girls, gays, minorities, and everyone else: keep it in your pants.

Gender, race, and sexual orientation inequalities run around naked all day for everyone to observe, all over the world (though many turn a blind, scandalized eye). But one rather juicy piece of exposed, bigoted flesh should get some extra ogling today, after a recent CDC report. It elucidates the inequality of gender-, race-, and orientation-based health tests/studies. Invariably, these tests are not only biased, they are blatantly so; in turn, the media reports and methods of prevention and reform are also skewed towards unequal and unfair consideration.

The latest report, which came out this week, details the CDC's finding that among US teenage women, 1 in 4 have some sort of STD. Those reported STDs ranged from chlamydia, to HPV, to HIV/AIDS. HPV, as many media outlets have been clear about reporting in the past year or so, is the virus that can lead to cervical cancer --obviously a disease that only effects those of us with cervices. But men are at least "carriers" of all the diseases listed (though with most STDs, men suffer the same symptoms as women).

The way the CDC, and those reporting this supposedly news worthy story, is the first issue. It's not "roughly 25% of teenage women," it's not "One-fourth of the female teenage population," or anything of that nature. They make this study personal: One in Four Teenage Girls. (and this is how practically every media outlet is phrasing it) Let's break this down. "One in Four": this implies proximity. Not one-fourth, which suggests a fraction, which by definition means only a part. By saying "one in four" the reader (and especially the white male reader) is implored to consider the obvious: "think of four women--you know quite a few. Well, one might have the clap." Next, consider "teenage girls". The term "girls" suggests that these sexually active women can't possibly take care of their own sexual health. This is the best type of fear mongering we've seen in a while: it not only admonishes young women, it scares parents, potential sexual partners, and women themselves. The article practically screams: "Why, don't you see: these young "girls" shouldn't be trusted to make their own decisions about their sexual lives. They've gone and mucked up all the boys' fun."
But the problem with this saddening study (because 25% of teens with STDs IS saddening) is that it completely disregards the male aspect of this report. Doing a quick search on the CDC website, and special section on STD prevention, you can find reports on women, and the general population as a whole, and minorities, and studies broken out based on sexual orientation. What you cannot find is a good study on the rates of STDs among your average, straight, white males. Hmmm. Why is it that we place the research blame on women and minorities and gays? In the study, it also highlights how black women have an even higher risk of STDs. What about white and black men? Why is it solely the responsibility of the woman to get tested for STDs, as the CDC heartily recommends? Oh, and telling your partner about any STDs you might have--that's a woman's job too. Because men, well, they're only having sex with one woman, always. And that's verily true, it is--we got this little tidbit from Elliot Spitzer, so you know it's legit. And women should be the ones with whom the responsibility to get treated lies. Men don't need the HPV vaccine, because they wouldn't ever get cancer. But, ahem, they can still transmit it. If you found the cure for HIV, would you exclude giving it to any population that was only a carrier and didn't themselves contract full blown AIDS? I think not. In order to best serve the women, it would be a valid argument to vaccine both sexes. For more, read here why men should be similarly vaccinated.


And this just in:
Here's another orientation, gender, and race skewed report by the CDC, that hopes to incite fear and reinforce bias. It talks about how gay men are reportedly more likely to contract syphilis. The study does say that men are six times more likely to contract this disease, but they quickly include that the primary transmitters are gay, and that the researchers "also called rises [in syphilis] among women and blacks troubling." The article also points out that the increase stems from "high-risk behaviors" (whatever that means) and "multiple partners." This language is even more insidious than that of the teenage girl article, because it suggests, very overtly, that gay males are in some way more apt to commit risky or irresponsible behaviors. Well, sorry, but high-risk behavior (like unprotected sex, and other, non-vaginal forms of sex) as well as having multiple partners, happens with ALL sexual people--regardless of orientation or sex. And the rather tactless implication of this article is that only gay men practice certain behaviors. The fact of the matters (sexual and otherwise) is that white, straight, rich men have a better ability, and the need and want to cover up their sexual activities. What's more is that often what is reported by certain groups varies--is a middle aged married man willing to admit to his sexual escapades, especially if they're Spitzer-style risky? What is reported, and what is happening in the collective sex life of all Americans is much more than meets the eye, and you can bet the CDC.

Vices, Vixens, and Vitriolics

More Scandal. Another press conference scene with an penitential politician and a doting, head-cocked, stoic wife. It doesn't matter what language or what area of the country, the careful self-flagellation and spousal hand-holding is the national symbol for "I'm fucked. (but my wife certainly wasn't)." That scene in general, and yesterday's Spitzer scene in particular, got us to the topic of vices.

Ah yes vices, those lovely little spigots through which all our pleasure and downfall spews. Obviously, Spitzer's vices were twofold: a steamroller mentality and the sexual prowess of your average, woman-hating john. Combine those with money and power and you've got an unstoppable vice-ridden force... that is until he was caught, and by the IRS no less --what could quite possibly be dubbed as the least sexy of federal agencies. Because of his (newly revealed) completely hypocritical record of being extremely harsh on corruption, it's only probably a matter of hours before Spitzer gets the proverbial boot via insta-resignation. And so Spitzer's vice leads to yet another: the vice-gubernatorial man: David Paterson, the lieutenant governor. Because of Spitzer's various indiscretions, we're staring into the face of the first black, and legally blind New York state governor. Let's all hope that the cliche statement is true, and justice is blind. He will be only the fourth black state governor in the US (other states with black governors: Louisiana, Virginia, Massachusetts). But all this aside, this "vice" governor will get the ultimate promotion due to Spitzer's own record of vice. So here's some more contemplative vice.

When people vote, it is under the expectation that who they vote for will be the one who ends up in power. How much consideration do people make when they are presented with a full, two-person ticket? And how much should that factor into their decision? How far the "what-if" road should you travel, and why?
Because let's face it: it's not just assassination that leads to those in power having to concede their position to the underlings --all types of scandal can get you thrown out of office now, and the methods in which government agencies, the media, and the public can check political vices seems to be growing unabated. (All the better to see you, my political darling, said the big bad wolf.) But once we're done devouring our juicy, scandal-ridden suppers, we're left with the carcass of a political machine which now rests on the shoulders of someone who is supposedly qualified, but never intended for the job. And often, the public trust in this individual was given as a pass to the lead candidate that they supported, who is now defunct. Sometimes, this doesn't matter, because the vice-whomever turns out to be good, and maybe better, than the original (the rule of theatrical sequels is not in effect in politics).

