28 February, 2006 | 3 Comments

In my post on the suspension of London Mayor Ken Livingstone, I added a p.s. hailing the resignation of Harvard Prez Lawrence Summers. As a former employee of Hah-vahd, I was particularly pleased at this news. Turns out Summers has at least one rabid fan in the UK. The Vol Abroad’s husband has taken up Summers’ cause and has dared to criticize poor little me! The comment thread over there has risen above 20. (At least I think it’s above 20. As a woman, I’m not very good at math.)

Re: My South Dakota rant. Thanks to my friend Anne, a former colleague from Harvard(!), who pointed out that the courts in Massachusetts have ordered Wal-Mart to carry emergency contraception. Illinois stores must also carry it and other states are planning similar suits. If you shop at Wal-Mart or Sam’s Club, please reconsider. If you’re in the UK, please be aware that ASDA is owned by Wal-Mart. Check out Wal-Mart Watch for the company’s latest evil-doings.

26 February, 2006 | 4 Comments

Last week, I visited my doctor, who works for the government-funded National Health Service. While I was sitting in the waiting room, I saw a sign tacked to the bulletin board that instructed any patient wanting emergency contraception to ask the nurse for it. Very straightforward. No controversy involved.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, even many rape victims in the US cannot get access to emergency contraception in hospitals. And the nation’s largest retail chain, Wal-Mart, refuses to carry it at all, meaning that thousands of women do not have access to a legal drug.

It’s painful to think about how backwards America is in so many respects. How did our country get hijacked by religious fanatics? How did we lose our moral compass? Women’s health care options are restricted by the government. Men’s health care options are not. We now have a health care system based upon principles of gender apartheid.

Nothing is more backwards or frightening than the South Dakota abortion ban. I have been trying to ignore this story. People have been e-mailing me about it and to be honest, I just wasn’t that interested. Alito’s confirmation was the real battle. Attempts by states to outlaw abortion were inevitable. Is anyone actually surprised this is happening?

Furthermore, South Dakota is an insignificant state. I mean, America could give South Dakota to the Canadians and no one would notice or even care. The lawmakers in this primordial backwater obviously crave attention and why give it to them? Their abortion ban will not take effect anytime soon (maybe not ever). It will be tied up in the courts for years and will eventually land on the Supreme Court’s doorstep. That’s the whole point of the ban anyway. With Alito’s confirmation, the Court is now dominated by right-wing thugs. Anti-abortion activists are desperate to see Roe overturned and they see this as their big chance.

The South Dakota bill – passed by both the Senate and House and awaiting the governor’s signature – bans all abortions, even in the cases of rape and incest. The only exception is to save the life of the mother. Though this law will not go into effect anytime in the near future, the mere fact that the legislature has overwhelmingly passed this bill is an assault against women’s basic human rights. As such, I have to speak out.

If this ban were ever to take effect, women would be forced to bear the children of rapists. In turn, these rapists could demand their parental rights in court. This may sound far-fetched, but this is exactly what would happen if this law took effect. From USA Today:

“If a rape victim becomes pregnant and bears a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother, said Krista Heeren-Graber, executive director of the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault. ‘The idea the rapist could be in the child’s life … makes the woman very, very fearful.’”

Blogger Bob Cesca writes: “Break out the celebratory cigars, Rapist Dad, because now you can sleep at night, comforted with the knowledge that any woman you assault and violate – perhaps torture – won’t be allowed to abort the fruit of all your planning, stalking, and raping.”

Upon reflection, I feel that it’s time for the United Nations to intervene. I have never been a huge fan of the UN – I have a thing against bureaucracies that spend a lot of public money – but the South Dakota legislature has declared war against women and the courts are now more likely to uphold such laws. So where can women turn for protection? Not to our own government, that’s obvious. I think we must look to other nations to help us fight for our rights and dignity. No group of American women – today South Dakotans, tomorrow who knows – should be forced to live under a hostile regime that rewards those who perpetrate one of the most horrific crimes imaginable. This is disgraceful. It is morally repugnant. And it is a clear violation of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, of which the U.S. is a party. The South Dakota ban, and its embrace of rapist fatherhood, clearly violates this code. Here are just three examples of what the declaration states:

Article 2, Section C, states that violence against women includes “Physical, sexual and psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the State, wherever it occurs.”

Article 3, Section H, states that women have the right “Not to be subjected to torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 4, Section D, states that the State must “Develop penal, civil, labour and administrative sanctions in domestic legislation to punish and redress the wrongs caused to women who are subjected to violence…”

South Dakota’s ban is clearly a violation of international accords that protect women. There can be no doubt about that. The governor of South Dakota has indicated that he will sign the bill. He needs to become aware of the consequences of his actions. If he signs this bill, his state could very well become a national pariah. The tourist board in SD is already receiving notice that Mount Rushmore and other attractions will be boycotted if he signs the ban. It will only be a matter of time before goods and services produced in the state will also be targeted.

Here is the governor’s contact information:

Governor Mike Rounds
Office of the Governor
500 E. Capital Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501
Phone: 605-773-3212
E-mail: click here.

