26 August, 2010 | 2 Comments

I should have known that Christopher Hitchens would offer the most insightful commentary on the “Ground Zero mosque” controversy that I’ve read.  He touches upon some of the issues I raised in my own post, particularly this notion of “tolerance.”  And he also comments on this issue:

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance.

This whole controversy is emblematic of American politics and the left-right binary.  It seems that very few people are capable of nuanced, complex thought nowadays and so our political debates resemble two little kids in the backseat of a car, fighting on a road trip.  She hit me!  No, he hit me!  Wahhhhh!

It’s possible to condemn the right-wing’s lunatic hate campaign against the “mosque” while also refusing to become a cheerleader for religion in the most idiotic, thoughtless and dishonest way.

20 August, 2010 | 5 Comments

It’s the one-year anniversary of the “Lockerbie bomber” being released from a Scottish jail on allegedly compassionate grounds, since his death from cancer was supposed to have been imminent.  Not surprisingly, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi is alive one year later.  There are American calls for investigation regarding why Megrahi was ever released and there is increasing acrimony on both sides of the Atlantic.

The bombing of Pan Am 103 killed Americans overwhelmingly and was a crime against America, but in a lucky break for the perpetrators of this crime, the plane blew up over Scotland.

We’ll probably never know who actually blew up Pan Am 103, but a panel of Scottish judges convicted Megrahi of this crime, a conviction that has never been overturned in the Scottish justice system.  Therefore, the Scottish government believes Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was the perpetrator of this horrific crime.  No other conclusion can be drawn.

One year ago, the Scottish government released a mass murderer from prison because they said his death was imminent, even though this was not true.  The aforementioned mass murderer was given a hero’s welcome upon his arrival in Libya.  Now American lawmakers are making a lot of noise about this issue, though why it’s taken so long is unclear.  Has the BP oil spill prompted this?  I don’t know.  Regardless, as they attempt to investigate Megrahi’s early release from prison, American senators show that they do not understand the internal politics of the UK at all.  They refer to Megrahi as being released by the “UK,” but this matter was something the Scottish justice system controlled internally, separate from Whitehall.  This point is key to the entire issue.

In my view, there are three main reasons why Megrahi may have been released from jail:

1] The Scottish government secretly believes Megrahi is innocent of this crime, but instead of overturning his conviction, released him on “compassionate grounds,” which gives him his freedom but will not change the fact that he is forever branded a mass murderer and terrorist, while the guilty party/parties remain free;

2] There were secret oil deals made between Libya, BP and Tony Blair when he was still in office;

3] The Scottish government, desperate for more internal decision-making power and sovereignty, saw this as their chance to seize the world stage and make a “bold” decision regarding a major international incident, which had the benefit of angering America (score!) and making the British government look bad (score!).

You’ll notice that I did not include a fourth option, which would have been that Megrahi was released for the stated reason: compassion.  That, my friends, is laughable.

So in my view, it’s possible that Megrahi was released because of a combination of all the above factors, but regardless, #3 is key here and was likely the biggest factor.  And this is what American lawmakers do not understand.  They have absolutely no understanding of the power struggles that exist between Scotland and England, which affected this case.  Demanding that Alex Salmond and other Scottish officials appear in Washington is a huge mistake; it allows people like Salmond to play the big badass who stands up to the Yanks.  This is like 1,000 Christmases rolled into one for this guy and every other British politician.  Lockerbie and what happened there is secondary to these power struggles, both Scotland-England power struggles and UK-US power struggles.  It’s a pity the Americans don’t understand this.

It’s also a pity that the many living victims of this crime, overwhelmingly American and still suffering the affects of this tragedy, have been completely disregarded and forgotten.

17 August, 2010 | 11 Comments

I’m really sick of hearing about the “Ground Zero Mosque” and I’m sure I’m not the only one.  Since this is the story that won’t die, I want to address it.

I was quite surprised when President Obama came out in favor of the mosque the other night.  Actually, I was stunned.  Obama took a stand on a controversial topic?  But then the very next day he began to backpedal and I thought – now there’s the Obama I know!

As someone who believes all forms of patriarchal religion should be wiped off the planet, I am not in favor of a giant mega mosque or religious community center being built anywhere.  I am not in favor of a mega Christian or Jewish center either.  What we need is less religion.  Build a mega human rights center that educates people about the damage religion has done throughout history and continues to do.  Then you’ll get my full support and as many donations as I can afford.