But there are some troubling scenarios that every voter should consider when they go to the polls.
Scenario: Say McCain wins. (now this is scary enough, but bear with me here). Say McCain names Huckabee, or someone like him, the vice pres. Now, McCain most likely wouldn't be impeached. But the guy did have cancer four years go, and he is pushing the limits of the average US male life expectancy. So we have to consider that he has a higher chance of dying while in office than any of the other younger, robuster candidates. Leveraged against his possibility of not fulfilling four years, his consideration of a vice candidate should play more into the voter's decision than say, an Obama vice president. And can you imagine what a horrific thing it would be to have a vice-Huckabee, or someone like him in the office of president? Women would be getting out their hangers as abortion is speedily outlawed, and the new prevailing middle school curriculum would be creationist sooner than you could say of pandas and penguins.

Speaking of vices, women, and injustice, let's talk about another important point as the Spitzer drama unfolds with punchy delicacy of a bad porno. One thing is documented: Spitzer is not your average john. The reason for this? You might say his governorship, his money, his status? You'd be right--but not entirely. The main difference between Spitzer and every other womanizing pervert is that Spitzer will actually be punished for soliciting a prostitute... though not really. His indictment is likely to be mainly on the crimes associated with money laundering, or moving around funds and claiming monies are being used for certain things, instead of for buying high class hookers. So maybe Spitzer is like your average john in that the crime of prostitution will be lesser, if at all than if he was the actual prostitute. It is widely documented that the "vixens", not the vice-ridden men, get the brunt of the legal action taken against them. So they are screwed both literally and figuratively, if you get the rather overt drift. Through the 80's up to today, numbers have shown that a much larger percentage of prostitutes are arrested verses "customers" and the average time in jail is much longer for women that are arrested compared to men. That's not even to mention the fact that well, when was the last time you heard of a woman charged with soliciting a prostitute on the street? So not only do we have a culture that promotes the idea of the downtrodden woman selling her body for money, we also have a system in place that perpetuates the denigrating practice by allowing men soft sentences for solicitation, while simultaneously punishing the prostitutes. No one's saying that prostitutes should get off free--they are breaking the law--but punishments should go to those who keep them in business, in order to put them out of business. If a service is illegal, both the provider and the purchaser should be liable. But vices have a tendency of devouring all sanity in their paths.

On the self-inclusive property

66% from a straw poll of random less-than-forty-year-old walkers on the streets of NYC. That's the percentage of younger people using some sort of electronic isolating device (e.x. mobile phone, ipod, blackberry, etc.). [The poll percentage was graciously bestowed by the author of nevermore of peace].

So what does this mean?, you might ask, as you haphazardly pop in your earbuds? Can we refer you to the oft used and abused quote: No man [though possibly a woman] is an island? (my brackets). This statement, though bandied about like an old jock strap in the high school locker room, still provides a worthy perspective: we cannot, artificially or otherwise, create a completely isolated existence -- and for our own good. First, the most obvious point of being oblivious is that we will inherently find ourselves acted upon by those around us, and the situations therein. In simpler terms: we can ignore the car speeding down the road towards us all we want as we text message LOL, but that car will hit us whether we acknowledge it or not. It's as if we've devolved into believing that if we cover our eyes, we are simply invisible. A five year old child knows better. Isolation has it's positives, but like most things (such as ice-cream, your uncle bob, and movies with Sean Connery) it's best in moderation, or small, effective doses. And the funny part of this survey is that it took place in NYC -- a city simultaneously filled with situations and aspects that seek to involve the streetwalker, while the streetwalker's resistance to pay it any attention is fiercely enforced by what seems a concerted effort by all to use electronic devices.

The parallel world of the ipod and the mobile phone, the iphone and the blackberry is not so cut-and-dry isolationist. At one end of this ever-shaded spectrum, is the idea that when you use these devices, you are utterly and completely alone -- even talking on your phone is a exercise in communication through wavelengths and frequencies which are inadequate and pale in the face of, well, face-to-face conversation. Yet the other side of the argument would tell you that using these devices keeps you more connected than ever; you can listen to podcasts on news items, chat with friends, browse the internet--you name it. However, all these maneuvers don't actually give you direct awareness; they only lead you towards other forms of distraction from the world around you: websites, internal conversations, etc. The problem is inherent in the displacement. You are never just in the moment, but in it while simultaneously somewhere else. Who knew that we have, in effect, already mastered the skill and technologies of time/space travel?

You could make the argument that people are by nature individuals, and because of that, we are really living, breathing Ipods that run our own self-determined playlists. No one can know the true machinations that take place every second of every person's life. And to some intents and purposes, this viewpoint is right. One can "zone out" fairly easily in the middle of traffic if they try (or don't try) hard enough. But the key word here is "natural." It is Natural for someone, who is preoccupied, to transplant themselves mentally into a thought so all-encompassing that they lose their sense of place and time. But when we use gizmos and gadgets all the time, we loose that sense of natural introspection. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the true cause of worry. If you're even listening.

Obviously, forty or fifty years ago (and in most cases even less time ago), people didn't have any of these devices at their fingertips and eardrums. They lived in a world that was determined completely by outside forces acting upon their senses. Some people wonder about different eras, and how we can never get back to that time, merely because of the change in habits and technology. But they are still imaginable. However, now it seems like that ability to imagine an earlier time is getting harder and harder, because our lives are being altered very quickly by how we observe, and what we chose to ignore. Imagination. It is powerful, and we are in a crisis of imagination, because of its severe lack and or reliance on anything but our own brain power. We are "trading up and outward": eluding boredom with little devices to entertain, while ignoring own own god- (or nature-) given talent for story, observance, and imagination.

For instance: A trip in the subway. Usually, you put on your ipod or play on your phone and ignore those around you, and sometimes for good reason- you don't want people to catch you staring at them. But it's a free country, why not try and look around? Right before you, are dozens of people who you don't know, and may never see again in your entire life. You only get one shot to see them. Ever. The middle-aged women staring down at her feet-- fluffy blond hair, round cheeks, and a vacant expression, the Indian man holding the metal bar at the end of the row of seats--slicked back hair, dark eyes, cool gaze--all different people, with plans and stories and fears you know nothing about, and probably never will. So why not make it up? It's human observation 101 and you're the pupil, professor, and teacher's aide. You get to set the curriculum and make the grades. A man refuses to give up his seat for the pregnant woman, students break out in Christmas carols, two women warble in a language so foreign you can't tell which Continent it originates from: all these contribute to a greater sense of the world, and a better ability to understand the people around you, and the people you will never meet.

This argument excludes the observation of physical structures and nature, but they should also be taken into consideration as worthy aspects that shouldn't be missed by phone call fog or an ipod haze. So do us a favor, and just once and a while, don't forget there's a world out there.

Sure ya'll wouldn't fancy a dec-a-dent brown-nay?