In addition, what follows is a list of legislators who introduced this bill. Anti-abortion websites regularly list the contact information of doctors who perform abortions. I wish to list the names of those who introduced this bill. By clicking here, you can get contact information for any of these individuals, including home and work contacts. We should all take a moment to send them a little note. Sure, they already voted for the bill. And obviously, they are not what could ever be considered intelligent, rational or decent human beings. But why not let them know that they should be ashamed of themselves? Shame is underrated nowadays, especially in America. One of my favorite sayings is Have you no shame?

House

Roger W. Hunt (Primary Sponsor)
Thomas J. Brunner
Thomas J. Deadrick
Joel D. Dykstra
Margaret V. Gillespie
Mary Glenski
Jeffrey K. Haverly
Phyllis M. Heineman
Gordon K. Howie
Jean M. Hunhoff
Barry Jensen
Gary L. Jerke
Ted A. Klaudt
Al Koistinen
Elizabeth Kraus
Shantel Krebs
Gerald F. Lange
Alice McCoy
Matthew Michels
Kathy Miles
Paul Nelson
Al Novstrup
Gordon R. Pederson
Val Rausch
Larry Rhoden
R. Shawn Tornow
Charles M. Turbiville
Don Van Etten
Keri K. Weems
Hal G. Wick
Mark K. Willadsen

Senate

Julie Bartling (Primary Sponsor)
Gene G. Abdallah
William F. Earley
Dick Kelly
Frank J. Kloucek
John Koskan
Kenneth McNenny
Garry A. Moore
William M. Napoli
Lee Schoenbeck

Have you no shame, those of you on this list?

It’s interesting to note how many women sponsored this bill, including the primary sponsor in the Senate. It reminds me of the epigraph from Alice Walker’s novel Possessing the Secret of Joy, which is about female genital mutilation and women’s willingness to inflict this torture upon other women. The epigraph quotes a bumper sticker: When the axe came into the forest, the trees said the handle is one of us.

26 February, 2006 | 1 Comment

This was a perfectly entertaining movie, one that had me tapping my toes (I couldn’t help it!). While I enjoyed watching the film, it wasn’t particularly enlightening or insightful. It was the standard rock star biopic, with the same chain of events we see in all of these films:

Modest upbringing + dysfunctional family + meteoric rise to fame + drug addiction + alcoholism + sex with groupies + complete meltdown + early tragic death and/or redemption.

That said, Joaquin Phoenix was amazing. The movie is worth seeing because of his performance. He should win an Oscar, if for nothing else than for that sexy, smouldering look that practically lit the screen on fire. Whoa mama! Reese Witherspoon seems to be heading for an Oscar for her performance, though I’m not sure why. I guess the fact that she has brown hair makes her a serious actress? Her turn as June Carter was perfectly average, not great – not even circling the airport of great. While Phoenix’s performance was transcendent – he became Johnny Cash – Witherspoon couldn’t pull that off. I was always aware that I was watching Reese-Witherspoon-as-June-Carter. She looked like a small child dressed up in her mother’s clothes. But movie stars win Oscars nowadays, not actors, so I’m sure her chances are pretty good.

I did not know much about Johnny Cash before seeing the film. I’d never heard his classic songs, but I do have one of his albums on my iPod: American IV: The Man Comes Around. Maybe this was his last album? I don’t know. He covers Nine Inch Nails’ song Hurt and Depeche Mode’s Personal Jesus and a bunch of other popular songs. Absolutely brilliant. My grandfather was a southerner from Alabama, and Cash’s voice – the cadence of it – reminds me of my grandpa’s voice, which I don’t get to hear anymore. That CD always makes me happy.

24 February, 2006 | 4 Comments

The wonders of London never cease. Who would have guessed that the elected mayor of the city, Ken Livingstone, could be suspended from office? Following a hearing, the Adjudication Panel for England imposed the one-month suspension, to begin the 1st of March. The punishment is in response to Livingstone having likened a Jewish reporter from the Evening Standard to a Nazi concentration camp guard.

The 3-person panel ruled that his remarks were offensive, insensitive and disgraced the office of the mayor. The incident occurred a year ago. From the Guardian: “Mr Livingstone had asked the reporter if he was a German war criminal and then, after learning that he was Jewish and had been offended by the question, compared him to a concentration camp guard.”

Remarkably, the mayor refused to apologize for his appalling behavior, which is why he finds himself in hot water now. Livingstone plans to appeal and is outraged that the panel can suspend a mayor who was democratically elected. I agree that the voters should punish him, not a panel. But at the same time, I am quite enjoying this spectacle. I’m no expert on London politics, but to me, Ken Livingstone (a raging egomaniac) seems to operate like a dictator with unchecked power. He seems to rule London like a king. I’ve only been here since last September, but having lived in New York during the Giuliani years, I can recognize the signs.

Livingstone is referred to as “Red Ken” for his left-wing views. He seems to be extremely anti-American. And I really can’t stand him because in January, he drastically increased the fares on public transportation. A one-way tube journey in London now costs £3 ($5.23)!

Yes, my friends in Boston and New York and DC, you read that correctly. A single cash fare on the tube costs more than $5.00.

