Who Would Have Guessed?

The Bush war-criminals quietly released a 164-page report today evaluating the administration's abstinence-only education initiative of the past few years. These morons have spent over $87 million per year and about $1.5 billion overall for this abstinence wet-dream of theirs.

What do you think this report concluded? How about a few choice quotes? And if you are a visual-learner, go here for some charts.

Findings: indicate that youth in the program group were no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age.

Sexual Abstinence: Program and control group youth were equally likely to have remained abstinent.

Unprotected Sex: Program and control group youth did not differ in their rates unprotected sex, either at first intercourse or over the last 12 months. Over the last 12 months, 23 percent of both groups reported having had sex and always using a condom; 17 percent of both groups reported having had sex and only sometimes using a condom; and 4 percent of both groups reported having had sex and never using a condom.

Age at First Intercourse: For both the program and control group youth, the reported mean age at first intercourse was identical, 14.9 years.

Sexual Partners: Program and control group youth also did not differ in the number of partners with whom they had sex. Comparing the program and control groups overall, the distributions on the number of reported sex partners are nearly identical. About one-quarter of all youth in both groups had sex with three or more partners, and about one in six had sex with four or more partners.

Wow, what a fucking surprise! No differences at all between the program participants and the control group. That would be $87 million dollars a year, and over $1.5 billion to prove what we already knew.

Here is what we really know--the Bush war-criminals simply wanted to give millions and millions of dollars to their religious fanatic friends. And even though this report proves their idiocy, they kept that money away from American who really needed it. They could have actually used it to help curb teen pregnancy. What a novel idea.

On That Imus Moron

Please take a look at this link concerning the Imus controversy. I have read some excellent writing on what a fucked-up bigot he is. But I think this post is particularily worth viewing.....and thinking about.

Throw Out the Tofu Ma....It's Making Us Queer

Sometimes these right-wingnuts publish articles that are so bizarre and outrageous that I start to think maybe they are all just comedians. Yes, maybe instead of being obnoxious religious zealots, they are trying to be funny......and we just don't get it. Their humor is so sophisticated that the bandwidth in our liberal brains hasn't been able to process it all. Right!

So I just had to make this "humor" available to all of you. I first saw it on Pandagon and then Pam's House Blend did fine work describing it as "today's batshittery article of the day."

This is from some guy named Jim Rutz at the World Net Daily. And as you will read for yourself, his article(s) are entitled, "Soy Is Making Kids Gay." Yes, that's right, soy--as in tofu and all that other stuff they sell at Whole Foods and Mississippi Market--it's making our kids gay (as in homosexual).

Here is a quote from Jim Rutz that I'm sure will make you want to read all of his "scientific" information about soy products.

"Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion, and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say they can't remember a time when excess estrogen (in the soy products) wasn't influencing them."

Wow! I didn't know all this--especially those facts about penis size and sexual confusion. I don't want to start carrying a purse like this guy! I'm going back to being a serious meat-eater. My heart and arteries might not like it, but my penis will undoubtedly "stand up" and say thanks!

Another Tragic Wisconsin Hunting Incident

An important and sad story submitted by our friend Chet Brinkley.

On Saturday 6 January 2007, Green Bay, Wisconsin resident Cha Vang (left), a 40-year-old man who had been living in the United States for less than two years, was hunting, separated from the rest of his friends, when he encountered Peshtigo, Wisconsin resident James Nichols, 28. According to Nichols, arrested after showing up at a local hospital with a single, non-life-threatening gunshot wound, the two began arguing after Nichols complained Vang was interfering with his hunting. Vang shot him, he claimed, without provocation, so Nichols defended himself. In the process of questioning, he told several contradictory versions of this tale.

The facts bring the story together in stark, disturbing detail. Convicted felon Nichols, rather than reporting the incident to the police, tried to camouflage Vang’s body under leaves and debris. During questioning Nichols said Hmong people were mean and "kill everything, and that they go for anything that moves…[the] Hmong group are bad." Finally, the attorney general reported that Vang was shot from a much closer distance than Nichols claimed—and while walking AWAY from his killer. Vang was also stabbed six times, including a wound that severed his jugular vein, and was found with a 3-4 inch wooden stick protruding from his clenched teeth. Nichols claimed Vang screamed, “I'm going to kill you! I’m going to kill you!’ but Vang knew no English. Dacia James, Nichols’ fiancée who helped him hide the murder weapon, said she had never heard Nichols say anything negative about Hmong people. “He has never been racist or derogatory against someone who didn't deserve it."

Reports in January set Nichols’ first court date for 14 February but no public reports regarding this case have been seen since then. As the Washington Post reported, prejudice is not hard to find in this region (this article is no longer available online):

Bob Kovar, a retired cranberry grower, left his job to head his own initiative to talk with middle and high school students in the Minocqua (Wisconsin) area about their racial views. "At first, I didn't think my community was racist -- then I saw when I had kids in the schools that this community is pretty open about its prejudiced views and has had generations of violence over that," Kovar said. His program focuses on introducing tribal and white students to each other's cultures -- many characteristics of which they find are similar -- and educating them on diversity. On Tuesday, Kovar plans to hold a town hall meeting with students and families from the area schools to discuss racial tensions. But he has heard from many white parents that they will not attend because the meeting will be held on the reservation that feeds Indian students to Lakeland Union, the one high school in the region.

Where the hell do any of us get off acting like we own a bigger share or have a greater right to this country just because our ancestors showed up here before somebody else’s—or because those ancestors may have killed or robbed or bullied or enslaved those who were here before them? Cha Vang, his wife of 13 years Pang Vue, and their five children, and all Hmong people are in the United States because our government selected, trained, equipped, and mobilized their people to fight against Lao and Vietnamese communists. They lost 10% of their population in that conflict. It is because of America's pull-out from Southeast Asia that the communists overran Vietnam and Laos, and that the Hmong people who sided with us were compelled to flee the country.