Going into a southern bookshop on the main downtown drag, you can find the same books as you might find in the innocuous tables up against the door at any local Barnes & Noble, with perhaps a slightly higher percentage of Paula Dean cookbooks. The clerk's conversation with customers, however, varies greatly. The majority of suggestions at this particular shop focus around right-wing economist treatises and books in the vein of Michael Zak, all delivered with that tell-tale twang that you may or may not hear, depending on the locality of the Floridian, though chances are you get more "down-home" locals the further north you travel in the state. Fine, good enough -- nothing wrong with a little political talk on a Saturday morning.

The coffee shop next door is perfect. The smell of the roasting beans hits your nose immediately upon entrance, and makes you forget about the aroma of the five biker men outside, who were precariously close to being confined to that other great two-wheeler -- the wheelchair. The coffee comes pipping hot, and you pay your gracious server the under two-dollar fee with a sense of triumph in only having to travel across five or six states to find such a beverage of low cost. You pay with the silver dollars spewed out of the metrocard machine when you last received change, thankful to get rid of such cumbersome, heavy coinage. The gracious server looks at the coins, then looks at you, then at the coins, then at her friend behind the counter. "Are these American?" she asks in utter befuddlement. Staring at her, you wonder how living a few states north could immediately put you in another country. "They're silver dollars" you say. Getting a reassuring nod from her friend, she plunks the coins in the register, and then proceeds to stare at the change in front of her, wondering what, if anything, she should give you back for such large and alien currency. Without wanting to abed such ignorance, you slowing tap your foot, waiting for your 39 cents. She realizes that money should be returned, and proceeds to take out a small calculator, and correctly commute your change. Who knew this foreign exchange necessitated calculations by hand?

At dinner, the waitresses press dec-a-dent brownays upon you like it was Jesus coming to save you, in chocolate-incarnate (and believe it, they love them some Jesus down there). Or the key-lime pie made with their signature citrus, which, many would argue--goes better in cocktails then with whipped cream. They deep-fry everything, and it must be wondered as to whether or not the style of southern hospitality aids in dulling the true flavor of their sentiment-- when you're beleaguered with dec-a-dent brown-nays, it's easier, in the digestion haze, to forget about the problems and not-so-innocent viewpoints. Right-winged, warped views is fine to some extent, we're all allowed opinions. And to characterize the south as some evil place disguised in creamy pastry-form would be a misconception. But like it or not, a trip to the south shows you just how much your naivete is overblown. Overhearing a conversation between what could only be construed as a bunch of "good ol' boys" on the corner, this is what was offered:

- "So, what do you think of that Obama? How would you like him as president?"
(the other man leans in)
-- "I'll tell you what -- he'll be assassinated, he will!"
(youthful chuckles)

So, despite what was said in this opinion, backtracking needs to be made. Although, it must be said that if hideous statements like these are being made in northern Florida, they're being whispered in spots across the country: north, south, east, and west. And this is a sorry, sorry state of affairs. We think of ourselves as so progressive, but the feeling of entrenched and overblown entitlement is getting real old, real fast. Our economy is bleeding, and our worldwide stance is waining, and we wonder why we have such problems. We sugar-coat and chocolate-cover everything that is wrong, to the extent that some, this sadly blogger included, forget that such hatred and insidious comments are alive and well across the country, and in your local town. Non-exposure is no excuse. If we don't change that awareness, and do something about the injustice of it, we are headed for a collapse, albeit a sugary one.

So no, we wouldn't fancy a dec-a-dent brown-nay, thank you.

more insanity (the southern version)

Running along the beach this morning, the display was ocean on one side, H.O.U.'s (Houses of Unusual Size) on the other. They were large by any estimation, and in colors not found naturally in any habitat found in picture books or the discovery channel. The beautiful views were obstructed, however, by one, single 2x2 piece of thin cloth: A confederate flag, hanging atop one of the highest houses. Let's remind ourselves - this is Florida, USA, 2008. The beach experience has been corrupted more than any amount of stepping in cigarette butts could. How can a "progressive" country allow anyone to hang a flag like that for everyone to see? More reflections to come.

Absolute Insanity.

You looking to blow a fuse or two? Then it's suggested you check out the short piece by an American University Chaplain here. It's also pasted below, for your viewing horror.

If pure anger was personified and could speak, it would hope that we are driven to write this piece off as absolute piss-poor, uneducated dribble -- but the best approach is probably to use logic and sense to deconstruct such an asinine argument. Also, the writer of this piece is in charge of helping to mold young, vulnerable minds, a truly disturbing thought (even more than the experience of reading the article itself), and the writer is giving speeches on this topic in different spots of the country.

We'll first mention that this "copyrighted" piece has at least two typos-- a sure sign of true care and concern for promoting a healthy message, right? Second, the credentials listed for this writer are scant at best, and nowhere near where they should be for anyone to consider her an expert on the topic. But speaking of her education, let's
point out that if feminism did not exist in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the majority of women, probably including this writer, would not be writing, or have jobs such as chaplain at a university, or traveling to speak at events in New York City, at least not without the expressed consent of a father or husband. Also, like any ideological movement, Feminism takes various forms and is applied in various ways among various people - it is not one homogeneous creature but an amalgam of many different beliefs and applications. To narrowly define an entire manner of thought with many different aspects and sects inside the movement would be a mistake. There are forms of feminism that take on many "masculine" aspects in order to effect change, however, that is only one sliver in a much larger stump of wood (and let's remember that the definitions of "masculine" and "feminine" are only social constructions, made not by god or nature but pure inherited social expectation).

Feminism is not defined as "pretending to be men," but to receive EQUAL treatment and rights under law that men enjoy. The writer would be correct if she had said the the state of feminism isn't without its problems. Feminism isn't perfect, for the exact reason that it has not succeeded in eradicating the unequal treatment of women, including wage disparity, sexual harassment, reproductive freedom, etc. But, it has made great gains, and without feminism, many problems and inequalities would still exist in American society: including, to name a few:

- no female property rights
- no equal marriage contracts (i.e. LEGAL ownership of women by husbands)
- women voting rights
- slavery (would have been abolished later, because women, especially feminists, influenced the push for emancipation)
- no equal educational opportunities
- no special protections from domestic violence
- no special laws against sexual harassment and rape
- virtually no women's sports, including no funding
- etc.
- etc.
- etc.


The author also proclaims that American Feminism has had widespread negative effects, and has "broken down" not only American society, but the "global societies" that America influences. Here's one society that America has influenced lately: Iraq. And the writer is correct, our view on the rights of women has played a part in the forced societal breakdown of parts of the Iraqi culture through our war in Iraq. Putting aside our need for oil and the threat of jihad and terrorism, Americans get queasy when they hear of the stories of Iraqi women who are stoned, victims of rape, victims of "honor killings" due to the rape, or are forced to wear veils and adhere to strict rules, including forced non-interaction (i.e. complete seclusion) with any males outside the family, etc. Americans, feminists or no, would usually agree that this type of pseudo religious-fundamentalism backed by the Iraqi government translates into enforced oppression. So yes, the idea of female equality, backed by feminist thought is rearing it's ugly head in the Middle East, according to this writer.