London’s underground is the most outrageously over-priced on the entire planet – and by a big margin. A friend of a friend who visited London recently (on a student budget) walked everywhere because she couldn’t afford to take the tube. What’s the purpose of public transport if people can’t afford to use it? The fare increase is a heavy-handed attempt to force people to buy what is called an Oyster Card, which offers cheaper fares. Those who do not wish to fill out the paperwork and obtain an Oyster Card will be forced into bankruptcy, apparently.

Livingstone seems to be a very unpleasant, spiteful person. He deserves to be knocked down a few pegs. All I can say is – don’t let the door hit you on the way out, Ken.

**In sorta related news, Lawrence Summers has resigned as the president of Harvard, my former workplace. (Hi Harvard friends!) Summers, a boorish, sexist jerk, resigned under intense pressure from the faculty. Gee, it must be open season on arrogant men in positions of power. ’Bout time.

23 February, 2006 | 5 Comments

Prince Charles has really stepped in it – again. And this is even worse than the audio tape where he wished he was Camilla’s tampon.

Charles is currently in the middle of a court battle with The Mail on Sunday newspaper. The paper is in possession of a 3,000-word diary, written by Charles during a 14-hour flight from Hong Kong to London after the handover to the Chinese in 1997. Charles wants to keep the diary private, obviously, but his tactic of taking the paper to court has really backfired. Yesterday the High Court judge released the document to the press. Oops.

On the bright side, now we all get to read it. Yippee!

Charles titled his document The Handover of Hong Kong or the Great Chinese Takeaway. (Takeaway is Britspeak for restaurant take-out.) CHEEKY! On the whole, Charles doesn’t show himself to be much of a writer or thinker. He is good at whining and feeling sorry for himself though. He insults Tony and Cherie Blair and refers to the Chinese leadership as “old waxworks.”

One of the highlights involves Charles’s realization that airplane seats – aside from those in First Class – are not comfy. The British delegation flew to Hong Kong on a chartered British Airways 747. Charles was seated on the top deck of the plane, in what is Club Class, not First Class. And his royal ass was not pleased: “It took me some time to realise that this was not first class(!) although it puzzled me as to why the seat seemed so uncomfortable.” Charles then ranted that many other officials were seated downstairs in First Class. He wrote: “Such is the end of Empire, I sighed to myself.”

During this ongoing scandal, it has been revealed that Charles regularly tries to intervene in governmental matters, which he is apparently not allowed to do. Tony Blair and company have been humouring him while at the same time ignoring him. According to Peter Riddell of the Times, “They have been infuriated by the Prince’s activities which they have regarded as an abuse of his privileged position, as well as using up a lot of their time.” Charles’s “highly controversial interventions” are worrying members of the Establishment, who fear what might happen when he becomes King.

From the Times: “The danger is that, as King, the Prince will stumble into partisan disputes, becoming identified with one side or another. That could be fatal to the monarchy as an institution. The official hope is that there is still time to wean the Prince off controversy and towards the more discreet role performed by the Queen for 54 years.”

As a result of all of this, a few politicians have really ripped into Charles. A few select quotes from the Times:

Stephen Pound, Labour MP: “If he wants to be a political Head of State, fine — he can stand for election. But if he wants all the benefits of the divine right of kingship then he should not get involved in politics. We have a constitutional settlement in this country. We pay for him to have someone to squeeze his toothpaste on to his brush in the morning and he stays out of politics — that’s the deal.”

Dr. Ian Gibson, Labour MP: “What does he know about life. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he has become a man who takes advice from his focus group of scientific advisers who advise him about grey goo. The public know more than he does.”

Paul Flynn, Labour MP: His actions are suicidal. The only reason why the monarchy and the Queen are successful is that she has kept out of all political decisions and the only way it can continue to survive as an institution is if the monarchy is seen to be above politics.

“If he is going to find it irresistible to interfere in politics — sometimes on the side of sense, sometimes on the side of nonsense — then the monarchy would be in grave peril with him as head of state. It would collapse.”

22 February, 2006 | 4 Comments

That is the question.

We are in the grips of bird flu mania yet again. France has reported a wild duck killed by the deadly H5N1 virus and now Austria becomes the first country in Western Europe to find an infected chicken. Seven EU nations have found infected wild birds within their borders. The UK has so far been spared, but Italy has not been so lucky. With sales plummeting, the Italian government is subsidizing transport of Italian poultry to the UK. Yum.

Besides the obvious fears that bird flu could transmit to humans, the top priority of government bureaucrats seems to be the protection of the poultry industry. France is the largest producer of poultry in Europe, with 200,000 poultry farms. These farmers are on the verge of panic, and rightly so. It’s only been five years since many farms and rural businesses in Britain were devastated by foot-and-mouth disease.

The head of the French Poultry Farmers Federation told the BBC: “‘We have to do everything we can to convince consumers that there is no risk whatsoever to humans from eating poultry.’”

I wonder if there actually is no risk to humans? I don’t feel assured by these government health ministers who are urging citizens to go on stuffing themselves with KFC and chicken tikka. Do they know what they’re talking about? Or are the demands of thousands of angry farmers clouding their judgement?

