Given that the Focus on the Family ad which appeared during the Super Bowl was so bland, vague and disconnected to any actual point (except that tackling your mom in an incredibly Oedipal gesture is totally cool), there’s no egg on the faces of any of the people who were up in arms about it.

The question is instead this: if the anti-choice position is so true, so mainstream and so critical to the future of our nation, why did Focus on the Family spend $2.5 million to avoid saying anything whatsoever about it?  Pam Tebow’s lines were all oblique references to her choice not to have an abortion, but if FotF felt the need to couch her story in such coded and oblique terms that it could have been an ad for Wii Family, doesn’t that say something incredibly telling about how weak and radical their position actually is?

Jesse started a thread on it, but I thought I’d weigh in with a couple of observations. You know it’s a rough year in misogynist Superbowl advertising when an ad suggesting that women’s role in bearing sons matters more than their very right to live can’t even win the title of “Most Misogynist”.  (Though it’s only on a technicality---the Tebow ad that aired during the Super Bowl was too confusing to register as overtly hateful, though it did insinuate that the only reason women die in childbirth is they aren’t “tough” enough, and apparently had it coming.) The debate raging on Twitter on who wins that game seemed to settled on the tire ad where a man sacrifices his wife for some tires, and that sacrifice isn’t deemed good enough, because everyone knows bitches ain’t shit.  The big theme this year was the tired sexist trope that implies not only that women rule over men with an iron pussy, and that we use our endless power to be screeching, emasculating harpies who hate male pleasure for the sheer fun of it. Dodge Charger and Dockers weighed in on this theme.  However, Dockers’ ad was incoherent, because they weren’t willing to go as far as the print ads and make the message clear.  In the print ads, the text openly blames feminism for men’s supposed emasculation, and calls for a return to male dominance that never actually left completely in the real world.  I haven’t yet seen a Dockers ad suggesting that one regains their manhood by putting on some khaki pants before smacking a bitch up, but judging from the ads last night, it may only be a matter of time. 

But my “favorite” in the woman hating Olympics was definitely the Flo TV “Spineless” ad.  The narrator follows a man who we’ve been told has his spine removed (because using the preferred term “pussy whipped” wouldn’t get past the censors, though that’s the implication), and the evidence is that his evil bitch of a wife makes him shop when he wants to stay at home and watch the game, and he goes along with it, even though we all know that doing feminine things like shopping is objectively stupid.  (Bud Light also argued that reading is something that is off-limits for dudes, because it’s so stupid and girly.) The way for a man to regain his balls/spine, suggested the ad, was to get a Flo TV so that he could passively-aggressively watch his game while pointedly ignoring his wife on their outing while technically obeying her overbearing feminine demands he’s powerless to resist openly. 

This was my favorite, because it contained a structural flaw.  Its pitch was supposedly aimed at men who have harpy bitch wives who don’t let them watch sports.  But it was playing during a sporting event, when said victims of harpy bitch wives cannot, by definition, be watching.  Because they’re out in the stores pretending to give a shit about that she-creature that controls them with her pussy.  By airing during a sporting event, the ad basically admits that it’s lying, and that men are not helpless victims of the pussy-driven, sports-hating matriarchy.  And thus the only real reason for the ad is to bash women to sell products.  Or perhaps advertisers really believe that the harpies of the world only allow their men one game a year---the Super Bowl---and this is when they’ll make their desperate pitch, reaching out to these poor broken men who are eager to passively aggressively annoy their captors.  I’m not betting on that, though, because I bet this ad runs during other games.

In general, the theme of this year is that that masculinity is barely surviving a vagified assault, and the modern man needs a bunch of products in order to revolt and/or survive the hellish matriarchy that men were too foolish to put down in the 70s, when they had their shot to stop the rising tide of women working, women controlling their own bodies, and other hippie shit like that. Even Audi---Audi!---put out an ad on this theme, implying that that modern man has to suffer this horrific police state of overbearing environmentalists, and that they need this Audi product to survive the inquisition.* I kind of wish it was put up next to the Tebow forced childbirth advocacy, because perhaps someone would realize there is something fucked up about the modern right wing argument that we need so many more children that we have to force women to provide on pain of imprisonment, and that we need to give all these children the shittiest, most disgusting, unlivable planet possible.  And if we don’t do this, your balls will fall off. 

The most transparent pandering was when CBS aired an ad telling women that they can have heart attacks, too, so watch out for that.  Overall message: yes, we helped craft an ad suggesting women should risk their lives in childbirth, but we don’t want you to die of a heart attack, so we don’t hate women!  Here’s another ad showing how women are bitches!

The good news is that the Saints really pulled it out.  That was awesome and exhilarating.  No, it’s not going to solve New Orleans’ continuing post-Katrina problems, but I think it’s okay to be happy for them.  All the shots of people partying in the streets in the Quarter---plus all the jokes about boozing it up, taking it off, and eating Cajun food that dominated the sports news and overall news cycle---probably will end up being good for tourism, which is the sort of thing that will help get them back on their feet.

*And this was supposed to be an ad for a “green” product!  I realize it was supposed to be ironic, but it was mostly incoherent. 

The main thrust of Super Bowl advertising this year seems to be what terribly castrating, useless bitches women are.  It’s sad when the GoDaddy commercial shows women in the most positive light.