Now, it’s clear that no one can stop this mosque being built, just as you can’t stop any place of worship from being built, so it’s pointless to even discuss it.  I am not going to address the views of the right-wing, the Newt Gingriches and Sarah Palins, because I don’t engage with the right-wing.  They don’t interest me and they aren’t worth my time.

What I want to address, and what I want to write about here, is the response of people in favor of the mosque, mostly liberals, though this also includes Mayor Bloomberg.  When these religious debates spring up, as they do all too often, the word “tolerance” is always used.  We, as Americans, must be tolerant.  This irritates me like nothing else, since religions are the least tolerant institutions in society.  Why should I be tolerant of something that isn’t tolerant of me as a woman?  Yes, on a technical level, I must be “tolerant” of religion because they have a right to exist and there’s nothing I can do about it.  But the use of the word “tolerance” in regards to the “Ground Zero Mosque” and other issues of religion implies there is a two-way street here – that we should be tolerant of religion because religion is a force for tolerance and goodness.  We as a society need to stop spreading these lies.

(more…)

12 August, 2010 | Comments

I abhor the Daily Mail and try to never post links from it unless I’m making a critique, but I’ll make an exception today.  A mother published a photo of her son, a soldier who was critically injured in Afghanistan and is now fighting for life in a hospital.  It’s disturbing to see the photo and particularly to contrast it with the photos published beneath it, showing him before he was injured.  It made me think about how this war is so sanitized in the media and how the true horror of it is shielded from public view.  I think we need to see more images like this.

28 July, 2010 | 12 Comments

Chelsea Clinton’s wedding is this week and the surprising thing is that anyone cares.  Today there are three pointless articles on The Daily Beast website about it (one, two, three) and I’ve seen articles in the NYT and many other places.   I understand a bit of coverage about it, and summer is a slow news time, but why the breathless excitement over every detail?  Chelsea Clinton is not a figure of interest.  Has Chelsea Clinton ever done anything interesting in her entire life?  I imagine people are surprised she has grown up to be fairly normal, given her family, but she’s not a public figure and has never wanted to be one.  When I think of Chelsea Clinton, I think: zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Since I have been barraged with coverage, I have developed my own thoughts on the upcoming nuptials:

1] I’m surprised that Chelsea Clinton would even want to get married.  Having Bill and Hillary Clinton as parents could not have provided a very positive view of marriage.  Bill Clinton cheated on his wife every chance he got and he is, essentially, a sexual predator.  Hillary is a feminist who has stayed married to him for reasons unknown.  If Bill and Hill ever do spend time together, which I can’t imagine, then it must be like a scene out of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf” or possibly worse.  So again, I’m surprised any offspring of theirs would even consider matrimony;

2] Chelsea is marrying a man whose father is a former politician and convicted criminal who spent several years in prison.  According to Wikipedia, prosecutors called him a “one-man crime wave.”  Now, I realize his son cannot be held responsible for these actions and I guess it’s a good thing that Chelsea’s future husband can relate to having a dad with questionable morals, but still…I’m wondering how many ethics violations one family can handle.

3] These privileged and corrupt political families sorta make me ill.

This concludes my coverage of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.  Mazel tov!

28 July, 2010 | 2 Comments

Two videos for you today.  First, the Jane Austen Fight Club:

And second is right-wing racist scumbag Andrew Breitbart in this shocking video where he reveals his love of terrorism:

19 July, 2010 | 9 Comments

The issue of face veils and burqas has been in the news a lot lately, with France and other European countries banning the face veil or considering bans.  Today, Syria has announced they are banning all face veils in their universities, so this isn’t just an issue confined to Europe.  I have previously written on this issue and so want to touch upon these latest controversies.

In my new neighborhood, I see many more women wearing face veils and this is right in Central London.  The other day I even saw a woman wearing a complete veil over her face, with no slit for her eyes.  It was essentially a hood.  I have no idea how she could see at all, but she appeared to be walking down the street unaided.  Tonight I went into a Subway sandwich shop and saw a woman wearing a face veil.  She was sitting at a table with her husband and kids.  As is almost always the case in such situations I’ve seen, the husband seemed to be in his late twenties and was casually dressed in jeans and polo shirt, while his wife was shrouded from head to toe in black fabric.   Tonight in Subway, this woman had to lift up the veil in order to eat her sandwich.