The EU is now debating whether to vaccinate all birds to prevent spread of the disease. I try to eat organic poultry and this may be the industry hurt the most. If birds are vaccinated and if farmers are forced to keep them locked up, there goes the organic free-range label. And who wants to eat poultry pumped with all sorts of funky vaccinations?

I really think it would be easier to become a vegetarian. I’ve cut meat out of my diet but I still must have chicken and fish. I could not subsist on beans and tofu alone. So now I’m confused about whether to each chicken or not. On my last shopping trip I didn’t buy any. I’ve lost my appetite for it, at least for now.

20 February, 2006 | 2 Comments

Aside from bird flu mania, the big news story here is that British “historian” David Irving has just been sentenced to three years in an Austrian prison for denying the Holocaust. The charges stem from speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he claimed that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz and that the Holocaust was a myth. He had been barred from visiting Austria but was arrested when he entered the country last November. Apparently, he was shocked when his harsh sentence was announced today.

Many countries in Europe have laws against Holocaust denial, including France, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain. In 1997, a similar bill to outlaw Holocaust denial in Britain failed.

Irving is obviously a vile anti-Semite and racist, yet his prosecution and imprisonment is chilling. Freedom of expression has been the topic du jour in Europe recently, given the hoopla surrounding the Muhammad cartoons. Irving’s conviction raises unsettling questions about double-standards in the law and it undermines everyone fighting to defend and protect freedom of expression. Isn’t the right of David Irving to spew his repugnant lies the ultimate test of free speech?

At his trial, Irving claimed he no longer held his anti-Semitic views, though this is hard to believe. But his conviction just makes him a martyr to neo-Nazi groups and in my opinion, will ultimately do more harm than good.

Links:
BBC
Guardian

18 February, 2006 | Comments are off

My dad sent me this cartoon. It’s a brilliant commentary on two of my recent postings, one on Brokeback and the other on polygamy. And by now, we all know that editorial cartoons satirizing religious groups are the most threatened form of expression in the western world, so I thought I’d better post this while it’s still legal.

15 February, 2006 | 2 Comments

I need to order a copy of my birth certificate from the State of California. In order to do this, I must fax to them a sworn statement proving who I am. Apparently, birth certificates cannot be given to just anyone. Who knew? My sworn statement has to be notarized, which I didn’t think would be a problem. After all, in the US, you can walk into practically any bank and get something notarized for free within 5 minutes.

Well, I have spent the whole morning visiting banks trying to find a notary. Most people I’ve talked to look at me like I’m totally nuts. They are mystified by my request. One woman said she was a notary but would not notarize anything for me because she doesn’t know me personally. She suggested asking my doctor to notarize something. HUH? Finally, a guy at Barclay’s said I’d have to go to a lawyer. He understood my confusion because he knew something about the American notary system. So I looked up a few lawyers who possess the almighty power of the notary and rung them for price info. They charge anywhere from £40 to £60 for one signature!!! This is around $100!!! Am I missing something here? Do people in England really have to shell out that much cash to get something notarized? I find this hard to believe.

15 February, 2006 | 2 Comments

Bastards. I switched my iTunes account from the US to the UK because there’s a song on the UK version that I desperately wanted. Instead of paying .99 cents (equal to .56p) for a song, I had to pay the equivalent of $1.27 (.79p). What’s up with that? If I weren’t too lazy to switch my account back to my US credit card, I’d do it! But no, instead, I will stand in solidarity with the people of the UK and Europe who are being ripped off. Luckily, I downloaded the Brokeback Mountain soundtrack before making the switch. Whew. Saved almost $4 (£2.30) on that little doozy.

12 February, 2006 | Comments are off

This weekend, I went to see the French film Hidden (Caché), which is playing in the UK and Stateside. When I discovered it starred two of my favourite actors, Juliette Binoche and Daniel Auteuil, I knew I had to go. The Guardian reviewer called the film, directed by Michael Haneke, “one of the great films of this decade.” High praise indeed.

Hidden is intense, almost claustrophobic. It’s a political film, but its scope is not wide or all-encompassing. Rather, it tells a political story through a very small, familial lens. There are only a handful of characters in the film and most of the action takes place in the home of Georges (Auteuil) and Anne (Binoche). In brief, Auteuil plays the Parisian host of a literary TV show. He and his family begin to get videotapes, drawings and phone calls from an anonymous stalker who has them under surveillance.

Hidden is a very talky film. As I sat through the first 30 minutes, I kept wondering why it had such a strange feel to it. Then I realized there was no music. When the characters aren’t speaking, there is silence. There are a few scenes that shatter this silence and two of them are very disturbing – one involves a chicken getting its head cut off, which is extremely graphic and would cause the average member of PETA to pass out; the second I can’t reveal, but the New York Times described it as a “single short scene of violence [that] is among the most upsetting in a movie this year.” I can’t argue with that. As this extremely brief scene unfolded, almost every person in the theatre gasped in shock and a couple of people even screamed.