Someone once said to me in conversation (paraphrasing) "there aren't many women theologians and writers such that I know off throughout history, but that's good because they had more important things to do," implying that they were taking care of children, etc., and therefore patronizing the historically oppressed roles of women. Setting aside the strange and rampant anger that this quote ignited, it is utterly false. Women have been and will continue to write and think and create -- it is that they do not receive recognition by the greater (mostly male) population. They are chosen to be ignored, quashed, and smothered by the patriarchal pillow that rests squarely at the center of the world's cradle. Feminism isn't about domination of men, or discarding of men, it's about equal footing with men, and recognition of accomplishments free from any association with the accomplisher's sex.

The time needed to fully elucidate the evils of this article would be decades.Hopefully, enough has been said to show it's nature as complete mental turpentine.

The author only potentially gets one thing slightly right --Feminism is still an experiment in imperfection. That's why this article is so insidious-- it hopes to sidetrack any further efforts to improve the situation of women in America and across the world. Here's your movement of zen to show how far we truly still have to go:
"...'in the world as a whole, women comprise 51 percent of the population, do 66 percent of the work, receive 10 percent of the income and own less than one percent of the property."
-UN Conference on Women, 2001.


Here's the upsetting article: (Disclaimer: this article is pure, poisonous, unadulterated, undiluted crap.)

THE WAY TO WOMANHOOD
By Kimberly Rogers

Women today face many problems from financial difficulties to divorce to raising children alone, just to name a few. Our purpose here it to provide a place for women to get scriptural and moral support, help with difficulties and information through articles, links and a forum.

Now, more than ever, it is important that women lead this nation and the world out of the mess we have created through Feminism. We created this mess, collectively. Now, we must solve it collectively. The only way out is through our collective return to following Jesus Christ and His Salvation Plan.

The return to a better society starts within each of us individually. Then, we must gently teach those around us what it really means to be FEMININE and not a Feminist. The two terms are mutually exclusive because of how the definition of Feminism evolved.

Feminism is truly at the heart of the breakdown of American society, and by extension, the other global societies that America influences. It is never too late to amend our mistakes, but we must truly begin the process now.

Womanhood, on the other hand, requires that we uplift, nurture and help others. These ideas are foreign to the nature of Feminism. Feminists are not women - they are women pretending to be men. True women have much more to offer than whether we are able to usurp the abilities and natures of men to ourselves. It is much more of a challenge to be a Godly woman than it is to be an ungodly one.

The End Times have arrived. All we need to do is look around us to verify this fact. We must help to save as many people as possible before it is too late. Women must return to prayer and caring for others. The time is coming, very soon, when these active qualities will be needed. There are not enough of these activites or qualities in the world's women today, so we must return to our true femininity and learn all over again what it means to be a woman.

Copyright 2007 - All Rights Reserved

Want true insight? go to the UN commission on the status of women website, here.

Final comment: Yesterday, someone made the suggestion that god and cancer could be given the same name. While many might take offense at such a suggestion, it's articles such as the above that trend the suggestion towards "convincing," or at least "warrants merit."

It Kids You Not

Here's the response M. Snowe just received from Senior Vice President of Anonymous College. See this letter from a previous post to catch up on the word-spewing crassness.This letter is COMPLETELY UNDOCTORED (Including the original spellings). All that has been changed are names, to protect the otherwise unprotectable.


February 25, 2008

Dear M. Snowe,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I may have phrased the question too narrowly but it has generated many thoughtful replies like yours that I am grateful for. I must admit that I am surprised by the fact that because the College asks for money some grads have assumed we are not thankful for all you do as a "man or women for others." It is precisely because we believe in our graduates and all they do to make the world a better place that we ask for money. A College today to remain competitive must beg but so did St. Ignatius so it can't be all that bad. From young graduate like yourself we ask for a monetary gift to help our participation rate. As commercial as that sounds a high participation rate indicates our graduates are satisfied with the College and that indicator helps us to attract other students like you. In addition we use the money we get to help fund the $30M of financial aid we give each year.

Thank you for the reply and God bless,

Senior Vice President of Anonymous College

Commentary: There are at the very least three typos in this. Also, doing a quick scan of a few St. Ignatius website biographies, there is no mention of gathering donations, though there is no argument here that he must have solicited some funds. And "begging" for alms is a much different situation in this case--Ignatius's monies went directly to the Church and the Jesuits. This money goes to sports centers and alumni banquets. And as for alumni giving being a true measure of satisfaction: One might love pineapples to death, and truly enjoy the experience of eating one, but does that mean they have to go out and invest in Dole stock?
Also, a little simple math for you:
Tuition per year (with room and board): over $47,000
Four Year Total Tuition: $190,408
Total college aid available: $30,000,000
Total Enrollment: 2,817
Total Students who have financial need: 58%
Total amount of students whose tuition could be covered in full by the $30 million: 157
58% of 2,817 students (amount who need financial aid): 1,634

Shh!!!! It's Hushed. But in the NY Times...

This morning's New York Times has a political memo written by Jeff Zeleny, opening with the following question:
"There is a hushed worry on the minds of many supporters of Senator Barack Obama, echoing in conversations from state to state, rally to rally: Will he be safe?"

The one problem with this article is thus:
The questions asked are mostly unanswerable. No actual threats are really highlighted, and none in depth. Yes, our country's climate is not as hospitable as it should be, and Obama's security should be a concern. But honestly, there are some problems with this article, and they run deep.

#1. Obvious Point: How many polls are out there right now, talking about Hillary Clinton's lack of charisma, or personal appeal. Everyday, there's a new story about likability, and Clinton's lack-thereof. Yet it is Obama people are worried about. You would think if someone was so reportedly despised, their summit to potential presidency would make them a target. And yet the Obama worries are legitimate, to some extent. Charismatic figures have, on one hand, the ability to spur people on and get them excited about their message. Obama can do that in spades. Yet charisma runs the risk of inciting not just high praise, but high disapproval-- and in the people completely opposite those that get riled up in a good way. Because people who decide to assassinate are usually angry, in a hyper-heightened way, just as the diametrically different Obama supporters can be enthusiastic. That is not to say that overly enthusiastic supporters of any campaign are unhinged, but mild obsession is a necessary quality for a staffer, no matter whose campaign it is.

