bulge out, you simply are not as comfortable in it. (Plus the nervousness factor, I'm sure.) In my freshman year of high school, our basketball uniforms were the old-fashioned style with shorts that were more like panties and arm sleeves in a baby-doll style. I remember our coach screaming at us during one time-out because somebody had been pushing her ass-cheek back into her suit instead of catching the ball on a pass.

The next year, new suits were bought for both the boys and girls' basketball teams, and after heated lobbying on our part, we got the same style as the boys -- roomy sleeves, breathable fabric, long-legged and baggy shorts with wide waistbands. I still remember the glorious freedom I felt when I first put mine on, not only the ease of movement but, even more, the relief from having to worry about exposure. When I watch women doing strenuous movements in leotards and see them constantly reaching to their bottoms to make sure the fabric hasn't ridden up too far, I feel for them. I suspect, as one commenter said, it's about the look rather than the function -- otherwise, men would be wanting to compete in leotards as well.

And, finally, regarding commentary, race, and class inequality at the games: I was watching in 2000 when Eric Moussambani swam his heat for the men's 100 meter freestyle. I was leaned forward cheering for him every agonizing stroke of the final 50 meters, and also laughing wildly: How on earth had this guy gotten to the Olympics? The last few meters, it looked like someone might need to jump in and pull him out. He was immediately dubbed "Eric the Eel".

Turns out, according to Wikipedia, he "gained entry to the Olympics without meeting the minimum qualification requirements via a wildcard draw designed to encourage developing countries without expensive training facilities to participate." In other words, poor countries are given a ticket to compete but no funding to support their athletes. What I remember from interviews at the time, he had no access to an Olympic-sized pool and therefore trained in a hotel pool that was 20 meters long, so 50 meters was 2.5 times what he usually swam. He had only been training for eight months, and he did it for the honor of his country.

It stopped being funny at that point. Below is a Youtube video of Eric Moussambani's swim, the most respectful one I could find (and it's not entirely free of crap).



When I checked the NBC site to see who is competing from his country this year, I found under the entry for Equatorial Guinea a brief reference to Moussambani which stated "he had only learned to swim eight months before, and in crocodile-infested waters." This is directly contradicted by my memory of his history and also by that of Wikipedia, and it smacks of appalling racial stereotyping.

To make matters worse, last night the NBC anchor ran another video of a swimmer from who was the sole competitor for a poor African country (I didn't catch the name and I cannot find it by searching the NBC site). He was swimming in a heat and came in dead last. The commentator prefaced it by going from an image of (guess who) Michael Phelps to the heat, stating "And now, from the sublime to, well, also the sublime but in an entirely different way". He laughed throughout the video. His tone was utterly condescending. If you can supply the name of this swimmer and country, I'd appreciate it.

Professionalism in sports is not the problem: Paying athletes is on a par with paying artists and other non-profit endeavors, in my opinion. It's who is controlling the endeavor (i.e., community vs. corporate or government), and how fair is the access that matters most. Paying lip-service to access while providing no money for athletes to train is disingenuous at best. I admit it's a stretch to ask wealthy superpowers to set aside some of our largesse to create sports program for boys and girls in the countries we tend to exploit, especially since those kids will likely grow up to be crackerjack competitors -- but can you imagine the Olympics which would result from a truly leveled playing field? (Pun intended.)

(Stephanie Rice wins 200m individual relay, photo from China Daily)

WORLD RECORDS IN SWIMMING SET ON AUGUST 12 AND 13:
Alain Bernard of France in Men's 100m Freestyle: 47.20 WR (in the semifinal)
Federica Pellegrini of Italy in Women's 200m Freestyle: 1:54.82 WR (won Gold)
Michael Phelps of U.S. in Men's 200m Butterfly: 1:52.03 WR (won Gold)
Michael Phelps of U.S. in Men's 200m Freestyle: 1:42.96 WR (won Gold)
Aaron Peirsol of U.S. in Men's 100m Backstroke: 52.54 WR (won Gold)
Stephanie Rice of Australia in Women's 200m Individual Medley: 2:08.45 WR (won Gold)
Ricky Berens, Ryan Lochte, Michael Phelps, and Peter Vanderkaay of US in Men's 4x200 Freestyle Relay: 6:58.56 WR (won Gold)

OLYMPIC RECORDS IN SWIMMING SET ON AUGUST 12 AND 13:
Paolo Bossini of Italy in Men's 200m Breaststroke: 2:08.98 OR (in the heats)
Kirsty Coventry of Zimbabwe in Women's 200m Individual Medley: 2:09.53 OR (in the semifinal)
Daniel Gyurta of Hungary (beating record set by Paolo Bossini in previous heat same day) in Men's 200m Breaststroke: 2:08.68 OR (in the heats)
Leisel Jones of Australia in Women's 100m Breaststroke: 1:05.17 OR (won Gold)
Kosuke Kitajima of Japan in Men's 200m Breaststroke: 2:08.61 OR (in the semifinal)
Rebecca Soni of U.S. in Women's 200m Breaststroke: 2:22.17 OR (in the heats)
Coralie Balmy, Celine Couderc, Camille Muffat, and Alena Popchanka of France in Women's 4x200m Freestyle Relay: 7:50.37 OR (in the heats)
Ricky Berens, Klete Keller, Erik Vendt, and David Walters in Men's 4x200 Freestyle Relay: 7:04.66 OR (in the heats)

SCHEDULE AND RESULTS: Available here.

P.S. NBC, PLEASE stop doing segments on reporters trying to eat fried scorpions. It's junior high "let's make fun of what other people eat" behavior. Get over it.

There's more...

Hate-Radio Attacks Latina Public Defender

I grew up in Tucson. My mother still lives there. Mom's a Magistrate (a judge)(part-time) in the Tucson City Court. Tucson is home; I keep up on its politics and happenings.

