Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMitt Romney is asked a question about the ground-breaking Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and responds: "I'm not familiar with the act."
Clearly the guy asking the question is an asshole MRA who is trying to get Mitt Romney to say that VAWA is flawed, but it's still pretty fucking terrifying that Romney has never heard of the Act that provides for $3.9 billion in funding to help survivors of intimate partner violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. I'm also not quite sure why anyone, even Romney, would feel the need to pander to someone who obviously thinks that women have gotten too uppity with the whole not-wanting-to-be-hit thing.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Hey, It's great to see your posts here Jessica.
Gotta love a little well-aimed fire from the feminine side ;-)
And it's nice to get in a little word edgewise before the 400 post avalanche that is inevitable on a feminist blog at The Nation :-)
Especially one that gets regularly referred to as........
I'm not goin' there.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 1:20pm
Slow day at The Nation I guess.....where's the troglodytes at?
Off the topic slightly, but my girlfriend who refused to buy my assertion that Hillary's misty-eyed moment was an act of performance art, now agrees with that idea after having just watched Amy Goodman's guest on Democracy Now do a surgical dissection of the footage.
Thank you, God!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 1:47pm
lol anyone watch the video?? that was painful...poor guy can't even pose a question without stuttering and floundering. Its probably all our fault, you know, because all the white males in our schools are being neglected and ignored.
Posted by jro555 at 01/09/2008 @ 1:50pm
I'm not a sexist so I prefer a violence against all people act.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/09/2008 @ 2:06pm
"anyone, even Romney, would feel the need to pander to someone who obviously thinks that women have gotten too uppity with the whole not-wanting-to-be-hit thing."
Ms Valenti if..."I'm not familiar with the act" was the sum total of Romney's response,
isn't it rather a LOT to read into his IGNORANCE that he "obviously thinks that women have gotten too uppity with the whole not-wanting-to-be-hit thing"??!?!??
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 2:11pm
I'M NOBODY: It protects men, too. You're not familiar with it either, I guess.
Posted by craney808 at 01/09/2008 @ 2:15pm
Camille Paglia -- 'Vamps and Tramps' -- 1994
'...The area where contemporary feminism has suffered the most self-inflicted damage is rape. What began as a useful sensitization of police officer, prosecutors, and judges to the claims of authentic rape victims turned into a hallucinatory over extension of the definition of rape to cover every unpleasant or embarrassing sexual encounter. Rape became the crime of crimes, overshadowing all the wars, massacres, and disasters of world history. The feminist obsession with rape as a symbol of male-female relations is irrational and delusional. From the perspective of the future, this period in America will look like a reign of mass psychosis, like that of the Salem witch trials....'
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 01/09/2008 @ 2:20pm
Like Mask has alluded to, it seems clear that Jessica's response is hugely unwarranted. Overlooking for the moment her assumptions as to the questioner's motivation, she reads into Romney's response far more than one could possibly justify. Look, there are a number of laws passed by federal, state and local legislatures that aim to address significant issues within society. Even if a candidate could be expected to know the basic goals of each and every one of them, it is unreasonable to draw negative conclusions from their unfamiliarity with the specifics of a particular law. Since that's precisely what the questioner in this case seemed to be asking about, Romney's response was entirely reasonable.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/09/2008 @ 2:21pm
craney-You are correct.I am not familiar with any law called violence against all people act,but wish they would have come up with one.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/09/2008 @ 2:24pm
isn't it rather a LOT to read into his IGNORANCE that he "obviously thinks that women have gotten too uppity with the whole not-wanting-to-be-hit thing"??!?!??
Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person
read it again more carefully. it's Romney that is ignorant, it's his questioner that is accused of having an agenda.
see, you're just not THAT smart, are you?
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 2:25pm
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 2:25pm ::: Zinger!
Posted by jro555 at 01/09/2008 @ 2:41pm
Jessica- I don't know much about the VAWA-it sounds like a good law to me. However, are you implying that all men's rights activists are, by definition, "assholes"? For instance: if a group were to set up a legal defense fund for males (or females) who are accused of rape/sexual assault but who cannot afford a good lawyer, would this necessarily be an evil thing given the admittedly rare situation of the "Duke Lacrosse team" incident (keep in mind that these men came from fairly privileged backgrounds, and were able to hire good lawyers and eventually get acquitted)? Or a group that assists men in custody disputes, especially in cases where the mother is physically or emotionally abusive (this is also rare, but does in fact occur)? Or a group that argues merely for equal custody of children in divorces that do not involve abuse or adultery? Do these positions automatically make someone an unreasonable, hateful, or misogynistic "asshole"?
Posted by Dan Farnkoff at 01/09/2008 @ 2:48pm
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 2:25pm
Okay BRAN...here it is again...
"I'm also not quite sure why anyone,even Romney, would feel the need to pander to someone who obviously thinks that women have gotten too uppity with the whole not-wanting-to-be-hit thing."
What does the prepositional phrase "even Romney" mean? If not that the author is including Romney in the sentence as a subject of "people who obviously thinks that women have gotten too uppity with the whole not-wanting-to-be-hit thing"?
If there is some other "translation" of the grammer, please explain it?
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 3:07pm
....where's the troglodytes at?
~Ask and ye shall receive ;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 3:10pm
mask, what romney is guilty of, according to the sentence, is pandering to....not agreeing with.
Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2008 @ 3:10pm
The more little Jessica posts here, the more it seems apparent that she is suffering from a bad case of "daddy rejection".
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/09/2008 @ 2:58pm | ignore this person
Uh-oh. Now you've gone and done it LL. This ought to get interesting. By the way, have you had your flu shot yet? (snicker)
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/09/2008 @ 3:11pm
Posted by Mask 01/09/2008 @ 3:07pm
Give it up, Maskot. Your powers of misinterpretation and incomprehension are legendary in these Nation threads.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 3:14pm
"I'm also not quite sure why anyone,even Romney, would feel the need to pander
this is a complete sentence. wriggle all you like.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 3:14pm
The more little Jessica posts here, the more it seems apparent that she is suffering from a bad case of "daddy rejection".
long live patriarchy.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 3:15pm
Posted by DAN FARNKOFF 01/09/2008 @ 2:48pm | ignore this person
you are ignoring the 800 pound elephant in the room: women are the victims of violence like no other members of society, with children not far behind.
are some men victimized in some way? yes. is that what we're talking about? no.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 3:19pm
bkool66, when i saw that clinton cried, the first thing in my mind was, "oh, they told her now's the time to cry." i still highly suspect that every move these people make is staged, including clinton. what i watch for when i see them is anything that seems to me to be sincere and genuine.
when i saw edwards answer the reporter's questions directly after clinton's huge emotional breakdown, i was furious at edwards. he was such a gentleman in his condescension. he sat right back into the comfort of "see: women emotional, men rational." misogynists love this old gem. if they were cats, they'd roll in it. i have had this thrown in my face lots of times. and i bet lots of other women have too. edwards seemed authentic in this persona. typical southern white guy with a nice veneer covering an insidious superiority complex.
reagan cried all the time. bush sr. cried and cries a lot. lil is on some other nation thread saying hillary's welled eyes prove she can't deal with pakistan. you just never heard things like that when all these male politicians cried.
women have reason and emotion. men have reason and emotion. i'm sick of knuckledraggers using this old husband's tale as a stick against women or as a way to preen themselves!
on topic: domestic violence is a true problem her in the u.s. the vawa act is a necessary tool. it is a statement about our culture that we took so long to address this issue.
Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2008 @ 3:25pm
Romney, from what I've seen, is a cheap, hypocritical guy. "Golly, that judge should step down for letting Tavarez out of jail" was his position with regard to a released murderer who killed two people. A few weeks later teh Globe reported that it was actually the responsibility of Romney's own appointees at the Corrections department to extend the man's sentence due to offenses committed in prison. And Mitt's characterization of his sons' notable (and certainly understandable) lack of interest in military service, despite their support for the Iraq war, as "helping the country by helping with dad's campaign" was priceless.
Posted by Dan Farnkoff at 01/09/2008 @ 3:27pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/09/2008 @ 3:14pm
Okay, take the GENEROUS "misinterpretation" of it, B_KOOL....
IF the sum total of Romney's response (only one noted by Ms Valenti) was "I'm not familiar with the act"...
how is that "pandering" to said lout?
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 3:29pm
knowledge of obscure legislation.
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/09/2008 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person
obscure to you. that's because as a man you are far less likely to have violence committed against you.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 3:30pm
FREIHEIT
stick to telling us how attractive she is and how you'd like to look up her skirt, that's more your speed.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 3:34pm
Posted by MASK 01/09/2008 @ 3:29pm:: that's probably why she included the video clip.
Posted by jro555 at 01/09/2008 @ 3:37pm
Let's try a hypothetical example...
"BARACK OBAMA is asked a question about the ground-breaking Matthew Shepard Act (offically, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 or LLEHCPA, HR 1592)and responds: "I'm not familiar with the act."
Clearly the guy asking the question is an asshole homophobe who is trying to get Obama to say that MSA is flawed, but it's still pretty fucking terrifying that Obama has never heard of the Act that provides for the removal the current prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity, like voting or going to school; give federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue; provide $10 million in funding for 2008 and 2009 to help State and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes; require the FBI to track statistics on hate crimes against transgender people (statistics for the other groups are already tracked).
I'm also not quite sure why anyone, even Obama, would feel the need to pander to someone who obviously thinks that gays need to be killed.
Would that be fair, if Obama's response were the same as Romney's?
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 3:40pm
C'mon, B, without dissent would this blog be half as much fun?! You like the banter.
~Freiheit @ 3:14pm
You are correct, sir.
I do indeed "like the banter" when the banter is brought with some wit, intelligence and insight.
Of the somewhat nebulous list of troglodytes on my mental list here at The Nation, you are one for whom I have a reasonable degree of respect, Freiheit.
Take that however you like, but I value your postcards from the edge ;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 3:42pm
Loveloki on John Edwards:
typical southern white guy with a nice veneer covering an insidious superiority complex.
women have reason and emotion. men have reason and emotion. i'm sick of knuckledraggers using this old husband's tale as a stick against women or as a way to preen themselves!
b kool respond:
Me no likey knuckledraggers neither. But me thinky John Edwards, he not so "insidious" --what that mean?-- as you thinky, Loveloki.
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 3:48pm
I was out killing a brontosaurus for lunch....
~Freiheit
Nicely done. Now don't tell me you think evolution is bunk, and that Adam and Eve walked with the dinosaurs ;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 3:51pm
bkool66, i enjoy your posts. all of them. always have. i have no doubt you are not a knuckledragger. it was the pernicious edwards i was talking about....and many other southern "gentlemen" i have met. at least with northern creeps, you can see it coming from a mile away. that is what i meant by insidious. southern creeps, with their chivalrous manners and zombie-like smiles, are more likely to be insidious and pernicious.--at least in my experience. i was seriously considering voting for edwards. now i will not.
obama, on the other hand, would at least know how it felt to have that kind of crap directed at him. so i'm left with two "players" in the big show.
Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/09/2008 @ 3:52pm | ignore this person
and global warming is a conspiracy.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 3:57pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/09/2008 @ 3:56pm
LOKI, start carrying a can "fool-begone" and all your problems will disappear... ;-)
Posted by ACook at 01/09/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by ACOOK 01/09/2008 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person
is there one that works on this blog? obviously not.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 4:06pm
acook, yes, it is exactly what i need. i'm going to have to conjure one up!
:)
Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2008 @ 4:08pm
Surely we can agree on that?
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/09/2008 @ 4:07pm | ignore this person
certainly not.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 4:17pm
it was the pernicious edwards i was talking about
~LoveLoki
I appreciate your critique of "the palyers", but in regards to John Edwards I have to stand up for the man.
He isn't anything like the "stereotypical southern gentleman" --itself a dangerous stereotype-- for one thing. I see him as the individual that he is --and that we would hope others would see ourselves as. All of my kidding about troglodytes aside, I think it's always a bit dangerous to stuff anyone into a pigeonhole without being very cognizant of individual idiosyncrasies and differences.
But, I know, it's virtually impossible to avoid some degree of stereotyping. It's the brain's shorthand method of categorizing on the fly.
I just happen to believe that John Edwards is much more worthy of praise than castigation. The guy is a heartfelt and explicit communicator you gotta admit, don't you LoveLoki?
P.S. Any particular significance to the handle, "LoveLoki". The troublemaker of love perhaps?
And please take the time to watch at least 10 minutes of the Charlie Rose interview footage I've linked to --it's completely worth the time I believe.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 4:22pm
So, Brannigan, you are saying that the oil companies are not conspiring at all against man caused global warming allegations? I thought you would consider that...
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/09/2008 @ 4:21pm | ignore this person
they need not conspire. it is obviously in their interest to deny, much as the tobacco companies did. in your beloved laissez faire universe they would still do so.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 4:25pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/09/2008 @ 3:52pm
At least someone is treating this post with the seriousness it deserves.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 4:25pm
Dyslexic fingers typo above: I meant "the players" not "the palyers" of course.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 4:27pm
The guy is a heartfelt and explicit communicator you gotta admit, don't you LoveLoki?----Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/09/2008 @ 4:22pm
Would you call him a "Great Communicator", B_KOOL?
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 4:41pm
bkool66, i saw the video link you posted. it was one of the reasons i was considering voting for him.
i know there are lots of wonderful white men who come out of the south. i already explained why i have some prejudice against them in general. southern culture creeps me out in lots of ways.
i already stated the reason i will not vote for edwards. it is edwards' convenient and comfortable use of an old stereotype that lost my vote. i stated this here and also on ms. pollit's thread on the subject.
when i first signed up to post here, i signed up as loki--but as a non-subscriber. so i had to pick a new name when i signed up as a subscriber. the posters who have been around for awhile know that. this is why they call me loki. i like the god loki. but i also had a pet wolf named loki. and i loved him. so there you have it.
:)
Posted by loveloki at 01/09/2008 @ 4:47pm
Would you call him a "Great Communicator", b kool?
~Maskot @ 4:41pm
I would venture to call John Edwards a great communicator if, indeed, communication was actually occurring.
Unfortunately, communication begins with a good listener and the American people have had their ears stuffed with the wax of a decades-long blitzkrieg of propaganda.
Thus, Ronald Reagan is the labeled as the legendary "Great Communicator", when he could have more accurately been labeled, "The Great Confabulator" of a mythical America.
