From "Dewey Beats Truman" to "Rove Indicted": When Scoops Go Really, Really Bad

(Also crossposted to my diary at My Left Wing)

Now, it is important to remember before I go on that Karl Rove will more than likely ultimately be indicted (and probably more than likely pardoned, too); and that truthout.org's flameout on reporting his indictment last week should not yet be compared too much with the historic Chicago Tribune banner headline in 1948.

Nevertheless, after one week since Jason Leopold dropped his bomb that turned out to be more stink than WMD, and the first gleeful, then brooding response amongst the liberal/Left blogosphere and media which it created, the aftermath of it; the main issue remains the same:

How in the hell could some people be so freakin' stupid, inept, and gullible???

And what does this say about the liberal "netroots" and their assumed power..or the supposed superiority of the "independent media" over the evil "mainstream" media???

First off..any one of you MLW peeps who came away underwhelmed at the half-hearted attempt of a rebuttal/apology by truthout this past Thursday, please raise your hand.

On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title.

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted.

Marc Ash,
Executive Director - t r u t h o u t [email address snipped]

I thought so...I did, too. I mean, if you are going to promise that if you were proven wrong that you were going to reveal your sources; then do the crawfish backwards to "well, maybe we got a little too far ahead of the news cycle..but we stand by our story" in the total abscence of proof that justifies your story....then how does that make you look any less like a schmuck who got played?? Especially considering Leopold's past history of malfeasance that plays seriously into questioning his legitimacy as a journalist??

Secondly, what can you say about those in Liberal Blogtopia, Goddess bless their hearts....left jilted at the bedroom door awaiting the breatless orgasms of seeing Unka Karl frogmarched into the DC jail..only to be left with their pants down and their vibrators running on empty??? Not to mention the field day that their enemies in Right Blogostan ara having over watching their enemies get punk'd, never mind those in the MSN who have chafed over the criticism that "independent media" is supposedly superior because they're not beholden to "corporate dominated" rules of conduct and standards.

The point being, though, that anyone who really understands the nature of reporting and deep cover and the political nature of scooping understands quite well that not all "intellegence" is that intellegent, and that unless it comes directly from the main source -- in this case, Patrick Fitzgerald himself -- anything and everything about his investigation should be taken with about 50 grains of salt and a chaser of vinegar. After all, he is still a registered Republican, and I don't think that he is that deep with the likes of William Rogers Pitt or other liberal bloggers that he would voluntarily share classified and confidential info with them and risk damaging his case.

All I will do, for the time being, is what all of us should probably be doing henceforth: just sit back and let Fitz do his work, and allow him to choose his time for ultimately dropping the bomb on Unka Karl. That way, when he gets enough to corrall the whole gang, including Tricky Dicky II (aka, the VP named Cheney), the orgasms will be that much sweeter and more powerful.
Besides, if the CIA scandal doesn't get the Bushclan in the end, there's always Hookergate, Abramoff, the war in Iraq, the tanking economy, the War on Sex/Drugs/Women/Mexicans/Blacks/All Non-Rich Non-White Non-"Americans" to hammer on their coffins.

BTW...the entry at MLW contains a poll about when you think Fitz will indeed drop the hammer on Rove...feel free to check it out and respond; Maryscott would love the additional traffic.

Whose Free Speech??? Larry Flynt, Havard, and More "Hustling"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Townhall.com Lecture On Ruling Women's Wombs (or, This Is Your Brain After Too Much Wingnut Kool-Aid)

Oh. My. Goddess.

Just when I thought that I had mined the bottom of the barrel as far as wingnutter logic can go, here comes TBogg to refer me once again to that graveyard of "conservative" thought called Townhall.com....for what has to be one of the whackiest, looniest attempts to justify controlling women's wombs ever since...well, EVER.

T already beat me to fisking this pixellated pile of crap already..but still, this deserves a special touch that only the exclusively patented can of SmackDog Whupass (tm, 2005) can provide...thusly, I procede with the article:

The pill that kills -- available at a doctor near you
By Nathan Tabor

May 15, 2006

You should know before hand that Mr. Tabor, in addition to being "a conservative activist and the founder of "TheConservativeVoice.com" (and no. I'm not providing him any link, just Google if you want to see his work), is also a current candidate for a Congressional seat in North Carolina. I guess that he figures that Vernon Robinson and his "Steppin Fetchit for Jessie Helms" act is lonely.

Anyways..enough with the prelims; onto the breach we go, gas masks locked and loaded....

Imagine going to your doctor and being offered a pill—not because you were sick, or in any danger of becoming sick. No—your friendly physician is simply giving you drugs because you’re a woman.

If that sounds like a Hitchcock horror story to you—be prepared. Gynecologists around the country are embarking on a weird medical experiment that could have serious repercussions for women’s health.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has decided it won’t wait for the Food and Drug Administration to approve over-the-counter sales of the so-called morning after pill—a pill which is supposed to help women who are harboring regret over a sexual encounter the night before. Of course, it doesn’t matter that the FDA is hesitant to give the pills out like candy because it doesn’t want to promote promiscuity among young people. Also, some leading medical experts say that the morning after pill doesn’t just prevent pregnancy—it can also kill a child who has already been conceived in her mother’s womb.

OK.....first ALL STOP right here.

So the "morning after pill" (I assume he's talking about the "Plan B" pill that is being withheld from approval by the FDA due to wingnutter..errrrr, conservative opposition) is intended, in Mr. Tabor's view, to aid women who are merely "harboring regret" about screwing someone the night before??? Hmmph....you would think that this fool hadn't known that lots of those women don't have any regrets about sleeping around...mostly because either they (1) insisted on the proper protection, such as condoms and birth control; or, (2) they don't feel so ashamed of themselves for their human needs as apparantly he thinks they should. (I'm assuming, of course, that like most other Religious Reich wingnutters, Mr. Tabor is just as opposed to regular birth control and condom usage for the same reason..namely, that it promotes female "promiscuity" without the rewards of forced pregnancy or shame therof.)

And did it ever occur to Mr. Tabor that some of those women seeking the pill might have a legitimate beef that their regrettable sexual encounters were, shall we say, coerced?? You know, like..RAPE and INCEST??? Or perhaps Mr. Tabor believes that those harlots and jezebels should suffer through the same shame and punishment that all 'ho's and sluts who defy God's law on sex outside of procreative marriage should suffer?? Nahhhh...he's just a concerned conservative citizen who cares about the rights of children, especially those not yet born...or even created.

Reading on....

No, ACOG won’t let the facts stand in the way of its misguided idea of scientific progress. In fact, the gynecologists’ group employs this fuzzy reasoning for promoting morning after pill prescriptions: women tend to have sex on weekends. Maybe women also tend to have beer on Saturday nights. Does that mean their family doctors should load them up with six packs every time they come in for flu shots?

The fact is, the pro-abortion contingent of ACOG is running scared. Pharmacists throughout the country have said they don’t want to dispense the morning after pill, also known as emergency "contraception," because they have religious and moral objections to it. The abortionists know that if they can get women hooked on the morning after pill that they’ll have more support for their agenda—which includes abortion any time for any reason, anywhere.

Funny...but I've never heard of any gynecologist (or any serious pro-abortion rights advocate) ever proposing or even sponsoring abortions after the sixth month of conception, have you??? And for the most part, those pharmacists who insist that their "moral and religious" objections outweight the basic medical requirement to provide for a paying patient's prescription have been mostly confined to a few big-box providers such as Rite-Aid and Costco; Walgreens and (for all I know) Wal-Mart continue to require their pharmacists to honor their committments to their customer's prescriptions. Besides, don't women already have traditional birth control pills to hold them through???

And also...giving women the option of a prescription that they can easily ignore and throw into the trash isn't quite the same as giving away free six-packs of beer at them, now isn't it??

It’s interesting to note that some experts have come to the conclusion that there really isn’t a great demand for the morning after pill. In other words, pharmacies are not going to go out of business for refusing to stock it. So the only way for big drug companies to sell the morning after pill and other such concoctions is to market them directly to doctors.

So much to say about that paragraph...but I'll let TBogg have this one:

Pharmacies will also not go out of business if they don't stock Preparation H, but that won't stop hemorrhoids from happening. Ask Denny Hastert.

And I don't see pharmacies going short on Viagra, either...but then again, men's eternal erections (which, I dare to say, are still required to provide the sperm to make a baby in the first place) aren't much of any concern to Religious Reichian men such as Tabor, now isn't it???

Every time a woman comes into a gynecologist’s office, ACOG wants the doctor to offer her advance prescriptions of the morning after pill. But it is apparently not enough to simply make the offer; indeed, some women are reporting that their gynecologists are insisting that they take the prescription—even if they say repeatedly that they don’t want it. The doctors urge them, "it’s good for a year!" This kind of scenario makes a mockery out of the phrase "pro-choice." In a situation like this, how can anyone not conclude that "pro-choice" is really "pro-abortion?"

To which the proper response to such aggressive selling should be the obvious: "NO MEANS NO." Followed by a trip to find another, less obnoxious pharmacist.