One of the people I personally admire enormously in Tucson is Isabel Garcia, Pima County Legal Defender.


Isabel Garcia, Tucson Strategy Meeting, June 3, 2000. photo unknown.

With grace and poise, she manages an office which is perennially under budget, caring for the least fortunate among us.

Now Ms. Garcia is under brutal attack from right-wing hate groups for daring to point out that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is an asshole.

Well, he is (an asshole) and good for her for pointing it out. The camera hog was out of his county, on a book tour down to Tucson, and there was a protest which Ms. Garcia attended, during which piñata's of the sheriff were beaten. She laughed, and ended up with the head of one of the piñatas.

Clobbering a piñata of a hated politician is of course, an old and honored tradition. Though it drove the right-wing haters nuts.

That's different from what the radio shock-jock above did to Ms. Garcia. He took a piñata head, fondled it, objectified the body he attached it to, and was just, creepy.

Isabel Garcia has been defended by supporters throughout Tucson, Arizona, in letters and in editorials. And now the hate-jock is in full retreat as his advertising base crumbles.

Never retreat from a bully; always fight back.

Bravo Isabel Garcia, my favorite strong person of the day.

There's more...

Guy's Suck

HOW IT WORKS

How It Works. comic Randall Munroe/xkcd.

Daughter #3, Kyle, 18, and I are sitting on the bed in my room. It's 1:56 AM Monday morning. Sunday, she and her friend Jessica were at a street festival.

Kyle is pissed.

Kyle (verbal)

I must have got hit on 40 times today.

So there's this old guy on a bike who must be at least 80 and he wolf-whistled at me as he rides past. And I wanted to run after him and push him over and then hail down one of the nearby cops and be like, "This mother-fucker is riding without a helmet."

Jessica and I were just sitting on a bench, chatting with a grandfather named Elton. So then there's this black guy who goes by with his posse and he walks by eying us up and down. About two minutes later he comes back by himself and he says, "How you doing" and I stare at him like, "Are you seriously talking to me?"

He says, "What's your name?"

And I say "Are you really going to ask me my name without offering your own, first?"

He give me his name.

Then he says "How are you."

I say "I'm Kyle and I'm fine." And I shake his hand. To be polite.

He asks Jessica her name to which she replies "Satan."

She's all slumped back on the bench with her arms crossed, glaring up a storm. She looks PISSED.

And he says, "Oh, you gonna be all evil?"

She's like, "Yeah."

And he says, "So am I, just like, wasting my time here?"

She looks at him like, "Boy... you must be stupid." And she says, "Yeah."

Then he looks at me and says, "But not with you, though."

I look at him like, "Boy, you must be REALLY stupid." And I say, "I'm gay." Which is a a lie, though I do definitely like women. (Editor's note: Kyle is bisexual.)

It takes him an entire minute to finally comprehend this. I finally see his "Ohhh" as he gets it. The boy must be really stupid.

He opens his mouth to speak and Jessica says "I'm gay too. We're gay together" and grabs my hand.

I smile and say "Sorry. We're not interested."

He leaves.

He walks about 30 feet away to where his posse's been standing watching the interaction. They keep laughing and gesturing back towards us.

Jessica's been getting really irritated, mostly because she's hormonal and pregnant. She actually shouts over at them, "If you're going to talk about someone, you might want to think about not doing it where they can still hear you."

The grandpa (Elton) we were with laughs and says, "God, some guys are just stupid." We return to our discussion.

About ten minutes go past.

The asshole comes back. We look up at him like "You came back. Are you kidding me?"

Then, joy of all joys... He says, "I want you two to kiss to prove that you're lesbians."

Now I kiss girls all the time. I kiss my gay girlfriends. I kiss my straight girlfriends. Now Jessica's also bi, so kissing girls? It's in the norm.

The two of us turn towards each other and lean in a bit before we STOP. And look at each other. Like... What the fuck?

And then we turn back to this guy like -- What the fuck?

In my head I'm like, "Hold the fuck on. Am I really going to sit here and submit to this asshole to prove something that's really none of his fucking business?"

I take off my sunglasses to get a better look at the guy. He looks me up and down like "Look at you and your sexy self." I ignore the comment entirely.

"Why would it matter if we're lying?" I say.

"It matters."

"Why?"

It's my business if you're lying to me."

I smile a wicked smile. "Actually, it's not your business."

"But-"

"No, if we're lying to you, it's our business."

In my head I'm thinking, "Don't lunge, don't lunge, don't lunge."

Jessica snickers at his frustrated look and I imagine he's thinking something like... "Bitches with tits like that, in skirts that short, are not supposed to talk back. What the fuck." Only less sensibly.

He leaves in a huff and Jessica and I launch into a righteous fit.

Jessica starts. "What a fucking asshole!"

Me: "Seriously! I mean, 'I want you to prove you're lesbians?' No. No fucking way am I going to be one of those girls who kisses other girls to impress guys. I'm not going to be one of those girls who sacrifices my dignity or self-worth so some fuckass can get a bloody eye full. I mean like, I'm not, we're not fucking here right now for him and his fucking friends to look at. Fuck."

"Dude, I was totally about to go ballistic on that bitch, like no lie. I almost jumped the fuck up and mauled that guy. The only reason I didn't is because I have to protect my baby." She lays a hand on her stomach, snarling.

"Well he's gone now and good fucking riddance. Pfft, like we're going to just kiss because he tells us too. I mean, I totally almost did because it's not even a big deal, not like we haven't before."

"I know dude, like I leaned in and everything."

"It took me a minute to realize and stop myself."

"Grrrr..."

"Grrrr..."

Elton laughs.

"Dad... GUYS SUCK!"

"Yes apple-strudel, they do."