The Guardian review describes Hidden as “a parable for France’s repressed memory of la nuit noire, the night of October 17 1961, when hundreds of Algerian demonstrators in Paris were beaten and killed by the police…It is about the prosperous west’s fear and hatred of the Muslim world and those angry pauperised masses once under our colonial control, and over whose heads a new imperium is being negotiated in the Middle East and beyond.”

I didn’t find the political message to be heavy-handed, though someone who lives in France might feel otherwise. The film couldn’t be more timely – or perhaps prescient – given the riots in France last fall. But I don’t want to give the wrong impression. This film is not like Munich. It’s a political film that does not overtly engage in politics. We know that French and Algerian politics play a part, but what we see on the screen is a man, played brilliantly by Auteuil, who is grappling with his own conscience. Nothing could be more personal than that.

12 February, 2006 | Comments are off

Minette Marrin published a brilliant editorial today in the London Sunday Times about the cartoon controversy called “Muslims Are Trading Respect for Fear.” It’s one of the best commentaries I’ve read on this issue and well worth checking out. I can’t possibly encapsulate it here, but I’d like to post a few excerpts:

“…All the terrifying Muslim uprisings across the world in response to the Danish cartoons have all been about a demand for respect, as of right. They are demanding respect for religion, or at any rate for their own religion and their own religious sensibilities. The same is true of the more moderate demonstrations in London yesterday. Worse, many westerners are penitentially admitting that Muslims do indeed have a right to respect for their faith, and that it is wrong to express disrespect for a religion. This is disastrous.”

I couldn’t agree more! This week – and I swear I’m not making this up – the EU Justice and Security Commissioner, Franco Frattini, announced he is considering the creation of a voluntary media code of conduct that “would encourage the media to show ‘prudence’ when covering religion.” Says Frattini: “The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” he told the newspaper. ‘We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.’” Chilling.

Again, from Marrin’s editorial: “It is hardly surprising, now, that the more extreme and politicised Muslims…feel entitled, in defiance of our greatest freedoms, to demand respect from us, as of right. The tragedy is that what they are now getting from the rest of us is not respect at all, but fear, posing as respect.”

I hope the bureaucrats of the EU actually consider the ramifications of what they’re doing. If they do, perhaps they’ll come to the realization that it’s more important to defend the values of western civilization than it is to pander to extremist groups who threaten violence and economic sanctions.

Here is a link to Franco Frattini’s website that includes various ways to contact him.

10 February, 2006 | 5 Comments

Thanks to William for alerting me to HBO’s new series called Big Love, which stars Bill Paxton as a polygamist in Utah married to three women. The show is actually set in the real Utah town where I spent more than a decade of my growing up years. Oy vey.

Big Love is apparently going to be a high-profile venture, given that it is produced by Tom Hanks and is premiering March 12th after The Sopranos. In the show, Paxton plays a businessman who owns three homes that sit side-by-side; each home contains one of his wives and the kids she has produced. Watch a preview here.

Not surprisingly, given that this is HBO, the show seems to be one big sex romp. The main joke is that Paxton’s character has to take tons of Viagara. HAHAHAHAHA! I swear, you cannot pay these Hollywood scribes enough. I mean, polygamist…taking…Viagara! Hot damn, that’s some cutting edge programming.

The Mormon Church and some conservative groups have condemned the show and have asked HBO to run a disclaimer stating that “plural marriage” is no longer an official practice of the LDS church. Perhaps HBO, privy to the news events of this week, will decide it’s wise to run the disclaimer. After all, they don’t want Bill Paxton taken hostage and beheaded by an angry mob. God-fearing people are the scariest kind.

I have mixed feelings about this show. Well, that’s not entirely true. I think it’s stupid and I wish it didn’t exist. But since it does, I’m glad that the Mormon Church and the people of Utah will once again be shamed on the international stage for the disgusting and degrading practice of polygamy. Despite being outlawed by the Church over a century ago (ahem), it is still practiced by tens of thousands of people in Utah and the Colorado/Arizona border towns. Church leaders and government officials have done virtually nothing to put a stop to a practice that often sees very young girls (we’re talking 12-year-olds) “married” to 60-year-old men. The whole state deserves to suffer from the stigma and ridicule that continues to be heaped upon them.

I am disturbed, however, that the show is making polygamy seem sexy. Yes, I realize that this is HBO, whose idea of realism is Sex and the City. But the general public is for the most part completely ignorant of Mormon practices and life in Utah. I hope that Big Love does not lead uninformed couch potatoes to think that polygamy is just another lifestyle choice. It’s not.