And, it's not like doctors aren't that aggressive with other medications (Xyloft, Pepcid (before it went OTC), Ritalin, and so on...) that Big Pharma wants to push on them....but those medications don't favor "'ho's" and "sluts", do they???

Apparently, ACOG sees no reason for gynecologists to inform their patients that the morning after pill can cause abortions—even if some women have strong moral objections to abortion. For ACOG, the pill is a simple solution to the estimated 2.7 million unplanned pregnancies that occur each year.

But the fact of the matter is, a number of us were the result of unplanned pregnancies. You don’t have to be planned—or even wanted by your natural parents—in order to make a difference in this world. Every human life is precious from the moment of conception—and no dictate from ACOG can change that.

Ahhhh, yes..."unplanned pregnancies"....I guess that even Mr. Tabor didn't feel comfortable (or probably just plain forgot) with the usual phaseology of "unborn babies". And I thought that it was just "the abortionist wing" not the whole of ACOG, that were pushing Plan B as an "abortion by demand" product???

But this "every life is precious from conception on" that really gets me..I mean, it's so nice to see that "conservatives" like Mr. Tabor really do treasure and respect the humanity of preborn zygotes all the way to and past birth. Now, if only he and his fellow and sister conservatives would show some kind of respect for the children living OUTSIDE of the womb by not sacrificing them in unwinnable wars, threatening nuclear annihilation, leaving them for dead after natural disasters (oh, I forgot..that only applies to BLACK people, since they're not really human), busting the federal deficit for massive tax breaks and subsidies to the super rich, destroying the only ecosystem that we on this Earth have to survive....you know, those "culture of life" things that you say are so lacking in this culture??

Oh, but those things are just too LIBERAL and too tolerant of women controlling their own bodies in offence to your "God" of stern Christian sexual morality...so never mind.

Doctors routinely tell pregnant women not to take any medication during their pregnancies for fear that it will harm their unborn children. If a pregnant woman can’t take an aspirin, how can doctors assume that it’s safe for her to take the morning after pill? What if the pill "fails" and the woman remains pregnant? Or what if the woman takes the pill when she’s already six weeks along? And what’s to prevent the pill from getting into the hands of the woman’s impressionable 13-year-old daughter, who sees the pill as a good excuse to "hook up" with a boy she barely knows? Will ACOG pay for the girl’s counseling when she discovers that the boy who took away her virginity is a stalker or 40 years old?

As if a woman is going to wait until five months after her pregnancy to go into the pharmacy looking for a pill that is designed for "the morning after"???

Actually, as commenters to TBogg's blog pointed out constant times, the morning after pill is only just that; it would have no impact on embryos existing inside the womb. It is designed to affect the uterine wall so that an egg cannot attach itself to the womb to be fertilized to begin with. No sperm = NO FERTILIZATION = NO ZYGOTE = NO F'n PREBORN CHILD. Unless, of course, you believe that any prevention of an egg to be fertilized into a potential child is prima facie abortion, or that any woman who has sex outside of "God's law" of procreation should be forced to undergo pregnancy as a punishment for her sluttish behaviour....which, unless I skipped over somehow, is Mr. Tabor's exact point.

And this is the crowning touch: "Will ACOG pay for the girl's counseling when she discovers that the boy who took away her virginity is a stalker or 40 years old?"

Ahhh...uhhhhh....errrrrr...Mr. Tabor....I would think that you would have a bit more respect for young women that they would probably be able know a 40 year old man from a 14 year old boy?? I mean, hormones can do strange things to people, but really??? And there is this issue of date rape drugging, too....

Any doctor who thinks nothing of dispensing a pill that can kill has no place in the healing arts. Whether an abortion is surgical or chemical, it is still a tragedy for both mother and child.

So does that mean that Mr. Tabor will be, if elected to Congress, front and center in the battle against killer drugs prompted by pharmaceutical companies for profit??? (If he's like most right-wing Republicans, more than likely he'll be too busy taking money from them, and supporting legislation against lawsuits against those seeking redress against them.)

Yep..that's some strange Kool-Aid up there in North Carolina these days...'ya think?? Give him a couple of months and young Tabor'll be up there in Santorum/Coryn territory talking up the dangers of rampant homosexuality leading to "man/dog sex" or "man/box turtle sex". Who knows....maybe he'll say that White-hating sluts faking rape reports are caused by radical feminism, too??

Wingnuts...a special breed of nuts. Gotta love 'em.

An Open Letter to Bruce Dixon (BlackCommentator.com Editor)

[I actually thought about sending it directly to the BC editors....but it more than likely would be futile, since the issue is already out; so I'll just post it here. Consider it my therapy of venting.]

Mr. Dixon:

First off, I want to thank you and your co-publisher Glen Ford for the outstanding job that you do over at BC in representing progressive Black voices.

Having said that, I have but one small complaint that I have to get off my chest.

On Saturday, I forwarded to you a long post in response to an article by Michele Martin which criticized your site for alleged "uncivility" (through posting another article by Ishmael Reed in which he criticized some Black journalists (including Ms. Martin) for being such foils for the establishment media. The next day, I received an email from Mr. Ford complimenting me on my essay and stating that he would forward it to you for review and possible inclusion in your next issue.

Now, I understand perfectly and accept the fact that you recieve hundreds of emails for feedback for inclusion in your online website, and that due to time and financial constraints, you have to pick and choose which subject matter and emails to feature in your viewers' response section (Bruce's Beat). And I do appreciate the fact that you did give me the opportunity to post my thoughts.

Nevertheless, all that does nothing to erase the shock and disappointment I felt when I discovered today that my post was indeed cited in today's (May 11, Issue #183) issue...but was severely truncated to TWO paragraphs....which did little to nothing to express the ideas that my original post was intended to do from the beginning.

I will skip the minor, piddling issue of not including my domicile of residency (but, really, Mr. Dixon, I did manage to include my residency in Lafayette, Louisiana in my signature line; was it that neccessary to truncate that??) and go straight to the heart of the matter. (Since you already have the original post, and I have already posted it to my own SmackDog Chronicles blog here, I will not repost it in its entirity, but will reference parts of it from time to time.)

First, here's a reprint of what ended up in today's BC issue:

Louisiana's Anthony Kennerson had these observations on Martin's plea for civility:

It’s interesting to see Ms. Martin calling out Ishmael Reed, CounterPunch and BC for their alleged lack of civility. Ms. Martin seems to feel a need to throw accusations at blacks on the left while leaving those on the right alone.

Ms. Martin could not possibly have been unaware of the volume and virulence of vile and racist epithets slung in the direction of Georgia's Representative Cynthia McKinney. Nothing that Ishmael Reed wrote on that article could even begin to approximate Neal Boortz's “ghetto slut" smack – and that was among the more printable insults.

Where was our black guardian of “civility” then? Why didn’t we hear her voice telling how establishment media programs were selling a line about McKinney being nutty, almost slutty, dangerous and ultra-radical Black Leftist?

It seems that the definition of civility always depends on who does the defining and why. Ruling the term “Uncle Tom” out of our lexicon as “uncivil” as Martin seems to want to do, besides being in line with current right wing complaints about the dialog African Americans have with each other, is just plain wrong. Banning that highly useful term is a way of shutting down discussion and analysis, a way to deprive us of a potent, historically and politically loaded term to describe a kind of dangerous and politically loaded behavior.

OK...the last line is actually you responding in general, and I certainly agree with the sentiments.

First paragraph I have no problem with whatsoever, since it is a direct quote from my post therein:

For someone who feels the need to throw accusations at individuals on the Left (and in her email that was published in BC, she specifically aimed her guns at Reed for his presumed assumptions "that black officials (presumably of the left since I’ve see no similar protectiveness of those on the right) are somehow beyond questioning (or chastising for that matter"), Ms. Martin seems to miss the basic point of Reed's article: that the establishment media (whether liberal or conservative) is not afraid of using Black people as a ruse to sell a political agenda that is decisively harmful to the majority of Black people. [...]

The second and third paragraphs, however, is where it gets a bit squiggly. Here's what I wrote in the original:

Perhaps the real issue that Ms. Martin has with Reed and BC is that she was
called out directly by him for her not-so-fawning coverage of the saga of
Representative Cynthia McKinney (GA - 4th Dist.), who has the unmitigated
gall to actually represent her poor and working class constituents in her
Atlanta district as a principled progressive, and who is one of the few
representatives who dares to challenge the frontal assault of the Right and
Center on average Black people directly....and who also had the unmitigated
hubris to defend herself against an overzealous security guard who just
couldn't keep his hands off her while going to work. (And I won't even go
into McKinney's hair style choices at that time, since I'm sure that even Ms.
Martin are aware of the vile racist epithets that were slung at
Congresswoman McKinney by right-wingers at that time. Nothing that Ishmael
Reed wrote on that article could even begin to approximate Neal Boortz's
"ghetto slut" smack..and those was the more printable insults.) I'm not
saying that McKinney is above accountability; but the perspective of having
a publically active progressive Black woman put down due to her choice in
hair style (not to mention her political positions) might have more than a
bit to do with why she is supported so firmly amongst average Black folk...and it is more than proper to point out how establishment media programs were selling the dominant party line of McKinney being nutty, almost slutty, and a dangerous
ultra-radical Black Leftist that should be shunned by any moderate-thinking
Black politician.