"I am not a pastry. (Pause.) Why do they suck so much?"

"Testosterone. And they were raised to disrespect women. The testosterone poisoning starts to end around 25, but by then it's too late for most of them. The ones that can be saved, you have to look for."

"Guys suck."

"And usually not very well."

Kyle laughs, but isn't happy. Me neither. It's an unhappy truth she's learning.

She hugs me, gives me a kiss, and says goodnight.

I lean back, and breathe.

There's more...

The Girl That I'll Vote For

Strong Woman's Shadow, Addis Ababa, Ethiopa, photo by Margré

The Girl That I'll Vote For

After close observation, I've learned that the woman candidate who deserves to be elected the first female President (and by deserves, I mean passes the refined litmus test of male progressive bloggers) will have to meet the following criteria:

(1) Won't object to being called a girl, no matter how old she is. (See Humorless below.)

(2) Thinks "bitch" is funny and can be reclaimed. (See Humorless below.)

(3) Doesn't wear pantsuits. I mean, how wacky is that, women in pants? (The persistent refusal to wear dresses kicks in TPR™, Testicular Protective Response, which is of course a woman's responsibility to keep from being engaged.)

(4) Is not Humorless, as defined by the Adam Sandler (NOT the Tina Fey) Lofty Standards of Comedy.

(5) Is not fat. Or disabled, yikes.

(6) Is neither "hawkish" nor "soft" on national security. (Hawkishness is reserved for PBO™, Penis Bearers Only.)

(7) Is not tearful in public. (Manipulative.)

(8) Is not angry in public. (Harpy.)

(9) Is not stoic in public. (Frigid.)

(10) Has been "more than just a Senator". (Fine for PBO™, though.)

(11) Doesn't try to count eight years living and working in the White House as experience. (Fine for sons of former Presidents, though.)

(12) Has bred. (Proof of uterus + PIV sex.) She'll need the ability to use mothering for analogies, since she is forbidden from using sports analogies (PBO™).

(13) Has a hairstyle which is Not Dykey and requires more care than just washing and blow-drying. (Okay for PBO™, though.)

(14) Has never been married to or closely related to a man who is/was powerful in politics, because she's like totally responsible for anything he ever did. (Cleared for PBO™, of course -- dynasties are so cool there, I mean, did you hear how the Kennedys came on board for Obama?)

(15) Does not believe that "women's issues" -- rape as terrorism, infant mortality, human trafficking, reproductive rights, poverty, domestic violence, unequal pay, etc. -- are nearly as serious as, say, offshore drilling.

(16) Will never make male bloggers have an unpleasant memory of their mother, ex, gradeschool teacher, sister, another ex, lesbians, or the snotty bitch who beat them in the race for student council. Because once a guy has reached liberal-dom, he's moved as far as he needs to, you know? If he has feelings come up when he looks at/hears the voice of a particular woman, it's HER job to fix it. Politically speaking, it's no ass, no pass.

Okay, I'm clear now. As soon as we put forth the name of a woman who fits these very well-thought-out criteria, she will naturaly receive generous support from the Blogger Boyz. Same goes for Obama's Veep, of course. (And by the way, we would have hired a black or Hispanic for the management position if any qualified candidates had applied.)

There's more...

Help Stop the Re-Definition of Contraception as Abortion

(© photo by Jill Posener)

Help Stop the Re-Definition of Contraception as Abortion

You'd think that the Bush administration's hatred of poor folks and the Foamy-Mouth Right's terror of being overrun by the reproductive capacities of brown people would find common ground in trying to make sure we/they have easy access to cheap birth control. You'd think, if rationality and logic were part of the equation.

But the need to control women's bodies pounds a stronger drumbeat in those bulging veins on their pasty foreheads. I guess they're counting on reducing the numbers of unwanted children after forced birth by killing them off with inadequate nutrition and polluted environments. If any make it to adulthood, they can either be sent to Iraq or put in ever-expanding prisons, both of which will earn income for KBR.

New regulations proposed by the Bush-infected Department of Health and Human Services, slated for release next week, will re-define common birth control, such as The Pill, IUDs and emergency contraception, as "abortion". Which means any health care provider who doesn't provide "abortion" (by choice or by legal limit) can deny contraception to poor and uninsured folks.

Lots of blogs are calling for an immediate response to this dire threat. Last week, Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray wrote a public letter to Secretary Michael O. Leavitt of the DHHS. Today, Senator Clinton has again posted a warning at her blog and at HuffPo, along with a concrete step we can all take: She's opened a petition to Leavitt calling for a refutation of "this outrageous policy that threatens to affect Medicaid and Title X programs that are important to millions of families." You can sign it by going here.

I'll quote Senator Clinton's website for a more detailed explanation of the negative impact of this definition change:

"These rules pose a serious threat to providers and uninsured and low-income Americans seeking care. They could prevent providers of federally-funded family planning services, like Medicaid and Title X, from guaranteeing their patients access to the full range of comprehensive family planning services. They'll also build significant barriers to counseling, education, contraception and preventive health services for those who need it most: low-income and uninsured women and men.

"The regulations could even invalidate state laws that currently ensure access to contraception for many Americans. In fact, they describe New York and California's laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to provide coverage for contraceptives as part of "the problem." These rules would even interfere with New York State law that ensures survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms."

The re-definition is cloaked in the Right's language concerning "conscience clauses", i.e., allowing the right of refusal to provide care by those who believe that pregnancy is the life of a human being which begins at the instant of fertilization, whether or not implantation has taken place.

Of course, this flies in the face of accepted science. Everybody knows that life begins AFTER the Great Turtle has laid her eggs in the sands of Praia Milagro. When the eggs are safely covered, tiny blue Ratzenberger crabs dig tunnels unseen by human eyes and, once in the egg chamber, they gently reach out their smaller, God-anointed claw and tickle the ROUND end of the egg (rot in hell, ye who say otherwise, you pointed-end blasphemers). This tickle awakens the soul within and that is the moment where Life Begins.