In coming to the United States, the Hmong people's biggest obstacle is not the language, the strange, sometimes intimidating culture and technology, the pain of watching their children abandoning ages-old customs and traditions so they can be more acceptable to their classmates, or anything else as much as it is people like James Nichols—or any ignoramus who looks at one man like Chai Soua Vang and confers his misdeeds on all Hmong people—or is so stupid as to think that Chai Soua Vang (another tragic Wisconsin Hmong-white hunting incident) and Cha Vang must be related. (There are only 18 last names in Hmong culture.) Chai Soua Vang’s actions cannot be defended, but it’s quite clear that the story told by the survivors of that horrible incident omitted a few details that might have cast the dead in a less complimentary light. They weren’t as interested in telling the truth as they were putting him away. An all-white jury sentenced him without batting an eye. Chai Soua Vang got the right sentence, but it’s hard to argue that he got justice. What will a likely all-white jury decide in the case of Cha Vang’s murderer? And how closely will the non-Hmong community be watching? (Nichols has recently pleaded not guilty).

He Wasn't Very Good Either

The unpleasant side-effects of the abysmal and failed Bush presidency are many—too many to be analyzed here. But one that specifically intrigues me is the effort being made by conservatives to shift the historical focus from their current incompetent leader to their past inept leader…..Ronald Reagan.

Granted, conservatives do have an argument—compared to Bush, any past chief executives looks stellar. Hell, William Howard Taft seems like a veritable statesman compared to Bush. This is an opportune time to drag any pariah out of the historical ashes for rehabilitation.

But Ronald Reagan is the one that conservatives place on their political pedestal. While the right has always looked up to Reagan, Bush is now making him look much, much better to conservatives and even to moderate Republicans (if they actually exist).

Two things strike me as paradoxical here. First, if Reagan was a great president (and he wasn’t), conservatives wouldn’t need George W. Bush to draw that distinction. Reagan’s presidency should be able to stand on its own—which it can’t. And second, when Bush was riding high in the polls, the wing-nuts were calling him Reagan’s heir. What happened? It seems Bush is actually the one who has attempted to carry out the radical conservative agenda—why now separate him from their conservative hero when Bush has been doing what the wingers wanted all along?

Well, I won’t try to get into the mind of one of those right-wingers, that would be entirely too difficult and might give me some sort of brain damage. But what is going on is this—Bush’s dismal failures are forcing conservatives to find another champion by which to rally their supporters. I suppose it is a logical move for them—they need their idols and frankly, they don’t have many. Which brings up an interesting question—except for that fellow Jesus, who do the right-wingers look to for inspiration? DeLay……Cheney.....Scalia…..Newt……Mel Gibson????? It is sad isn’t it?

I digress. The point is this—Reagan was not a very good president in spite of the spin that you are going to hear from the GOP for the next few years. He was average at best, and probably a better fit in the below average category.

First, he spent the taxpayer's money like a drunken sailor and incurred huge debts that did not dissolve until Bill Clinton and those big-spending liberals took over. I know the AM talk-show crowd blames Congress for all this—but that just isn't accurate. Reagan showed no inclination to actually cut spending. All he did was talk about it.

Second, please don’t accept the simplistic crap about how Reagan single-handedly ended the Cold War. That is the kind of anti-intellectual drivel that conservatives like to propagate because their constituents need one-dimensional answers. The Cold War must be examined in its entirety, it was never simple. There were numerous factors that contributed to its demise. Americans should know that already—but unfortunately, in the “intelligent design” environment of today, they don’t.

Third—and conservatives should know this but they chose to overlook it—Reagan actually never tried to institute the radical right-wing agenda. He cared about taxes and big government, but seemed uncomfortable with some of the other hot button issues. Yes, he talked about abortion and prayer in school, but never attempted to legislate those issues. They were used basically to fire up the conservative base.

Fourth, and I think this is one of the most important issues…..Reagan made it accepted for conservatives--especially angry white males--to blame the poor and the disadvantaged for the nation's problems. He gave terribly unsophisticated speeches about a welfare queen (always a woman) driving a Cadillac and making $50,000.00 from illegal welfare checks. No one every located that “welfare mom” and it’s clear she was fabricated. But Reagan’s words and encouragement made it fashionable in the 1980s to blame the poor for everything.

Reagan also set race relation back for years. Remember that he launched his 1980 campaign with a states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi—the place where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 1960s. He and his staff knew what they were doing—they didn’t just accidentally stop in that little town. They were sending a message to the racists on the right. Again, making it okay for conservatives to use race to divide the nation.

And his reaction to AIDS was criminal. Why worry about homosexuals—it’s their own fault anyway isn’t it? God is punishing them for their lifestyle. Besides, his constituents didn’t care. This issue alone should have shamed the administration. But once again, those blue-collar, working class “Reagan Democrats" didn’t much care for urban gays anyway—so why do anything? Disgusting.

Scandals (Iran-Contra, that's the criminal Oliver North at below right), massive budget deficits, racism, tax cuts for the rich, blame-the-poor rhetoric, homophobic public policies…..this is what the Reagan administration was all about–and don’t forget it. Just because George Bush is worse doesn’t mean Reagan should climb in the eyes of history. He was who he was—and he was a mediocre president who did great damage to many people on the margins of society. And he didn’t seem to care.

But for the pathetic Republican party, he is about the only national figure they have had in the past 60 years that holds any historical legitimacy (Ike was really the last one!). Isn't it sad being a Republican--at times, I almost feel sorry for them.

What the Hell is This?

Have you folks seen this picture? The village idiot Bush is saying something inane about Iraq--but what the hell is Cheney doing lurking around in the weeds? This guy is scary isn't he? You think Bush knows he's there? I don't see his hands, maybe he's taking a piss.

In Praise of Dogs

submitted by our friend Chet Brinkley--and we all sincerely hope Danny gets well very soon!

Meaning no disrespect to Buddy, Queen Lexie, and their generous hosts, but in the interest of pet bipartisanship I think it’s about time we gave a little glory to our canine friends.

I grew up in a household with no pets other than occasional goldfish. My parents—good-hearted, practical people—had no intention of taking over the feeding and care of a pet after their children’s two days of excitement and dedication wore off. My lovely partner, however, grew up with a menagerie of cats, dogs, and horses, and so it was clear that if we were ever to wed, I was going to have to pass the “sniff test” with her pets—which fortunately I did.