Flattery is always so damn irresistible isn't it?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 4:54pm
Posted by LOVELOKI @ 4:47pm
Thanks for the clarifying post on your views of Edwards, and your name, "Troublemaker" ;-)
As much as I believe so fervently in John Edwards's message as the best progressive populist agenda with a chance to win the presidency in very, very long time, I am a realist and a pragmatist as well.
I'll grant him his chance to compete in South Carolina as a last chance to revive his fortunes --and ours--, but unless he wins outright there, he'd better concede and give his full backing of the Barack Obama campaign.
Otherwise we'll all be facing the possibility of real troublemaker in the White House --HateHillary ;-)
P.S. The comments above are strictly the opinions of one sometimes misguided individual and are expressly intended for mental stimulation and intellectual enjoyment --no attempt has been made at "meanspiritedness".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 5:06pm
Nope...never have and never will.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/09/2008 @ 5:17pm | ignore this person
Sorry LL, couldn't resist. I know you got asked that a couple of times yesterday.
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/09/2008 @ 5:24pm
Sorry LL, couldn't resist. I know you got asked that a couple of times yesterday.
~Fritz the Cat @ 5:24pm
Funny, I wasn't sure what the flu shot reference was about.
I was thinkin' maybe it was some sort of code for, "Have you been innoculated against insanity yet?"
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 5:28pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/09/2008 @ 5:28pm
"I was thinkin' maybe it was some sort of code for, "Have you been innoculated against insanity yet?"
Probably the best way to do that would be to read your posts.
ps. As a disinterested party I think Edwards has about the sleaziest face, when giving his spiel, of any politician I've yet seen. That probably hasn't helped his chances. Probably limits his job opportunities to lawyer, senator or used car salesman.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 5:49pm
VALENTI: ....the guy asking the question is an asshole MRA who is trying to get Mitt Romney to say that VAWA is flawed, but it's still pretty fucking terrifying that Romney has never heard of the Act....
Congratulations to Ms. Jessica.....for finally breaking through The Nation's fucking `barrier' for foul mouthing!!
Reminds me when Playboy first allowed pubic hairs for its centerfolds and when Penthouse took it another step (wider) and Hustler outdid them both!
Guess you're ok after all, just one of us boys with a c**t rather than a d**k!
Posted by Happy at 01/09/2008 @ 6:04pm
Probably limits his job opportunities to lawyer, senator or used car salesman.
Posted by LRJONES4 01/09/2008 @ 5:49pm | ignore this person
c'mon, the guy was a huge success as a lawyer.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 6:10pm
As a disinterested party I think Edwards has about the sleaziest face, when giving his spiel, of any politician I've yet seen.
~The Aussie
Yo mate!
I coulda been an Aussie myself. My northern European parents had the list of destinations down to the states vs down unda', but sadly I've been deprived of the cool accent. Oh well.
Not sure about yer judgment though, mate. If you think Edwards is the sleaziest you've seen, you've apparently been livin' in the outback a bit too long.
But the idea is a bit fascinatin' ain't it? How in the hell do we actually decide who we can trust?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 6:15pm
Congratulations to Ms. Jessica.....for finally breaking through The Nation's fucking `barrier' for foul mouthing!!
Reminds me when Playboy first allowed pubic hairs for its centerfolds and when Penthouse took it another step (wider) and Hustler outdid them both!
~"Happy"
Good insights Hapless, but isn't foul language hot?!
I mean seriously, dude. You're the one who was telling your starry-eyed stories the other day about wishing you could have joined the military and seen some action during the Vietnam War.
I wish you'd fulfilled your dreams. You could have gotten your fill of "foul language" and killed some gooks to boot.
What a hoot!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 6:21pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/09/2008 @ 6:04pm
I hope you are not suggesting that Ms V is a foul mouthed b, sorry forgot, almost thought I was a feminist.... for a fleeting moment.
Anyway 500 is the target isn't it? Can't say we aren't helping can she?
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 6:27pm
c'mon, the guy was a huge success as a lawyer.
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 6:10pm
Come on fess up Brannigan you are a sheila aren't you? OK, Ok you do your thinking standing on your head then?
For your benefit we will, once again, start at the bottom of the pile, which in your case seems very appropriate: x;journalists. y;used car salesmen. z;lawyers.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 6:34pm
almost thought I was a feminist....
Posted by LRJONES4 01/09/2008 @ 6:27pm
500 is it? Allright!
We are all good feminsts...not standing in the way of so many women wanting to nakedly exercise their First Amendment Rights.....hat off to that biggest Feminist hero, Larry Flynt who took their Rights all the way up to the Supreme Court (I think).
Think it was ?you? that posted some long article from a ?sheila? who painstakingly listed all the Feminist sub-groups who have been instrumental in liberating Western women......now, it has spread into Eastern Europe and Russia......amazing what's on the net today! China is still trying to fight it by banning `naked' expressions....we gotta sent in Gloria Steinam and Jessica!
Posted by Happy at 01/09/2008 @ 6:45pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/09/2008 @ 6:45pm
Amen sis... whoops..I mean bruvva.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 6:49pm
Unfortunately, communication begins with a good listener and the American people have had their ears stuffed with the wax of a decades-long blitzkrieg of propaganda.-----Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/09/2008 @ 4:54pm |
"Blame the people", B_KOOL? That's the last and LAMEST excuse.
Posted by Mask at 01/09/2008 @ 7:07pm
This guy is divorcing his Feminist wife over her job! What a Neanderthal!
Polish Man Finds Wife Working in Brothel
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
WARSAW -- A Polish man visiting a brothel was surprised to find his wife working there, Reuters reported.
The woman, who had told her husband she had been working at a store in town to make extra money, Reuters reported.
"I was dumfounded. I thought I was dreaming," the husband told the Polish tabloid Super Express on Wednesday.
The couple reportedly are getting a divorce.
Posted by Happy at 01/09/2008 @ 7:26pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/09/2008 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person
cool accent yes, but nothing between the ears.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 7:35pm
in what context was Edwards "successful" as a lawyer?!
he won a lot of cases and became rich. that's what the jerks constantly excoriate him for. how do you spell success?
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 7:38pm
friehiet, an absence of conscience.
yeah right, he defended the defenseless against corporations who wronged them. you are an ass.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 7:41pm
By LESLIE WAYNE, NYTIMES Published: August 9, 2007 When he ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, John Edwards, who had gained fame as one of the nation's most successful trial lawyers, was the darling of many in the legal community, which opened its checkbooks and poured money into his campaign.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 7:54pm
But the idea is a bit fascinatin' ain't it? How in the hell do we actually decide who we can trust?
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/09/2008 @ 6:15pm
I suppose seeing that you keep choosing actors for the highest office in the land, the facial expressions and body language are very important to your average American voter. Chimp likeness obviously is OK but sleazy looking?
As well as having the bush telegraph and carrier pigeons some Aussies at least know someone, who knows someone who has heard about the telly so, as they say in the movies, Edwards can run but he can't hide his face.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 7:56pm
I suppose seeing that you keep choosing actors for the highest office in the land,
only one, only one, and he was a saint, a saint I tell you.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 8:02pm
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 8:02pm
Every one that we have been able to observe, including the current crop of hopefuls. Some hams, granted, but all actors.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 8:18pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/09/2008 @ 6:04pm
I'll not comment on your post. Curious though, do you think c**t or d**k reads better than cunt or dick? If you are going to use expletives, doesn't it defeat the whole point to water them down with astericks?