Okay, I'm being silly. Most established science (including the American Medical Association) defines pregnancy "as beginning when the developing embryo becomes implanted into the endometrial lining of a woman's uterus". If the developing embryo does not implant in the right location -- such as an ectopic pregnancy -- then the surgery to deal with this life-threatening mishap is not an "abortion", because there is no viable pregnancy to abort. In 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) adopted the definition of conception as "the implantation of a fertilized ovum". This was clarified in 1972 to read "Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst." Wikipedia (which is the source of all the quotes in this paragraph) points out "Current research suggests that fertilized embryos naturally fail to implant some 30% to 60% of the time. Of those that do implant, about 25% are miscarried by the sixth week after the woman's last menstrual period. As a result, even without the use of birth control, between 48% and 70% of zygotes never result in established pregnancies, much less birth."

Last April Feministe posted a wonderful video titled "How Pregnancy Happens" which ought to be required viewing for any voter. I copied it at my blog, and am going to share it with you again here, but be warned: NOT SAFE FOR WORK, and I personally wouldn't let a pre-teen watch it. This video, created by Flicker Lab for Planned Parenthood, is great information to have when dealing with the lies of this proposed assault on poor people and the reproductive rights of women and men.



UPDATE: Thanks to a comment by Nora Carrington, an error in the above (which was a misinterpretation by one of my sources) has been corrected. These proposals are due to be released next week but not go into effect until possibly 120 days from now. In the interim, commentary and protest will be what keeps this redefinition from occurring. If you know another means of working directly against this travesty, please pass it on and I'll post the link here.

There's more...

IT'S THE SUPREME COURT, STUPID

Bush signs anti-abortion law November 5, 2003. photo White House.

“I TRUST WOMEN.”

Say it with me. I know you can.

How hard was that?

The below article is true.

I wrote it eight years ago as an op-ed for the Seattle Times which danced around putting it up and then didn't.

The incident happened to my then best girl-friend.

This is the horror men whom have never been in the same room with a woman who has aborted her own fetus without benefit of medical help, would visit on us all.

“You belong to the State, bitch, and so does the fruit of your loins.”

Steve published this November 10, 2006 in The News Blog. It was the first time I'd been front-paged and I was over-joyed. Thank you Gilly.


IT'S THE SUPREME COURT, STUPID

August 10, 2000
Seattle, Washington

George Bush and Dick Cheney would let my best friend die.

Melinda’s my best friend* – Twenty-nine, married, two-year old son, five months pregnant, works at Boeing.

When a routine screening test for neural tube birth defects came back positive, her doctor did a special ultrasound. Melinda’s five-month fetus is missing its abdominal wall, and basically has no viable organs below the heart and lungs – no kidneys, no liver, no stomach, no intestines, no sexual organs, no bladder, no pancreas, no gall bladder.

There is no chance this baby could live. There is no chance this baby could be delivered alive. Sometime during the pregnancy, this fetus will inevitably die. If this were forty years ago, Melinda would also die.

Dick Cheney has voted against abortion no matter what – rape, incest, even to save the life of a mother. George Bush and Dick Cheney have made it clear they plan to stack the United States Supreme Court with anti-abortion justices.

Bush/Cheney and the GOP support a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. And even though there is absolutely no hope for Melinda’s child to be born alive, a Bush/Cheney Supreme Court would let the states make laws which would have my best friend die instead of allowing her an abortion – as a matter of moral principle.

By the time you read this, Melinda will no longer be pregnant. Tomorrow morning, August 11th, her physician will perform a late-term Dilation and Extraction, the so-called “Partial-Birth” abortion. By removing a fetus with no chance for survival, a mother’s life will be saved.

Melinda has this choice because the United States Supreme Court says she does. But what the Supreme Court gives, it can take away. Because Melinda still has a right to choose today, tomorrow a two-year old boy will still have a mother, a husband will not be a widower, and a grandmother won’t be grieving over the death of her daughter.

A large majority of US citizens support abortion if necessary to save the life of the mother, with only the real zealots disagreeing. And a majority of citizens support a women’s right to choose an abortion during the first trimester. But a majority of state legislatures do not. All that is stopping them from outlawing abortion is a 5-4 United States Supreme Court, with at least two of the majority justices likely retiring during the next presidential term.

This election is not about our thriving economy, and it is not about Bill Clinton. It is about the Supreme Court and the direction of the United States for the next twenty-five years.

If Bush and Cheney are elected, abortion will become a felony in states throughout America, because Bush’s appointments to the Supreme Court will make it so. And as the religious right rejoices over another fetus saved, families throughout America will grieve as their loved ones die from the complications of pregnancy and back-alley procedures – all in the name of a loving God.

I understand many people believe abortion is morally wrong. I also understand many people want abortion to remain legal, yet still have qualms about late-term procedures.

What I don’t understand is how anyone could condemn Melinda to death, in the name of respect for life, in the name of God, to uphold a principle.

But then what do I know about principles? I’m just someone who loves my best friend.

* Not her real name

There's more...

Baby Mama Drama—“Hate On, Haters”

“Um...Excusemeplease?”

“A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-annnd...they're off!”

No, not horses, or the two—(actually, one-and-a-half) Presidential candidates, but rather, the folks with the syphilitic, nerve-ganglia-ed remnant brains over at Fox News—right on cue as the general election season kicks into high gear with the end of the Democratic primary season.