When we changed domiciles eleven years ago, our cat freaked out and began turning our entire basement into a litterbox, so alas, we had to bid her a sad farewell, and haven’t had one since. So dogs rule the roost in our home.

Some of our biggest laughs and most serene moments have been brought to us by our dogs. And the amount of comfort a dog can provide in times of sorrow in many ways outstrips any human feat of word or deed—mostly because dogs know how to shut up and just be there for you.

Unfortunately, getting pets (unless you make the dubious choice of buying a bird that will live a hundred years) is a devil’s bargain. You know they’ll worm their way into your heart, you know they’ll become a part of the family, and you know the chances are extremely good that they’ll depart this mortal coil well before you do, leaving you in a crumpled, weeping mass with vet bills resembling a payment on a Mercedes Benz.

Our pal Danny (pictured above) is 12 years old. The vet says he has the constitution of a seven-year-old, but out of the blue he started having seizures. We haven’t given up just yet. We’re not going to take out a second mortgage, and we certainly don’t want our friend to suffer unnecessarily, but we hope we get some more quality time with him before that wordless communication and those soulful eyes finally make it clear to us that the devil must be given his due. And after tears are shed and precious memories are tucked away for safekeeping, we’ll enter into that bargain again, and see some of the grief assuaged by a new introduction and courtship that turns into another enchanting though all-too brief love affair with another best friend.

And I Thought We Were Winning!

Okay folks, it’s now official…..the Iraq War is lost….it’s over. How do we know, because Henry Kissinger said so. But before I talk about Kissinger and Iraq, get a load of this opening paragraph from the AP article in the International Herald Tribune:

“Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, said Sunday the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible.”

Does anyone else see some irony in this sentence? Henry Kissinger “who helped engineer the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam” Withdrawal? Withdrawal? What the hell are they talking about? It took Kissinger and Nixon five fucking years to withdraw from that quagmire. And we know that not one god-damned thing was gained from 1969 to the war's official end in 1975. Just more and more deaths—lives wasted to be exact. Nixon and Kissinger could have ended that war in 1969, but I guess they were too busy “engineering a withdrawal.”

Anyway, Kissinger is now telling us what we already know. The former Secretary of State said that:

"A 'military victory' in the sense of total control over the whole territory, imposed on the entire population, is not possible,” adding that the, “faceless, ubiquitous nature of Iraq's insurgency, as well as the religious divide between Shiite and Sunni rivals, makes negotiating peace more complex."

"It is a more complicated problem," Kissinger said. "The Vietnam War involved states, and you could negotiate with leaders who controlled a defined area."

But Dr. Kissinger couldn’t be content with a simple analysis of the dire situation in Iraq. You see, Kissinger very much likes to cavort with people in power. He fears no further calls from the White House. What if policymakers stopped seeking him out for his opinions on global affairs? What if they stopped inviting him to parties? What if Charlie Rose quit having on his talk show?

So even though Kissinger flatly stated that the war in Iraq was lost—he had to mitigate those negative sentiments with something nice for the incompetent Bush administration. Kissinger claimed that he sympathized with the troubles that Bush is facing and “warned that a sudden pullout of U.S. troops or loss of influence could unleash chaos.”

Tell me, how much more chaos can we have in Iraq? If we leave, there will be chaos????? What the fuck is happening now?

And then, in words that his hero Metternich would have enjoyed, Kissinger suggested an international conference to get the United States off the hook. Yes, that will surely work!

“Kissinger said the best way forward is to reconcile the differences between Iraq's warring sects with help from other countries. He applauded efforts to host an international conference bringing together the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Iraq's neighbors — including Iran, Washington's longtime rival in the region.”

Then, in one final shot at those dirty fucking hippies that have been dogging him for nearly 40 years—Kissinger called for an end to the partisan bickering.

"The role of America in the world cannot be defined by our internal partisan quarrels," he said. "All the leaders, both Republican and Democratic, have to remember that it will go on for several more years and find some basis for common action."

No way asshole. The partisan bickering will continue as long as the partisan pricks in the Bush administration stay in Iraq.....As long as Bush and his war criminal pals keep wasting American lives.....And as long as the administration continues spending money in Iraq instead of spending it on health care, education, poverty, or New Orleans

Thanks for telling us what we already knew Henry--we are losing in Iraq and have no chance. We appreciate your honesty. But I for one will remain a partisan bickerer, just like I was in 1972 when you were managing your own immoral war.

I Shall Not Seek, and I Will Not Accept......

This past weekend (March 31 to be exact) marked the anniversary of an extremely important political event. Thirty-nine years ago, on a normal Sunday evening, millions of American sat in front of their grainy black-and-white TV screens to hear what President Lyndon B. Johnson would say about Vietnam War. The president did talk about Vietnam, but he dropped a bombshell at the end of the speech:

"I have concluded that I shall not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year."

"I do not believe I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office--the Presidency of your country."

"Therefore, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

This ambitious and powerful man, who had won a tremendous landslide just four years earlier, had become so troubled by an unpopular war—that he was ostensibly ending his long and brilliant political career.

So many things happened in 1968 that it’s difficult to select any one as critical. Many younger political junkies might not see Johnson’s decision as all that important. But if you go back and look at the political situation, this was tremendously significant event that has ramification not only in 1968—but actually sent shock-waves throughout the system for years. Let me explain.

By January 1968, Lyndon Johnson was embattled, but he remained a dominant figure. Had he sought the nomination, it would have been his. He still could have made policy adjustments in Vietnam. And while major changes were not forthcoming, short cease-fires and more peace talks were still possible.

Granted, things had been getting worse in Vietnam. In January came the Tet offensive--North Vietnamese troops attacked numerous provincial capitals and major cities in the south, including an attack on the U.S. embassy in Saigon and the presidential palace. Tet showed that the U.S. was not winning the war. And remember, this war was not censored by the government. Americans saw the body bags every evening on TV.