So, a twelve year old was handcuffed and detained for writing on her desk.  But before the little overactive hippie civil libertarian in you gets all crazy up in arms about it, look at the foul language she wrote:

Alexa Gonzalez was scribbling a few words on her desk Monday while waiting for her Spanish teacher to pass out homework at Junior High School 190 in Forest Hills, she said.

“I love my friends Abby and Faith,” the girl wrote, adding the phrases “Lex was here. 2/1/10” and a smiley face.

Everyone knows that “Abby and Faith” is MS-13 code for “kill all the white bitches”.  Those street gangs are clever.  And oddly sentimental.

Of course, where there’s a potential civil right violation that liberals might care about, there’s Ann Althouse to add an uncomfortable patina of completely unnecessary sexual discomfort and authoritarian scapegoating. 

Why make a star out of a kid that defaced school property with graffiti? She’s an especially cute girl, willing to pose with her wrists together in the handcuff position. I’m sure some readers appreciate the entertainment on that level. Do we know the whole story of why she was arrested and why handcuffs were deemed necessary?

Well, she was probably willing to do it because she was fucking handcuffed.  And we do know the whole story, because, per the above linked article, the city admitted it was in the wrong. 

City officials acknowledged Alexa’s arrest was a mistake.

“We’re looking at the facts,” said City Education Department spokesman David Cantor. “Based on what we’ve seen so far, this shouldn’t have happened.”

“Even when we’re asked to make an arrest, common sense should prevail, and discretion used in deciding whether an arrest or handcuffs are really necessary,” said police spokesman Paul Browne.

Now, yes, it is theoretically possible that this 80-pound girl whose most apparent sin was committing to loving her friends before getting out of sixth grade (junior high changes EVERYTHING, little girl) somehow pulled out a hunting knife and threatened to gut her teacher, but I’m pretty sure that would have come out at some point.  The problem, however, is that this is apparently school policy.

Alexa Gonzalez no longer faces a suspension for scribbling with a lime green marker, but principal Marilyn Grant told her mother, that agency policy dictated that she calls the cops.

Grant told Alexa’s mother that it wasn’t their fault that it was something they had to do,” Camacho said of her meeting with Grant at Junior High School 190 in Forest Hills. “She doesn’t consider it doodling.”

I’m not entirely sure what this principal considers doodling on a desk, then.  An antitrust violation?

Anyway, back to Althouse:

Is stoking the victimhood feelings of your child like this a good idea? The girl did wrong, as she knows. She should apologize, straighten up, and rededicate herself to schoolwork. The mother should not tolerate the child’s sickly overreaction — even if she believes the school is too harsh in its response to crimes committed by kids in school.

The child’s “sickly overreaction”, as Althouse put it, was crying and vomiting because she was treated like she just tried to commit armed robbery.  How the fuck should twelve year olds react to their detainment for doing shit that kids have done since we started building schoolhouses? 

A class action lawsuit was filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union last month against the city for using “excessive force” in middle school and high schools. A 12-year-old sixth-grader, identified in the lawsuit as M.M., was arrested in March 2009 for doodling on her desk at the Hunts Point School.

Fine. Let the courts review the patterns and, if the schools are violating the law, provide a remedy congruent with the legal violation that leaves room for the schools to preserve discipline and good order.

Well, I’m not entirely sure how “don’t send kids to the police station for drawing on a desk” would prevent schools from enacting policies which preserve discipline and good order, but then again, I’m not a callous, soulless hack who’s willing to defend a guy who attempts to tamper with a government phone system because it’s not clear what he was going to do, but will strike the hammer down on a twelve year old girl because she’s too pretty (and because she was probably going to shiv her Spanish teacher, because that’s what those types do).

Things are looking pretty bleak right now.  The Republicans have made it clear they intend to filibuster all Democratic legislation on principle---the principle that the recent elections signal nothing but a blip in a system that’s meant to be one-party rule, and they are therefore obligated to resist these interlopers who’ve obtained power illicitly, through winning elections. (This assumption that power is so rightfully yours that democracy shouldn’t get in the way is the argument used by dictators for life, by the way.) The teabaggers are getting bolder and bolder in their development of a new Know Nothing party.  The economic recovery isn’t doing much for the 10% of Americans that are unemployed.  Senate Democrats still seem to think the game is being played with the old rules.  Avatar will probably win Best Picture.  Dark times, indeed.

But hey, at least Michael Steele is still the head of the RNC! And that means that we still get helpful explanations from him of what Republicans are really all about.  He and Harold Ford were speaking together at the University of Arkansas, and this exchange happened:

The two often traded jokes, especially when Steele panned President Barack Obama’s long-stated plan to let income tax rates return to higher levels for families making more than $250,000 a year.

“Trust me, after taxes, a million dollars is not a lot of money,” Steele said.

Ford later asked the audience of mostly college students, “Who in here makes a million dollars a year?”

When you let Harold Ford sound like a prince next to you, you’re doing something very wrong.  As Think Progess explains, the median household income in the U.S. is $52,000 a year, which means that it would take 20 average American households to pool their income to make enough for Michael Steele to live in his version of abject poverty.  Fewer than half a percent of Americans make a million or more a year.  When Republicans say they want “small government”, this is what they mean---government for and by that half a percent of Americans. 

That Steele played the “pity the poor millionaires” card in the worst economy since the Great Depression was awesomely out of touch enough, but what happened next laid bare the entire Republican argument for why they should get a majority vote every year.