#2. Not-So-Obvious Point: Zeleny 's angling of Obama's likability. A quick glance at the first three or four pages of his most recently archived political stories show title after title helpful towards Obama, and harsh towards Clinton (even the pictures tell the story, with Obama looking up with hopeful eyes, whereas all the pics of Clinton seem to be authoritative ones, with finger points and mid-shout. She may do these things more, but it's pretty clear that the photogs don't try too hard to capture her "softer" side.) The problem with a story about "hushed" worries for Obama's safety is that it unfairly raises an alarm that may or may not be that legitimate while simultaneously reinforcing Obama's profile, and providing fodder for ample comparisons with past American heroes who were assassinated. In Zeleny's article, the Kennedys and MLK jr. are mentioned almost as often as Obama is himself. There is no clever coating to this one- it's all about comparison and similarities. And while it should be preambled that there is always a threat to any candidate, and probably a slight bit more worry attached to a black candidate, the comparison seems a bit weaker than the author would like us to believe. Dr. King was a hunted man; and similar to the eerie recent interviews with figures such as Benazir Bhutto, King knew that the threats against his life were real and dangerous. Whether he knew they would be his undoing, one can only guess; but he was under constant threat -- the flight to Memphis were he gave his last speech and was later assassinated at his hotel --was delayed due to a bomb threat. Because of the work of Dr. King and his supporters and the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, the atmosphere is much better and safer for candidates of either race (though improvements still need to be made, surely).

Zeleny's article is basically angling to help Obama survive, both physically and politically by making him into the amalgamation of RFK, JFK, and MLK... if only they had survived just a bit longer. Now this blogger is undecided in choice of which Democrat to prefer, but the problem with articles like this is they don't merely report facts, they harken back to the past by making comparisons that only serve to muddy up the already murky waters of political choice. Talking about threats to Obama is one thing, but talking about threats in relation to other assassinations seems a bit off the point. To be fair, Clinton and the media surrounding her also harken back to past events in order to gain support or alternatively shake up support of the electorate, depending on the purpose that snipit of history is meant to serve rhetorically. And the republicans can't seem to get the misnomer of "Reagan Era Politics" off their minds and tips of their tongues. Comparison is an important tool, but the public should go into any piece of news with the ability to understand stories, their angles, and just why they were written in certain ways. Obama isn't polling well in the older age groups-- Clinton has the majority in of older white women. Well, if you were to look through the old paper stashes of older white women, you would find a newspaper clipping or saved copy of any magazine with JFK's picture, or perhaps a commemorative biography with embossed photos of Jackie Oanasis (before she was an Oananiss). You might might the same smart white or red suit with matching hat. The icon association is high. This blogger was forced to take multiple pictures of the Eternal Flame in Arlington for a grandmother and grandfather. Its a vital piece of history, and memory association is powerful... All that's important to remember is that one situation can be similar, but it's never the same, and false hope, especially in the candidate of hope, but also everyone else, only sets up for a let down. Let's hope Obama doesn't start building a complex in Hyannis, MA. And Clinton won't automatically ring in the financially stable years of her husband's jaunt either.

Yuck-Factor

Quote from MSNBC:
"Obama's strong showing has made him the man to beat in a historic struggle between a black man and a white woman, and even some of Clinton's own supporters conceded she needs victories in both Ohio and Texas early next month to preserve her candidacy."

This made us think of the other Historic Struggles between Black Men and White Women. Here are a few, for your viewing pleasure:

"Historic Struggle for Daytime Television":
Montel Williams vs. Ricki Lake

"Historic Struggle for Best Recent MA Governorship":
Deval Patrick vs. Jane Swift

"Historic Struggle for Life":
O.J. Simpson vs. Nicole Brown Simpson

"Historic Struggle for Primetime Ratings":
Bill Cosby vs. Rosanne

"Historic Struggle for Pop-Supremacy":
Michael Jackson vs. Madonna

"Historic Struggle for Best Lipsync Fiasco":
Milli Vanilli vs. Ashlee Simpson

"Historic Struggle for the 1988 Democratic Presidential Nomination":
Jesse Jackson vs. Patricia Schroeder

"Historic Struggle for Sesame Street":
Gordon Robinson (school teacher played by Roscoe Orman) vs. Linda (local librarian played by Linda Bove)

"Historic Struggle for Popular Young Minority Golfer":
Tiger Woods vs. Michelle Wie

"Historic Struggle for Pop-Band Supremacy":
Boyz 2 Men vs. Spice Girls

"Historic Struggle for Best Blind Celebrity":
Ray Charles vs. Helen Keller

"Historic Struggle for Favorite Singing Muppet":
Rowlf the Dog (technically of indeterminate breed) vs. Miss Piggy


(more to follow - and we'd love to hear your suggestions)

As you can see, the utter ridiculousness of such an exercise in historic struggles is fun and makes for an interesting spin on the same old political news, yet it proves inconclusive and completely pointless...and with the exception of the Simpson struggle, each exampled struggle is fairly undecided, and a matter of personal tastes/opinions (or lack thereof).

Interesting article found...

On Sweeney Todd and the Law

Enjoy.

Crassness Abounds

A day in the life of an alumnus to a small liberal arts college is never dull. Here's an email received yesterday, with the names blocked out to ensure anonymity.

Dear M. Snowe,

As Senior Vice President of Anonymous College, I am writing to ask you for some very valuable feedback. Our records indicate that you have not recently made contributions to the College. I am not asking for money at this time; I am merely looking for information. Will you share with us why you do not give?

If you take a moment to let me know why you don't give to Anonymous College, I promise to respond to you personally. We are working to make Anonymous College the top choice for ambitious students eager to discover themselves in an intellectually rigorous, Jesuit, liberal arts environment. We need the support of alumni to make that happen. That is why it is imperative for us understand why some alumni do not give. If you're willing to share that information, I would be very grateful.

Just email me at anonymous email address with your response, and I will get back to you as soon as possible.

Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts with me.

Anonymous
Senior Vice President
Anonymous College


And here is an appropriate response to such an outrageous request, sent back to Mr. Anonymous this morning, for your viewing pleasure.

February 19, 2008

Dear Mr. Anonymous:

Thank you for your letter. Because you took the time to address me, I intend to answer you in full, and address the question of why I do not give.

I must remark first that I was a bit taken aback by your email. While I have received many direct mail and email queries for alumni giving, I’ve never received a letter quite like this, addressed directly to me. Your letter might not be the tack I would necessarily employ, but your candor should be applauded.

I truly enjoyed my four years at Anonymous College, and I agree with you that Anonymous College should be a top choice for ambitious students, and that Anonymous College is an intellectually rigorous liberal arts environment – I have seen and heard from students at many other schools whose experiences don’t come close to the one offered at Anonymous College. I have Anonymous College pride, and I am never hesitant to recommend the school to any potential college student.