But even with these extreme difficulties, the Democratic Party and its leaders would have lined up behind LBJ. In 1968, the party structure was not as decentralized as it is today. The Democratic hierarchy was ruled by the president and it would have been nearly impossible to defeat him. Yes, an insurgent candidate could embarrass LBJ, or damage him for the November run…..but the way the convention votes were gathered and tallied, Johnson would have had few problems taking the nomination.

But what we were starting to see by 1968 was the deterioration of that old system. At the time, many still did not see its imminent downfall. Maybe Johnson saw it crumbling…..maybe Eugene McCarthy did too. But things were taking place that would have ramification for the future of American politics—Johnson served to exacerbate those changes when he gave that March 31 speech.

By the start of the year, most assumed the Johnson-Humphrey ticket would stand for reelection. But some of the antiwar left went looking for a challenger. At the time, this seemed more symbolic that substantive. Most saw New York senator Robert Kennedy as the clear first-choice—but he was not willing to challenge Johnson or the war….yet. Minnesota senator Eugene McCarthy finally agreed to face the president. No one gave him a chance.

Then in the March 12 New Hampshire primary, Johnson beat McCarthy 49% to 42%. This shook the political world. How could this soft-spoken, antiwar senator get such support? People started to wonder a little more about the war, maybe it was time to question the politicians on this.

But the old political “machines” were also starting to collapse. If McCarthy could do it......maybe these primaries would allow the “people” to select the candidates. At the time, the primaries weren’t worth much at the convention (pols like mayor Daley still ruled), but if the grass-roots spoke, the leaders would have to listen wouldn’t they?

McCarthy had opened some eyes and people were just wondering what all of this meant. Then two days later, Robert Kennedy entered the race. RFK was the star of the party and the realistic hope of the left. He is still be criticized for waiting too long—for not being as courageous as McCarthy—but when he entered, the dynamics of the campaign changed even more.

So by the end of March, President Johnson was being challenged by two Democrats, and he still seemed flustered by the war—which was going badly. And while he controlled the party and could have garnered the nomination, he called it quits.

What were the implications here? By abandoning the race, I think that Johnson set in motion tremendous political changes. Yes, these changes would have taken place sooner or later, but without the 1968 political turmoil—probably later. By dropping out of the race, the antiwar left and the student movement saw that they could possibly change the system. If they could do this, maybe they could end the war…..maybe they could change the corrupt system itself.

LBJ had opened the door and the activist took advantage. While the 1968 election didn’t turn out the way the left wanted (Nixon v. Humphrey; Kennedy dead; the party in ruins), there was hope that manifested itself during the next 4 years.

I still believe Johnson hoped the party might still draft him at the summer convention. He was an ambitious man—and he still might have won the election. But there are times when I also think maybe Johnson knew something—maybe he had begun to understand that he was on the wrong side of history. Maybe he saw that the nation and its institutions were changing rather quickly.

Lyndon Johnson shocked the nation that Sunday evening and set in motion some important electoral changes in this nation. It now seems like it couldn't have been any other way--for 1968 turned out to be a great social, cultural, and political divide. Johnson was on the other side of that divide, he was a man of the past.

A Sad and Pathetic Figure

“One thing that is fascinating about George Bush is how little he has grown in office. No, that's not right. It's not that he hasn't grown, he has gotten smaller; less Presidential, more sad little man watching his paper boat circle the drain. After six years of playing The Decider he should at least have a thin candy shell of gravitas as opposed to coming across like one of those guys on Peoples Court who not only has an unshakable belief that people won't see through his bullshit, but that no one will notice his artful comb-over either.”

I found this quote on a blog several weeks ago and have been thinking about it since. I totally agree with the opinions of the author. The more interesting question, in my mind, concerns patterns. Have most presidents grown and/or matured while in office? Or have others acted more like Bush and regressed during their White House stay?

I think it's fair to say that George W. Bush has morphed into nothing but a sad and pathetic figure. He will always have that 20-25% of the electorate who, it seems, would remain loyal even if he murdered someone on national TV. But it’s clear that most of the nation is embarrassed by our current chief executive.

The simple answer to presidents “growing” in office is that most actually do. History demonstrates that two things tend to happen to presidents. First, at some point in their term, event(s) humble them—driving them to rethink much of their boisterous, and ideologically rigid campaign rhetoric. This is when many mature and transform themselves from politician to statesman. Second, most also find that maturity and growth force them into seeking a historical legacy; which means leaving something substantive (not partisan) to the nation and its citizens.

There are some examples in the past half-century of presidents who have grown in office—examples from both parties.

When the boyish John F. Kennedy entered the White House in 1961, some saw him as an inexperienced playboy whose daddy had bought him the election. While I will not compare Bush with JFK (W is no Jack Kennedy, shall we say), Kennedy did have a certain detached manner that made many think that he didn’t take issues seriously enough.

Yes, JFK had been a war hero and had plenty of medical problems, but he did come from a wealthy family that had greased the political wheels for him when he had nothing else to do in after WW II.

But Kennedy’s on-the-job training changed him immensely. The Bay of Pigs fiasco forced him to restructure his internal decision-making aparatus—and it caused him to question military/CIA advice. And then the Cuban Missile Crisis brought Kennnedy face-to-face with nuclear war. After October 1962, his speeches became more measured, his tone much more peaceful and conciliatory—if nothing else, Cuba taught Kennedy that he had the power to destroy the world—and it had almost happened.

What did we get from this 45 year-old man after Cuba? Not smirks and snide comments, not frat-boy giggles and statements from an ideologue. During his next twelve months in office, President Kennedy uttered some of his most memorable and lasting words— marvelous speeches about peace, disarmament, the arts, poetry, and his vision for a safer world.

Maybe JFK had this in him from the start—but like most politicians, he came to office a little cocky and too sure of himself. But by November 1963, he was a different person—he had clearly grown as a person and as a president.

Ronald Reagan also proved that one could develop while in office. While I am not a huge fan of Reagan, I have always been intrigued by his efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons when he met with Gorbachev in 1986. Some say Reagan didn’t know what he was doing—but I disagree. Reagan was trying to use the office to do something grand, and that’s what the presidency is all about.

Reagan, by 1986, knew that legacy was important—and legacy is leaving something to history. It’s acting in the best interests of future generations—it’s doing those things that you couldn’t do when political interests dominated. Reagan knew this, and tried something big.