Now, I understand and appreciate an editor's need to condense quotes and preserve bandwidth and brevity....but really, Mr. Dixon....was there such a need to basically shred my quoted text and import your own quotes as a substitute??? I mean, it could have been easier to just use ellipses and reduce my quotation down to a managable size which would fit into your limited space...but to totally revise my printed words?? Not that I'm comparing my prose to a Ph. D. or a Master's thesis, but can you imagine the reaction if a prospective doctorate candidate saw his words in his thesis altered so severely without his knowing??

And what really bothers me about this is that while you felt the need to reduce and alter my text, another reader, Janet Brown of Oakland, California, was allowed a full seven paragraphs to elaborate her position (not that different from mine), and with most of her text apparantly kept intact. What..is there a hierarchy of whose posts get better recognition over at BC??? Is it based on who donates more?? Quality of the post?? (Funny, Mr. Ford seemed to think that my comment was decent enough, and it's not that I haven't posted comments there before.)

Now, if this sounds like narcissistic whining, I sincerely apologize; because on the whole, I still appreciate what BC has done, and I will continue to contribute as a paying subscriber and sometime commentor on the issues. But all I ask of you, Mr. Dixon is this: if you are going to edit posts from commentors, please, for God and Goddess' sake, at least have the mercy of telling them in advance that you reserve the right to edit their comments for brevity's sake. It would certainly save some of us a lot of surprise and disappointment .

Other than that minor complaint....an excellent job overall as always.

Thanks for hearing me out...and keep bringing it.

Yours sincerely,

Anthony J. Kennerson
Lafayette, Louisiana

--------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for that brief venting, y'all....we now return you to our regularly scheduled smackfest, already in progress.... :-)

Sunday Afternoon Blogging Bonanza (Birthday 'Dog Edition)

A few blog entries for your viewing pleasure this Sunday in May:

1) The New York Times Magazine does a chilling analysis of the current drive of the Christian Reich to add contraception to their list of 'Dem Nasty Satanic Sex Thangs Women Do That Should Be Banished From This Earth ....abortion, raunchy dancing, masturbating (especially with any assistance from toys), and any sex not limited to missionary position P/V intercourse for the expressed purpose of spitting out a child for Jeebus nine months later being the rest of the list. (Of course, they're not so keen on a lot of Sex Thangs that men do, either; as their wars against porn and gay sex clearly attest to.)

Update: Amanda of Pandagon delivers the ultimate reading/ass whupping on these sexofascists in her latest entry "The War on Peons Fucking"; and trust me, it is that damn good...can you forgive me, Ms. Marcotte, for that smackdown I gave you previously???

2) On the other side of the space/time/IQ continuum, the Washington Post Magazine kicks off their Style section of their Sunday edition with a nice whine on how (to shorthand and condense their article) slutty, raunchy women are causing our young men to become...get this...impotent due to performance anxiety. And after you laugh your ass off reading that, take a visit to Pandagon and see Amanda apply her usual sharp fingernails to this line of crock. (Consider this my peace offering, Amanda, for that essay I wrote previously.)

3) Then, to add to the theme of slut/raunchy women baiting, we go across the Big Pond to the Sunday Times of London; where good old antisex feminaz...errrr, antiporn feminist guru...Catherine MacKinnon is back at it, pimping her latest book of essays and calling out "raunchy femininsts" for destroying feminism and giving themselves away through "offering men sex". The Sunday Times gives Kitty Mac the usual proverial wet kisses in support of her beliefs; to which, a genuine raunchy feminist (namely, our dear Lusty Lady Rachel) layeth the smack down one more time in response.)

4) Nexxxxxxxtt...from the sublime to the outrageous. More proof that you should never, ever underestimate the ability of "pwogwessive" Democrats to phuck up a great moment: Two entries on how a site dedicated to praising fictional satirist Stephen Colbert on dropping the Whupass on King Dubya II and the White House Press Un-Whores*...ahhh, I mean, Press Corps at their dinner/gabfest got transformed into a mere shakedown for the DNC.

5) And finally...a dedication to one special heel of a troll who decided to go ad hominen on me over at Mike Malloy's forum for calling his racist Latino-baiting ass out: This excellent article straight out of the Black Commentator website on the history of the alliance between Mexico and freed Blacks. Taste it and weep, fool; it's known as "edcuating yourself", rather than plucking "facts" out of your colon.

Enough for now...more if I feel like it.

42 years and counting... :-)

*Un-Whores: because these suck-ups are an insult to real, live whores/sex workers who at least get some pretty good sex for their effort, in addition to getting paid.

"Civility": Just Another Word For "Business As Usual"???

Well...another year in my life has passed (I am now officially 42 years old as of nine minutes ago); hopefully there will be much less personal drama than there was last year..though with the expectation of the upcoming hurricane season and all the kerfluffle of an midterm election year, especially with this two-scandal a day administration, I'm not betting on a quiet year by any means.

Anyways...I do have some possible good news...there is a chance that I might get some major Internet run this coming week. Here's some background to fill in the blanks:

1) Ishmael Reed (a long time Black columnist) writes up a nice article in CounterPunch on the many ways in which the media establishment uses Black journalists to sell a agenda that is most harmful to regular Black folk (and others as well, of course).

2) One of the journalists mentioned in the essay gets all in a hissy fit and uses the pages of the National Association of Black Journalists forum (actually a Yahoo! group that's closed off from the public...suckas) to vent her spleen at Reed for his apparent sins;

3) Then, The Black Commentator (that glorious kick-more-ass-than-the-law-should-allow Black progressive journal) reprints and republishes Reed's original article at their website, which further angers said journalist, who then....

4) Writes up a rejoinder (which BC decides to post for their latest edition) accusing BC and, by thinly veiled implication, Black Leftists in particular, of destroying "civility" by attacking other Black journalists too roughly.

Now, once I got a whiff of Michel Martin's piece (she's the journalist, BTW), it reminded me of an old essay out of an old column that queer socialist/ex-gay male porn actor Thomas Scott Tucker (of the Open Letter Online website) in which he opined beautifully about the limits of "civility" as a tool of squelching radical critique of our society. I really do wish that I could recollect where the essay is or whether it is online; but suffice it to say that Tucker saw like very few Leftist could how the push towards "civility" in debate can be as useful to the present rulers of bipartisan reaction as it could be a positive token to respect and decency.

In any case, I had Scott Tucker in mind when I wrote the following response to Martin's piece and forwarded it to the BC editors, Glen Ford and Bruce Dixon....and there is a chance that it may get published as an column for their next issue, which goes out on Thursday. Whether it does or it doesn't means less to me than the fact that it is appreciated, and I will share it with you here just so that you can see what I felt...and in case Bruce Dixon does some creative editing. (Just kidding, Bruce..do what you have to. :-)

Here's the original email that I sent to BC this evening (forwarded also to Kelley over at Bitch Lab for her comments; she actually got me going on this by referrencing Ms. Martin at her blog today):

From: Anthony J. Kennerson
Date: 05/06/06 20:09:28
To: publisher at blackcommentator dot com
Subject: "Civility....Or Business As Usual???" A Black Leftist Responds to Michel Martin


It was with a great deal of interest that I read Michel Martin's article
in the May 4th issue of Black Commentator titled "Open Letter From A Black
Journalist" criticizing BC (and by extension, the progressive daily news
journal CounterPunch) publishing Ishmael Reed's article, "How The Media Uses
Blacks to Chastize: The Colored Mixed Doubles". Not that I am particularly a
noted fan of Mr. Reed or that I agree wholeheartedly with all of his views
as a eclectic Black liberal/Leftist, but there were a lot of legitimate
points in his article about how the establishment media uses not a few Black
voices to undercut and undermine what is known as the "Black Consensus",
which is decisively and decidedly to the Left of the usual political
spectrum allowed in mainstream media discourse.

First off...I find it quite interesting that Ms. Martin accuses Mr. Reed
(and by extension, CounterPunch and Black Commentator) of lack of "civility"
and feels the need to write the editors of BC to call them out...but she can
t find the time to post her other critique of Reed's article in a public
forum for feedback and response. (Ms. Martin cites a response she gave to
the National Association of Black Journalists forum; but that site turns out
to be a Yahoo! group that is closed in accessibility to journalists only..
and thus inaccessible to those of us in the public.)