But one of the many life lessons that Anonymous College helped to instill upon me is something I would like to share with you, and hope it gives you a better understanding as to why I take offense to your letter. Being taught in a Jesuit and liberal arts tradition, I learned the importance of the virtues of morality, justice and intellectual questioning. New ideas and diverse interpretations are breeding ground for a fulfilling and empathetic life. But when you ask me: why then I do not give? I must ask you: how can giving be defined so narrowly?

During my freshman year in 2001, I participated in the anonymous program. The key question appended to each theme is, as I am sure you know: How then shall we live? – Which strikes a familiar chord to me when I re-read your question of why then I do not give. I don’t know whether you phrased your question as an intentional mnemonic to make me flash back to freshman year, but if you did—it worked. So let me tell you about my freshman year. I took classes on searching for the true self, and the self in society. I made wonderful friendships. I worked in the dining hall and took extra shifts to try and contribute more towards my tuition. I worked on school breaks when at home. I studied hard, and did well. I learned what it was like to live by myself, and also how to live with my peers.

From Freshman year on, Anonymous College only continued to help develop a fuller sense of myself, the world around me, and the change I wanted to affect to better that world. Anonymous College has given me a lot, and I do owe it some form of repayment. And eventually, that repayment might take the form of cold. hard. cash.

But my question that I will repeat again is: how can giving be defined so narrowly? And why do I ask this? Let me go through any given day of mine. In the morning, I get on a subway train into New York City to go to work. It is always packed, and people are always bustling to gain those extremely coveted seats. I see a woman who is pregnant forced to stand, or an older couple shunted to the corner, clutching handlebars. Without a second thought--I offer my seat. And you ask me why then I don’t give. I get to work an hour or two early and work well past the standard quitting time, in order to prove my work ethic and be the best I can be. And you ask me why then I don’t give. I collect donations for food kitchens and cancer research to donate before I run in 15Ks. And you ask me why then I don’t give. I stay up late in order to edit my younger sibling’s college papers. And you ask me why then I don’t give. I volunteer regularly after work. And you ask me why then I don’t give. And most importantly, many know of where I went to college, as I laud my alma mater with pride. And all these small yet important acts contribute to the larger goal of showing people the tools that Anonymous College provides, and what a Anonymous College graduate can become. And so I repeat: And you ask me why then I don’t give.

On a less abstract note, I’d like to say that I do want to give financially to the school. Eventually. Right now, I am still paying off three college loans. Perhaps I would have more incentive to give financially if I was sure that my gift would be going directly to the aid of someone like me, who had to work their way through college, and whose parents, who tried to help, could only contribute a few extra dollars from their already tight salaries. Also, Anonymous College helped me to realize that the aspect of money is not anywhere near as important as happiness, fulfillment, and service to others – and my job right now fulfills and satisfies me. It does not however, allow me to veer from a very strict budget, which to me is fine, but perhaps you take offense. But in terms of my service to others, I feel as though I have given much. I feel as if my support to Anonymous College has been unwavering, but if defined by your terms, I have been found wanting. Yes, financial stability is an important aspect of any college, but if Anonymous College believes in itself, and the messages and gifts it conveys to its students, it will never be bankrupt. I fear that too much focus on the monetary will lead Anonymous College towards a bear intellectual market. So perhaps the questions that should be asked are not why then don’t you give? but what does it mean to give, and can giving be more than what is measured in dollar signs, line charts, and profit margins?

So once again, I thank you for your letter, and for considering my response.

Cheers,

M. Snowe

Class of Anonymous

"We have all a better guide in ourselves, if we would attend to it, than any other person can be."

-Jane Austen

barackiliarious...

which means very funny. (click the "more" button to get additional barackopedia headwords)

Happy V Day!

...and that stands for fighting violence against women day, of course.

Here's a few unhealthy facts for you:

- Every two minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted.
- One in six American women are victims of sexual assault, and one in 33 men.
- In 2005-2006, there were an average annual 232,010 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
- About 44% of rape victims are under age 18, and 80% are under age 30.

(stats from RAINN.org)
- 17.6 % of women in the United States have survived a completed or attempted rape.
- The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials.
- Following the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 to strike down the civil-rights provision of the Federal Violence Against Women Act (ruling that only states could enact such legislation), only two states in the country (Illinois and California) have defined gender-based violence, such as rape and domestic violence, as sex discrimination, and created specific laws that survivors can use to sue their perpetrators in civil court. (Kaethe Morris Hoffer, 2004).

And now on to the global numbers:
- At least 60 million girls who would otherwise be expected to be alive are "missing" from various populations, mostly in Asia, as a result of sex-selective abortions, infanticide or neglect.
- Globally, at least one in three women and girls is beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. (UN Commission on the Status of Women, 2/28/00)
- An estimated one million children, mostly girls, enter the sex trade each year (UNICEF)
- More than 90 million African women and girls are victims of female circumcision or other forms of genital mutilation.


"Violence against women has profound implications for health but is often ignored. WHO's World Report on Violence and Health notes that "one of the most common forms of violence against women is that performed by a husband or male partner.” This type of violence is frequently invisible since it happens behind closed doors, and effectively, when legal systems and cultural norms do not treat as a crime, but rather as a "private" family matter, or a normal part of life."

-World Health Organization

**And let's not forget that violence against women does not just come in the highly brutal, physical form. It also smacks each of us in the face every morning, when we wake up to find ourselves locked in an abusive relationship with those who (being primarily men) decided women must not have the mental capabilities to control the machinations of their own reproductive lives, and who try to strike down a woman's right to a choice, to birth control, and to freedom from parental or a partner's consent when making choices which will effect our health, bodies, and overall well-being. Disrespect is not just physical abuse -- it is any action that seeks to break you down into bite-able pieces and serve you up to fit other's needs like chocolates in a russell stover box. Instead of reminding people you already love today of a fact they should already know, how about showing some love for those unfortunate people who are shown the opposite daily?


for advocacy in the fight against violence, go here

And despite the putrid pink colors on this website, it's an important cause

Hooray....

we finally can expect good (actually, just "better") Television, and less reruns!
Times story here

"A crucial break came when the two sides crafted a provision that provides the guilds a gain in the payment for digital distribution of entertainment beyond the terms of a recent deal between Hollywood producers and the Directors Guild of America"

Wonder what the "gain in payment" amounts to? It must be hoped that it's substantial.

Iron This!

Excellent essays/commentary by Robin Morgan:

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

Goodbye to the double standard . . .

—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

and this one:

http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/

Enjoy.