Finally, while Lyndon Johnson’s last year in office was tragic—he even matured. LBJ abandoning the office that he so loved and actually wrecked his legacy--but it might have been the apex of his maturation. Johnson was a schemer and still hoped the Democrats would turn to him in the fall. But even LBJ had learned there was something bigger and more important than his ambition.

I think that two of the three individuals I mentioned in this post were mediocre presidents at best (I will let you guess which ones), but all three were much more impressive than the current occupant of the White House. All three left office with some gravitas, and all three knew that was an important part of the presidency.

As we all know, Bush had his opportunity didn’t he? And what did he tell the American people to do after 9/11….to go shopping. What a fucking moron. He has done nothing domestically—except appoint fascists to the court system. And his foreign policy, to say the least, has been a disaster.

George Bush, in my view, has been the worst president in American history. Overturning his mistakes will take years. He has become a small figure—immature and clearly not suited or qualified for the job. Luckily, we have had presidents in the past that did grow in the office, but not this adolescent clown.

Novel Ideas

Mark Twain remarked that “A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read.” I don’t know if that is still the case—but I think Twain has been generally correct about this.

Personally, I have had a terribly schizophrenic relationship with the classics (and novels in general for that matter) for the past 20-25 years. The primary reason, I believe, has been my study of History. You see, after reading traditional nonfiction History: textbooks, journals, short articles, and primary source materials—it becomes difficult to read word-for-word books. When you read academic nonfiction, you can often skim—searching for main ideas and key points, while quickly glancing over the language and style.

I do enjoy nonfiction very much—but I grew up reading classics and lament the fact that I continue to have trouble reading the great works. I can zip through a 500 page biography in a few days—but when I try to pick up one of the classics, I stick with it for awhile, and then…….my thoughts wander to some American history topic.

I could simply give up. I read enough good nonfiction…..I need not be so hard on myself, right?

But I still believe that fiction in general, and these classics specifically, are well worth the effort. I want to take my time and read each and every word, meet interesting characters, and understand their human emotions and dilemmas. The beautiful sentence structures, the perfect word choice, and the unfolding plots. I do get some of that in good history book—but I want more. Besides, the classics are so civilizing.

I grew up reading Dickens—Oliver Twist was the first real, adult novel I remember reading. Then I read David Copperfield and was “hooked on the classics.” But once I went to graduate school, the nonfiction took over.

I was assigned The Sun Also Rises in a graduate school History class once—and I loved that novel. I still read it several times a year. After reading it in Dr. Allen’s U.S. History seminar at Southern Illinois University—several of my classmates and I got drunk for about 4-5 days straight! We each bought one of those wine skins that Jake and the others drink from in the novel . Those were the days!

Well, I am here to say that I haven’t given up yet…..I am trying once again. I have a stack of classics that I keep on hand so when I get the urge, I have something to grab. A few days ago, I spotted the fat little Bantam Classic edition of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina (Tolstoy pictured above). Thus far…..wonderful. I don’t want to say too much, I have completed 191 of 868 pages. But I sense that this might be the start of something.

I will keep you posted on my progress! Wish me luck.

Friday Cat Blogging

I give you Buddy--master of, and the inspiration behind this blog. Buddy was a scruffy neighborhood stray who showed up at our apartment in the early 1990s. We were hesitant to feed him but he was persistent. I tried catching him several times, but he always got away.

My lovely domestic partner finally trapped him one day, took him to the vet for a checkup, and even had him fixed (I don't know if he was too thrilled about that). Buddy has been part of the family ever since. The vet wasn't sure how old he was, so currently Buddy might be anywhere from 14 to 17 years old. He is a wonderful cat!

On a Few of the Evils of Capitalism

Twice during the past week, I have been at academic discussions where a “radical” market capitalist has been the primary speaker. The frustrating thing about these market missionaries is they realize there is no real political opposition to their ideology. So what you hear from these self-righteous zealots are “lectures” about how free markets must be expanded; how people worldwide are doing so well under globalization; and how there are no economic options anyway.

As Andrew Murray wrote in the Guardian, these market advocates continually utilize the argument that “there is no alternative” to the uber-capitalism that we now see running rampant in America and throughout the world. And it is true in the United States at least, that the majority of the left has eschewed any efforts to seriously confront the market system.

But shouldn’t we be more vocal in critiquing capitalism? Should I accept the crap that was given to me at the meetings I attended? From my perspectives the clear answer is no.

Let’s look at just a few of the problems and ask some basic questions about market capitalism. Now I’m sure the conservative right-wingers have “answers” to all of these issues—I doubt however, that the answers are at all valid.

-The rich-poor gap has widened in the United States and appears to be continuing on that course. This is happening in most of the western nations.

-Women’s wages remain well below the wages of men—and the free market has yet to alleviate any of the work/family issues that women are constantly dealing with.

-The health care crisis in the United States is not being solved by the marvelous free market. In fact, it’s clear that the market isn’t working at all regarding this issue.

-Business can move whenever they want, devastating communities and workers—while employees have had trouble even unionizing in their own country.

-Business get huge subsidies from the government—even though the market is supported to be an invisible hand. But governments only retreat when the poor ask for something.

-Globalization was supposed to at least help end wars (remember, capitalist nations don’t fight each other), but we know that the military-industrial complex is now getting more money than ever. The military will always find some way to hog the budget.

-People are working longer and longer hours for less and less money.

-Corporations are canceling or not offering benefits.

-This hyper-capitalism has no moral compass and has done nothing for social justice in this country or around the world.

And in one of the best current critiques of capitalism, Satish Kumar wrote the following in the online journal Resurgence:

"Even where money and material goods are plentiful, selfishness, greed, competition, crime, violence and frustration prevail. Capitalist societies are left with increasing rates of cancer, obesity, depression and stress. Capitalism has failed in human terms. But even more drastically capitalism has failed in terms of the natural environment. Capitalism is rapidly destroying soil fertility, biodiversity and the atmosphere. Capitalism founded on the ideology of unlimited economic growth and industrialised mass production is not only unsustainable – it is blatantly harmful."