We've already seen Bill O'Reilly's championing of a lynching party against the so-not-White Michelle Obama because she's...“angry” about things. As soon as it became clear that Senator Barack Obama was going to wind up a serious contender for the Dem nod, the folks at Fox fairly licked their hate-dripping chops at the prospect of tearing at a prominent Black woman of prominence. And just as soon as the primaries ended—mere hours in fact—we were treated to the in-need-of-a-helmet-at-all-times E.D. (As is “Special E.D.”) Hill blurting out crazed drivel about the Obamas victory-night “Dap Heard 'Round The World” being some sort of coded “terrorist fist jab”. (!?) Hill would later have to back off from that super-flammable, Hi-Test stupid when even her fellow wingnuts (along with most sane folk) said in perfect Borat-ese of her dimwitted body-language analysis, “Eh...not so much.”

But now, as the creeping dread over the soppy, bed-shit of a failure-ific McCain run can be seen in stark relief, the pointy-hooded hamsters who spin the Fox News engines have gone into panicky overdrive. With the dangerously flawed warmonger of a senator's damaging 1.5 gaffes-a-day diminishing GOP hopes by the second, the mattreses have been gone to over at Cro-Mag Central. Having nothing else—no guile, “snark, or even a touch of subtlety, they're reaching into their bag of tricks and pulling out...only their own hands stained with burnt-cross soot. Ass-nekkid racism, folks. The awful gift that just like herpes, just keeps on—“Yecch!”—giving.

We saw this last week when the …“news network” trotted out their prodigal daughter of dipshitttiness Michelle Malkin, ostensibly as a correspondent on “Women's Issues”. Now, we know that Malkin's bona-fides on issues important to women rank up there with those of Alan Keyes' on average Black folks concerns, but there she sat, in all of her grumble-faced, flop-sweaty glory before the cameras during a segment dealing with attacks on Ms. Obama and whether people should lay off her. Of course Malkin, shiv-jabbing little viper that she is defended the attacks on Sen. Obama's wife, referring to her as... “Obama's Bitter Half”.

?

Yes, Michelle Malkin referred to another woman as someone's “Bitter Half”.

Call “CSI” folks. Irony's as dead as a busted cinderblock and Malkin's got the dusty sledgehammer in her hands.

But it gets better. You see, the graphic that appeared under the once-banished-from-Fox Malkin (for a combination of not being able to cut it after repeated opportunities at the net, and a sanctimoniousness that put even them off) in a chyron was the ass-kicker.

It read, “OUTRAGED LIBERALS: STOP PICKING ON OBAMA'S BABY MAMA”.

Um. Baby Mama? Baby-what-the-fucking-fuck? Really?

Really.



It would be so easy to just go off on this at the most superficial of levels, but you know what, oh Klan-tastic folks at Fox? I'm gonna break this shit down James Brown-on-the-bandstand style, to the bare essence and build it back up from there. First—a hard finger-point back to the band to lay out—'cept for the drums and bass...

“Band!”

Okay. Malkin continued above that lovely graphic, with her usual “Nellie Olesen” huffy bullshit spew supporting the savaging Ms. Obama, because you see folks, that's her fucking job. Malkin is that special wingnut attack droid—used specifically for those nasty jobs that the big guns don't wanna catch direct hell for. Her special forté? Attacking women, children, college students and others on the lower end of the power ladder that it might look unseemly for the big boys to chomp on.

And she relishes her job because of a particularly nifty bit of psychotic transference going on with her. She's a loser, in spite of the right's bigwigs best efforts to cram her into the media mainstream. Allegedly “cute” just ain't enough to cut it, unfortunately. She's dim. She's an awful liar. And she's bereft of any vestiges of what one could remotely call “style” or “pizazz”. She couldn't connect with viewers if you coated her with Krazy Glue and fired her into an audience full of them. The poor thing is wooden to the point of petrification, and when on-camera, is about as on her toes as Cindy-Fucking-Brady on a game show to boot. Throw in the sad fact that she also has all of the charm of a roiling bucket of lye. Michelle Obama is everything Michelle Malkin is not. Stylish, damn smart, a success in her own right and the posessor of the charm and people-connectability that her alternate universe opposite has none of.

So yeah...there is some serious hateration and holleration goin' on up in Malkin's chintzy, Strawberry's™-outfitted danceree. They trotted her out there and she as usual cipher-ized the report with what she typically brings to the table—which is nothing. But then...(cues the band with another finger-point)

“Band!” (Guitars in now)

...because the network too has nothin', they weakly opted to shore up their “report” with that patently offensive graphic. Now I know the internal excuse is that some fucknut who just got their communications degree thought it would be all funny and cool and shit to rhyme something catchy with the Obama name (“Baby Mama”), and that they were just trying to be “hip”. But the real deal is evident to everyone with eyes and ears and any sense of the campaign season's present trajectory.

Fox “News” is in desperation mode in their trying to spin for the GOP this election year. The Republican brand is so damaged by the eight years of Bush and a pliant GOP-run congress that they'd be better off trying to spin a three-ton granite block half-buried in a tar pit, than winning talking points for Republicans. The ham-fistedness of this incident along with the lame “terra-dap” episode is clear evidence of that. They've. Got. Nothin'. And in having nothin', all that's left is the hewn-from-crazy-wood buckets they're carrying that flimsy-ass nothin' around in. It's gotten so bad that they're reduced to choppin' those up and burnin' em for fuel, wearin' em as clothes and making dinner out of 'em. Mmmmmmm-mmmmmmm, not very good. But here's where we're gonna signal the whole band to come back in for the last chorus—the big finish if you will. (Clenched fist-pump)

“Band!” (Horns and keyboards come in now, filling out the sound)

What they are doing, or rather trying to do to Michelle Obama here and for the forseeable future is to reduce her to the lowest common denominator “Black Chick” that they possibly can. The woman is Princeton and Harvard educated, a law school graduate, a former Dean at the University of Chicago, and a VP at the University of Chicago Hospitals. She's a doting mother of two daughters and has long been politically active. But what Fox News wants to do is bring her back to a place where their viewers and otherwise confused (by her status in spite of her color for them) Republican voters can deal with her on the party's terms.