“How many of you want to make a million dollars a year?” Steele quickly responded when no hands were raised.

Well, okay then. There’s the Republican argument in a nutshell---give the goodies to rich people, because you want to be like them, though of course the vast majority of you have no chance at all.  Using the premise that the rest of us should gladly give up everything to the already-privileged because we want to have their privileges, you should also stop dating if you rate less than a “10” by an impartial jury.  You’d rather be smoking hot than average, right? So why clutter the marketplace with your adequate level of hotness?  You and your demands to be taken seriously as a human being when you’re not in the top half a percent of people on the hotness scale are embarrassing. 

It’s interesting that Steele thinks this argument is actually the one that sells the Republicans to the public.  I’m skeptical.  Some votes, sure.  The fantasists of the right wing movement are nothing to sneeze at.  But first of all---even though Steele is just as ignorant of this fact as much Democratic leadership and the mainstream media---the Republicans aren’t actually in the majority with this argument that the economic elite should be able to squeeze the public for all its worth.  Second of all, what elections they do win often depend on their support for upholding other hierarchies that more typical Americans can support, because they’re on the winning side of that oppression.  Racism and sexism get the Republicans a whole lot more votes than “millionaires deserve to fuck over the country”.  You have a lot more people sobbing over the tragedy of hard-working sperm that’s thwarted by interfering ladies who think they have rights than you do sobbing over the woes of millionaires who have to live in slightly less lavish style than they’d prefer. 

Thanks to Roy Edroso for his hard work in recording the atrocities, specifically the atrocities against good taste committed by conservatives ideologically committed to promoting entertainment perceived as being on “their side”, no matter how ridiculously stupid and insipid.  From Roy, I learn that the message has moved from “as long as we can claim that a movie has conservative ‘values’, this matters more than quality” to arguing that quality itself is an affront to their values system.  Or, that appears to be Brent Bozell’s argument anyway.  You see, the sniffing snobs who probably wouldn’t drink Tang either might claim that the Oscars are a trainwreck of bad taste that puts box office receipts, artistic cowardice, and Hollywood politics in front of quality (I’m one of those snobs, naturally).  But Bozell argues that the Oscars are slipping in ratings because they don’t chase the mediocre middle hard enough.  But that they’re improving by including more schlock than they usually do in their nominations.

The 2010 Oscar nominations clearly signal that Hollywood is trying to return to a broader vision of the Oscars, as something more than an insular critics’ circle that likes only the self-consciously arty and obscure. That signal came most obviously with the announcement that there would be 10 nominees for Best Picture. That list hadn’t seen 10 nominations since 1943, when the winner was “Casablanca.”

Arty films that almost nobody has seen are still there—like “An Education.” But arty blockbusters are there as well, like “Avatar”—current box office gross: $601 million—and the animated film “Up,” with $293 million.

Those of us who have memories (or at least access to Google) are impressed by the contention that the Oscars don’t work hard enough to reward filmmakers for making mindless crap that sells well because everyone in the household can tolerate it well enough to go see it and get out of the house, and/or is seen by millions because they’re curious about the special effects.  Remember, James Cameron won before for “Titanic”, just one of many examples of a movie that’s low on quality but high on WTF factors enough to be entertaining and fill seats.  What impresses me is that Bozell has basically taken this faux right wing populism to its logical level, arguing in effect that intelligence and subtlety are in themselves crimes against Real Americans.  Probably because thoughtfulness so often leads to the patriotically incorrect conclusions, like all human beings deserve respect or the world doesn’t end if we act like adults about sex.

Bozell’s main goal in this piece is to applaud the Academy for nominating “The Blind Side” for Best Picture.  It seems that Bozell would prefer to get rid of the Best Picture award altogether, and replacing it with an award called Strongest Pandering.

But “The Blind Side” is about self-discovery. It’s about a large black teenager who discovers he can be a football star. What in the world is wrong with that?

It’s because this too-quiet black character was loved and housed by white Christian people—and critics hated that.

Well, they probably hated it for what’s obvious from the previews, which is that you’ll get a cavity from watching about 5 minutes of the over-the-top sentimentality.  But in order to score tribal points elevating white Christians above everyone else, Bozell plays a little loose with the basics of the story, or at least as I understand them.  This movie is about Michael Oher, who plays for the Baltimore Ravens, and how he was adopted by said white Christian family after he demonstrated talent as a football player as a freshman in high school.  I don’t want to suggest that his adopted family aren’t nice, generous people by any stretch.  Itt seems like Oher was going to school with their kids and bonded with the Tuohys before they brought him in and gave him the help he needed to make it in college, which is a nice story, but this story isn’t being told in a politically neutral zone.  Stories about gallant white parents versus bad black parents are alarming enough in our atmosphere, but then you have to ask yourself questions like, “What if other people are inspired by this story to adopt kids because they think they have athletic skills, and it turns out they don’t?” There’s a lot of places on the road between high school freshman player and the NFL where someone’s career might just go off the rails.  I’m an elitist, so I guess I get caught up in the nuance and complexity, but the audience that Bozell’s writing for fully intends to pat themselves on the back for being part of a morally superior white Christian culture that just so happens to love football.