For someone who feels the need to throw accusations at individuals on the
Left (and in her email that was published in BC, she specifically aimed her
guns at Reed for his presumed assumptions "that black officials (presumably
of the left since I’ve see no similar protectiveness of those on the right)
are somehow beyond questioning (or chastising for that matter"), Ms. Martin
seems to miss the basic point of Reed's article: that the establishment
media (whether liberal or conservative) is not afraid of using Black people
as a ruse to sell a political agenda that is decisively harmful to the
majority of Black people. The examples that he gave (Vernon Robinson's
Congressional run in North Carolina as Jesse Helms' long lost Steppin
Fetchit grandson; John McWhorter and Shelby Steele from the "End of Racism"
neo-conservative Right; and even the occasional liberal voice like Clarence
Page and Bob Herbert) are only just a few of the many ways in which genuine
progressive Black thought is marginalized and distorted...and voices that
support the dominant conservative-to-Far-Right political spectrum are
reenforced.

Perhaps the real issue that Ms. Martin has with Reed and BC is that she was
called out directly by him for her not-so-fawning coverage of the saga of
Representative Cynthia McKinney (GA - 4th Dist.), who has the unmitigated
gall to actually represent her poor and working class constituents in her
Atlanta district as a principled progressive, and who is one of the few
representatives who dares to challenge the frontal assault of the Right and
Center on average Black people directly....and who also had the unmitigated
hubris to defend herself against an overzealous security guard who just
couldn't keep his hands off her while going to work. (And I won't even go
into McKinney's hair style choices at that time, since I'm sure that even Ms.
Martin are aware of the vile racist epithets that were slung at
Congresswoman McKinney by right-wingers at that time. Nothing that Ishmael
Reed wrote on that article could even begin to approximate Neal Boortz's
"ghetto slut" smack..and those was the more printable insults.) I'm not
saying that McKinney is above accountability; but the perspective of having
a publically active progressive Black woman put down due to her choice in
hair style (not to mention her political positions) might have more than a
bit to do with why she is supported so firmly amongst average Black folk...and it is more than proper to point out how establishment media programs were selling the dominant party line of McKinney being nutty, almost slutty, and a dangerous
ultra-radical Black Leftist that should be shunned by any moderate-thinking
Black politician.

Nor am I that impressed by Ms. Martin's attempt to explain away and dismiss
popular Black anger at media voices who use their newly gained power in the
establishment media for personal self-promotion at the expense of the "Black
Consensus". According to her, that's just the usual media obsession with
gadflies who think "outside the box"; she directly quotes John McCain and
Chuck Hagel as prominent examples on the conservative Republican side as
examples of how internal critics get more attention. There's one small
problem with that analogy, though: Hagel and McCain, for all their
criticisms of the Bush presidency on some occasions, remain firmly and
strongly within the dominant right-wing consensus; and have no plans to
break away at any rate. Indeed, McCain is currently attempting to repudiate
much of his old "maverick" image and suck up to the very same Far Right
resources that killed his earlier 2000 Presidential campaign...considering
that all that remains of the Republican "base" is the fundamentalists and
the former "Dixiecrats", it is more of a Realpolitik move than anything
philosophical.

But it is Ms. Martin's clarion call for BC to be more "civil" which
fascinates me most; it is as if she thinks that only Black Leftists are the
ones that are poisoning the political debate by not "respecting" their
critics enough and resorting to name-calling and "dozens-playing". It's as
if she thinks that if we on the (Black) Left simply played nice and only
used right and proper language and played by Maquis of Queensbury rules and
treated the Right and the Establishment Center as people who played fair and
square, then all the issues affecting Black folk would be resolved rather
quickly. Well, Ms. Martin, I really hate to burst your bubble, but that won
t be happening anytime soon.

For starters....you are aware, ma'am, that if anything, the mass collective
attitude of the Right is not getting any more civil...in fact, quite the
opposite; feeling the fruits of a successful takeover of the political
system through unbridled control of the main political institutions
(including both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court),
they have simply become that much more aggressive in their tactics of
driving Black folk back to their antebellum status. Not even the
diminishing popularity of their leadership and the demonstrated failures of
their policies has driven them in any way towards the goal of mutual respect
and mutual consent. Rather, it has simply intensified and concentrated
their anger at and fear of losing their assumed privileges as White people..
and they have directed their anger in much more direct language and actions.
Just go over to sites like FreeRepublic.com, LittleGreenFootballs.com,
FrontPageMag.com, and a few other "conservative" sites and blogs, and you
will feel the full fury of White scorn towards Blacks who fail to know their
"place"..and those are the more genteel, upper-class sites. Attempting
civility" in the face of people like them is sorta like negotiating with
people who use cattle prods and biting dogs on you....not too successful,
and potentially fatal. Respect towards others means nothing if that respect
is not returned in kind, and no self-respecting Black person should ever
give those who would enslave or kill him anything other than the utmost
resistance. Given this inequality, "civility" becomes reduced to nothing
more than the same old business as usual of average Blacks getting shafted.

Now, I'm no supporter of cursing in public or of any mother beating her
child in public; and I would agree to a point that our society overall has
lost a real sense of civility in our lives....but rather than aim my guns at
the historical victims and the powerless; I'd much prefer to attack the real
roots of such incivility: the political and economic and cultural
institutions which continue to support and enforce the maldistribution of
resources to benefit the few at the expense of the many....and the racist
(and also sexist, and sex-negative, and classist, and heterosexist, and
anti-enviromental) attitudes all too popular that are used to reenforce such
inequality. That is the main focus and objective of sites like CounterPunch
and BC, and what makes them so radical. Obviously, as a woman of the
establishment, you choose a different tack. That is your right and your
perogative, of course..but please be a bit more honest about your goals and
not attempt to degrade those of us who choose a more radical critique of our
society as lacking "civility". Rudeness and crudity may not be genteel, but
it beats being subjugated; and even Martin Luther King and Gandhi had to
protect themselves against violence and injustice. The old saying remains
the same: No justice...no peace.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express my views...and they are
strictly just that...my own.

Sincerely,

A bit long, perhaps...but it got my point across, didn't it. I'll just let you decide on that one.

Peaceout.... :-)

Juan Cole Dropkicks Chris Hitchens On Iran...Film At 11

Sometimes even the quietest people just gotta kick some ass when cornered.

And Hitchens though that George Galloway was bad....

Informed Consent: Hitchens the Hacker; And, Hitchens the Orientalist And, "We Don't Want Your Stinking War!

Oh, and 'Bina Becker (Baaaaaadassssss Queen WingnutTroll Killa[tm] of the Mike Malloy Truthseekers' Forum) was as impressed as I was with that can of Whupass...she piles on at her own blog :

News of the Restless: The Ravel's Bolero of Ass Kickings

Best. Blog. Post. Ever. On. War. Against. Reproductive. Choice.

As good as the original entry is, the comments are even better...clear, direct, and on the money. And about damn time, too.

Pharyngula: Why Wingnuts Hate Plan B

Complete with drawings a ninth-grade biology teacher would love, too.

Why Nubian Kicks Serious Ass; and Ginmar Can Just Kiss Mine...

Here I am, stuck in my bed with a really bad case of motion sickness/vertigo, brought on by waaaay too much stress at work...but I do have time enough to post some thoughts:

Since almost everyone else has done so, I will, too: Props, kudos, a really big SmackHug,a permanent slot in the SmackDog Baddddddassssss Wall of Fame, and a free gallon of concentrated SmackDog Whupass (TM, 2006) goes to Nubian of Blac(k)ademic for her righteous response to all the haters (especially Ginmar and SarahS) who attempted to pile on her for saying the truth about race and gender. A sample of her brilliance from the original essay, also posted to Alas, a Blog:

in the case of the current duke scandal, some folks feel that we must pay attention to the issue of gender before race since, she is a WOMAN and was allegedly attacked by MEN. however, i don't see how we can only pay attention to her as a woman, or as just a black woman, or even as a economically disenfrachised black woman, for that matter--all of her identities must be taken into account. her race is already determining who believes her and who doesn't, how bad of a parent she is (the myth of the bad black mother), and it's determining how she is misrepresented in the media. additionally, we must not forget that we exist in a media saturated world that continuously reproduces negative images that deem black womens bodies as disposable sex objects. it is all too impossible to deny that those images do not play a strong part in concluding how she was/is/will be treated by men of all races. furthermore, if one believes that gender trumps race in this specific situtation, then they deny the harm of the racial slurs that were hurled at the dancers, which i personally see as a form of violence towards these women--no matter what.

[..]

moreover, the argument that "gender trumps race," also ignores the fact that women of color see men of color as necessary allies in the struggle against "the patriarchy." men of color do have a complicit relationship with fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences, but, we cannot ignore the fact that these same men face similar oppressions due to the color of their skin aside from their gender. in the case of the duke scandal, if it were men of color who allegedly attacked a woman of color, issues of race would still be in play and i still wouldn't see how gender would situate itself in a hierarchical position above race, or vice-versa. rather, we would have to take into account how race functions within the specific racial group to understand fully the scope of the attack, what should and can be done about it, ways to prevent future attacks on women, etc.

[...]

finally, if gender trumped race, there would be no need for black feminism, for third world feminism, for chicana feminism or for women of color feminism. generalizations about "the patriarchy" and the oppression of women in a heirarchy based on gender, only ignores the multiplicity of the number of oppressions all women face that are not soley based on gender. however, to some white feminists who face gender oppression in exchange for racial privilege, gender does trump race.