Let’s face it, globalization/rabid market capitalism is good…..for a small group of people. The multinational corporations, the weapons and arms-manufacturers, and the global bankers are all doing very well. For the majority—the masses, the poor, the underprivileged……I don’t see this economic system as a panacea at all. It is destroying the earth, its beauty, and its people!

Will we be able to alter the system? Probably not in my lifetime—but why can’t we at least begin to fight back? Why can’t we make sure to critique this system when we have the opportunity?

Capitalism wasn’t handed down by god (and even if it was, that would just give me another excuse to dislike it). Capitalism was set up to benefit certain people, and keep them in power—and that is exactly what it does.

And we must remember, there are socialist alternatives, Marxist theories that explain how capitalism works, and other critiques that are valid and useful. Let’s not give up on this issue—let’s not cede this to the market folks so easily.

And to once again quote Satish Kumar: "We need . . . a system for the age of ecology, a system which is embedded in the care of people, all people and also in the care of the earth and all life upon it, human life as well as animal life, plant life, earth life, air life and water life. We need a system which replaces our capitalist world view with a naturalist world view, and shifts our society from capitalism to “naturalism”.

Feminism 101

There is a new blog that I urge all of you to view. It's called Finally, a Feminism 101 blog. What is it? Well, feminist bloggers have found themselves spending an inordinate amount of discussion time answering some of the same old questions about women's rights, gender roles, and feminism. Many of those questions, no doubt, are obnoxious queries from men who may never understand these concepts.

In order to spend more time on serious discussions, and less time answering the same old questions--this blog was started to answer some of those questions like:
-What do feminists want?
-Why do feminists hate men?
-What is male privilege?
-What's wrong with the suggestion that women take precautions to prevent being raped? Short answer to this one: Because it puts the onus on women not to get themselves raped, rather than on men not to do the raping; in short, it blames the victim.

There is more to that last answer, and some great discussion threads and links. Please check it out!

Winter in Minnesota: From "E Pluribus Unum" to "It's All About Me"

posted by Chet Brinkley.....

We were out to supper with friends not that long ago. Bill, who drives a snow plow in the winter, was commenting on his latest misadventures. As usual, getting buried recently under several inches of heavy, wet snow did not bring out the best in our fellow citizens. One shrieking harpy called up Bill's station and screamed, “I don’t care about anyone else! You get a plow over to my house right now and get me out of here.” Bill’s boss, of course, laughed uproariously before hanging up on the hysterical wench.

When the storms are as bad as they got a couple of weeks ago, Bill drives twelve hours at a shot. As anyone who’s lived in Minnesota for any period of time knows, snow plow drivers are some of the most despised people in the state this time of year. Cleaning the streets also means clogging people’s driveways with massive piles of back-breaking, compacted snow. The force of the propelled precipitation can smash or at least deform mailboxes. In order to accomplish the greater good, all of us who own homes have to pay a little extra for our privilege and dig ourselves out. It’s the only way all of us can get to our jobs and pay our bills. But this doesn’t stop morons from trying to pass these behemoths on the road, and from flipping them off for having the temerity to slow them down. Of course, a lot of these bozos end up in a ditch or slammed into a light pole a little further down the road.

Bill was doing what had to be done, driving a truck that, fully loaded, weighs about 15 tons, when a crazed citizen jumped in front of him, forcing him to slam desperately on the brakes. The man screamed, ‘You left a big pile of snow in my driveway! You come back and clean that up!” He demanded that Bill come around a second time, drive on the wrong side of the road so that the snow would pile up in the middle of the street, and then come through a third time and push it all into the yards and driveways of his neighbors across the way. In other words, screw everybody else, just take care of me. As this fractious discussion continued, the rabid fellow jumped up onto Bill’s truck, so Bill grabbed for his hammer and put it on the dash, just to make sure it was there if he needed it. As the tensions escalated and Bill remained resolute in his sanity, the fellow finally adopted a thin veneer of sanity, read my friend’s name tag, and intoned, “Well Bill, I guess I’m going to be calling your manager.” Bill laughed uproariously and said, “You go right ahead.” No doubt this fellow became the story/psycho of the week back at the shop.

It’s easy to think of Bill’s experiences as silly stories about a couple of wack jobs who freaked out during a recent snowstorm, but I’m not sure any of us can let ourselves off the hook that easily. Maybe Barack Obama is doing more than establishing a niche issue for himself when he speaks of an “empathy gap”. All of us have raced down the interstate—or even a small local road—and cursed at anyone who impeded our progress in the slightest way. More and more of us stare transfixed into our computer or television or cell phone screen or plug ourselves into our MP3 players and eschew meaningful interactions with the world around us. We shop on line, we drive through the bank and the fast food place—we probably have more fondness for our cars than for our neighbors or even members of our extended family. Where does it end? How long is it going to be before we’re all so myopic and unjustifiably self-righteous that we’re lying in wait for the newspaper deliverer because he left the paper lying in the middle of the driveway—where it was buried by the snow plow?

Who You Gonna Call?

Here’s something that might finally put you over the edge. Presidential hopeful John McCain reported at a recent fundraising event that "When I have a question about something that's going on in the world, I call Dr. Henry Kissinger and he is able to connect the dots for me."

Let’s just hope McCain’s poll numbers continues to plummet. All we need is that fucking war-criminal Kissinger back in charge of foreign policy. McCain went on to say that Kissinger is “one of the only people I've ever known who can connect the entire scenario for you in a way that you understand the completeness of the challenge."

McCain said that he also consults with Brent Scowcroft, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleberger, Robert Kagan, and Bill Kristol. (That list was only “slightly to somewhat fucked-up” until we got to Kristol.)

Now seriously, what does it mean when a 2008 presidential candidate admits that Henry Kissinger is his primary foreign policy advisor? I think it means we (the people, the country) need to worry.

Why? Let’s start a list detailing the major liabilities of Dr. Kissinger:

1. He is probably wanted in several countries for war crimes--something that often hinders one’s travel plans.

2. He helped keep the Vietnam War going on for 4-5 years for no logical reason. The morality of that has always escaped me.