Of course, it occurs to me that Bozell’s incessant aesthetic Stalinism has drawn me into arguing about this movie on political merits, which wasn’t my intention.  Maybe the movie is good, and actually tackles what is a story that brings up a lot of questions with honesty, nuance, and a real heart.  Contrary to Bozell’s claim, the movie got mixed reviews, not across-the-board damning ones.  But reading through them, they also suggest that the filmmakers decide to dodge any kind of artistic inquiry into the truly interesting themes, and stick to the feel-good sports stuff, and that perhaps it got mixed reviews because the critics are basically saying, “If you’re bored, this won’t kill you.” In other words, classic mediocrity in mainstream film-making.  I bugged Marc a little about this, because he knows so much about football, and he answered some of my questions about Oher and also pointed out that a movie like this is pitched perfectly to sweep the box office by being aggressively non-offensive and having a little something for everyone, particularly in conservative families dedicated to strict gender role-playing: Sandra Bullock in a football movie says, “This is a chick flick that’s not a chick flick, and plus there’s some kids in it.” Which is what it is, but not the sort of stuff that should win awards that are earmarked for artistic integrity.

Which is why Bozell’s question at the heart of this is a fundamentally dishonest one:

Why would anyone suggest, by default or design, that crowd-pleasing is the opposite of artistic? Why would the critics suggest that a movie that’s inspirational is clearly inferior to a movie that “dares” to be demoralizing and grotesque? Why would Hollywood only want to be known as a nightmare factory?

Great questions, if anyone said that.  There are in fact movies that genuinely stand out as great films that are fun, heart-warming, whatever.  But in general, this tendency towards “crowd-pleasing” does result in mediocrity.  To put it in sports terms, the movies are playing not to lose, not playing to win---they’re built around making sure to have a soft hand, to say very little and to put not offending anyone well before actually bothering to say anything meaningful.  When you’re trying to avoid the wrath of philistines like Bozell, you’re not going to make great art.  You’re too busy thinking about what you’re not saying to bother actually considering what you are trying to say. 

It’s telling to me that Bozell got behind “The Blind Side” as an example of what the Oscars should reward, and not a movie like “Up”, which was genuinely a great film and I think by and large something for the whole family.  Part of it no doubt is his wallowing in identity politics, trying to suggest that white Christians are the most oppressed people on the planet.  But I think it’s also because he genuinely finds mediocrity itself to be valuable, moral even.  “Up” actually struggled genuinely with themes of love and loss, and the battle between choosing to live your life or live in the shadows.  All I could tell that Bozell got out of it, though, is that someone was married in it, so it hit his non-offensive checklist and he could sign off on it.  He missed the point of the rest of the movie!  When you’re that dumb, no wonder you think being smart is some crime of “elitism”. 

Going into the Superbowl, you have to admit that Focus on the Fetus and the Tebow “women are nothing but vessels for male offspring” clan have managed to really capture their fair share of the news cycle.  And I’ve managed to capture my share of forehead bruises watching feminists respond in 15 different ways, from demanding CBS pull the ad to suggesting that it’s somehow advantageous for anti-choicers to argue using our framing and language about choice.  Well, I’ve maintained that’s true only if we let them.  I’d have preferred a single, loud response: “I’m so extraordinarily glad Pam Tebow was able to make the right choice for herself and her family.  Too bad she wants to throw other women in jail rather than let them have the same choice.” Seriously, I’m glad that Pam Tebow’s self-definition as a son producer is working out so well for her.  But different women have different goals and should have the same freedom to pursue them that Pam Tebow had. 

With that in mind, I dedicate the original Genius song to the Tebows and everyone else who thinks all women are the same and that the same answer is right for every woman (and that those who disagree should risk their health or their freedom). Leave your playlists in comments.

Original song: “U Don’t Know Me” by the Basement Jaxx

1) “Voodoo Ray"---A Guy Called Gerald
2) “All This Love"---The Similou
3) “Black Cherry"---Goldfrapp
4) “The Prime Time of Your Life"---Daft Punk
5) “Groove Is In The Heart"---Deee-lite
6) “Mandarine Girl"---Booka Shade
7) “Stand Back"---Linus Loves
8) “Horny Pony"---Spektrum
9) “Pacific State"---808 State
10) “The Devil In Us"---Black Devil Disco Club

A really good mix today!  Videos and a cat picture after the fold.

Read All...

When the “kill gays” bill in Uganda was denounced today by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton at the National Prayer Breakfast, everyone knew it would fire up the bigots— and Cliff Kincaid (usasurvival.org) was quick to hit the send button on this hate-filled press release. You won’t believe the defense—the execution and “cleansing” by Uganda of its gays is all about ensuring national health.* I sh*t you not.

Kincaid, president of America’s Survival, Inc., and editor of Accuracy in Media, says the legislation is designed to save lives by discouraging homosexual practices which spread disease and death.

“The purpose is completely at variance with what the U.S. media have reported,” he said. “It is not a ‘Kill the Gays’ bill. Rather, it is designed to kill the disease that some homosexuals spread through their reckless and irresponsible conduct and lifestyle.”

Kincaid said that the much-publicized death penalty provision in the bill is for deliberately spreading AIDS and engaging in homosexual behavior that threatens children and society.

“Uganda’s people and government deserve support, not criticism, from the United States,” said Kincaid. “They are up against the international homosexual lobby, the money of George Soros, and the Obama Administration. They are trying to create a Christian culture that is protective of families and children.”