I am not a cultural or moral relativist and so I do not hesitate to declare that this practice is dehumanizing and misogynist.  End of story.  Either a woman is forced, coerced or otherwise compelled to wear a face veil like this, or she has “chosen” it herself because she has completely internalized a patriarchal ideology that devalues her existence.  To me, these are the only options, none of them good.

The question of whether to ban this practice is another issue.  It’s clear that there are right-wingers who use this issue as part of an anti-Muslim agenda.  That’s obvious.  But there are others, like me, who abhor patriarchal religious practices, regardless of which religion we’re talking about, and a face veil or burqa is at the extreme end of any religious practice meant to oppress women.   I have known Muslim women who said those wearing these face veils are from extremist families, which I think is clear.  Many of the women wearing these face veils in Western society have all of their movements controlled by men.

(more…)

13 July, 2010 | 4 Comments

This is a quote from Roman Polanski a year after he went on the run as a fugitive from American justice:

“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”

To set the record straight, Roman Polanski did not f— a young girl.  He drugged and forcibly raped a young girl.

Today he was freed by the Swiss.  And people like this asshole from the Guardian are cheering his release and writing that Polanski was a victim of “rampant moral McCarthyism.”

11 July, 2010 | 7 Comments

One of the big news stories here this week is the Raoul Moat manhunt and its aftermath.  Moat was a violent thug with a long criminal record who was released from jail recently; after his release he shot his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend (killing him) and he later shot a police officer.  He had vowed to keep killing cops and to go out in a blaze of glory; it seemed half the police force in the country was looking for him.  Finally, on Friday, he was discovered hiding in a field near a small village.  He was surrounded by cops and after a long standoff, he shot himself dead.  The photo above is him during the standoff, gun to his head.

There are many disturbing elements to this story.  Before Moat was released from prison, he had vowed revenge against his girlfriend, who had broken up with him while he was behind bars.  I’m guessing she broke up with him while he was in prison because she was too terrified to break up with him in person.  Such was her fear that she told Moat her new boyfriend was a police officer, though this was a lie.  The prison officials warned the police that this violent criminal, pumped up on steroids, had threatened his ex-girlfriend (why on earth was he released from prison at all?).  From the Independent: “When he was stewing during his last days in jail, he made it sufficiently clear that revenge was in his mind for the prison to send, on Friday 2 July, a warning to Northumbria police that Moat may attempt to harm his former partner. No action was taken by the force…”  The next day, the shootings occurred.  Now, it’s not surprising that the police did nothing, despite this clear threat.  After all, this was just a threat against an ex-girlfriend.  Violence against women isn’t “real” violence, not the kind that matters, anyway.  No, “real” violence is when police officers are threatened.  If the police had acted to prevent this threat of “domestic violence” against Moat’s former girlfriend, then perhaps none of these horrible events would have happened.  As we can see from this case, men who are violent towards women are violent.  Period.  It’s just too bad these criminals are only taken seriously when they become a threat outside of the home.

When Moat was released from prison, he posted this message on Facebook: “I’ve lost everything, my business, my property and to top it all off my lass of six years has gone off with the copper that sent me down.”  Now, Moat was 37 and his girlfriend 22.  If he’d been with her for six years, that would have made her 16 when they started their relationship…he would have been 31.  So we can see the power imbalance there, which is obviously what a man like Moat would need in a relationship.  So after Moat is released from prison, having lost everything (according to him, he lost his business and property and to top it all off, his lass), his first step was to go to his ex-girlfriend’s house and blow her brains out.  We see this type of narrative play out again and again.  A violent man enraged at how crappy his life is decides to blame his problems on women; he turns his violence towards women in revenge and/or as a way to feel in control.  And as is often the case, many sick people view the men in these cases as the victims, their actions somehow justifiable.  In the Independent article, it describes a group of teenagers who had rushed to the scene during Moat’s final standoff with police:

They didn’t try to hide their contempt for the police or their support for Moat. One, a 19-year-old man who would not be named, described him as “mint”, adding, “Raoul Moat is a proper legend.” One of the two girls with him, Keeley, 17, said: “I thought he’d be out of here by now. The police wouldn’t be putting all this effort in if he hadn’t shot one of them.” Her friend, Tamsin, also 17, said: “I thought they’d just shoot him. He’ll be dead popular in prison.”