What we'd REALLY like to say (in complaint letters to Greyhound)

A fun break from all that political talk today, children.
Everything below in BlUE is the whole truth of the situation. The black text is what got sent to Customer Service.

February 12, 2008
Dear Customer Service Rep.:
On Friday, February 8th, I rode the 2:30PM Greyhound from the Port Authority in NY to Boston, MA's South Station. I should have recognized the ominous aspect of such a journey, what with the crazy disheveled old men lurking by the doors as self-appointed panty-grabbers, and the brick wall corners heaped with what appeared to be living advertisements for intravenous drug use. At around 3:30PM, our bus broke down on an overpass in Brooklyn. (this was near the entrance to "Throgs Neck Bridge." Definition: TO THROG: verb, "to abandon all hope of punctuality while sitting in abject fear of plummeting below while swaying on a precipice for at least two hours.") Our driver called for a replacement bus, which we were told would arrive in twenty minutes. (We think you know what "twenty minutes" means. No matter the estimate, if for love-making or waiting time - both estimates are either widely over- or under- estimated. We conclude that the actual time period of "twenty minutes" simply does not exist. There is a vortex that eats all ability to sustain one activity or alternatively complete one activity, and that vortex begins/ends around the 20-minute-mark. Results of tests are inconclusive as to the reason for this phenomenon.)

After an hour, there was no replacement bus, but our own bus started again, and the engine worked. (Eureka!) However, the driver insisted (rightly or wrongly) to wait for the replacement. Another hour passed, with no new bus in sight. (or in smell, touch, taste, etc., though the resulting olfactory nerve damage of Throgs Neck was beginning to develop into a dour, nasally aggravating ordeal.) The passengers in the bus repeatedly asked our driver to call the driver of the other bus and find out what was taking so long. The passenger’s entreaties ranged from "please call" to "fucking call the greyhound people, goddamit." Finally, he agreed, and after waiting for two hours on the overpass, our driver realized he told the other driver the wrong route number, and the other bus was all the way in White Plains. Of course none of the passengers realized his mistake, because his language was just on the cusp of possibly sounding like something that might be confused for English in perhaps a place like Bangladesh. At this point, our driver decided to DRIVE our bus to meet the other bus halfway. Who knew a broken bus could work so well? After getting to an exit on a new highway near White Plains, we proceeded to wait over an hour again on the side of an exit, waiting for the other bus. The "Exit 19" sign was taunting us from our itchy polyester seats. We were lost in a transportational limbo on the shoulder of the road. We were shouldering the prospect of thinking that even when this new bus does arrive, we will have to sit in traffic for at least another three or four hours. Now I know how Virgil and all the pre-Christian poets and philosophers must have felt in Dante's Inferno. At least Dante got to travel through hell, which implies movement. Our hell on wheels was perhaps all the more hellish due to it's palsied state.

We finally boarded the new bus around 7PM. (Remember, we had left NY at 2:30PM, and we were now (at 7PM) only 45 minutes away from where we started, yet almost FIVE hours had passed.) We did not arrive at Boston's South Station until after 10PM that night.

I am deeply upset that all the passengers had to go through this ordeal, and that the bus driver was utterly incompetent and irrational. It was a horrible experience; I hope Greyhound rectifies the problems that caused it. I would also like to let you know that I will be taking alternate transportation other than Greyhound on future occasions, and telling everyone I know to do the same. Though we will tell everyone of greyhound's negligence, unfortunately it's still the cheapest, so eventually we'll all have to ride your urine-soaked excuse for a perambulator again. I truly hope you do something to prevent this from happening to another group of your travelers. Truly. But we know better than to expect it.Thanks for your time and consideration, you good-for-nothing national ambassadors of ambulatory destruction and frustration. You acted with less concern for basic human decency than a Republican nominee who mistakenly wanders into a gay rights rally or a workers union meeting would. Get a clue.

Have your say: http://www.greyhound.com/home/en/CustomerAssistanceRequest.aspx

PoliticoReligioRacially Frustrated

Why is it that the two things that should matter least with a political campaign, (with a record of historically not really mattering at all) are all we can seem to talk about, and vote along the lines of? What is it with everyone talking about those two terrible R's that were framed outside the constitutional structure (or at least amended to bestow freedom) in order to help keep them separate, those words of passion: religion and race? ... (and do you think it's mere coincidence that Republican also starts with an "R"?)

When JKF gave his famous speech about how religion would not and should not be a consideration in a political campaign, people seemed to absorb the message, and those few who spread the idea that JFK would consult the pope on every matter of policy-- well, it was a moot and silly point of contention. In fact, religion was never a very large point of interest in early American history when people chose their leaders. Many historians have thought Abe Lincoln, if he wasn't an outright atheist, was at least extremely averse to churchgoing and declarations of belief -- yet no one seemed the slightest bit apprehensive to nominate and elect one who is still considered a great American president. Historians also estimate that a man like Lincoln in terms of religiousity/spirituality would be disquialified from running in America today because of his lack of religious concern.

Carter and Reagan were probably the two biggest cataylsts when it came to changing the American political atmosphere in terms of religion and its impact on a candidate. Carter was the first to trully energize that sector of society that nowadays always seems on the tip of the Republican pundit's tongue -- Evangelicals. Back in the 50s and 60s, many people weren't even sure what the term "Born Again Christian" meant. The mostly-southern sect, up until Carter, had stayed away from politics and endorsements, because, like most religions they realized that politics was a dirty game, with a crowd of panderers. It just so happened that the era came when Republicans decided their party would do best to pander intensely to these huge groups of voters scattered and concentrated throughout the South and Midwest -- and they took the bait, as any group probably would when promised with policy changes that would promote their Christ-driven way of life.

Alot of people believe that abortion was the key issue that iginited the Evangelical's political passion and lobbying power. But those reports are largely exaggerated. The Reagan era, and Bob Jones University v. The United States (461 U.S. 574) was an important impetus that truly started the Evangelical shift towards political participation, and with it the power of practically every Evangelical congregration -- meaning strength in numbers, and the funding from churches, transportation to polls, etc. (In some ways, churches are more organized than the smartest of smart political campaigns with their community outreach efforts).

So the story of this case started with Bob Jones University losing its tax-exempt status from the IRS because of its segregation policies towards minorities. (This case is where, quite possibly, the idea of politics, race, and religion all converge in one spectacularly insane trifecta.) Because Bob Jones U refused to change their racial policy (most notably the ban on interracial dating), the Supreme Court required them to pay around 1 million dollars in backtaxes, and to officially surrender their tax exempt status. Reagan, who first hoped to let this case go by the wayside and leave the University with it's tax-exempt status intact, quickly reversed after much political pressure, and the Evangelicals not only felt betrayed by a candidate that pandered to them, but they also thought it necessary to increase their political influence in order to stop (what they felt) was the rampant politicking against their church and it's way of life. Now, we can't characterize all Evangelicals as racists, but rational people wouldn't have a hard time agreeing the support of segregated education was absolutely racist, and the Supreme Court ruled correctly.