Would Kincaid support the execution of heterosexuals who engage in unsafe sex or who engage in pedophilia as well, since AIDS on that continent is mostly spread through heterosexual sex? I didn’t see him proposing that anywhere. As Joe Jervis said, Kincaid is

defending the bill as necessary to prevent “homosexual imperialists” from continuing their campaign to fuck as much AIDS into the children of Uganda as possible.

Kincaid and the rest of these defenders of this execution and “queer cleansing” bill are completely morally bankrupt, repugnant—and proud of it.

--
* Note that in this universe of eliminationism, lesbians and the demographically lower rate of STD transmission than heterosexuals conveniently never comes up.

In the meandering thread about Inglourious Basterds below, I made a comment about how much TV and movies dictate what our reality is, in America at least (this was in service of pointing out that Tarantino’s project is to poke a stick at that, in part).  I was reminded of how true that is while reading this commonsensical post from Matt about how much more effective rights-respecting interrogation techniques are on suspected terrorists than the “beat the shit out of them and give them no rights” method preferred by conservatives.  The last episode of the Rachel Maddow show touched on similar points---conservatives are squawking about how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was read his Miranda rights, as if this somehow signals insufferable pussydom on America’s part that will make him shut up forever.  But what’s actually happened is that normal, rights-respecting interrogation techniques have convinced the would-be terrorist to cooperate, in part because his family got involved, which Matt points out was unlikely to happen if you tortured the guy. 

Commenter DTM jumped in and made a standard, but relevant point:

This is one of the most annoying things about ticking time bomb arguments in favor of torture: they simply assume that torture is the most effective interrogation technique, when in fact in the real world we know that torture is not only a crappy interrogation technique, but it actually prevents us from using the good interrogation techniques.

The question is where do they get this idea?  Part of it is just the conservative sadism---they have an enemy they feel free to exert their aggression on, and they don’t want anything to get in the way.  But I think part of it is they really do assume torture is the best technique for interrogation.  And I blame TV. 

It’s a shockingly common convention on TV shows to inject torture of some sort in to the story, and this was true even before the 9/11 attacks. And usually it works on TV.  I dare say that a week rarely goes by in my TV-watching when I don’t see some scene of interrogation where the interrogator resorts to violence, and the person being interrogated gives in, if not immediately, then eventually.  Most cop shows employ this convention---we’re making our way through “The Shield”, and this happens all the time on the show.  I love “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and we’re in the process of rewatching that now, but that show takes it as a given that torture works, as well.  The only time I can recall torture failing, it was part of establishing that the character Giles is a tough guy under the librarian exterior, and not one to crack under pressure.  And this is all before you even start to talk about “24”.  I’m sure you all can think about 15 different examples off the top of your head, too.  It’s such a problem that TV Tropes has an entry for it.

This sort of thing has an effect on people, whether we like it or not, especially in the yawning absence of alternative information that’s more accurate.  People can scoff and roll their eyes at a romantic comedy’s conventions, because most people have dated and know how different real life is from the movies.  But most people have no relationship to interrogation, outside of what they see on TV.  Then you have Republican politicians out there reaffirming the TV tropes about torture, and that gives these ideas even more cachet. 

It’s really hard to know what to do about this dilemma.  TV writers aren’t going to just drop torture as a plot device, because even though it’s a cliche now, it’s an easy way to raise the stakes while moving the plot forward.  Republican politicians aren’t going to drop it, either, because they will never let go of anything they see as a way to bait Democrats. The counter-arguments are complicated and rely on an understanding of human nature most people don’t have, because it’s clouded by TV tropes that inform their views of how people really behave.  It’s a real conundrum. 

In the wake of yesteday’s Senate hearing on DADT repeal, there are two reactions out that drew my attention. One was the lunatic WSJ op-ed by foreign policy journal editor Mackubin Thomas Owens. He took umbrage at the thought that heterosexual soldiers were capable of serving openly with gays and lesbians. The old saw of unit cohesion came up again, with this infantile, *sshat statement by Owens:

[T]he military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.

Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.

The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.

Wow. Owens’ eruption really needs deconstruction and discussion because it raisese several questions:

1. Then what about eros and women in the military? All of the above also true - and came up time and again when women were being integrated into the military. In fact the whole line in the sand barring combat service for women has been blurred as they are practically on the front lines anyway, subjected to the same levels of lethal force in Iraq, for example. Does Owens want women out of the military?

2. Owens renders our fighting men weak, ignorant and guided only by their “little brains.” (It’s clear women aren’t even considered in Owen’s op-ed, so let’s set that aside.) If our mlitary is so strong and powerful, how can its capabilities be undermined so easily by their pee-pees? From the POV of Owens, if gay service members come out of the closet, the barracks will instantly become a cruising bar, complete with a disco ball and rocket-propelled grenades and IEDs. In his mind the soldiers can’t tell the difference between comradeship and bonding under stress-filled, life-threatening conditions and a pick up line.

3. Apparently the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a useless document. Owens alternately views the military as an institution of rules and regulations and as a lawless outpost. It’s clear he’s afraid that all this potential aggressive man-on-man cruising will lead to sexual assault that will go unprosecuted. Hmmm. Well he may be on to something—women who serve are being assaulted and raped at record levels, with their male peers going unpunished or receiving a slap on the wrist. If Owens envisions that scenario, he should spare his wrath against those who want to repeal DADT and direct it to those in the Pentagon that don’t take sexual assault and harassment seriously. It doesn’t matter whether it’s same- or opposite-sex criminal conduct—both should be prosecuted under UCMJ, including fraternization.