And this is what has happened since Moat’s suicide:

…yesterday another, unsettling, coda to this violent chain of events. Outside Raoul Moat’s home were beginning to accumulate candles, cards, flowers and messages. “Dear Raoul Thomas Moat, may you rest in peace. Our thoughts are with you and your close friends. We were on your side even though we didn’t know you that well,” read one, and another: “To Raoul, Always a good friend. Always happy to help a mate. Hope now you’ve found some peace. Gone but never forgotten.” One said Moat was “misunderstood”.

He killed a man he didn’t know, seriously wounded a woman and a police officer, and assaulted a little girl. But well-wishers wanted to grant him the sentimentalising gestures normally reserved for the victims of crime and accidents. Some of these, like messages left on Facebook, seemed to be from friends; others plainly not. However incongruous it may seem, Raoul Moat had a constituency.

In addition, many people helped Moat during his run from the police; some of them are now under arrest.

There may be many reasons why these people view Moat as a hero – hatred of the police might be one reason, or perhaps they view him as a powerless person who made a stand against society.  All of that is crap, of course, but there’s no shortage of stupid people in the world.  To me, what underlies all of this is the idea that Moat was wronged.  When his life was in the toilet, some stupid bitch dumped him and to make matters worse, she told him she was dating a cop.  This is what set him off.  How could any man not snap?   Poor Raoul.  He was just misunderstood.

Links:

BBC coverage

Barbara Ellen – The Observer

18 June, 2010 | 3 Comments

I knew the execution in Utah today of a man by firing squad would be big news here, since any excuse to make Americans seem like barbarians is irresistible.  The Guardian actually sent a reporter to cover this story, which is on their homepage above their coverage of the horrific plight of the Uzbek refugees.

Setting aside for a moment whether one believes the death penalty is ethical or not, if I were to be executed I’d rather be shot and die instantly than be given a lethal injection.  Anyway, this line from the beginning of the Guardian article caught my attention.  The article explains that all three firing squad executions that have taken place in the U.S. since 1977 have been in Utah.  “All three took place in this western state, which has long prided itself on its passionate embrace of the gun.”  I lived in Utah for many years and I can tell you that the person who wrote that sentence knows nothing about the state or why there’s a firing squad in place there.

(more…)

14 June, 2010 | 3 Comments

I don’t care about the World Cup and I won’t be watching it, but of course I know about the U.S.-England game last night and the mistake made by the English goalkeeper, Rob Green, who I think should be flayed alive as punishment for his grave sin of letting a ball go into a net.  I just read this article about the England team on the Guardian, which discusses how the goalie has issued an apology, how he’s being psychologically evaluated, how his career may be ruined, etc., and I just feel disgusted.  To recap: The guy let a ball go into a net.

13 June, 2010 | 8 Comments

There seems to be a trans-Atlantic spat brewing at the moment because of the BP oil spill.  British politicians are now claiming that criticism of BP is criticism of Britain and British people.  I thought BP was a corporation, not a country?  I realize this is a bad time for corporations with “British” in their name (British Airlines, anyone?) but I think people need to get a grip.  Obama has been accused of spewing anti-British rhetoric.  If so, I would really like to know what he said that is anti-British, not anti-BP?  If he did say something like “the Brits suck” or “let’s bomb London,” I must have missed it.  If BP were an American company, would Obama be criticizing the company in such a way?  Maybe not, I don’t know.  But that doesn’t mean the legitimate criticisms of BP are anti-British.  Obama’s handling of this disaster and national emergency leaves much to be desired, but I don’t think anti-Britishness is one of his problems.

London Mayor Boris Johnson seems to be the one who started this spat.  Now Obama has had to call David Cameron to assure him America isn’t trying to bankrupt BP and the American ambassador was on TV this morning saying Obama isn’t anti-British.  The primary concern here seems to be financial, given that many British pensioners apparently own stock in BP, but I think it’s unfortunate that British leaders are aligning their national identity so closely with an oil company.