Posted by srjenkins at 01/09/2008 @ 8:30pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/09/2008 @ 8:30pm
So that's how you get your jollies SR. Thank you again Happy for your consideration of our male sensitivities.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 8:44pm
Jessica Valenti,
While I love a discussion on feminism as much as the next person, playing gotcha because ole Mitt doesn't know about an Act that actually was passed as part of a larger omnibus bill Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Title IV) and reauthorized twice - all three times when Mitt wasn't in the legislative body passing it - is a bit unfair.
Quick, can you tell me what you know of the PROTECT Act of 2003? McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1986? Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005? All of these are major legislation. Am I to conclude that because you don't know anything about them that you don't care about child abuse, homeless people or mass transit?
Sexism is a problem and it is a topic worthy of exploration. However, doing it in this way, can only be described as stupid. I doubt, that even a significant percentage of your readership, can name the important details of this act - without consulting Wikipedia or doing a web search. So Mitt can't either, so what?
Further, the first iteration of this particular bill had no provisions for men, what does this say about societial discrimination against men? What does this say about your own biases?
If you want to troll, go ahead and do your thing - but you actually have an opportunity to contribute and engage people with constructive dialogue, and right now, you are failing to do so. This kind of discussion is only more likely to turn people away from feminism in the same way a terrible preacher will turn people from God. Do your part.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/09/2008 @ 8:58pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/09/2008 @ 7:26pm
Speaking of brothels (parlours) Happy here's what can happen when a nice Aussie man meets a violent Aussie feminist:
Group: Punter Posts: 176 Joined: 23rd August 05 Member No.: 7,698 State: Victoria
i had a dangerous experience once with a street walker in st kilda and i wasnt even planning to go punting. SW arent really my scene.
i had a very late night out in st kila was walking to my car and came across a wl literally struggling to stand up on the footpath (one of those side streets off Grey St). she looked extremely drunk but talking to her she had also been given some unknow drugs by her previous punter. she was going mental about being robbed by the punter who had just dropped her off because she had lost her money and therefore couldnt get home.
then another wl came over and helped calm her down and i was about to leave but then the other wl got a phone call booking and said she had to go. so the girl went mental again and says she just needs to get home. so i stupidly offer to drive her home which i then find out is Dandenong - Doh! so then i am like how do i get out of this.... and she say like i will give you a BJ if you take me to Dandenong and so little 2-Bob thinks why not. so i take her to my car, getting her into the car i realize how bad a state she is in and think probably dont even want a bj from her anyhow.
i literally basically lift her into the passenger seat (realizing she not wearing any underwear at all - lol). anyhow once she was in the car she just passes out asleep. so about Moorabbin or somewhere she suddenly wakes up, dosnt know who i am, looks in her bag cant find her money and just goes mental, nearly making me crash my car so i pull over. then she starts demanding money and making threats which in her condition and size vs large 6' 4" guy were pretty meaningless, then she says she is going to call the cops because she thinks i robbed her. So i say if she wants i will drive her to the cop shop which just makes he lose it, so i got back in the car and drove off and left her there.
so much for mr good samaritan....
stick to the parlours i say....
2-Bob
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 9:04pm
but all actors.
Posted by LRJONES4 01/09/2008 @ 8:18pm | ignore this person
again misuse of words. they could like actors, but they are not actors.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 9:06pm
......you actually have an opportunity to contribute and engage people with constructive dialogue, and right now, you are failing to do so. This kind of discussion is only more likely to turn people away from feminism in the same way a terrible preacher will turn people from God. Do your part.
~SR Jenkins @ 8:58pm
A fair admonishment I think, SR.
Well done, dude.
--But I have to admit that I enjoy a few refreshing fireballs from time to time. Especially when they're aimed at characters --like Mitt-- that I find, frankly, disturbing.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 9:14pm
they could be like actors...
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 9:14pm
Posted by Jones the Aussie @ 9:04pm
Not quite sure what your point is here?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 9:20pm
cool accent yes, but nothing between the ears.
Brannigan @ 7:35pm
I'm wonderin' about that, Brannigan. I've not closely read much of Jones's stuff before because it's usually conversational small talk as far as I've noticed.
He sounds at least a fair bit crass though, with that "whores outside the parlour comment" he just posted. What the hell the point was there, I have no idea --except to sound thick perhaps.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/09/2008 @ 9:31pm
Perhaps our leftist friends can come up with a state that does allow violence against any individual as legal?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/09/2008 @ 2:58pm
well, the u.s. attacked iraq...........................
that sure flattened a lot of individuals............
but wait, that was illegal.
oh well............................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/09/2008 @ 9:45pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/09/2008 @ 2:58pm
it was not so long ago that domestic violence was considered a private matter by the cops, no matter what the laws were. same with blacks and gays.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 9:55pm
(Grumble)....fuck...Shit......Now that I have your attention, I guess that makes me one of the blogosphere's most incisive bloggers...(heh,heh)....
Now, lets have some more examples of profound profanity...... entertaining, yes...informative, well, no, not really....but, blogging doesn't have to be all business, now does it?
Posted by davebarlett at 01/09/2008 @ 10:04pm
Not quite sure what your point is here?
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/09/2008 @ 9:20pm
Perhaps in a subliminal and less preachy way to show that feminism (and you should be aware that there are feminists who applaud the idea of decriminalization of prostitution), as yet hasn't come up with answers that are better or even as good as the older religious solutions .
This happened in a city and state where it was claimed, prior to the passing of legislation, that legalizing prostitution would eliminate street prostitution. Illegal street prostitution has in fact greatly increased since the industry was decriminalized and regulated.
It wasn't posted for your titillation but hopefully without having to be too didactic about it, to show intelligent people who can draw reasonable conclusions, that this is another area where feminists come up with the wrong or no answer.
It should not take too much intimate knowledge of the sex industry to see how this radical change in the approach to the "oldest profession" has impacted on violence against women and further disrespect, particularly from men who use these services, for women generally.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 10:08pm
stick to the parlours i say....2-Bob
Posted by LRJONES4 01/09/2008 @ 9:04pm
LOL! For some reason, 2-Bob reminds of Forrest Gomp...."My momma always told me, life is like a box of chocolate, you never know what's in it!"
IF HRC wins the WH, wonder if we can finally get brothels/parlours legalized in these Americas.......so we can `chocolates' everywhere....high-priced, nicely packaged in Godiva wears and budget types in Hershey wraps :-)
Posted by Happy at 01/09/2008 @ 10:11pm
do you think c**t or d**k reads better than cunt or dick?
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/09/2008 @ 8:30pm
I always liked the soft porn better.....leave more to ones' imaginations.....those Feminist pioneers were Goddesses to us Boomers. The in-you-face-pink First Amend. expressions of today just aren't very, hmmmmmm..., `romantic' :-)
Posted by Happy at 01/09/2008 @ 10:24pm
they could be like actors...
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/09/2008 @ 9:14pm
Well you finally got there Brannigan,. I take it English is not your first language?
Actor can mean playing a part as in theatre. Or it can mean working on behalf of another. eg ex-Senator Edwards is acting on behalf of his client in this court case. Or it can mean just being involved eg. Australia is one of the actors in the Iraq war.
I meant the first use and it is good to see that though a bit slow on the uptake you did get there eventually.
I'm not so much interested in your education as seeing MsV get the record. We Aussies will bet on anything.