Media Matters shreds Owens up. Take it away, folks, I’m sure you have lots to say.

***

The other piece to take a look at is David Mixner’s ”DADT: They Are Killing Us Softly With Their Song.” His position is that while we finally have the President and his military leaders Defense Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen strongly on the record for repeal in a very public way, it’s not time for a happy dance by any stretch of the imagination.

The problem is that DADT isn’t going to end in the near future - not even this year. These new converts are asking for a year long study and then maybe at least another year before implementation. After all is said and done, the implication is that once they ‘study’ us one more time, they might slowly integrate us into the Armed Forces over the next few years.

What do they mean they have to ‘study’ for a year our impact on the military if we are allowed to serve openly? How offensive is that?

Along with the unnecessary study about the impact of DADT on the agenda, the focus needs to be on Congress and its foot-dragging. Flip-flopping John McCain, who said he “needed to hear from the generals first” before his final decision, looked positively feeble and fossilized up there at the hearing. He offerws up discredited Elaine ”homo flow chart” Donnelly’s letter w/1,500 flag officers supporting DADT. A letter signed by officials mostly over 70 years old, four of whom passed away even before the letter was published. The side of discrimination has no credibility left—what is Congress waiting for?

[T]he fact still remains on a daily basis we must lie who we are to our family, friends and those who lives depend on us. We must never acknowledge a loved one at home nor admit that we have a life like anyone else. We must continue to dehumanize ourselves for the comfort of others for an antiquated policy that should have never been implemented in the first place. Our soldiers who die in combat have to think of their partners who will be denied full rights in their heroic deaths. Who will not be even allowed to accept the flag as their loved one is buried. What kind of change is this? Not much of a one!

...Congress should act immediately for the full repeal of DADT and we should refuse to support or give money to anyone who does not support such an effort. In less than a year, we will face a Congress that is less friendly than the one now. Do we really believe our chances will be much better next year than this year?

Repeal it now. Stop the crap and deal with us as full American citizens. The policy is offensive, obscene and immoral. There is no reason to study us; just embrace our talents, gifts and patriotism.

With Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council going on Hardball to declare that homosexuality needs to be recriminalized (overturning Lawrence v. Texas) in the wake of getting the bad news that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen (and now General Colin Powell and even a tepid Orrin Hatch) said Don’t Ask Don’t Tell needs to go, you knew there would be a Freeper explosion.

And yes, the gloves come off in a primal scream of terror as these knuckledraggers cover their privates, worrying about dropping soap in the shower. Where were all these Freepers when heterosexual enlisted men were raping their female peers? Oh wait, they don’t want women in there either…

WHY DO FREEPERS HATE AMERICA AND ITS MILITARY COMMANDERS?!?! OH NOES!1101

I’ve linked to the Google cache just in case the thread “disappears.” See the misogyny and paranoia run wild. It’s beyond laughable. They know their side is going down in the long run, no pun intended.

Actual Freeper Quotes

Easy to say General Mullen when you don’t have to bunk or shower with these individuals.

“… it is wrong to force people to “lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

So - Mike Mullen agrees with Congressman Joe Sestak. Who knew?

you cannot defend your fellow citizens when you are preoccupied with having swordfights in the showers. Eww, I just grossed myself out. This article reeks of leftist politics. No military man in his rigfht mind would approve of gutting the military, which is exactly what this amounts to.

What happened to the rights of “straights” to privacy?

I urge everyone to call their Senator and Congressional Representative TODAY!! Everyone I know in the military is outraged at Obama’s attempt to inject active homosexuality into the barracks and showers of the armed forces. Here we go again with another Dem idiot trying to social engineer the military.

But forcing people to accept this societal abomination is just honky dory? The military has lost its bearings. It is adopting self destructive polices and behaviors.

“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse,” Casey said

I fear too many of our higher-ranking officers appear to have been selected for their PC-compatibility rather than for their military competence. . .

If the ban is lifted homosexuals will flock to the military and overrun it and have the full force of military law behind them, the military will be theirs.

Didn’t Mullen say like 6 months ago that the policy shouldn’t be changed? Oh, that was before Obama said he wanted to change it. Now it’s good. Man, this guy is such a suck up it’s disgusting. Between him and Gates I don’t see who has the stones to defend the military from the “I loathe the military” democrat powers that be.

Wonder what he would think if he has to share a shower room and toilet room with those people ? He has his nice private shower and toilet. The rank and file don’t.

It ought to be intresting keeping up with HIV exposure in the ranks.

No Navy admiral (or Air Force general) should ever be made head of the JCS. That responsibility should be left to the Army or the Marines. Or barring that, to the Coast Guard.

Please note that Mullen said he was speaking for himself not for the other service chiefs. The CNO hasn’t come out either way yet. Mullen is the CJCS not the CNO.

Except that the Marines are a Department of the Navy. There are whack jobs in all branches. Clearly this Admiral has no clue what it’s like to be a an enlisted on a combatant vessel. I do.

The Marines are older than the Navy, think in the spirit of Hope and Change that we can the Dept of Navy and replace it with the Dept of the Marine Corps.

Except that the Marines are a Department of the Navy. A bumper sticker for sale at a local gun show reads: The Marine Corps is a department of the Navy. The men’s department. It amused me, but I didn’t bring it home. My dad retired as a Commander in the Navy. My son served in the USMC.