What upsets me (and what has prompted this post) is that this Britain vs. America war of words has now trickled-down to the regular folks.  For example, I have British friends on FB now leaving angry status reports basically telling Americans to eff off and then listing all the horrible things American companies have done.  This is one of the biggest ways that anti-Americanism manifests itself here – Brits countering any (real or perceived) criticism of their country with a response that America is more evil.  It’s really a tiresome ongoing game that flares up at times like this.  I see it over and over again.  I realize the people making such comments may feel on the defensive, but perhaps now they know what it’s like to be just an average citizen with no power who nevertheless feels blamed for something beyond their control.  Not fun, is it?  Americans are made to feel this way all the time.

If an American oil company had wrecked the coast of England, the anti-American rhetoric here would be so over-the-top and vicious that I’d have to leave the country.  I know that for certain.  So I don’t think America’s response is anti-British at all.  To me, that accusation is laughable compared to what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot.  I can understand that BP shareholders are upset, but that’s really their problem.  All that matters is trying to stop this environmental catastrophe from causing even more destruction.

Link:

Why Obama Should Put BP Under Temporary Receivership

11 June, 2010 | Comments are off

11 June, 2010 | 11 Comments

You what I’m sick of?  These precocious, over-achieving, dare-devil teens trying to sail around the world.  The latest idiot to attempt one of these stunts was feared lost at sea yesterday, though now she has apparently been spotted alive and floating in a remote part of the Indian Ocean.  What were Abby Sunderland’s parents thinking when they allowed a 16-year-old to sail around the world alone?  Most 16-year-olds aren’t even allowed to stay out all night, let alone sail around the world.  The parents should be charged with child endangerment and imprisoned; they should also be forced to repay Qantas Airlines every cent they have spent trying to find their daughter and they should also reimburse the fishing vessels that have now had to change their route to try to rescue her.  These zany teen adventurers must be stopped.  Of course it’s understandable that a teen would want to attempt something like this, but that’s why teenagers have parents.  To stop them from doing stupid shit.  The media doesn’t help by providing coverage of this irresponsible behavior.  If the media and the world record folks just ignored these teens and their stage parents, we wouldn’t be seeing this kind of behavior on such a regular basis.

We are not impressed with you, silly teenagers, sailing around the world with your satellite phones and all the other luxuries that an old-time explorer wouldn’t have had.  Do you think Magellan would have called Mommy and Daddy on his satellite phone if he got into trouble?  No, he would have perished at sea.  These continued attempts by teens to sail around the world, climb Mt. Everest, etc., achieve nothing and are only undertaken for reasons of glory and fame on the part of the teen, and reflected glory on the part of the idiot parents.  Pretty soon we’ll have teens performing open heart surgery or flying 747s full of passengers across the Atlantic – while blindfolded!  Yippee!  I have about as much respect for dare-devil adults as well and I think that adults who undertake these activities should do so at their own risk and no one should be sent to rescue them if they get into trouble.  Why should rescuers have to risk their lives to save some adventuring fame whore?

If a teen from an impoverished country was floating out at sea (as many do in an attempt to emigrate, for example), there would be no worldwide rescue effort for them.  That kind of teen would be left to die or perhaps shot at by the coast guard.

Perhaps this disastrous attempt by Abby Sunderland will be put an end to this trend.  The next time one of these teens sets sail, the police need to intervene.  A court intervened to stop this kid in the Netherlands.  California should have done the same here.

25 May, 2010 | 7 Comments

From an AFP article on the various controversies surrounding the upcoming nuptials of Sweden’s Crown Princess Victoria:

For her big day, the 32-year-old princess has expressed a wish that elsewhere might sound commonplace: She wants to be led to the altar by her father Carl XVI Gustaf and given away to her husband-to-be Daniel Westling.

However in Sweden, renowned for its gender-equality, the request has caused quite a stir, with Archbishop Anders Wejryd openly expressing his disapproval and calling on the couple to follow Swedish tradition and walk side-by-side to the altar.

The drama, illustrated last week with front-page spreads in the Swedish press with pictures of a crestfallen princess and an imposing-looking archbishop, has made unlikely allies of traditionalists and feminists in a fight against what is widely viewed here as an American tradition exported by Hollywood.

“Giving away the bride is a fairly new phenomenon that occasionally happens in the Swedish Church,” Wejryd, who will be performing the ceremony next month at Stockholm’s Saint Nicolaus Church, or Storkyrkan, told Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet.