Having lived in Utah, a place that probably has more polygamists than anywhere outside of the Middle East, I know a few things about polygamy. I’ve known polygamists, including a family with a living situation similar to the one portrayed in Big Love. From my knowledge and experience, polygamists are:

1) Desperate losers who no one else would marry
2) Crazy
3) Religious fanatics
4) Wife beaters and child rapists
5) Butt ugly
6) Violent thugs
7) Uneducated, inbred freaks who make the average Jerry Springer Show guest look like Albert Einstein

I am not exaggerating. Polygamous families operate like cults. Extremely violent cults. Think Waco and David Koresh. That’s the kind of mentality that exists. Most of the women in polygamous relationships grew up in this cult-like environment and were “married” as very young girls to old men. These women are uneducated and disempowered. There are privately-run shelters in Salt Lake City (like the one operated by Tapestry) for women and girls trying to escape from polygamy. These women fear for their lives and rightly so. Polygamy in Utah has a long history of murder and violence. There are small towns in Utah, Colorado and Arizona that are by run by polygamous cult leaders, Colorado City being the most famous example. In these towns, even the police are polygamists, meaning that widespread crimes like child rape and domestic violence go unpunished. I know it’s hard to believe that such things are happening right now in America, but I assure you that they are. Click here for more info. With rare exceptions, the authorities in Utah stand by and do nothing. They claim it’s impossible to prove charges of polygamy, given that the participants are not legally married. My theory is that state officials, almost all of them Mormon, cannot condemn these modern-day polygamists without also condemning their own lineage and the church founders.

You may be wondering how a man can support seven wives and 40 children. Well, he’s not supporting them. The American taxpayer is. Polygamists drain the welfare system. Because the wives are not legally married to the husband, they are considered single mothers. The few prosecutions of polygamists that I’ve seen involve welfare fraud.

So HBO can show Bill Paxton sleeping with three different glamorous women, popping his Viagara and having a grand old time. Meanwhile, thousands of innocent victims caught up in the web of polygamy will continue to suffer because no one will help them. They’re an embarrassing secret and it’s just easier to pretend they don’t exist.

9 February, 2006 | Comments are off

After my latest post on the cartoon controversy, I decided I wasn’t going to publish anything else about it until/unless something of importance happened. Well, I think this qualifies.

The London-based magazine The Liberal published one of the cartoons on its website next to an editorial that staunchly defended freedom of speech. (In case you haven’t been following the coverage of this story, the UK print media has avoided publishing the cartoons.) Now it turns out that The Liberal has removed the cartoon from its website. From the Guardian: “Senior police officers at Scotland Yard warned the magazine its staff could not be guaranteed protection from possible protests, after which the cartoon was pulled from the Liberal’s website and replaced by a large white square with the word ‘censored’ placed over it.”

The news of this warning from Scotland Yard sends a chill down my spine. It smacks of government interference and, indeed, a form of censorship. I bet even George Orwell just rolled over in his grave.

According to the Guardian: “Following the withdrawal of the cartoon, Ben Ramm, the magazine’s editor, announced on the website: ‘Despite our wishes and convictions, for reasons of safety the magazine will no longer carry the cartoon itself.’”

Yet before the cartoon was removed, the editorial that accompanied it stated: “[The Liberal] will not be coerced into self-censorship by the threat of violence from those who use a platform of free speech to call for the destruction of the very system that enfranchises them.”

The irony of this is breathtaking. Memo to The Liberal: If you’re going to make such bold pronouncements about free speech, you better be prepared to back them up, don’t you think?

In other media news:

Charlie Hebdo

The French weekly Charlie-Hebdo has just published the cartoons, in addition to new ones mocking Muhammad and other religious figures. According to the Guardian, the special edition of the paper went on sale after French Muslims lost a court battle to prevent it from happening. From the Guardian: “Charlie Hebdo’s cover shows Muhammad covering his eyes with his hands, saying: ‘It’s hard to be loved by idiots.’” The special edition is expected to shatter sales records.

My take on this is that members of the French media have already proven that they are not intimidated by threats and will defend free speech even at great personal and professional risk. I applaud this. However, at this point, they are just pouring fuel on the fire – not fire, raging inferno – and I wonder if it serves any legitimate purpose?

New York Press

Like the UK media, the US media has in large part refused to publish the cartoons. The alternative weekly, New York Press, was set to publish them in a special edition. At the last minute, however, the publishers chickened out. As a result, the 4-person editorial staff quit in protest. From the New York Observer: “New York Press, like so many other publications, has suborned its own professed principles. For all the talk of freedom of speech, only the New York Sun locally and two other papers nationally have mustered the minimal courage needed to print simple and not especially offensive editorial cartoons that have been used as a pretext for great and greatly menacing violence directed against journalists, cartoonists, humanitarian aid workers, diplomats and others who represent the basic values and obligations of Western civilization.”

This situation is even more interesting given the fact that New York Press has, on at least one occasion, insulted Catholics just for kicks. As the Pope was dying last year, Matt Taibbi wrote an article called “The 52 Funniest Things about the Death of the Pope.” This article created a huge firestorm in the universe of cable news, at least. The article, which was not funny, original or insightful, was only published to provoke people. It can still be found on the paper’s website. So why were the Muhammad cartoons pulled, when they were being published not to provoke, but to illustrate an important news story? Is it because the publishers weren’t afraid that extremist Catholic fringe groups would firebomb their offices?

NYT and Arab European League

The New York Times – you know, the “paper of record” that is neglecting its journalistic duties by refusing to publish any of the cartoons – weighed in with an article yesterday called “West Beginning to See Islamic Protests as Sign of Deep Gulf.” In the article, which is worth checking out, it discussed how the Arab European League is now publishing their own cartoons mocking Christians and Jews. Their website has apparently crashed due to massive web traffic, so they’ve started their own blog on Blogger. The first cartoon portrayed Hitler in bed with Anne Frank. (To view it, click here.)