For spelling this essential truth out, Nubian has been basically ambushed and smeared as "whiny", a "petulant child", a "token", and "setting third-wave feminism back" by promoting "racism in reverse" (quotes from SarahS in comments from Feministing)....and those were the more friendlier comments.

But the mother of all attacks came from none other than our dear radicalfeminist friend Ginmar, who obviously is so connected to the microcode of MacDworkinism (the combined and shared ideology of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon which states the feminism -- defined as the abolition of essential male domination and essential female victimhood) is the one and only oppression and all others should take a back seat -- that she wouldn't know racism it it stood up and bit her on her behind. To quote the G.rummy:

Long before protohumans crossed oceans and discovered people of other colors, men discovered they could beat up women and make them afraid and obediant. That includes black men, who had an additional excuse white guys don’t: they have truly suffered. Yet they inflict their suffering on black women. When they do it to white women, it’s something we should all ignore, except if we want to call white women liars. Within oppressed groups, the men inflict their abuse on the women to assert the only thing they’ve got: manhood. Black women may consider black men their allies, but I wonder if that includes the kind of guys who are sexist in the way as white guys. Because that’s what it boils down to.

Talking about rape, race, and black-white feminism never brings up the thing that lurks underneath: men of color can be sexist, too. None of the black feminists want to touch that one. Instead they want to talk about white female privilege and how black men are their allies. Maybe it’s a privilege to look at a sexist guy and see just the sexist and not the skin color and not give a shit, either. But standing by your man or men in this case…..

That last one was also from Alas, a Blog....

Sorry, but what it comes down to is whether or not women support other women or men. Support men first? Call them innocent victims of lying bitches? Yeah, sorry, I'm a teensy bit skeptical that you're feminist. Call women liars who victimized men? Yeah, I'm convinced. Sorry, but if you bash other women to protect men, then I'm a wee bit umimpressed. Why does the label feminist matter so much then?

...and that one was from the Feministing thread...

...but Ginmar really showed off her ass at her own Live Journal blog, where she launched a virtual chemical laden Scud missile attack on Black feminists (and by extension, all non-White "feminists of color") as traitors of their gender and apologizers for innate (Black) male sexism...even going so far as to channel Susan Brownmiller's exhumation of Emmett Till's old bones:

Original quote)

When white women lie about being raped by black men, no one resurrects photographs of black bodies hanging from trees, or the mangled and bloated body of young Emmitt Till who, supposedly, only whistled at a white woman.

(Ginmar's response)
Well, first of all, you have to prove that white women lied in the first place. That statement presents as fact the idea that white women lie. Period. So....huh? The Emmitt Till case doesn't work here, becuase the white woman in that case didn't kill him and didn't even tell her hubby that he'd whistled at her----one of Till's murderers got the information from one of Till's own relatives. White women served as an excuse for two grown up men to defend their property from a fourteen-year-old kid. Exactly what do women have to do with these guys at all? Reminds me of the way some guys will compete over anything. To both groups of males, that woman was property. She might as well have been a ping pong ball being batted back and forth over a net. How the hell am I supposed to feel about that? Evidently, I'm supposed to keep quiet and not dare mention this because what men to do to women just makes us symptoms in their world, and we're supposed to be content as symbols, trophies, excuses, or anything but human beings. Is it racist to see the sexism first and then not give a shit about the race? If it winds up with these things, I don't give a shit about what the colors of the partipants are:

1. a penis gets shoved into a woman's body without her consent;

2. she gets called a liar;

3. and a community stands behind their men, claiming that some women lie.

WOW. Just plain f'n WOW.

I guess that G.rummy missed the part of the Emmett Till history that HE NEVER PHYSICALLY ATTACKED THE WOMAN (I put this in ALL CAPS in case she didn't understand), and that he did in fact GET LYNCHED for his trouble. WTF does that have to do with "shoving a penis into a woman's body"..unless she happens to be implying that the men who lynched Till actually were acting right because (since all men are invertabrate rapists and all women should be assumed as saying the truth when they say that they are raped, then Emmett Till must be guilty..and therefore deserving of his fate!!! And by logical extension, one can actually argue that those who executed Emmett Till were indeed radicalfeminist ALLIES for taking such a strong stance against brutalizing women...whatever the actual evidence may be.

Oh, but wait; there's more where that came from:

Original quote)

Moreover, the argument that “gender trumps race,” also ignores the fact that women of color see men of color as necessary allies in the struggle against “the patriarchy.” Men of color do have a complicit relationship with fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences, but, we cannot ignore the fact that these same men face similar oppressions due to the color of their skin aside from their gender.

(Ginmar's response, again)
"Fostering the oppression of women based on gender differences" is such a passive, academic phrase. And, you know, I notice that black men were regarded as possessions for three hundred years, but women have been regarded as possessions forever, everywhere, by every kind of man there is. Once again, I ask, exactly how am I supposed to feel when some oppressed guy chooses not a white guy to act out his issues on....but a woman? They'll fight over a woman, with the clear indication that she's just a piece of ass they're fighting over, but when they want revenge on society, suddenly women are the most powerful villains there are. Why is that?

[Another commenter:]

They had something to gain–namely that their otherwise unbelievable stories would take on a patina of common sense in a racist society. Remember the mom who murdered her children by driving them in to the lake, but claimed they were kindnapped? Case in point.

(Ginmar's response)
Oh, come on, don't be coy. Everyone knows who Susan Smith is. How come this one white woman is responsible for a racist society, though? Did she create racism? Probably not--it's been around a lot longer than she's been alive. How does she have any more to do with other white women, though, than Tawana Brawley has to do with other black women? Isn't that we're supposed to be against?

How come when white guys like Charles Stewart claim the same thing, when they have way more power than any white woman can dream of, that they're not demonizied, too? HOw many people know who he is off the top of their heads?

First off, Ms. Moran, it's Charles STUART.....and secondly, I'm sure that the innocent Black men who were stripsearched, questioned, harassed and otherwise targeted by the police in both these cases would readily appreciate your analysis. And what about the basic fact that Susan Smith's father (or stepfather) was infact the head of the Christian Coalition in South Carolina at the time of the incident?? Or perhaps she doesn't really have any privileges there all because she is a woman??? Oh, but even right-wing racist women are nothing more than victims of patriarchy and evil men, even if they don't act like it.

A few more tidbits of Ginmar's racist madness:

That's why the difference between the way racism and sexism get discussed has always pissed me off. People really don't want to see sexism that crosses racial lines. It makes it too easy to see that women are still propety to too many men, and that the only real difference is between what price tags we get stamped with, and if we're important enough to get locked up so we don't get stolen. The idea that we might want to own ourselves and not have to sell ourselves to some guy still hasn't arrived yet. We're still arguing about whose possession is worth more.

Unfortunately, black and white people come in two genders. It would be so much easier if one were male, the other female, or vice versa. Nobody wants to deal with the idea that men of all races, creeds and religions can get together over one thing: whether or not that girl or any girl is a slut. Whether she asked for it. Whether the bitch lied. Those are things a man can sympathize with, now that women don't know their place any longer---in the home, in the kitchen, or in the bedroom, or just by his side, sympathizing when he has to deal with whatever the latest excuse for being sexist is. His treatment of women becomes something that's a sign of his pain, and we're supposed to stand by him.

[...]

All races have within them the poison of sexism. You can avoid other races. You cannot avoid the other gender, and one of those genders, no matter what, gets pregnant and is smaller and lighter and less respected than the other.

[...]

White women are privileged, I'm told. I wonder if Martha Stewart believes that while she watches the very tardy trial for the Enron bigwigs, who aren't being villified the way females are. Years from now, Kennyboy Lay is not going to get a tabloid soubriquet or be the subject of a gossipy, bitchy bio like any female who crosses the line. Leona Helmesley got called the "Queen of Mean" but Michael Milken sure never got labelled the "King of Cruelty." That privilege comes with a vicious backlash, which comes into play whenever a woman isn't perfect. If she's perfect, she's fake, and if she's not perfect, she's whatever the guy wants to blame---slut, whore, bad mother, bad girlfriend, lying bitch, evil stepmother, what have you. Not only are all women property, but some women are marked down from the get go. Then they blame---other women.

The last two sentences, I guess, are particularly telling of Ginmar's snide rejection of Black and WOC feminists as gender traitors and male rapist enablers..since they have the unmitigated gall to question the privileges of upper-middle class White radicalfeminists, they are undermining the great cause of toppling patriarchy by dividing women from each other and tackling the REAL source of oppression..namely, men with penises. And notice how she gets a dig in favor of Martha Stewart as a "victim"..never mind that she's never been raped by anyone, only jailed for insider training while Ken Lay apparently relaxes by his pool awaiting his fate on the same charge.

And here's the supposed knockdown blow:

Here's the thing about racism, though. Men are human beings. Always. Women are still possessions. Nobody thinks of black men as possessions, but any and all women are possessions, to be taken or stolen or destroyed. Some men of various minorities get regarded as animals, but after walking down the street and getting harassed by different-colored guys who don't see my owner anywhere and think I'm a freebie, I'm damned if I can the difference. Am I supposed to ignore the sexism for the race?