Bluntly...she must be “re-n*ggerfied”.

Which is why she's spun as Hattie McDaniel “mouthy” and “sassy”. It's why she's being cast by them as the off-putting, “off-the-corner”, 'round-the-way, loudmouthed ghetto-gal with loose ways—evidenced by the “Baby Mama” misnomer. That phrase is generally applied to an urban woman of color who has children by an absent or otherwise unknown father. What reason could be given for the bandying about of that very distinct moniker other than to cast her in a negative light? Fuck the rhyming and word games—there are scatologically obvious plays one could make on Bush's name, but Fox wouldn't dare do that, right? Right?

So yeah, spare me. Please.

Oh yes, there lies a secondary element of racial dissery here with this bit of classic Fox-ism.

It is the age-old switcheroo American society has long pulled on its Black female population.

From the days of slavery, one of the main ways to break the spirit of Black women was to forcibly convert them into sex objects and play-toys for the majority population. “Bed Wenches” or “Bed Warmers” they were called, and basically that meant that they were just random pieces of ass to be grabbed whenever lust struck ol' “Massa”. Black women could be taken, used, discarded and disregarded as little more than sex toys—never mind free will or attachments to someone else. As such, those hyper-sexualized chains of the the “Black-Woman-As-On-Demand-Superfreak” go well beyond someone who might unfortunately have been forced to sexually submit, but is also extended to effectively restrain the aspirations of women of color who would dare to live beyond stereotypes. “Focus on dat body.” “Oooooooh those lips!” “You know how they like their sex!” et.al. It's the ultimate diminishment of a person down to a single, furtive, physical act.

Hitch it to its cross-gender counterpart and you have brilliantly evil construct of subjugation:

Black men are scary and violent! The women? Sex-crazed banshees!

And then, in the ultimate mind-fuck, when the Black man's potential for physical threat becomes too difficult to handle in pop culture, along with the intoxicating allure of many Black women (both in spite of what other things they may bring to the table) the script is casually flipped—de-nuding them of all vestiges of physicality or soul to speak of to create one-dimensional, safe “Negroes” for the masses in pop culture, alá MIssion Impossible's “Barney Collier” (as played by the late Greg Morris) and yes, Josie and The Pussycats' “Val”. It's these pre-fab “Negroes” whose imagery and temperament are deemed acceptable, while the inverted and equally pre-fabbed image of the n*gger to fear / n*gger to fuck is deemed unacceptable. However, both images are force-marketed to the majority population. There's no room for complexity at fearful racists' table. You are either a hyper-emotional, carnal beast or or a soul-less dusky automaton. Whichever fits the necessary negative needed at the moment.

Right about now, for Fox, it's about Michelle Obama, dat ol' wanton wild-woman. An' lawty-lawd—she done had herse'f a whole mess a kids, too! An' dat au-tomatically makes dem babies questionable!

Thus, “Baby Mama”.

Now of course, just like the terrorist fist-jab thang, this was so over-the-top that the Foxies had to back off it as well—albeit in their typical half-ass apology / screw you style, leaving the poor, rage-o-holic Malkin out there all by her lonesome to defend the deed. And she didn't disappoint, simultaneously pooh-poohing the flap while also trying to absolve herself of any blame ('I don't write the captions, so there!'). And you know you've struck a nerve with her when she's forced to fall back on her old doomsday play, “But I'm the victim here!”—as she paraded out the usual few rough e-mails she got from people who chewed her narrow ass off for her part in Fox's shitty little segment. “Waaaaaaaaaah! Look at how badly I'm being treated!” cries the wretch who in the offending piece crowed about Ms. Obama's somehow being “fair game”.

Yeah. Okay. Lemme run that Fox screenshot through my own little chyron-generator to fix the obvious-to-all goof...


There. I think we've got it right, now.

Oh, here's a song for your ass, oh, Michelle The Lesser. And hey—try not to fracture a hip spazzin' around to dance to it. Okay?

There's more...

McCain Called His Wife a What?

ABSOLUTELY NOT SAFE FOR WORK.
(Bleeped version here.)

Last Christmas I said you would never hear this word here again. That the "C" word was simply inappropriate to what we're attempting to create here at Group News Blog.

*sighs*

John McCain has made the word newsworthy. I'm sorry.

In this thread only, you may use the "C" word in comments. 'Cause, duh. We're using it, and some of you will likely want to also. This is a one-time exception, folks. In future threads, please just use ****, or c***. Thank you.

Also note the word is used in this post. If that isn't safe for your work, please bail out now.

Video courtesy of Public Service Administration.

Cliff Schecter in The Real McCain:

Rawstory (Headline at link NOT WORK SAFE)

[R]eports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop.

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.

The man who was known as "McNasty" in high school has erupted in foul-languaged tirades at political foes and congressional colleagues more-or-less throughout his career, and his quickness to anger has been an issue on the presidential campaign trail as evidence of his fury has surfaced.

As Schecter notes, McCain's rage is not limited to the political spectrum, and even his family cannot be spared the brute force of his anger.

McCain was asked the question in a Town Hall meeting...and ducked.

Emotion moves voters, not logic.

Last month my oldest daughter, Avian (21), and I were driving to Gig Harbor. She was talking politics, and mentioned she kind of liked McCain's position on this and that. Even telling her he was against abortion made no difference.

I told Avian that McCain had called his wife a cunt. She was shocked. "He did what?! Oh... that's wrong! I mean, my girlfriends and I might say that joking around, but no guy ever gets to call us that."

McCain is over for her. And she's telling her girlfriends.

People vote on emotion.