3. East Timor….again, very serious ethical and moral questions.

4. Kissinger spends most of his time stammering and babbling to Charlie Rose—who seems to be the only other person, besides McCain, who will listen to him. .

5. He knows more about the Congress of Vienna than he knows about the 2008 world. And this my friends, is a serious problem. Let me clarify.

Doesn’t the choice of Kissinger really show that the 72 year-old McCain is past his time? I think it does. Maybe McCain ought to be talking to some foreign policy experts who better understand Islam, globalization, markets, international gender issues, and human rights (something Kissinger has had problems with).

Henry Kissinger is 83 years old. Even if one is willing to grant him some credit for his diplomacy during the Nixon administration (China, Middle East), I truly don’t believe he has a lucid grasp of the contemporary world.

The United States needs a modern, enlightened foreign policy. Instead, Kissinger’s manta would probably be, “What Would Metternich Do?”

George Bush talks to God, McCain talks to Kissinger……you figure that one out!

It's Really a Simple Question Folks

As many of you have probably already read, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace (shown at left), denounced gays this week as "immoral." He compared gay acts to adultery and said the army should rid itself of these terrible individuals. In order to drive gays from the armed services, he seeks to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell policy,"

Pace was immediately criticized by many groups and individuals. The Human Rights Campaign was quick to condemn his statements as was Republican Senator John Warner. The Virginia senator said specifically, "I respectfully disagree. . . that homosexuality is immoral."

Nice job Senator Warner....a clear and concise answer to a simple question--are gays immoral?

Now....do you want to know why those of us on the left are so concerned about our current crop of presidential contenders? Here is the reason. After Pace's moronic statements, the leading Democratic candidates have all been asked to comment. Here are some of their answers--please read carefully:

Senator Clinton, when asked if gays were immoral responded with the following statement:

"Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude. I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country, and I want make sure they can."

Wow, that's really a strong pro-gay statement isn't it--"I'm going to leave that to others." The Clinton spinmeisters immediately realized there might be a problem. Later in the day, the New York senator--or her staff--made some amends by stating:

"I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple. It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world."

In the meantime, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, when asked about Pace's comments on whether gays were immoral gave this quasi-definitive statement:

"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters. That's probably a good tradition to follow."

What the hell does that mean? When asked later, Obama maintained that the main issue should be who was willing to sacrifice their life for their country. Which again, seems like it doesn't really deal with the question of gay morality.

Okay, now behind Door #3 we have John Edwards. In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, the former senator was asked the same question.

BLITZER: Let's talk about General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs. He suggested today, his own personal opinion, homosexuality, he said, was immoral. As a result, don't change the don't ask, don't tell policy. First of all, in your opinion, is homosexuality immoral?

EDWARDS: I don't -- don't share that view. And I would go -- go further than that, Wolf. I think the don't ask, don't tell is not working. And as president of the United States I would change that policy.

BLITZER: Is the don't ask, don't tell policy immoral?

EDWARDS: I think the don't ask, don't tell policy is wrong. It's not working. I think what it's done, effectively, is kept us from having some of the most talented people we could have in our military. It's caused -- caused more problems than it's solved. And it ought to be changed.

By today (Friday) both Clinton and Obama were till trying to spin their weak responses. While both candidates finally agreed that that being gay was not immoral, it seemed to take a while.

Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese, who spent most of yesterday on the phone with both camps, was relieved and a little mystified that he had to fight to elicit the statements."I hope that we have learned moving forward that, at the end of the day, all that American voters expect, whether they are gay or straight, is clarity from the candidates," he said.

So by the end of the week, all appears to be well. But several things concern me.

1. The answer should have been clear, obvious, and easy--NO, gays and/or the gay lifestyle is NOT immoral. It shouldn't have just rolled off the tongue--no thinking involved. Pandagon reported that:

"Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially conservative Democrats, particularly churchgoing African-Americans, who share Pace’s views."

2. Both Clinton and Obama are still trying to out-triangulate each other. When will this end--and when will either, or both of them, start talking straight.

3. Finally, John Edwards looks better and better each week.

News Items of Interest

SDS is Back Again!
In New York City on Monday, about 100 students, all members of SDS New York, occupied an Armed Forces Recruiting Center for two hours. The occupation ended when 20 students were arrested by the NYPD. The students were charged with criminal trespassing.

At approximately 11:15 am, a large contingent of New School SDS members left the New School Graduate Center (65 Fifth Avenue) heading south. The column weaved its way through lower Manhattan, arriving at Chambers and West Broadway--where they connected with another march, this one originating from Pace University. The two columns streamed west on Chambers and entered the recruiting center which 25 students occupied for about two hours. Recruiters in the facility slammed and locked the doors to their offices, apparently to avoid interaction with the students--effectively closing the center for the duration of the occupation. Outside, dozens of additional protesters stood with signs chanting: “Troops out now,” “No justice, no peace. U.S. out of the Middle East,” and “Stop the war, yes we can. SDS is back again.”

comment: This is wonderful! What more can I say. These sorts of protests should be taking place all over the country. And we really need to do something about these military recruiters.


American Historical Association Opposes Iraq War
Members of the American Historical Association have ratified the “Resolution on United States Government Practices Inimical to the Values of the Historical Profession.” The vote was 1550 (75.61%) in favor and 498 (24.29%) opposed. Two persons submitted incomplete ballots. The number of voting members represented 14.67% of the AHA membership.

A major role was played by a relatively new group, Historians Against the War (of which I am a member). For the past few decades, academic groups have felt they should not get involved in these sort of partisan political activities. I guess some still believe students are not supposed to know that we have political views!

comment: Yes, I actually WANT my students to know that I am a passionate political creature with strong opinions. They don't have to agree with me--and most of them don't. But I will not become an ideological eunuch just because some spineless administrators are afraid some student might be offended by my views!


Now It's NORTH Dakota!
Here we go again. The North Dakota Senate is poised to hear a bill, HB 1466, which would ban all abortions in the state. And this proposed ban is even more extreme than the beaten-down South Dakota ban! There are no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the woman AND the ban would impose criminal penalties on women and their doctors.