OK Admiral Mikey Mullen. IF we do away with the old fashioned ways then lets quit SEGREGATION in WOMENS’ quarters from MENS’ quarters Let the straights have the same perspective as the gays.I doubt women will enjoy being leered at in the showers as well as straight men will be by gays And Face it, the Homo’s will eventually pair up and have sex in the foxholes(or bunks in the navy)while the straight men will be denied such companionship. How’s that for creating Esprit De Corps

Oh yes, it continues below the fold.

Read All...

Very good news from the world of medicine---The Lancet has completely retracted the article they published in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield that links autism to vaccines.  As Phil Plait notes, the link between vaccines and autism has been discredited for a long time, but this is basically the end of even the slimmest scientific argument against vaccines.  The single reputable publication that has ever had anything to do with the anti-vax movement has cut all ties.  This is a moment to celebrate.

And to mourn.  Because despite this remarkable good news, anti-vaxxers won’t lay off, even more a moment.  In fact, I suspect they’ll redouble their efforts.  Like their fellows in the art of science denialism---global warming deniers and evolutionary theory deniers---the very existence of scientists who understand this stuff is considered an affront they’ve been put on earth to correct.  And so when the scientists are right, with their science and their evidence and their understanding, they just piss the denialists off even more. They may adjust their arguments around scientific evidence, but they don’t give up or admit they’re wrong.  Adjusting what you think based on solid evidence is what scientists do, and scientists are the enemy.  Scientists think they know better because they actually know better.  Experts think learning provides wisdom.  And anti-vaxxers are on the side of “mommy instinct” and quite a bit of hostility towards experts.

I don’t want to be this harsh, because I think a lot of people in the anti-vaccination movement got there because they’ve been traumatized by having an autistic child, and they’re looking for answers.  And the anti-vaxxers give them a very flattering answer, which is that the fault doesn’t lie with their genetics, but with the choices made by experts, who can be easily villainized.  The narrative established is hard for some parents of autistic children to resist---that they are 100% blameless, that this disease was caused by doing the right thing in vaccinating your children.  But at this point, the anti-vaccination movement is a lot bigger than a few well-meaning parents of autistic children who’ve been misled by people telling tantalizing lies.  I’d argue most of the true believers at this point are yuppie parents of mentally normal children who are refusing to vaccinate for a bundle of reasons, the two big ones being the hyper-parenting culture that leads you to believe you can control everything with nutrition and good parenting, and probably a dose of exceptionalism that comes with their class status.  Those folks really have no excuse. 

The anti-vaccination movement has edged away from the autism stuff anyway, and like all good denialist movements, it has changed its claims.  Now it’s less panicking over autism, and a lot more demands for “green” vaccines and vague panics about “toxins”.  It’s perfectly pitched to the crowd that’s interested in the “organic” label because they think it has health benefits (instead of on the more scientific grounds that it’s less environmentally damaging).  This claim about “green” vaccines is scary, because it allows anti-vaxxers both to claim they have a standard for vaccines that can be reached, while actually not having such a standard.  Just as creationists won’t give up an inch, but just refine their pitch, anti-vaxxers who fling the word “toxic” around have a perfect word to make sure they never have to concede the argument.  “Toxic” is one of those words that can mean just about anything.  And most importantly, since vaccines are there to provoke your immune system, the dead virus itself could be called “toxic”, making this a no-win argument on those terms. 

None of this is to say we should give up and let the anti-vaxxers win, of course.  But just know that it’s far from over.  In a lot of ways, the emptying out of any real scientific claims means the battle’s probably just begun. 

To make it clear, I haven’t seen all the movies nominated for Best Picture Oscar, so it’s entirely possible that one is better than “Inglourious Basterds”.  But I’ll admit I’m skeptical, if only because “Basterds” one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time.  So I’m going to make a list of the reasons I think “Basterds” should win, which are non coincidentally the reasons it won’t. Believe me, there are spoilers. And why haven’t you seen it yet?

It’s arguably the best movie made by an edgy young film director while he’s still edgy and before he’s really old. The Academy Awards love edgy young filmmakers many decades after they stopped making innovative movies.  And I say this as someone who really liked “The Departed”.  But everyone knows Scorsese was winning for his first tier classics made years ago.  This is a chance for the Academy to break the vicious cycle.  Instead of recognizing Tarantino’s genius 20 years from now, when he makes a movie that has his imprint but no innovative feel to it, why not give him the award when he still has the ability to blow an audience away with his genius?  Tarantino’s no spring chicken at 47, so it’s not like Hollywood would be wandering off into the scarily youthful woods by giving him this award.  And for people who’ve seen it, you can firmly say he won it for this year, not for “Pulp Fiction”.  Because it’s probably the better picture.

“Basterds" takes a piss all over tired Hollywood conventions about WWII. Making movies about Nazis is Oscar bait, and they end up taking themselves more seriously as movies than they do the war itself. “Basterds” lashes out at this tendency by writing an alternative history, and in doing so subverts movies like “Saving Private Ryan” or even “Schindler’s List”, that present themselves as definitive pieces on an event that was too huge and too horrible for anyone to say anything definitively about it.  By skirting the need for a WWII movie to Say Something, Tarantino reminds us that Saying Something can sometimes interrupt the humility it takes to even begin to understand something. Tarantino also asks hard questions about stereotyping Jews as passive victims in WWII movies, by making his Jewish characters run against the stereotype---their horror at the genocide translates into murderous rage, something rarely allowed in WWII movies that are more interested in exploring Allied reactions than those of the people most oppressed by the Nazis.