There you have it...walking down the street and facing a few boorish men hurling sexist catcalls is far, far more important an issue than Black men getting lynched and murdered and beaten up for being in the wrong place at the wrong time..and any Black woman who attempts to place the latter above the former is simply a traitor who defiles all women. See, gender not only swamps race, gender is the SOURCE of racism, and until it is eliminated first, you uppity nigg....errrrrrr, Blacks...will just have to take their seat at the back of the bus and wait your turn. So there.

With "radical feminists" like Ginmar....who the fuck needs David Duke????

I'd rather take my chances with a porn starlet and a stripper as an ally than this racist crackhead whiny-ass fool.

Here's to you, Nubian, for breaking her sorry ass off real proper.

(And the usual tip of the rack to K at Bitch Lab for documenting the whole sorry episode and bringing her own can of Whupass.)





UPDATE:

Oh, my Goddess...get a load of this classic comment from Ginmar from further down the same thread, which I just sent over to Bitch | Lab :

[..]

But going back to Ginmar….I read through the responses to her thread and I discovered this gem that I just have to share:

ginmar
2006-04-28 01:12 am UTC (link)
Actually, there is evidence that white women were raped by black men, but no one knows which men, how often, or much of anything. The NAACP report which I cited a week ago found that while rapes were the excuse for lynchings only in one third to one quarter of all cases, in hte public mind they became the only cause. The strangers who have posted to this blog have ignored that repeatedly in favor of accusations of racism.

There is also evidence that white women resisted the lynchings, but, hey, let’s ignore that, shall we? Anti lynching societies were formed by white women who saw clearly that they were being used. funny how nobody is making generalizations about white women’s character on that basis, is it? It’s just so much more satisfying, for some reason, to have a ‘no class, low class whore’ white woman being blamed for lynchings instead of a white male establishment which would eventually prove useful to the black community—-which is something white women never have been, an inadvertant endorsement of their lack of power. What is clear is that white men orchestrated the lynchings and claimed t hey were doing them on behalf of southern womanhood. What is also clear is that rape of black women was so common as to be in effect legal. What I have always objected to is the blanket characterization by the black community of white women as lying bitches who killed black men. Men are men. It is impossible to believe that any community of men does not contain rapists, especially when said community makes sexist generalzations about the women that are all too familiar.

http://ginmar.livejournal.com/722413.html?thread=22348013#t22348013

Yup..just like it is impossible to belive that any community of women (especially upper-class radicalfeminist women) does not contain racists, especially when [representatives of] said community makes racist generalizations about Black men and women that are all too familiar.

Hello..Kettle…this is Pot calling. How ‘ya doing??? BTW…you do know that you are Black, don’t you???

And while there were a few White women brave enough to oppose the mass lynchings, the overwhelming majority of them (including most of the feminist sufragette activists of their day) mostly ignored the issue…and quite a few even lent their support to the Southern regime which supported lynching in the first place, as a compromise to obtain suffrage, I guess). Most of the main activism against lynching was mostly launched by Black WOMEN and Black men…does the name Ida B. Wells ring your bell, G.rummy???

Asshat…pure racist asshat. I say it again…with such radicalfeminists like this, who the f*ck needs David Duke??

The more she talks, the deeper the BS. Keep this up and Bill Napoli might have someone to share his title of Asshat of the Year with.

Wingnut Trolls Beware: The Buck Stops Here!!!

I've been noticing of late that there has been a rash of right-wing trolls invading progressive websites and blogs to poison the debate and smear anyone who dares to challenge the prevailing wingnut tripe line on various issues..but especially the Duke alleged rape case.

A great many sites (including Slant Truth, Blac(k)ademic, Rachel's Tavern, and Browninfempower's Women of Color blog) have become the target of some of the ugliest, meanest, and most hate-filled assaults not only on the accused victim of the assaults as a liar, a hysterical nut, a slut/whore/prostitute who just made this up to blame innocent White folks who wouldn't hurt a fly (never mind that one of the suspects charged in the case has already been arrested and faces trial for beating a gay man); but also on those who defend her as "reverse racists and "race hustlers" who use supposed anti-White hatred for crass political gain. (Not, of course, like those great fair and balanced negotiators for peace like Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and the brave pontificators of FOX News, who simply smear the accused woman in her own blood for their own profit...that's just good "conservative" reporting.) And it hasn't even been limited to flooding the comments sections....one blogger has been the subject of a denial-of-service attack on her blog for expressing her support of the victim in this case.

Now, this isn't the first time that we have seen a concerted effort by right-wingers to intimidate and smack down critics of their policies..but the intensity of the hatred and the level of concurrence is still quite astonishing....if not totally unsurprising, given the state of affairs for the Right these days. With their Brave Decider's ratings plummetting to new lows (even Faux News has Dubya near 32% as of today), the grand war in Iraq falling flatter and flatter, the economy getting weaker and weaker, and the threat of indictments and even a whiff of the "I" word (as in "impeachment") openly brandied about, what better and more consistent need of a distraction for the Right can there be than a nice high-tech modern day lynching??? When all else fails, Nigguh-baiting, queer-bashing, slut-baiting, and Mexican/Latino-whacking is the usual choice of Whitey-Rightie fundie wingnutters to save the political day for them...and so what if it enables the ultra-Right true believers who would go well beyond mere border fences and gang rapes to retain their control???

The sad thing about this is that it has had a significant impact on the blogosphere: some blogs have simply shut down completely (such as Blackamazon); others have had to totally shut down their comments against these hatemongering spammers; and a few brave souls have even been forced to change their comment policies.

Which brings me to announce the official comments policy for this here blog, which basically comes down to this:

I, as the blog owner/manager, reserve to myself the right to delete or reject any comment that I find offensive, libelous, slanderous, or just plain stupid. My decisions on who gets posted here are simply MY OWN, and are absolutely final...and none of your business. My blog; my choice...DEAL WITH IT.

Any attempt to post spam of any kind will be quickly deleted, and the perpetrator PERMANENTLY BANNED.

And this rule is especially for you wingnuts who think that you're going to defile my house with your crap: First time, I give you the benefit of a response if you are polite and respectful enough; second time, the can of SmackDog Whupass comes out and I dissect your arguments piece by piece; and on Strike Three....well, You're OUTTA HERE!!!!!

Friends and decent people, however, can post all they want without fear.

If you want to have a decent debate, you are more than welcome. If you want to come here to troll and bash....don't even think about it.

BTW...Kevin at Slant Truth has come up with a brilliant idea for all you progressive bloggers who are sick and tired of all the wingnut trolls; he has formed up a special forum/message board connected to his blog where progressive bloggers can interact on the nuts and bolts of running and maintaining a blog, as well as other technical topics. If you are interested, just go here to check out his board....and of course, only progressive kick-ass bloggers need apply.

When "Porn Liberal Feminism" Really Isn't: My Issue With Amanda And The Pandagonites

Pardon me, please, if I'm feeling a bit moody....because I just had to break off someone whom I usually respect and agree with most of the time, but just got me more than a bit upset over a disagreement we have over the subject of men, women, and sexual attractiveness.

Most of you know Amanda Marcotte as the house feminist over at Pandagon; she's the feisty progressive feminist "porn liberal" who does her level best to attack the roots and branches of the evil male patriarchy as it attempts to revoke women's rights back to the 5th Century. Before tonight, I could wholeheartedly stand behind her efforts...but, something has been bothering me for a long while about her style of collective guilt-tripping men as a class for their thoughts rather than their actions...and tonight it all came to a head over some comments she and her regular contributors made.

It all began when high-tech writer/sex-positive guru Annalee Newitz, who writes a regular column for AlterNet called "Techsploitation" (and who recently opened a blog of the same name). Annalee recently wrote a serious high-tech column that was reposted in the high-tech journal Slashdot about two weeks ago; but some of the men who viewed the article were more interested in her fuckability and her attractiveness than the nature of the article she wrote, and they got loose in the Slashdot comments section within. Annalee was not too happy with not having her article taken as seriously as she liked, and in so many words said so in a recent article she posted over at AlterNet as her latest column. (Though, she did express gratitude that some men did take some of the more "sexist dicks" to task, and she hoped that more women would be willing to go there and challenge some of the more entrenched sexist attitudes there.) In her most recent Techsploitation blog entry, she recapitulated the whole controversy.

Well...being the liberal feminist and the outspoken person she is, Amanda couldn't hold herself back; in an entry to Pandagon posted today (April 20), she quoted from both Annalee and from some comments placed in Annalee's column, then went off on her own. Here's an excerpt, including three comments and Amanda's response to them.

(Quotes from Annalee's Techsploitation column comments)

You’re Sexy When You’re Angry

for the record, i think your pretty hot. smart chicks are always hot.

So let me get this straight: If a man looks at a woman and thinks about having sex with her, that is “sexist”? If so, call me and every other man on the planet sexist. Apparently, men are supposed to ignore and overcome millenia of evolution, merely to fit into your PC paradigm. I thought this sort of Victorian, sexless feminism had been discretited by the likes of Camille Paglia long ago.