This pathetic cartoon is not brave at all. Considering the anti-Semitism that appears regularly in the Arab media, I don’t see anything new about it. And furthermore, it makes no point whatsoever about freedom of speech. With the publication of this cartoon, the Arab European League just proves that they don’t get what this whole debate is about. They do not “get it” and I’m afraid they never will.

8 February, 2006 | 2 Comments

It seems to me that the US media is not covering the cartoon flap in great depth, probably because it’s not occurring on American soil. This is not surprising. The American media is notoriously nearsighted. (For an interesting report on this, click here.)

It’s difficult for me to get an exact sense of how this story is playing out in the US because I don’t have access to US television news or talk radio from here. However, I do peruse the online editions of the major newspapers on a daily basis and it doesn’t seem that this story is a matter of great concern.

My impression is that the right-wing media (Fox News, talk radio, bloggers) is running with this story because it plays into their Islamophobic agenda. The right-wing in Europe is also using this story to their advantage, but at least they are balanced by extensive coverage in the mainstream press. Many right-wing American bloggers (click here for an example) have whipped themselves into a frenzy over this story. However, I doubt their motivation is the defense of secular values. Rather, this story allows the Christian right-wing to attack Islam and in a roundabout way, offer support for George Bush’s Iraq War.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the Religious Right in America actively seeks to impose their religious values on a secular society, yet when they witness other religions attempting to do it, they go berserk.

From where I sit, it appears that the right-wing has hijacked this story in the American media. Perhaps I am wrong, and I hope I am. But I would not be surprised if liberal writers and thinkers in the States avoid taking on this story because they’re afraid to be lumped in with the right-wing. I think that many liberals are terrified to do anything that may be deemed politically incorrect.

If the Left in America ignores this story out of fear of association with the Right, and let’s the Right shape and define this story, that is a tragedy. This story is extremely important for a number of reasons. It has nothing to do with the cartoons as such, but whether the media should consider certain topics taboo. Most reasonable people agree that the media should not provoke and insult people just for kicks, but at the same time, should the beliefs of one specific group be placed above the rights of everyone else? And an examination into the way the media self-censors in regards to religion is long overdue. This is a news story that serious writers and thinkers must not be afraid to wrestle with.

8 February, 2006 | Comments are off

Just today, news broke that the first British newspaper published one of the controversial cartoons along with an article on the subject. The paper is the University of Cardiff student newspaper, Gair Rhydd. Once the administration found out, they recalled thousands of copies of the paper and suspended the editor and three journalists. Click here for the university’s statement. According to the Guardian, local councilor Joe Carter said: “We have to have tolerance of people’s views and culture.”

The article continues: “Ashgar Ali, the chairman of Cardiff’s Medina mosque, criticised the publication. ‘You can’t play with someone’s religion,’ he told the website. ‘The Muslim students at the university are going to be upset.’”

But in a free, multicultural society, do we really have a right not to be offended? Are the students at the University of Cardiff so fragile that they will be permanently damaged by seeing the cartoons – which they’ve probably all seen online anyway?

As a feminist, the ideals of women’s empowerment and equality are as dear to me as any religious faith, yet the exploitation of women is widespread in all forms of media. I have to tolerate this misogyny and in exchange, I have the freedom to express my own views. I think this is a better lesson to teach college students.

7 February, 2006 | Comments are off

Not surprisingly, the cartoon controversy now has a death toll. Several protestors rioting in Afghanistan were killed by police and an Italian priest in Turkey was shot dead in his church by a teenager. Turkish officials “hope there is no link” between the priest’s murder and the cartoon controversy. The Turkish government can’t help but be worried that their hopes of joining the EU are going up in flames along with the Danish flag.

A man who attended last weekend’s London protests dressed as a suicide bomber (pictured) has been arrested by police and is now in prison. The tabloids launched a campaign against Omar Khayam, demanding the authorities take action. Feeling the heat, Khayam gave a press conference yesterday in which he apologized. Many commentators thought this apology was heartfelt and sincere, but as I suspected, he was just trying to save his ass. He is on parole for drug charges and his recent behaviour is a violation of his parole. I think this story is worrying on another level. How did the police know this guy wasn’t a real suicide bomber? Granted, most suicide bombers go to great lengths to conceal their explosives, but the police should have treated this guy as a real bomber until they knew otherwise. An innocent Brazilian suspected of being a suicide bomber was shot dead by the police last summer, yet Omar Khayam walks around in suicide bomber gear without any officials stopping him. Scary.

An Iranian newspaper is launching a competition, asking people to submit cartoons about the Holocaust. This is an attempt “to test the boundaries of free speech, echoing the reasons European papers gave for publishing the caricatures.” Oh, how brave! What a fabulous idea! Given the anti-Semitic filth published in Iran already, I really don’t see how they expect this to shock anyone. I have a better idea for this newspaper. If they want to shock the West, why don’t they print some cartoons mocking their insane president? That would surely test the bounds of free speech.