McCain is an:

• old
• angry
• George Bush hugging
  
• war-loving
  
• white guy
• who called his own wife a cunt.

Know it. Share it. Use it.

(Again, you may use the word in the comments for this thread only. It's news, and it's on point. So we're covering it. But our standard policy remains that the "C" word is the one word we do not allow at GNB.)

There's more...

Texas Appellate Court Rules State Seizure of FDLS Children Was Wrong

The raid on the YFZ Ranch happened April 3, 2008. This photo taken April 4 by a member of the FLDS.

“The Department did not present any evidence of danger”

In a stunning reversal, the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals reversed the District Judge who ruled last month that the children sized in the April 3, 2008 raid on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, should not have been taken by the State, saying “The Department did not present any evidence of danger.”

CNN

The judges did not order that the children be returned to Yearning for Zion Ranch in Eldorado, but they directed the lower court to vacate its order granting custody of the children to the state.

In its ruling, the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals decided in favor of 38 women who had challenged the removals and appealed a decision last month by a district judge that the children remain in state custody.

"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger," the three-judge panel said.

More than 450 children were removed from their homes on the Yearning for Zion Ranch, which is owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Mormon offshoot that practices polygamy.

An attorney representing the mothers said the trial court that originally backed the state's seizure of the children has 10 days to vacate its decision. If it doesn't, the appeals court will act, said Julie Balovich of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid.

Although the ruling applies only to 38 mothers and their children represented in this case, "we believe the reasoning in the court of appeals decision would apply to all children," Balovich said.

After the state took custody of the children, the mothers appealed the order on the grounds the department failed to establish that the need for protection was urgent.

Because no such proof was presented, the mothers argued, the district court -- which backed the department's seizure of the children -- "was required to return the children to their parents and abused its discretion by failing to do so."

The appeals panel agreed.

"Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is not evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal prior to full litigation of the issue," the panel wrote.

Outside the courthouse, Balovich said it was "ridiculous" how the courts had ignored the parents' rights.

"It was about time a court stood up and said that what has been happening to these families is wrong," she said.

Flanked by the FLDS mothers represented in the case, Balovich said authorities considered the YFZ Ranch one household, an assertion with which the appeals court did not agree.

Therefore, proving that there was abuse in one household did not mean the state could apply that behavior to the entire ranch.

"This was the right decision," Balovich said, adding that she and her clients are "ecstatic about this news."

The authenticity of the initial abuse reports that turned authorities' attention on the ranch is in question, the court noted in its ruling.

Police have alleged that a family shelter crisis line received multiple calls March 29 and 30 from a caller claiming to be Sarah Jessop Barlow, age 16.

At least one of the telephones used by "Sarah Barlow" has been traced to a Colorado woman. Police say Rozita Swinton is a person of interest in connection with the reports of abuse at the ranch, but she has not been charged. She does, however, face a charge of providing a false report to authorities in a Colorado case.

Here are some key quotes from the actual opinion.

The Volokh Conspiracy

The Department did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty. Nor did the Department offer any evidence that any of Relators' pubescent female children were in physical danger other than that those children live at the ranch among a group of people who have a "pervasive system of belief” that condones polygamous marriage and underage females having children. [Footnote: The Department's witnesses conceded that there are differences of opinion among the FLDS community as to what is an appropriate age to marry, how many spouses to have, and when to start having children—much as there are differences of opinion regarding the details of religious doctrine among other religious groups.]

The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger. It is the imposition of certain alleged tenets of that system on specific individuals that may put them in physical danger. The Department failed to offer any evidence that any of the pubescent female children of the Relators were in such physical danger. The record is silent as to whether the Relators or anyone in their households are likely to subject their pubescent female children to underage marriage or sex. The record is also silent as to how many of Relators' children are pubescent females and whether there is any risk to them other than that they live in a community where there is a "pervasive belief system" that condones marriage and child" rearing as soon as females reach puberty.

The Department also failed to establish that the need for protection of the Relators' children was urgent and required immediate removal of the children. As previously noted, none of the identified minors who are or have been pregnant are children of Relators. There is no evidence that any of the five pregnant minors live in the same household as the Relators' children. [Footnote: The notion that the entire ranch community constitutes a "household" as contemplated by section 262.201 and justifies removing all children from the ranch community if there even is one incident of suspected child sexual abuse is contrary to the evidence. The Department's witnesses acknowledged that the ranch community was divided into separate family groups and separate households. While there was evidence that the living arrangements on the ranch are more communal than most typical neighborhoods, the evidence was not legally or factually sufficient to support a theory that the entire ranch community was a "household" under section 262.201.]

There is no evidence that Relators have allowed or are going to allow any of their minor female children to be subjected to any sexual or physical abuse. There is simply no evidence specific to Relators' children at all except that they exist, they were taken into custody at the Yearning For Zion ranch, and they are living with people who share a "pervasive belief system" that condones underage marriage and underage pregnancy.

Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse as the Department contends, there is no evidence that this danger is "immediate" or "urgent" as contemplated by section 262.201 with respect to every child in the community. [Footnote, slightly moved: The simple fact, conceded by the Department, that not all FLDS families are polygamous or allow their female children to marry as minors demonstrates the danger of removing children from their homes based on the broad-brush ascription of every aspect of a belief system to every person living among followers of the belief system or professing to follow the belief system.] ... Evidence that children raised in this particular environment may someday have their physical health and safety threatened is no evidence that the danger is imminent enough to warrant invoking the extreme measure of immediate removal prior to full litigation of the issue as required by section 262.201.

Finally, there was no evidence that the Department made reasonable efforts to eliminate or prevent the removal of any of Relators' children [as required under §262.201]. The evidence is that the Department went to the Yearning For Zion ranch to investigate a distress call from a sixteen year-old girl. [Footnote: The authenticity of this call is in doubt. Department investigators did not locate the caller on the ranch.] After interviewing a number of children, they concluded that there were five minors who were or had been pregnant and that the belief system of the community allowed minor females to marry and bear children.