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/09/2008 @ 10:28pm
Nice job, Nation!
They invite a feminist to be a guest blogger on their site and then pepper her threads with ads from Maxim.
To add insult to irony, they also accepted ads from www.chnlove.com, China's premiere online dating and marriage website! Ol' JV must be crying in her feministing boob shirt.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Posted by usc1 at 01/09/2008 @ 10:29pm
This kind of discussion is only more likely to turn people away from feminism in the same way a terrible preacher will turn people from God. Do your part.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/09/2008 @ 8:58pm
That was excellent....wish I could write like that! Great summation/follow-up on MASK, FREIH & THRAWN who jumped on her right out the gate!
Posted by Happy at 01/09/2008 @ 10:34pm
Posted by LRJONES4 01/09/2008 @ 10:28pm | ignore this perso
you are a twit.
Posted by brannigan at 01/09/2008 @ 11:06pm
RIO, this is from her bio:
Jessica Valenti, the founding editor of feministing.com, is a 29 year-old feminist writer from New York. She has a Masters degree in Women's and Gender Studies from Rutgers University....
Wonder what kind of course subjects goes into "Women's and Gender Studies"??!!
One could be: All-Out Assault After Any Man Respond with "I'm not familiar with xyz" for Dummies (of course).....hehehehe!
Posted by Happy at 01/09/2008 @ 11:56pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/09/2008 @ 10:11pm
Yeah the ones from the working girl's would really crack you up but I've noticed most Lefties are closet Puritans (who use rude words) so I don't want to corrupt them.
I wasn't always an "expert" on Working Ladies (that is a typical Aussie overstatement name, like redheads are called "bluey") but it came about in an unusual way. My oldest, a male 27yo, helped a girl whose car had broken down on a country road about 4 years ago. They hit it off and established a friendship. She was about a year older than him. He had just finished a B Ag Science degree. She really was a bit of a stunner about 5'9" and about 125 lbs. First time I met her she decided to adopt me as her dad. (Got a text Christmas day just passed "My dad I love you....would you please lend me...") So she knew a sucker when she saw one. Her father had run off to live with some aboriginal women in Queensland and her stepfather had sexually assaulted her and her sister from about age 7.
Anyway they lived together and he really looked after her financially. Took her to Vegas for a holiday which cost him $40,000 but it turned out she was Bipolar; couldn't give up pot (except to go to America) and was at the end injecting amphetamines. He learned that she had been a prostitute since she was 18. In the end he had to get out of the relationship and she went back to prostitution. She has kept in touch with me for the 2 1/2 years since they split. My son was able to finish his masters in ag science last October. He lost a couple of years with this mad, crazy affair.
I took a bit of an interest in the industry because of her and still feel very sad about her. She wanted the good life and was as broken hearted as a prostitute can be over the split up. She said I've got everything any girl could want and more than I've ever had before but I'm not happy. A few times I've helped her get set up in a nice house but she keeps getting itchy feet and has to move on. Always it seems to ratchet her lower down in her living standards.
So my interest wasn't so much prurient as trying to discover the best ways of helping my "favourite daughter-in-law" (only one I've got so far but she seems to like it).
Posted by lrjones4 at 01/10/2008 @ 02:26am
Wonder what kind of course subjects goes into "Women's and Gender Studies"??!!
this clearly shows your intellectual limitations.
Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 08:49am
Is it that obvious to anyone else that the person asking the question to Romney did so knowing that neither Romney, Giuliani, nor Thompson are current members of the Legislative Branch? Would a State Governor have to be knowledgeable on all Federal legislation proposals to be considered for the Executive?? Schoolyard politics at best.
Has the Nation jumped the shark for putting forth someone so astute as to read something entirely different into this? I say publish her psychobabble DAILY. The American voters need to know what the activist intentions are really all about.
Congratulations!!
Posted by Sliver at 01/10/2008 @ 09:24am
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 09:45am
Poor JOMAMMA, so oppressed. Disdained for his whiteness, his masculinity and his conservative beliefs. It's so tough living the priviledged life.
Ever taken a class focused on gender studies? I've found them to be quite interesting and useful. Even small things such as the differences in the meaning between sex and gender can lead to interesting insights into seemingly unrelated topics, such as why homophobia and sexism frequently manifest together.
I've never worked for IBM either. Want to claim my graduate degree is useless as well?
Posted by srjenkins at 01/10/2008 @ 10:53am
"as does this link and article that points to Hillary and her disdain for masculinity, similar to JV."
Funny, I always thought she was accused of being TOO masculine.
Posted by jro555 at 01/10/2008 @ 10:55am
This kind of discussion is only more likely to turn people away from feminism in the same way a terrible preacher will turn people from God. Do your part.
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/09/2008 @ 8:58pm
I concur, excellent point.
Posted by brunowe at 01/10/2008 @ 10:57am
Whats so great about IBM anyway??
Posted by jro555 at 01/10/2008 @ 10:58am
I am sure to you it is a viable and necessary courses all should be forced to take in order to graduate from any school..and I am sure you do not work for IBM either.
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 08:56am | ignore this person
you're posting nonsense, again. no one is forced to take any course. and IBM? a disaster. they practically had a monopoly on computers and yet it was microsoft and Apple that made it happen. they used to all have to wear only white shirts.it was the long haired freeks who made the computer revolution.
you are so happy to cast aspersions on other people's jobs. and what are you? a peddler, nothing more
Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 12:33pm
Whats so great about IBM anyway??
Posted by JRO555 01/10/2008 @ 10:58am | ignore this person
indeed. they are the General Motors of the information age.
Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 12:34pm
you are so happy to cast aspersions on other people's jobs. and what are you? a peddler, nothing more
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/10/2008 @ 12:33pm
For someone who claims to be a recent (and often, I might add) poster, you seem to know alot of other posters life stories.
Care to share your previous Nick?? Or are you possibly Jessica herself...showing up to support same Jessica??
Posted by Sliver at 01/10/2008 @ 12:39pm
Posted by SLIVER 01/10/2008 @ 12:39pm | ignore this person
I made no such claim.
Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 1:05pm
"IBM is a symbol of the white collar technology world that tends to pay higher wages...regardless of those there who invented the technology...." - You could have at least gone with Apple... Apple is making a killing right now. IBM is old news... very old news.
Posted by jro555 at 01/10/2008 @ 1:39pm
Whew! Seems a feminist post is just about guaranteed to turn the comments section into a conservative roundtable.
Posted by Hman23 at 01/10/2008 @ 1:50pm
Posted by HMAN23 01/10/2008 @ 1:50pm
Without ZERO being around, you mean.
Posted by Mask at 01/10/2008 @ 2:30pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 12:35pm
My undergraduate degree was in philosophy, and I know also from real world experience that training in logic, ethics and other aspects of philosophy (such as writing papers) was at least as useful as the business courses I took in say, economics. In fact, I would say that people I have worked with who focused on business were frequently among the least capable - a narrow focus coupled with a narrow mind often comes before bad results.
I also love the whole faux attack on liberal education. I've never struggled to make a living wage. None of the people I know or have worked with who had liberal educations have had any trouble finding work. Being able to communicate, relate to other people, being curious about the world around you and problem solve, these are things every employer needs and you learn more of these skills in a course offering a critical look at the United States from a gender studies perspective than you do from taking an accounting course and learning the difference between a balance sheet and cash flow statement.