(Amanda's response)
As for the third comment, I have an idea of a public protest art similiar to what’s done here. We need to get together a hit squad of straight women and gay men together and start hitting big blogs run by men and turning every single discussion into one about whether we’d fuck the guy or not. Refuse to engage on the topic at hand and when anyone says this isn’t about his fuckability, get all pissed off and accuse that person of being an anti-sex prude and suggest they join the Christian right. Sometimes just turning the tables tells the whole story.

Anyway, that guy is clearly an idiot, but unfortunately the other two, while totally well-meaning, are basically falling into his same line of thinking, which is that they cannot conceive of a discussion about a woman’s writing that doesn’t put her value as a sex object up front. I don’t know about Newitz, but there’s been huge, public discussions about my fuckability and I’ll admit, comments like those two cause mixed feelings–it’s not fun to have your looks discussed so openly, but even though compliments can weird you out, you know they generally come from people with good intentions. But I’ve never been in exactly Newitz’s position where the discussion ignored her ideas in favor of talking about her looks and so at least it’s always conceivable that any upset I was feeling was due to just all the people who insult my looks. But in this case, Newitz couldn’t be more clear that it wasn’t the insults or compliments aimed at her so much as she was pissed off that her ideas went ignored.

Basically, I think for some guys when they hear, “I hate having my looks discussed,” they assume straightaway you’re feeling inadequate and immediately jump to the compliment instead of considering what you’re talking about. I’m disinclined to think the guys rushing to assure her they find her attractive were actually intending to add to the frustration. They like her, read her blog, and I think it was just out of habit, actually, because men are trained from the get-go to shower women they like with compliments about their looks, which isn’t the problem per se, but more that it’s often the only kind of compliment men assume women want to hear. (The reverse of this is also true–I had to force myself to learn to compliment men’s looks instead of just achievements, and it’s actually funny watching a guy get flustered but enjoy it if I do so.)

I blame the Men are from Venus, Women are from Mars (or whatever it was–I remember reading the personality traits and I’m much more Martian, so that’s what women must be, right?) thinking. Or Adam and Eve or whatever you want to call it, but the cultural idea that men and women are both opposites and put here to conjoin sexually and that’s that, there’s no reason that men and women should be friends or whatever since they have nothing in common. This way of thinking creates massive problems when men and women have non-sexual interactions, because so many people are stuck in the sexual way of interacting they habitually apply it to these non-sexual interactions. The father-daughter purity balls would be an extreme example of this. I’m sure many of the men there have no incestous urges towards their daughters, and they were applying sexualized modes of interaction out of desperation, because they have no other way of relating to women.
[/Amanda]

Now...I have no argument with the basic belief that some of the men's comments did cross the line into disrespect for Annalee's article....but my first question is this: Why assume that that was the case with ALL of them?? Perhaps they were simply saying their feelings that Annalee Newitz was an attractive woman, and not disrespecting her at all. Perhaps they really do respect her for her work and her achievements, but merely had their lower heads get in the way of their thinking at that time. To simply label them as misogynists merely due to having sexual thoughts about a woman who is reasonably attractive (even if they did choose the wrong venue to state those thoughts openly) sounds to me as grossly overreaching and a total mass scapegoating of all men for merely having normal thoughts of sexual attraction (even if misdirected somewhat).

Well...I said as much in a comment I posted to Amanda's thread this afternoon...and by the resulting roasting I got, you would have thought that I had advocated that Annalee Newitz (and by extension, all professional women) deserved to be raped. Some highlights from the Comments thread follow (beginning with my original comment:

------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Kennerson
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:22 pm

May I bring a slight bit of dissent in here??

I acknowledge and agree with all the arguments that Annalee should be taken seriously as a woman and a journalist, and that some of the comments at Slashdot do cross the line into blatant sexism by putting her sexuality above her intellect. But…should it really be such a sign of rancid sexism to say that a woman is sexually attractive WHILE still respecting her humanhood??

Let’s remember that Annalee Newitz isn’t just a geek journalist…she also happens to write a great deal about sex and sexuality on the Internet from a very progressive, “sex-positive” point of view. Given that, should it be that much of a surprise that some men would focus on the latter side of her personality…and that she would come across as more accepting of flattery from them???

As long as they do appreciate her as a human being, then what’s the really big deal about commenting about how desirable she is??? Or do some of you believe that ANY depiction of a woman in a serious profession as sexually desirable and attractive can be nothing less than an basic insult to her intellect, and one step removed from sexual harrassment, if not rape??? And how is that any less of a caricature than the sexless, humorless, ball-busting “strawfeminist” stereotype always put forth by antifeminists that Amanda regularly and rightly smacks down???

Besides, I don’t think that most of the men commenting on Slashdot really were putting down Annalee’s intellect…though the argument on whether she was “ugly” or “pretty” did go a bit too far down the road of not addressing the real point of the article she did there.

A woman can indeed be both intellectually stimulating and sexually desirable….or she can be either of the two, or she can be none of the above. The only issue is that she should be given the full respect for her humanity and her achievements…and if others want to undress her mentally in their minds, well, that’s their issue as long as she’s not offended by it.

Geeky women can be sexy, too…and sexy women can be geeks.

The best solution to dealing with knotheads like some of those guys at Slashdot is just to either ignore them or let the decent men on the board dissect them (as what indeed did happen). If thay can’t think of a woman as anything other than their personal sex toy..well, they’re in the wrong place.

Anthony

61 Mike Nilsen
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:27 pm

Maybe Amanda should edit the comments from this post into a book: ‘Dating Tips for Geeks’. C’mon, you’ll sell a million!

62 Sjofn
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:40 pm

I just went through a thread on a geeky board about a blog post. The post was about making the gaming world more friendly to women. On the one hand, most of the men in the thread seemed genuinely interested in what makes women feel like total outsiders and unwelcome, and how to change it. But there were two or three guys who went on and on and on and on and on about how it isn’t really a problem, sexism either doesn’t exist or isn’t NEARLY as bad as we think it is (that was my favourite), and how we need to look at ALL SIDES of the issue. When the “all sides” guy was pressed for what those sides could possibly BE, he scurried off saying he didn’t want to get involved, but his opinion (whatever the fuck it even WAS) hadn’t changed.

Blog post(s) in question, if anyone is curious:

Part One: http://rpgtalk.net/msw/weblog/148.html

Part Two: http://rpgtalk.net/msw/weblog/163.html

63 another lynne
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:41 pm

Anthony, I gotta take issue with your best solution. We gotta call bullshit when we see it.

Because someone writes about sex in one forum, or even in another article doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to focus on sex whenever that person writes.

And there is a huge difference between mentally undressing someone (quietly) and discussing their fuckability in a forum that is (in theory anyway) about something completely unrelated. As I said earlier, context is everything.

64 Sheelzebub
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:46 pm

But…should it really be such a sign of rancid sexism to say that a woman is sexually attractive WHILE still respecting her humanhood??

Anthony, when it is normal for men to hear women routinely comment upon their looks, their hotness, and their sexiness when they are trying to discuss a serious topic, I’ll agree with you. But that’s not the case. It’s like someone making conversation with you and staring at your tits. No one feels they have to legitimize men by telling them how sexeeee they are.

This isn’t the strawfeminist slapping a man across the face and yelling RAPIST!! when he tells her she looks pretty. It’s genuine irritation at people commenting on a woman’s looks when she’s talking about something that has fuck-all to do with her looks.

And it should tell you something, Anthony, that the sex-positive Newitz herself was irritated at this.

You know, there’s a reason why I don’t post any pictures of me at my blog–besides the whole avoiding stalkers thing. It’s the comments about my looks that I’d be sure to get–I’ve seen it happen to Jill and Lauren at Feministe, Amanda here, and several other female bloggers. I don’t care if someone said that they think I’m the hottest chick in the universe (or an ugly pug) in response to my post. My reaction would still be: WTF does that have to do with the subject at hand?

65 Hershele Ostropoler
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:47 pm

Anthony Kennerson:
But…should it really be such a sign of rancid sexism to say that a woman is sexually attractive WHILE still respecting her humanhood??

Yup.

The sexism is in treating a woman as decoration. Assuming good faith on the part of all involved, if someone says something insightful about a topic, and that person’s a woman, and you respond with “you’re so pretty!” it looks like you don’t think what she has to say is important.* If you say “that was well-argued, and you’re pretty,” it’s not much better, since it still suggests that you value her not for her insight, but for her appearance, with the insightfulness being a nice bonus.

It’s not always sexist to comment on a woman’s appearance. On a date, say**, it’s perfectly appropriate. Because on a date, her attractiveness (and yours), are pertinent to the purpose of the meeting. In an intellectual discussion, it’s not.

I could never have a relationship wit someone stupid, but that doesn’t mean I think of non-stupid women as nothing but relationship material.

*If we don’t assume good faith, it could be taken as a way for you to convey that you don’t think she should aspire to hold opinions while letting you say, if you’re called on it, “all I said was that she’s pretty!”
** Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether dating is unavoidably and inherently sexist.