They then removed all of the children in the community (including infants) from their homes and ultimately separated the children from their parents. This record does not reflect any reasonable effort on the part of the Department to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation from parents would have eliminated the risk the Department perceived with respect to any of the children of Relators....

Sara has blogged extensively about the FLDS. Here are some links...

The Third Strike -- Nov 20, 2007

Well, Warren Jeffs finally got sent to prison. The sentence was two consecutive five-year terms -- which means he'll be paroled in seven, the way things usually go -- which hardly seems like enough for a guy who arranged for the statutory rape of dozens of adolescent girls, each of whom will be scarred for life by the choices he made on their behalf. But it's the first time in a long time that anybody in the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) has seen the inside of a jailhouse, and I suppose we should be grateful for a good start.

Are FLDS women brainwashed? -- April 16, 2008

Almost every feature of these women's lives is determined by someone else. They do not choose what they wear, whom they live with, when and whom they marry, or when and with whom they have sex. From the day they're born, they can be reassigned at a moment's notice to another father or husband, another household, or another community. Most will have no educational choices (FLDS kids are taught in church-run schools, usually only through about tenth grade -- by which point they girls are usually married and pregnant). Everything they produce goes into a trust controlled by the patriarch: they do not even own their own labor. If they object to any of this, they're subject to losing access to the resources they need to raise their kids: they can be moved to a trailer with no heat, and given less food than more compliant wives, until they learn to "keep sweet."

The Secret Lives of Saints -- April 19, 2008

One of the most perceptive and tenacious reporters covering these developments as been Daphne Bramham of the Vancouver Sun. (A collection of her reporting on the FLDS over the past several years can be found online here.) Bramham's focus has been on the remote 2500-member Bountiful compound just outside Creston, BC, which was founded in 1947 by Roy Blackmore and a group from one of Canada's largest historical Mormon settlements in Cardston, AB. Roy's son Winston Blackmore inherited the role of patriarch for the community until Warren Jeffs cheated him out of control in 2002.

What We're Not Talking About, Part I: Other Issues With the FLDS -- April 21, 2008

One of the things we need to understand is just how the FLDS managed to stay so far under the radar for so long -- and what twisted consequences were allowed to follow from that lack of oversight. Bramham shows that they did a stunningly effective job of building their own self-sufficient infrastructure of community institutions -- hospitals, police forces, courts, financial trusts, schools, and employers -- that allowed the church to function without interacting with the outside world any more than necessary. Most of the group's institutions were designed to mimic and supplant outside authority well enough to keep the group (and especially its treatment of women and children) hidden from the prying eyes of outsiders. And, for 60 years, those who were responsible for providing higher-level oversight for all these institutions have almost always been somehow induced to look the other way.

How Dangerous is The FLDS? -- April 22, 2008

One of the trickiest parts of dealing with the extremist right is figuring out whether a given group is just harmless garden-variety crazy -- or harboring the special kind of insanity that will lead to acts of local violence or outright domestic terror.

It's a question worth asking in the wake of the state of Texas' intervention in the Eldorado colony of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints. As the country is thrust into a fresh debate over individual religious freedom versus our collective interest in protecting people's civil rights, we're struggling once again with the deeper question: When should we leave people alone? And when does the state have a public duty to intervene?

Or read The Secret World of Polygamy in The Vancouver Sun, featuring Daphne Bramham.

Quite the bit of news.

Is the entire FLDS culture so damaged that the state has a duty to intervene? Or are the tools of the state such a blunt instrument they could be used to rip apart virtually any religious household?

Is the Appeals Court right?

Is this nothing but rape and sexism, now being imprinted with the official grant of the Court? Or is this the Court protecting the rights of all of us by refusing to let the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services tear families apart? Keep in mind, that Family and Protective Services, regardless of its name in any state, is typically not especially respectful of family rights. The abuses of CPS (as it is known here) in my own state of Washington, are legion.

Yet.

Girls being married routinely at 14 and 15. To men in their 40s and 50s. While the boys are pushed out of the family (lost boys) onto the street with just the money in their pocket, to make certain there are enough girls for the men.

That's simply wrong.

What are your thoughts?

There's more...

Misogyny... Or Something else?

Why Did Clinton Lose?

The primary fight is over. Hillary Clinton has lost.

Everything you're seeing now is theater, designed to let her gracefully ease her supporters from backing her for President, into backing the nominee of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama. Clinton will concede officially by June 15.

What she is doing now -- from the joint fund at the DNC with Obama, Clinton and the DNC -- lets her start to retire her campaign debt, campaign in a larger sense for party unity, and make clear to her supporters it is indeed over. The General Election has began -- which is why President Bush is attacking Senator Obama.

So...

That means it is time for "looking back" articles on Clinton's loss.

Let's start with the Washington Post.

Washington Post

Misogyny I Won't Miss

By Marie Cocco

Thursday, May 15, 2008; Page A15

As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it's time to take stock of what I will not miss.

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan "Bros before Hos." The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won't miss television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item.

I won't miss episodes like the one in which liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "big [expletive] whore" and said the same about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before an audience of appreciative Obama supporters -- one of whom had promoted the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee's official campaign Web site.

I won't miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: "Obama did great in February, and that's because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary's doing much better 'cause it's White Bitch Month, right?" Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette.

I won't miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie "Fatal Attraction." In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding stalker who terrorizes the man's blissful suburban family. Message: Psychopathic home-wrecker, begone.

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a "she-devil" (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court" (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it's mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like "a scolding mother, talking down to a child" (Jack Cafferty on CNN).