Former British resident Omar Bakri Mohammed has called for the Muhammad cartoonists to be executed. In a rare moment of sanity, he said that those in Britain should not kill them because it was against British law. Instead, he wants the cartoonists to be tried under Islamic law.

Better late than never: “Tony Blair today told senior MPs on the liaison committee that political correctness must not stand in the way of prosecuting Muslim protesters who broke the law. The prime minister said there was a justifiable sense of “outrage” at extremist placards used during the London demonstrations.” Read the Guardian article.

The Bush administration is also backtracking now. Like the British government, the US immediately condemned the cartoons but not the violent backlash. Now Bush has called the Danish PM to say the US stands in “support and solidarity” with the Danes. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: “We understood why many Muslims found the cartoons offensive, but we also spoke out very clearly in support of freedom of the press.” (Really? I don’t remember that.) The White House has also belatedly condemned cartoons mocking Christian and Jews that appear in the Arab press. Bush’s latest step is to call on the Saudis to step in and ease Mid East tensions. Well, I’m sure W. has the Saudi Royal Family on speed dial. Pick up the phone and give them a call.

In an editorial in today’s Telegraph, Simon Heffer takes the government and the police to task over their mishandling of the London protests. He brings up a number of good points. Apparently, those who dared to protest the foxhunting ban a while back were dealt with quite harshly by the police, yet people threatening terrorism were given a free pass. Heller wonders if a group of Christians advocating the murder of Muslims would have been allowed to roam the streets without any police interference. Heller writes that these blatant double standards play right into the hands of the Right.

6 February, 2006 | 13 Comments

It looks like the Bush administration’s campaign of terror against poor women in developing nations has just suffered a major blow.

At last.

In 2001, George W. Bush signed what is commonly known as the “global gag rule,” thus fulfilling a major campaign promise to his Christian fundamentalist supporters. It was one of his first acts as the (illegitimate) president. The gag rule requires organizations applying for US funds to promise, in writing, that they will not provide abortions or even advise women to have one. If an organization does not agree to these draconian measures, they are cut off from all American funding. And this makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? After all, George, Dick and the boys know what’s best for a poverty-stricken Kenyan woman who already has 8 kids. Of course they do!

When the wealthiest nation in the world plays politics with women’s health, women die. From today’s Guardian: “Nearly 70,000 women and girls died last year because they went to back-street abortionists. Hundreds of thousands of others suffered serious injuries.”

Because of the gag rule, many health clinics throughout the developing world lack the funding to supply even the most basic contraception to women, thus contributing to countless unwanted pregnancies, thus necessitating more abortions, thus resulting in more death. Gee, with Christians like Bush, who needs enemies?

In a stunning move, the British government has announced plans to give money to the organizations suffering under Bush’s policy. Essentially, they are starting a fund that will make up for the money that is being withheld by the US. Again, from the Guardian: “The UK will today become the founder donor of a fund set up specifically to attempt to replace the lost dollars and increase safe abortion services. The Department for International Development will contribute £3m over two years. DFID and the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) – whose clinics across the world have suffered badly – hope that others, particularly the Scandinavians, Dutch and Canadians, will be emboldened to put money in too.”

I did not vote for George W. Bush (big shock), but nevertheless, as an American taxpayer, I am continually disgraced and shamed by these tactics carried forth in my name. I’m glad the UK has the guts to stand up and do what’s right.

6 February, 2006 | 1 Comment

Four days later…

6 February, 2006 | Comments are off

In my previous posts on the cartoon controversy, I’ve wondered how it’s possible that masked militants can advocate for mass murder and terrorism on the streets of London without any interference at all from the police. (Well, that’s not entirely accurate. Two counter-demonstrators were arrested for possessing copies of the offensive cartoons.)

While Tony Blair’s government has condemned the cartoons in rather harsh terms, they have not uttered a peep about the insanity we witnessed in London last Friday. The Tories (conservatives) have now entered the fray and are asking why the police didn’t arrest people for incitement to murder.

From the Telegraph: “…Police sources said there were no arrests on Friday because of fears of a riot. A senior Scotland Yard officer said: “We have to take the overall nature of the protesters into account. If they are overheated and emotional we don’t go in.

“It’s like a risk assessment; you have to look at the crowd you are dealing with. If we went in to arrest one person with a banner the crowd would turn on us and people would get hurt.”

He said it was entirely possible that “key players” in the protests, some of whom were already known to police, could be pursued by prosecutors.

The Metropolitan Police said: “Arrests if necessary will be made at the most appropriate time. The Met has several different means of collecting the necessary evidence should it be required post-event. All complaints made to police will be passed to the Public Order Crime Unit for investigation.”

The style of policing employed for the protests appears to reflect a shift in strategy by the Met. Today the Sunday Telegraph reveals how Sir Ian Blair, the commissioner, has begun introducing “softly, softly” policing methods championed by police in Chicago.

Perhaps this new strategy of policing is better, I don’t know. I leave it to the experts. But what we’ve seen over the last few days gives the impression, however false, that the police are intimidated by angry mobs, which does not inspire much confidence.

Link:
The brilliant Christopher Hitchens on the cartoon flap, from Slate.