The bill would also allow the Attorney General to implement a ban on abortion regardless of the status of Roe v. Wade. Performing an abortion would become a Class C felony in the state. Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota is monitoring the situation. Go to their website for news and other information.

comment: I don't know what else can be said about these assholes. They clearly will not accept the fact that the public opinion tide appears to be running against them. Oh, I almost forgot though, God is on their fucking side isn't she? We just need to keep working.


Kroger Does the Right Thing
The supermarket giant Kroger said last week that "medication is a private patient matter" and that it will fill all requests for emergency contraceptives. The controversy began when a customer in Atlanta was apparently denied the "morning after pill" at one Kroger store.

Several other pharmacy chains have made the same pledges, including CVS, Rite-Aid, and Walgreens.

As we should have expected, there was a statement from the "critics" who said that this contraception "encourages promiscuity and unprotected sex...." blah, blah, blah, blah.

comment: Good for Kroger. This shouldn't even be an issue should it? If these bastards are allowed to pick and choose whom they serve--aren't we really back to the days of Jim Crowism? If they don't have to serve women, maybe they can refuse service to African Americans.....or overweight people....or the handicapped. Where does it end?


This Is Sick
This isn't really news, but it seems creepy enough to report. I first read about this on Feministing--and it's weird. Purity Balls are where teenage girls are escorted on "dates" by their fathers! During the balls themselves, vows are exchanged, cake is served, and the elaborate ceremony leads to some sort of abstinence-until-marriage pledge by these young ladies. The fathers, in turn, promise to protect the chastity of their daughters.

comment: This seems really sick to me. I can't even write about it anymore. What the fuck is going on in this country? Here in Minnesota, Planned Parenthood has a wonderful program called Teen Council. These are groups of hard-working, dedicated, and passionate high-schoolers who go into schools and talk to their fellow students about sex education. It is a fabulous program (I will blog more about them in a future post). Now, wouldn't you rather discuss healthy sexual relationships with your peers--instead of making some kind of sick "pledge" with your dad?

On the Sexualization of Girls

A psychology professor friend emailed me a recently published copy of the American Psychological Association’s Task Force Report on the Sexualization of Girls. While the findings may not be startling news to many, the report makes for fascinating reading. Let me offer a few quotes/conclusions:

"Virtually every media form studied provides ample evidence of the sexualization of women.”

"In study after study, findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed (in the media) in a sexual manner (dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (used as decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person). In addition, a narrow (and unrealistic) standard of physical beauty is heavily emphasized. These are the models of femininity presented for young girls to study and emulate.”

Specific examples are even presented:

-Skechers “naughty and nice” ads that features Christina Aguilera dressed in schoolgirl pigtails, with her shirt unbuttoned, licking a lollipop.

-Bratz dolls (see picture above) dressed in sexualized clothing such as miniskirts, fishnet stockings, and feather boas.

-Thongs sized for 7-10 year olds, some printed with slogans such as “wink-wink”.

And the report’s “Consequences” section was what we might expect. The research linked sexualization with “three of the most common mental health problems of girls and women: eating disorders, low self-esteem, and depression or depressed moods.” In addition, frequent exposure to these media images that sexualize girls and women also affects how girls conceptualize femininity and sexuality.” The study finds that girls and women heavily exposed to these stereotypes are the ones that place an emphasis on “appearance and physical beauty” and tend to make those traits the focal point of their value system.

Other societal problems stemming from sexualization include:
-fewer women entering science, technology, engineering, and math
-increased rates of sexual harassment and sexual violence
-increased demands for child pornography

Now here is the one that really concerned me…and the one I want to rant about for a few minutes: “Exposure to narrow ideals of female sexual attraction may make it more difficult for some men to find an “acceptable” partner or fully enjoy intimacy with a female partner.

Yes, men and boys are also deeply affected by the sexual objectification of girls and women. How many American dads take the time to teach their young boys about the sexual problems that women face day-to-day? Isn’t it about time that men start doing their part to change the way society objectifies women? This is not just a women’s issue—it’s a societal issue.

I see college-aged men (boys actually) each and every day, and they appear unwilling to even consider this an important issue. They rationalize their fraternity-like behavior with a variety of excuses:

-Advertisers and/or the ubiquitous “market” can do whatever it pleases.
-It’s just those feminists complaining again, why do they hate men anyway?
-Girls aren’t really affected by that sexual objectification stuff. And this is a fascinating one because the guys generally get one of the young ladies in the class to agree. The interesting thing is that the female who they use as their spokesperson is, more often than not, a young lady with low self-esteem that says whatever the boys want.

What can men do—plenty? Here are some of the things that I think important, and I would appreciate comments from other men (and women) about we (especially white men) can do to help stop the sexualization of young girls and women.

1. Question your buying choices. Don’t buy products that advertise using female sexual images and stereotypes. And don’t shop at establishments that use this form of cohesion.

2. Question the media--especially the ultra-sexist sports media. Just because you like football doesn’t mean you need to accept the objectification of women in beer ads and other marketing ploys.

3. Listen to women—they live with this crap every day. And when they try to help…listen. Try to understand by shutting up, not getting defensive, and not being so egotistical as to think their concerns are about us.

4. Call out other men on their sexist behavior, jokes, and other crude antics. Speak up against the locker room mentality that seems to dictate American male actions. This one is difficult….”they might not like me anymore.” But what’s really more important? Think about it.

5. Encourage every young girl that you know to study math and science. And convince as many as you can to NOT try out for cheerleading; and to QUIT using makeup.

6. Understand white male privilege. If we fail to own and accept that privilege, we will never understand these sexualizing issues. Just because white males SAY they don’t feel privileged, doesn’t mean they aren’t!

7. And once and for all…..there is no fucking reverse sexism. This is the biggest crock of shit that the fratboy-types attempt to impose on a compliant male public. As one writer so persuasively argues, “The fact that an individual man can be harmed by an individual woman does not override an entire misogynistic social system.”

8. Stop whistling, gawking, drooling, and staring at women. Leave them the fuck alone.

9. Act like an adult with some class.

10. Start becoming part of the solution.