“I generally advise against it, since our wedding ritual is so clear when it comes to the equality of husband and wife,” he stressed.

20 May, 2010 | 6 Comments

This story has been getting a lot of coverage lately.  You know, even the religion I grew up in is not as brazenly misogynist as the Catholic Church, which is saying a lot.  I don’t have the stomach to write anything about this story at the moment, nor do I even want to think about it.  It’s been many years since I freed myself from religion, from the brainwashing and control and hatred that is central to it, but no matter how long it’s been since I left religion behind, there is a place within me that is still filled with rage. It’s always there, right beneath the surface and it’ll never go away.  I have to be careful before I open that door and I don’t want to do that tonight.  Let me just say this: If you belong to a religion, what that religion does they do in your name. A religion without members would cease to exist.  If you can’t take ownership of what your church does, then I don’t understand how you can stay part of it.

11 May, 2010 | 10 Comments

I leave for three weeks and you’ve all gone and wrecked the country…

28 April, 2010 | 5 Comments

From the Guardian:

Russell Crowe threatened to kill a veteran producer with his bare hands during a 3am phone call while filming his Oscar-winning role in Gladiator, according to a new book. Branko Lustig, 77, a Holocaust survivor, immediately telephoned Steven Spielberg in Los Angeles and asked to leave the production.

Oh, Russell. How disappointing. There are plenty of people in Hollywood who deserve to be strangled, but not a Holocaust survivor, for crying out loud.

In other news of Russell, he has his own Twitter feed.  I’m at once intrigued (he’s in France at the moment!)…but also disappointed that he can’t write very well. Run-on sentences much, Russ?  The English teacher in me wonders if he has some sort of learning disability.

Those who haven’t been reading this blog for a long time may not know of my celebrity crush on Russell. I know he’s a completely monstrous human being, but I can’t help it.  Please don’t think less of me.

30 March, 2010 | 9 Comments

You really have to wonder what goes on in the minds of judges these days.  I’ve known decent, law-abiding people who’ve been deported for having the wrong stamp in their passport, but apparently rapists are welcome to stay.  After all, they contribute so much to society.

27 March, 2010 | 10 Comments

You know what I’m sick of hearing about?  Sandra Bullock and her devastation over her husband’s numerous affairs with tattooed white-supremacist biker women.  Sandra Bullock married a man whose previous wife is a hardcore porn star, for crying out loud.  Based on this, it should have been blindingly obvious to everyone how he views women and sexuality.  Let’s just be honest and face reality.  Sandra, did you really think this guy was interested in a white-picket-fence existence and total monogamy and devotion to you?  It defies belief that Sandra Bullock could have thought Jesse James was this kind of guy.  She could not possibly be that stupid. You don’t choose a life partner whose personal values are diametrically opposed to yours.  Sandra chose Jesse James and she knew what he was like.  His previous marriage was chronicled on reality TV and it’s not a secret.  He did not morph into a new person to marry Sandra.  Her “shock” now is not believable.

This whole thing is a tiresome media charade.  Sandra Bullock has cultivated an image as a Girl Next Door type – she’s a product and that image is what she’s selling and protecting now at all costs.  I cannot believe that behind closed doors, she is actually this all-American apple-pie loving straight-laced mainstream lady, which is how she wants America to view her.  Her choice of husband makes it virtually impossible to believe that she wants this kind of lifestyle in private.  When she married Jesse James, the media played along and didn’t raise questions about why America’s Sweetheart would want to marry a guy who is very comfortable in the porn and biker world.  Jesse James was painted as a quaint “bad boy” type who’d been reformed by Sandra’s love. Sandra’s image was never questioned and the media continued to spread its fictions about Sandra’s “perfect” fairy tale life.  Jesse James’s past was glossed right over.  Now everyone can pretend to be shocked – just shocked – that he has cheated on Sandra.  These embarrassing public revelations of Jesse James’s affairs have the potential to expose Sandra Bullock’s personal life to the public in a way that will shatter her carefully constructed image – an image that is worth a lot of money, just like a major corporation.  So the media plays along that Sandra is devastated and shocked that her porn-star-loving husband would dare to have sex outside of marriage.  Gasp!  Who could have ever imagined that Jesse James is not monogamous?!?!  Oh, I don’t know – anyone with an ounce of common sense?

(more…)