The most ironic part is that I, an undergraduate philosophy major, took the business courses too. How many business majors took logic so they could make a good argument for shipping American jobs overseas - and more importantly, inform their perspective beyond the next quarter? That, my friend, is what liberal education offers that a business or technical education cannot.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/10/2008 @ 2:52pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=srjenkins
very nice. wait there's more. an liberal arts education makes you a well rounded person, it informs all your choices, not only the professional ones.
Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 3:03pm
since craney has not shown up here, i guess i'll have to address some of the borderline mra sounding comments here.
domestic violence is a crime that most often occurs against women. some of you may truly believe men are being abused by their partners in numbers anywhere close to the opposite situation. this is really pretty ridiculous. it does happen. i have personally known of a few relationships where the man was being physically abused. this is no less sad than when it happens to a woman. and i highly doubt any domestic violence shelter in this country, even the ones that still have the womens' shelter title, would turn away a man who reached out for help.
with our culture's glorification of violence, women could embrace violence as a behavior and begin to exhibit the behavior as frequently as men. personally, i still have faith in women in general that they will not do that.
another way to know domestic violence is most prevalent against women is by looking at murder statistics. too many women i know have been murdered by their ex-partners while they had an active restraining order against their murderers. i live in a relatively small community of around 30,000. and yet i've lost a dear friend in this manner as well as two acquaintances in the past ten years.
will everyone please keep this in mind when you roll your eyes and say, "why doesn't she just leave him?" leaving him is a deadly undertaking.
the fact that everyone knows someone who has been in an abusive relationship is reason enough for romney to be aware of vawa.
Posted by loveloki at 01/10/2008 @ 3:08pm
the fact that everyone knows someone who has been in an abusive relationship is reason enough for romney to be aware of vawa.
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/10/2008 @ 3:08pm
Two responses here. First...no, no it isn't. The paradigm you're arguing from here is that if any issue is common, legislators and governors alike should be familiar with any federal, state or local legislation that aims to address it. This is obviously false, indicated both by the huge numbers of problems that affect large numbers of people, AND by the large quantities of legislation designed to address those problems. Second, even if you buy that Romney should have been aware of the VAWA, that doesn't justify Jessica's criticism here in the least. He didn't say that he wasn't aware of VAWA's existence, he said that he wasn't FAMILIAR with the Act. The question asked about a specific mechanism within the Act, so that when Romney answered, his answer can reasonably understood as "I don't know the specific details within the Act," not "I've never heard of this thing."
Jessica's criticism is blatantly unfair because it accuses a state governor of "pandering" merely because he did not the specific details of one particular legislative act of Congress.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/10/2008 @ 3:47pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 01/10/2008 @ 3:08pm
If men can be victims of domestic violence, then an act that does not include them is problematic, is it not? Does it not show some sort of bias for women?
Feminism is ultimately about men AND WOMEN giving up gender privilege to live in equality. But you don't get to equality by passing laws based on preferential treatment of women. It's not an attack on feminism, making this observation is affirming feminism - against those that would undercut feminism in favor of female privilege, which is as objectionable as male privilege.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/10/2008 @ 3:53pm
I've become a big fan of yours, Ms. Valenti, but picking on conservative female dolts last time out and now Romney for not knowing this law seems almost beneath you somehow. It's easy to pick the worst of the bunch or a moment of apparent ignorance of a candidate on the stump, and then attack with a broad brush. It's a little more difficult to take on the subtance of the issues themselves, not necesarily create the most obvious straw man (or woman) first, and still deliver the goods. I haven't been to your permanent blog, which I look forward to, but I trust you don't always pick on the easiest targets and then turn them into mashed potatoes, lightly spiced, for your feminist diet to digest, when there are just as many other delectable items on the menu which may simply need a more nuanced, or substantive, approach, and might be equally good for your palate. The assault on women in this country, as I'm sure you would agree, is an abomination and has been as long I, anyway, have been conscious of it. No doubt, in fact, much longer than that. I guess what I'm saying, however, is I'm not sure picking on Romney's ignorance of this particular law makes him an accessory to that assault. Maybe it does, but that's a thin thread you don't fully expound on. Maybe you know more than you're letting on; but maybe there are better ways of making the point.
Otherwise, thanks for another of your essays. I look forward to more.
Hope you're having a great day and a fine week.
Posted by Scrub at 01/10/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/10/2008 @ 3:53pm | ignore this person
this nonsense. because violence against women is overwhelmingly higher than the reverse, that we need special laws.
Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 4:09pm
for a wonderful men's activist, check out jackson katz.
Posted by loveloki at 01/10/2008 @ 4:15pm
Some interesting posts this afternoon --a welcome relief to some of the recent inanity on these fresh new Valenti threads.
One brief observation --I suspect that probably most Americans think of racism as the more pervasive, widespread and pernicious of the common and well characterized forms of discrimination.
After reading some of the staggeringly crass and viciously ignorant posts at these Jessica Valenti blog commentaries, perhaps we should all take a renewed look at the insidious nature of sexism.
Whatever the specific dynamics are that have led to such a cacophony of cathartic turpitude, I am thankful for the window into the filthy basements of some of the addled brains who frequent this joint.
To borrow a favorite book title from the 90's, we truly are living in the "stone age present". After 4 million years or so of humanoid evolution, to the first documented burstings of the modern mind in the form of cave paintings, to the last 10,000 years and its "birth of civilization", we are still just a stone's throw from a primeval past.
With the trials we now face in the form of global warming, general ecological decline and devastation, and nuclear nightmare scenarios we'll have to find a way to speed up evolution to something closer to light speed if we're going to survive.
Any way you spin it, it's certainly a fascinating time to be alive on planet Earth.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/10/2008 @ 4:52pm
Posted by BRANNIGAN 01/10/2008 @ 4:09pm
Actually, it depends. Gay men (men living as a couple with another man) suffer domestic violence at about 23%. Hetero couple males, it's true, only report about 7%.
The original 1994 VAWA didn't cover men.
Oddly, the politics are all over the place. "Dubya" signed the revision. The ACLU called the original act itself "troubling".
Posted by Mask at 01/10/2008 @ 4:55pm
I suspect that probably most Americans think of racism as the more pervasive, widespread and pernicious of the common and well characterized forms of discrimination.----Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/10/2008 @ 4:52pm
Have you read Gloria Steinem's column in the NY Times?
Posted by Mask at 01/10/2008 @ 4:56pm
Thus, Ronald Reagan is the labeled as the legendary "Great Communicator", when he could have more accurately been labeled, "The Great Confabulator" of a mythical America. .....
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/09/2008 @ 4:54pm
B_KOOL,
I've always found it amazing that the rethugs claim to fame is that Ronald Reagan was a great president. The guy was friggin clueless. Even Nixon and Kissinger pointed that out. Reagan wasn't responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union as every idiot rethug will tell you but rather a 40 year U.S. policy that started when Ronny Boy was a democrat. If Reagan is the best the republican party can do and people like Rudy worship him, their party is in a lot of trouble.
They need to do like the old Air Force slogan....Aim High.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/10/2008 @ 4:57pm
One brief observation --I suspect that probably most Americans think of racism as the more pervasive, widespread and pernicious of the common and well characterized forms of discrimination.
After reading some of the staggeringly crass and viciously ignorant posts at these Jessica Valenti blog commentaries, perhaps we should all take a renewed look at the insidious nature of sexism.
Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/10/2008 @ 4:52pm
Yes...let's get right to that. Start with the fact that 2 of the current front-runners for POTUS are: 1.)Black 2.)Female.
--Yes, we must correct this racist and sexist society post haste. Welcome to 1953, B_Kool. LOL!
Posted by Sliver at 01/10/2008 @ 6:10pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Sliver
this is true. Pakistan too had a female leader, but their society is still archaic where women are concerned. you may draw your own conclusion.
Posted by brannigan at 01/10/2008 @ 6:13pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 3:12pm
My main point is the majority of people who come out of school with a non technical degree with have a hard time finding work in their field of study in the business world of commerce on any level...most of those types of positions are in acedemia.
You are making an implicit assumption that college education is primarily job or skill training. It isn't. I'd point out that biology or chemistry doesn't have any obvious relationship to importing or exporting jewelry, and I think many people find that life offers many opportunities, and education is ultimately about preparing for the wide variety opportunities that come our way.
Sure, there are some people that know right out of the gate what they are called to do. But most of us don't have that, so we learn the skills we need, when we need them - and education is ultimately learning how to learn.
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 3:19pm
From a public policy perspective, exporting your ability to manufactured goods sounds like a recipe for disaster, and there is also a moral dimension, why is it cheaper to import goods from China than make them here? I understand the notion of comparative advantage, but when that advantage is primarily coming from the ability to exploit labor, poor quality control, poor environmental standards, then we will start paying a price for these goods, beyond the purchase price.
Which really gets us to the central problem of what I call "free market fundamentalism", things such as quality, safety, community building and so forth have value that is frequently an externality when considering the purchase price. When the purchase price becomes your only, or even primary, metric, then you are taking a poison pill and bringing the rest of us along.
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/10/2008 @ 3:59pm
As I've said before, try doing a comparison between the policies of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. There are areas of agreement regarding foreign policy, membership in the WTO, concern for Constitutional protections, etc.
When we talk about left and right, it is probably more useful to think of it as a circle, where the extremes actually have much in common.
As for me, I think of myself as left libertarian. Check out these links - or take the test first if you are so inclined:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
Posted by srjenkins at 01/10/2008 @ 6:33pm
After reading some of the staggeringly crass and viciously ignorant posts at these Jessica Valenti blog commentaries, perhaps we should all take a renewed look at the insidious nature of sexism.
Yes, we should. Let's take a look at JM's comment about JV ("She's hot") from a different perspective.
First we have to accept two premises: 1)Sexism is the act of treating someone differently because of their gender. 2)Noticing an attractive woman and even commenting can be considered typical male beahvior.(e.g. group of guys at a bar: "Dude, check her out. She's hot!")
One could argue that JM mentioning JV's looks is NOT sexist precisely because he said something about it. If his typical behavior is to comment on an attractive woman yet he did not do so on the thread because he did not want to offend female post-ers here, we could argue that he was treating other female post-ers differently simply because they were women. THAT, as we have already established, is the very definition of sexism.
Posted by usc1 at 01/10/2008 @ 6:51pm
I've always found it amazing that the rethugs claim to fame is that Ronald Reagan was a great president. The guy was friggin clueless. Even Nixon and Kissinger pointed that out. Reagan wasn't responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union as every idiot rethug will tell you but rather a 40 year U.S. policy that started when Ronny Boy was a democrat. Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/10/2008 @ 4:57pm
This is problematic for a whole host of reasons. The first one I want to get out of the way is the basic claim that "claiming Reagan was important in winning the Cold War is idiotic." The fact that there is considerable debate still ongoing between historical scholars on this matter should make it clear that at the very least, reasonable disagreement on this is possible.
That said, I think it's more than reasonable to believe that Reagan had an important role to play. First off, I think the historical claim that the Soviet Union was collapsing of its own accord is fascinating in two respects. One, it's exactly contrary to what many liberal theorists at the time argued; many, even if they didn't see it as the wave of the future, believed that it would supplant America as the dominant superpower. Two, it actually feeds the argument that Reagan's work was significant. If the Soviet Union was inherently economically unstable, as Reagan himself argued, it makes sense that an arms race would accelerate their demise which up to that point had not occurred or shown any sign of occurring.
The idea that Reagan was clueless is also blatantly unwarranted. The ideas he advocated in speeches, etc. were not spoon-fed to him, they were his, which should tell you something.
I would argue that Reagan was actually important to the decline of the Soviet Union on two levels: ideas and policy.
First of all, his ideas were clearly important. Historical scholarship has established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Soviet Union was a repressive regime, both to its own constituents and to those of occupied territory. When Reagan (along with figures such as the Pope) domestically and internationally condemned the Soviet Union's repressive actions and vowed to stand against said repressive actions, this made a substantial difference on the ground in these countries. Numerous people have attested to how much this mattered, and how much it changed their perceptions of the direction the Cold War would take.
His policy also mattered a great deal. I think you could reasonably say that some of it may have been misguided, and some of it was certainly a continuation of prior Presidents. The problem, though, comes when you claim this about all of the policies. There were at least two that he was involved with that were not nearly as substantial under other regimes. One was the radically increased support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan (which can to some extent be attributed to figures like Charlie Wilson), and the other was the rapidly expanded arms buildup that the Soviet Union was forced to compete with.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/10/2008 @ 8:05pm
....trying to discover the best ways of helping my "favourite daughter-in-law"...
Posted by LRJONES4 01/10/2008 @ 02:26am
You're a good `pimp' to Pretty Woman....Does your "R" stands for Richard ? :)
A sad fact of life, the downtrodden mostly know the `right' forks to take on Life's long road but almost always take the short-cuts that lead to....nowhere!
Posted by Happy at 01/10/2008 @ 11:14pm
.....people I have worked with who focused on business were frequently among the least capable.....
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/10/2008 @ 2:52pm
There is a lot of truth there! With an engineering under and an MBA from a top-20 program, I can state flatly that the business curriculum is a piece of cake!
At the undergrad level, it is among the most popular because it is EASY, like education majors.
Posted by Happy at 01/10/2008 @ 11:22pm
Posted by USC1 01/10/2008 @ 6:51pm
Sam Weber: Why does everything you just said sound like a mass of rationalizations?
Michael: Hey, hey. Don't knock rationalization. I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.
Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.
Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?
(Re-watch the scene from "The Big Chill"...USC sounds EXACTLY like Jeff Goldblum's character explaining why he's "more honest because he IS an asshole to others"....heheh)
Posted by Mask at 01/11/2008 @ 09:15am
Posted by HAPPY 01/10/2008 @ 11:22pm
Exactly. Once again, I'm HAPPY you and I can agree on something.
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/11/2008 @ 12:55am
First, destroying your manufacturing base makes you dependent on trade with countries that continue to have one. I don't think this is contestable, and you didn't address it. So, I'll move on to point two.
Second, I'm not saying that all imports are bad. I'm saying that to the degree that environmental impact, safety, and so forth are not in the price, then there is a moral problem that goes beyond the purchase price.
Let me ask you a simple question. What is China's comparative advantage? The primary advantage is labor costs. And why are labor costs lower there? Well, let's look at the facts:
"The cost of Chinese factory labor is a paltry 64 cents an hour. Although that figure is rough, since it's pieced together from sketchy statistics, it's still the most thorough estimate ever compiled. It includes both wages and employer contributions for benefits and social insurance. And it covers not just city factory workers, who get the most attention, but the more numerous rural and suburban factory workers as well. For comparison, hourly factory compensation in the U.S. in 2002 was $21.11, and an average of $14.22 in the 30 foreign countries covered by the existing BLS report."