This was the snowball that lead to the avalanche for Evangelicals; and since then the crushing weight of their voting force has been felt in the Republican party. The evidence is the heavy Southern Evangelical popularity for Huckabee, whose background and genuine support of the Evangelical right is the only leg he can stand on in this race, where McCain is all but a cert.

Why do we have to be co concerned with our political figures and their religious affiliation? Although this blog doesn't like Romney, his downfall was primarily religion--and it's not fair. When Romney's father ran for office in Michigan, his religion wasn't mentioned at all by the press or the voters. Why are we so diametric? Even the democratic candidates have to give the obligatory "I'm a highly spiritual person" nod. And what's with Bush saying that his favorite philosopher is Jesus? (this question is borrowed from an NPR piece) -- But why didn't anyone remind Bush that Jesus' philosophy was one of pacifism, and love for your enemies?

That is why everyone is walking around all frustrated. Some, if not most of the framers of the consititution were probably as bigoted and psycho-religious as some sections of our society still are -- but at least they knew how to separate all these aspects out into managable bits. Now, we might have paper thin mac books and airplanes, but sometimes it feels like those guys (yes, unfortunately all guys) in the 1700s had a bit more political perspective. Or at least the ability to compartmentalize.

Let's let John do the talking.

This gets excellent around minute two.





25 years and counting.

and the winner is............find out after the break.....................

So the super duper Tuesday is over, as long as you don't count the states and congressional districts that don't have their vote-counting acts together. Despite the well-intentioned, but ultimately overly optimistic hopes for an inspirational victory for somebody in the Democratic party, the only real surprise was Huckabee's capture of a few Southern states, taking even more air out of Romney's already slashed and deflated campaign tires. For two democratic candidates so obsessed with bringing about change, it would make sense that many are a little disappointed that no change has really resulted from a twenty-two state primary day. And all the media hype didn't help either. Many, this blogger included, admit to being in raptures of delight at the prospect of Super Tuesday (I believe there were illusions to Christmas Eve made?). But going in, we knew that this would probably be a wash - it seems like both candidates, Obama and Clinton, do just enough to either stay in contention, or stay out of the definite lead. Clinton got NJ, NY and CA, keeping her delegate count up, but Obama pulled out a CT win, shaking the Clinton campaign up a bit. And the problem (or good thing) with the Democratic primaries is that many of them are not "winner take all" states, like many of the Republican primaries - so delegates are split, and when races are as close as they were yesterday, it means that most splits were pretty even, so the winner of a state might still end up with the same amount of delegates as the person who came in second.

The other problem with Tuesday was that no matter where you turned, NY news stations and public broadcasting media of all sorts were reporting the primaries, even before there were results to officially report. There were three-hour specials on cable and non-cable channels, and radio stations and news websites were aglow with fancy (or at the other side of the spectrum, incredibly low-tech) icons and graphics to try and make people understand the votes, or become incredibly confused. While reporting of yesterday's primaries was vital, it was overdone. And similar to Giuliani's campaign advisers reporting his popularity, media execs reports of the public’s true enthusiasm for Tuesday were widely exaggerated.

This brings up another slightly disturbing trend within the political campaigning and media coverage community. Let's call it the "popularization of politics." Let's preamble this by first qualifying that politics should be open and understandable to all people. But now, politics is being increasingly absorbed into the media's pop culture juggernaut, in a push to popularize politics with an appeal none-too-different from that of rag mags (a.k.a. tabloids). Politics is not being reported as it is - it is now being morphed into some popularized game where the people vote off candidates as if it was a game of Survivor or Project Runway. This type of reality television atmosphere is dispiriting to the intellectually-savvy political follower, quite frankly. You disagree this is happening in the mainstream, well-established media? Well, one look at the coverage on MSNBC, and in the middle of a serious news story on the GOP turnout, here is the poll that breaks between paragraph text: "Vote: Super Tuesday's biggest loser?" To some, that might seem innocuous enough, but anyone with faint knowledge of the Tuesday-night NBC line up would recognize that unclever illusion to NBC's show, which features obese people publicly humiliated on scales while the audience watches, in inappropriate mystification.

Super Tuesday, to the networks, was another way to use the best-known reality television hook- the extended pause before the big reveal. We've seen it on American Idol, Deal or No Deal, Dancing with the Stars, etc. The shtick is often framed like this: ".....well, and the winner is.............. [Or let's open the case, or etc.] .....................we'll find out, after the break!" which is followed by a strangely harmonious audience grown and cries of well-intentioned outrage. As much as the respective hosts like to play with their power to conceal and reveal results, the audience takes a semi-masochistic pleasure in being denied the information until after they are shown a few ads about erectile dysfunction or feminine itch cream. The networks broadcasting the Tuesday primary results were in their glory because they didn't even have to manufacture the result withholding - it was all done for them by slow counting states and three different time zones. And for the Democratic results, we're still watching the commercials, and probably will be right up until the Convention. The writer's strike has made it easy to take the reality of political campaigns, and turn it into reality television which, anyone can assure you, is farther from actual reality than Bush's promises of peace between Israel and Arabs, or Ann Coulter's promise to endorse Clinton should McCain become the GOP nominee. Think about it - you've got the crazy contestant with possible drug abuse issues (Kucinich), the guy too old to be the evangelist virgin that he is (Huckabee), the rebel who says the weirdest things but still makes sense to you (Paul), the controlling bitch with a heart of gold (Clinton), the token black guy who overcomes his token status (Obama) and the old cranky spitfire (McCain). Could you imagine them all in the surreal political life? As McCain might start with, "my friends,"-- the longer the production execs hold out against the writers, the more we're in for an interesting, and almost completely media-generated, political narrative. Start your office pools now.

FISHy Business

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/

This post by Stanley Fish reinforces the comments made about blatant Clinton-hating. Especially of interest is the Horowitz quote: “She is,” Horowitz concludes, “an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest.”
"empty vessel"? sounds like: chalice, womb, inverted penis?
How much more blatantly sexist imagery/language can one use? Although not everything in this article is spot-on, it does uncover the unfair posturing of anti-Clinton camps verses other anti-candidate groups. Because of a differing anatomy, the hate-spin has allowed itself to morph into a whole different, and openly sinister, animal.
Of course, the funniest aspect is that an "empty vessel" sounds like holy grail iconography... does this mean that Clinton is the Holy Grail, according to Republican pundits? I doubt they foresaw that scenario.