66 R. Mildred
Apr 20th, 2006 at 3:52 pm

But…should it really be such a sign of rancid sexism to say that a woman is sexually attractive WHILE still respecting her humanhood??

If you cut the hyperbolic modifier “rancid” then yes, yes it is a sign of sexism, because you are undermining the humanhood you think you’re respecting by subjecting her to the male gaze and thereby turning her into a sexual object when such attention is irrelelvent to the fact at hand.

She does not NEED you to tell her she’s sexually attractive, she does not NEED you to tell her that you’d pork her if you had the opportunity (more importantly, by making such a statement you are ensuring that she would never willingly give you teh opportunity, which leaves one other option…), it’s the internets’ equivalent to builders wolf whistling at passing women or those jackasses who honk and shout sexual propositions to women on the sidewalk while they driveby, which, in case you were unaware, are all forms of sexual harrassment.

Note how the justification are identical to the justification for the builder and car-borne abuse “we’re just complimenting you honey, what’s the big deal?” The Rape Culture’s the big fucking deal, the dehumanizing aspect of it is the fucking deal, the sheer, unadalterated immaturity of it is the fucking deal buddy, and I’m sure that if you zip up your flies for long enough to actually THINK about it, you’d get that.

Don’t you just love how you can’t get away from this shit even on the internets?

67 Sjofn
Apr 20th, 2006 at 4:00 pm

Hell, I find it much worse on the internets (just as an attitude, of course). But maybe that’s just me?

68 lt
Apr 20th, 2006 at 4:17 pm

Also . . in my experience guys who really are into smart women don’t have to go around saying it . . . I mean, it should go without saying - I like being complimented, but if a guy said to me “wow, you’re smart, I like that” it has a creepy Samuel Johnson (the thing is that she does it all) feel

69 Lanoire
Apr 20th, 2006 at 5:04 pm

Anthony, it’s a matter of timing and context. Yes, it’s possible to appreciate a woman’s looks and her humanity. But if someone started expressing their opinion on an issue, and you responded by saying “Nice ass” or “You’re beautiful,” don’t you see how that might be demeaning? Because it’s so irrelevant. If someone writes an opinion column, the correct response to that is to discuss the issue. If Newitz had posted her picture on Hot or Not, then it would be appropriate to discuss her looks. Men don’t have to deal with out-of-context discussions of looks as much as women do.

70 Matt Weiner
Apr 20th, 2006 at 5:16 pm

In re Slashdot, a guy who appears to be a Slashdotter showed up at Unfogged to defend the ultra-ultra-fundie Pensacola Christian College, a school that condemns Bob Jones as too liberal. Scary stuff (scroll up and down and look at the original post for context and for much more of his defense).

71 Jill
Apr 20th, 2006 at 5:27 pm

“As long as they do appreciate her as a human being, then what’s the really big deal about commenting about how desirable she is??? Or do some of you believe that ANY depiction of a woman in a serious profession as sexually desirable and attractive can be nothing less than an basic insult to her intellect, and one step removed from sexual harrassment, if not rape???”

The big deal is that you feel entitled to share your opinion of how desirable she is in a forum that has nothing to do with her putting herself out there for judgment. I’m a little sensitive about this one because I’ve had my physical appearance held up for scrutiny many times on my own blog, and it gets old. While many people are well-meaing in their compliments, I don’t see why your opinion of what I look like matters any more than your opinion on Baroque art matters in a conversation about abortion rights. Completely unrelated, irrelevant, and distracting to the topic at hand. And as other commenters have said, there’s a good deal of entitlement involved when one person feels that it is entirely his right to evalue someone who hasn’t put herself out to be evaluated, in a forum where it’s unrelated.

The issue isn’t with depicting women as sexually desirable. It’s with directly commenting to a woman about her physical appearance when she didn’t solicit such comments, and when those comments have absolutely no purpose except to share the viewer’s opinion on an irrelevant topic.

72 Jesurgislac
Apr 20th, 2006 at 5:42 pm

Anthony Kennerson: May I bring a slight bit of dissent in here??

Anthony’s got a really nice ass. And I like the way he does his hair. But he could use a bit of work on his belly - too much beer, not enough sit-ups. Good package, though he could wear tighter pants.

73 Amanda Marcotte
Apr 20th, 2006 at 5:44 pm

Anthony, you blew your entire argument and any shades of gray when you decided that we were calling rudeness rape. The entitlement reeking off you blows my mind. At what point do you permit a woman to have her own definition of rude? Frankly, I find it hard to believe you’d appreciate it if you were at dinner with your mom and when she ordered, the waiter said, “I’m sorry I couldn’t hear you, I was staring at your ass.”

74 Anthony Kennerson
Apr 20th, 2006 at 6:01 pm

To Lanoire and RMildred:

OK…so a woman’s attractiveness should be completely of the table when it comes to discussing any subject matter, then??? Does that mean that ANY man, who even THINKS of a woman an ANY context as a sexual being, is a prima facie misogynist and should only think of a woman in intellectual terms….even if she happens to be attractive??

Well, I guess that makes me a total misogynist, never mind my committment to women’s equality or my general opposition to feminism…I guess that men really do have to castrate themselves and only look at women on pedestals as sexless status objects to meet some “feminist” standards, do they???

It may be one thing to blurt “I think you’re hot” in a serious venue as a professional setting..but this was a blog, for Pete’s sake, and the comments were for the most part complimenting Annalee, not demeaning her. But since I’m one of those evil Male Gaze, leering men who only cares about bedding them down (my respect for their intellect to the contrary), I’m no better than a mere rapist in some people’s minds for merely saying out loud that a smart woman happens to also be sexy. And never mind if that woman is capable of taking that as a compliment for herself; she is obviously incapable of speaking for all the other women who are supposedly so demeaned and defiled by such a comment.

Obviously, Annalee must be (if I read your response properly) just as much a traitor to her gender for allowing herself (and by extension, all professional women) to be seen as a “sex object”, as the men who responded thusly are apparently evil, sex-crazed misogynists.

After all, women who comment about a man’s (or another woman’s) physical attraction and sex appeal in blogs aren’t traitors to their gender or demeaning men, are they?? Or is that just another patriarchial
vestige imported from men as well?? Women, after all, don’t ever think about sex appeal or eyballing men for sheer sexual attraction, do they???

Thank you, ladies, for bringing back the double standard and proving my main point. I would have thought that even today some would be able to differentiate between actual misogyny and well-meaning (if misstated) praise; or that women shouldn’t have to choose between two basic essences of their humanity (their brains and their bodies) or that men shouldn’t have to support a sexless stereotype pedestal to get “feminist” approval…but now I see that even within certain elements of feminism, some women are more equal than others.

So much for “porn liberal” feminism…sounds like the same old neo-liberal Dworkinism with a smiling face to me. Thank you very much, but I will pass on this one.

Anthony

75 mythago
Apr 20th, 2006 at 6:07 pm

Shorter Anthony: How dare you feminazis shame me for telling Annalee I think she’s TEH HAWT!!!!

76 Anthony Kennerson
Apr 20th, 2006 at 6:25 pm

Hold the phone, Amanda:

I never said that these men were in any way “entitled” to make over the top comments at Annalee or any other woman; nor did I ever say that I ever approved of disrespecting women who were put off at such comments. And NO man is ever entitled to violate a woman physically or in any other way.

But..to say that any man who even thinks of an attractive woman in his mind in a sexual way is automatically deemed a misogynist is not only as sweeping an overgeneralization and indictment of men for merely stating a truth (perhaps a bit abruptly and in an improper setting), but it potentially goes into convicting a person merely for his thoughts rather than his actions. Please forgive me if I happen to think that calling a sex writer and a generally attractive woman “hot” may be highly innappropriate in some settings, but does not merit the same criticism as actual workplace harrassment…or for thinking that some women may even find such behavior relatively irrelevant or even flattering. If you are going to smack down the men for not taking Annalee seriously (and that is your right as a feminist that I never questioned at all), then why not take that argument to its logical conclusion and criticize Annalee for focusing much of her work on sex to begin with??? (And I am NOT criticizing Annalee for her profession in any way, either, for those of you about to break out the “typical male elitist card”.)

It just seems to me that men can’t win for losing in this game: If they make a legitimate attempt to treat women as equals and respect their intellect, while simultaneously praising them for their appearence, they still get smacked down for “objectifying women” as “sex objects” even when they aren’t really attempting to.

As much as I respect you and your crew, Amanda, I still reserve my right to disagree with you on some issues and still remain a feminist supporter. You have as much of a right to disagree with me as I do as well..but please, read what I said before casting be out as another MRA loony..which I am NOT.

I see that I am offending some people, so I will leave it at that. To each his or her own.

BTW..my ass is like most other men’s asses…typical. If you want to kiss it, then that’s your perogative…just be gentle. It’s the only ass I have.

I apologize for offending anybody…I’m gone.

Anthony

I'll just allow all of you to digest that before I continue with my rant.