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2004/nf2004122_6762_db039 .htm
If you want other research, try AMRC.
http://www.amrc.org.hk/resource.htm
In short, cheap Chinese goods are frequently - I'm not saying always - so inexpensive because the human suffering of the workers producing them, the environmental impact in China and so forth are externalized and not included in the price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China
Posted by srjenkins at 01/11/2008 @ 09:18am
In short, cheap Chinese goods are frequently - I'm not saying always - so inexpensive because the human suffering of the workers producing them, the environmental impact in China and so forth are externalized and not included in the price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/11/2008 @ 09:18am
yep. we export our inflation onto the backs and into the lungs of brown people.............................
just so we can have an extra 17,658,433 dishes in case friends drop by.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/11/2008 @ 09:30am
Posted by THRAWN 01/10/2008 @ 8:05pm
Thrawn, You have been brainwashed quite well.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/11/2008 @ 11:11am
Nice Post, MBB (Your 11:42)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/11/2008 @ 11:57am
Thrawn, You have been brainwashed quite well.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/11/2008 @ 11:11am
Forgive me, but it appears as though your response here is..."nuh-uh." Unfortunately, that's not even close to adequate. I could reiterate a lot of the arguments again, but there doesn't seem to be much point in doing so. Instead, I'll again mention one really clear argument that comes straight off of your own. You said that the defeat of the Soviet Union was caused by a continuation of US policy. So what was that exactly? It either has to be some form of arms race or actions against Soviet colonial expansion. Here's the thing: up until Reagan, the latter was done only sparingly, and the former even more so. It is indisputable historical fact that Reagan, by his own decision, dramatically amplified the scattered responses to the Soviet Union. As a result, all I have to do is accept your initial premise and clear historical scholarship, and your conclusion falls. Even if you don't buy any of the other (numerous) arguments that I made, this one is decisive.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/11/2008 @ 12:53pm
BTW, interesting side note. It seems like each contributor gets to include a series of links on the side. I happened to glance at one or two, and one of these, under "I Blame the Patriarchy" produced the following gem:
Here's a little reminder to brighten your day: all humans are conditioned to despise women.
It's really unfortunate that such manifest lies could subtly work their way here.
Posted by Thrawn at 01/11/2008 @ 12:57pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/11/2008 @ 10:34am
From the same article: "Western companies shouldn't waltz into China expecting to pay 64 cents an hour. They usually locate in cities, where wages are higher, and hire skilled workers who earn more, says R. Mark Mechem, an adviser at the U.S.-China Business Council."
But let's move to your figures. I'll use the exchange rate from XE.com that has HK$1.00 = US$0.13 (rounded). So, your higher end employee is making US$260/a month ($2,000 * .13). If we assume four, 40 hour weeks in a month, then we are talking labor expense of about US$1.63 per hour.
Even if we assume another 50% in benefit costs (US$.82), we have a grand total of $2.45. In 2004, Mexico's hourly compensation of $2.48 was the lowest calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics - and you are in one of the more expensive cities in China.
Now, this is where you make the comparative cost of living argument. Can you tell me why they can rent an apartment in Hong Kong for US$146 (again, using your figures of HK$1100 and the exchange rate above) and they can't do the same in Dallas?
You postulate that the problem is government regulation and taxation. And there is something to that. The U.S. military budget is more than the top 14 other countries and 8 times that of China. Care to point to China's Iraq, Vietnam, extent of its bombing of other countries? China doesn't have those costs.
China has eliminated other costs as well, things like a concern for human rights, labor laws, environmental standards, safety, and so forth. All of these cost money. But if you cut these expenses, and then sell those goods in a country that does have those standards, not only can you make a profit you can destroy the economies of countries that have these protections and start the phenomena called the "race to the bottom".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom
And another part of the problem is that American businessman and consumers often don't factor in these types of concerns - since they are externalities and have nothing to do with their bottom line (at least today). But when people start getting pissed off about your Bangalore phone center's service or learn that the toothpaste they bought has anti-freeze as an ingredient, then they realize that externalities not factored into the purchase price matter.
And some companies like Toyota actually do have a better sense of the issues. Try this quote for example: "'We think the historic American approach to things is to run full blast, pay out as high as you can in the short term while times are good, and then when times go bust, you lay people off, you shut plants and you destroy communities,' said Pete Gritton, a Toyota vice president who oversees human resources at the company's plant. 'Toyota does not want to do that.'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR200705 2502458.html
But read on. It is clear that these kinds of pressures even cause people that know better to lose the plot. The bottom line is that cheap goods from other countries are destroying the American economy and fuel the argument for the removal of basic protections so that a few can make money off the labor of others. I have nothing against making money, but I do if the end result is that you leave the world worse off than when you found it, and playing comparative labor exploitation and with other people's lives is definitely leaving the world worse off.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/11/2008 @ 1:57pm
Wonderful and refreshing blog. I also love the uptight crazies you attract, it proves how important feminist ideals are today.
Posted by beccajones88 at 01/11/2008 @ 2:29pm
MR MAASCH:
but how does a shopper know if his goods are made in a "fair" factory or here?
plus, how do you define better?
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/11/2008 @ 5:29pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/11/2008 @ 2:39pm
Would you trade places with one of these workers? Have your family work under the same conditions, for years, because it's a good deal? What about your friends, neighbors or members of your church community? If it is so good, why not move some of your folks there?
I'm not going to argue that Chinese workers aren't better off - because we really need to look at the macroeconomic conditions that are moving rural populations into the city centers and how they came to be in the state they are in before they took your job. I will argue that even though you have first-hand experience, you are heavily vested at looking at this a particular way because it is tied to your livelihood.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/11/2008 @ 5:49pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/11/2008 @ 7:34pm
I don't want to do factory work either, but I do think there is meaning in the question. It's always easy to say something is good for someone else or what we would have done (like all those people that support the war and talk about how they would go to Iraq, if called), when you know you'll never have to live that life or make that choice - particularly if we have some self-interest in the answer.
For an extreme example, take a look at some of the apology that was offered up in support of slavery. People are most creative with rationalizations when it comes to their self-interest.
Not saying that your particular situation is taking advantage of people (I don't know the details), but I do know that this is a problem both in China and here - due to all the reasons I gave above.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/11/2008 @ 9:17pm
"both are living better than Frosty at his current status."
JM,
I was refering to THAT. please define "better".
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2008 @ 8:09pm
If the most important factor in a purchase is wether or not it was made in a fair factory, I guess a consumer like you maight pass on the purchase in the first place.."just in case"....
Again, the decision is up to you, the consumer to make the choice...not some progressive govt hack somewhere behind a desk in Washington limiting your choices based on their criteria,...
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/11/2008 @ 7:24pm
so, we should allow slavery and "let the consumer" decide?
or, how about sell rhino tusk jewellery?
you know every consumer is always educated, ¿RIGHT?
or, how about compact fluorescent bulbs made in china?
"hey consumer, those things are full of mercury"
"really, I HAD NO IDEA."
what utter nonsense!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2008 @ 8:14pm
and yes, JM, the questions can be answered.
that's why we have laws.............
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/12/2008 @ 8:15pm