“Basterds” falls into Tarantino’s ongoing project of centering female characters in his films. I’ve written before about how interesting it is to me that Tarantino has decided to use the power to make any movie he wants to make movies about women that assume that women are strong and capable (but still have normal human flaws), and that if you’re shocked by that, then it says more about you than women as a group.  I wouldn’t say that’s the definitive feminist statement, but it’s certainly a feminist statement, one that’s struggling more against Hollywood representations of women than trying to suggest that all women are strong by virtue of being women.  Tarantino’s female characters also run against Hollywood’s lame attempts to provide characters that are ”strong women”.  Quoting Overthinking It:

I think the major problem here is that women were clamoring for “strong female characters,” and male writers misunderstood.  They thought the feminists meant [Strong Female] Characters.  The feminists meant [Strong Characters], Female.

Tarantino’s sadly radical project over his last few movies is to write female characters the way that you write male characters.  But Mélanie Laurent didn’t even get a nomination for her widely praised portrayal of the character Shoshanna, probably because she never speaks in English and because she doesn’t fit into a heart-warming Hollywood stereotype.  Instead, Sandra Bullock got a nod.

My prediction is that Christoph Waltz wins Best Supporting Actor, and the movie maybe wins a couple of technical awards, and that’s it. I suspect it only got nominated for Best Picture because they expanded the field to 10 nominations. It was just too hot for Hollywood. 

There’s been a lot of feminist response to the fact that Lori Gottlieb expanded her article imploring women to settle down for Mr. Good Enough into a book titled Marry Him: The Case For Settling For Mr. Good Enough.  It’s based on the false assumption that educated, middle class women are too picky and have trouble getting married.  I’m not going to tear up the logic---the links provided do a handy job---but I have a serious question to ask in the face of this argument about “settling”:  What about love? 

The underlying assumption in this book and anything of the “you’d better settle or you’ll die alone with your cats!” genre is that women marry (or at least partner up) for children, companionship, and above all, so to prove that someone liked it enough to put a ring on it.  And that men marry so that they have a nice house, children, and a regular source of sexual release that isn’t their hand.  Anna at Jezebel summarizes Gottlieb’s point of view on this:

It’s not just that Lori Gottlieb takes an incredibly narrow view of what marriage is for (she keeps mentioning the desire “to be part of a traditional family"), or that she views life without a man as necessarily lonely and shitty (she’s especially harsh on the topic of girlfriends) — she also does all this with a vitriol that’s frankly bizarre.

This narrative about why people want to marry and do marry has a lot of traction in media, because it’s basically sexist and a lot of people fucking love that.  But it also has no relationship to why most people actually want to marry, and what most people want their marriage (or partnership) to look like, which is love, baby, love.  That’s what’s never directly discussed, and it’s frankly bizarre.  The reason that women balk at the term “settle” isn’t because they’ve been poisoned by feminism to have too high of standards.  It’s because the term implies marrying someone you don’t love, and agreeing to a terse exchange of your body and housework for the social approval and companionship of being a wife. 

“But,” you might say, “She’s just saying that women are too picky and need to consider guys who aren’t maybe as tall or rich or handsome as they’ve been told they should want!” Well, I have to agree with the link to Matt above that at best you’re talking about a few women who refuse to listen to sensible advice like that.  But more importantly, that argument is a red herring.  The book isn’t titled Hey, Go Out With The Guy And Enjoy New Experiences, You Never Know Who’ll Knock You Off Your Feet.  It’s titled Marry Him.  To which I say to Ms Gottlieb: You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make her drink.

Hey, maybe I’m all wrong here, and Gottlieb addresses the giant flaw I’m seeing.  But I honestly doubt it.  From Anna’s review, it seems Gottlieb thinks there’s a nationwide problem of women who are madly in love with excellent men, but throw them over for something relatively inconsequential.  Or maybe Gottlieb is skeptical of love and romance, and sees dating as a game like “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire”, where you see how high you can go without failing out, and she’s suggesting you cut your losses at the quarter million question.  Either way, “settling” is something people don’t do as much as Gottlieb would like, mostly because it falls out of the realm of how dating actually works.

Read All...

You can really tell what the agenda behind this article is when author Joel Kotkin puts “white flight” in square quotes, implying that liberals made it up because of our irrational hatred of the suburbs.  (Via Atrios, who points out that you aren’t exactly assaulting the suburbs when you pour hundreds of millions of dollars into propping up suburban home prices, so suburbanites who bought high don’t take a bath.) Except that the existence of white flight is not controversial, as Kotkin implies, or at least no more than evolutionary theory, which is to say not controversial to people who are open to evidence.  It’s incredibly well-documented.  His mouth-smacking about the suburbs becoming more diverse is misleading---inner suburbs, sure, but that’s simply creating another round of white flight as many white residents run to the exurbs, preferring two hour commutes, it seems, over living in racially diverse neighborhoods.  If you truly value diversity, then the explosion of suburbia should be a concern to you.  That’s not the same thing as suggesting everyone who lives in the suburbs is a racist, or that was their motivation.  But the larger trends shouldn’t be ignored. 

Obviously, Kotkin wants to avoid this question, because his cute little thesis about how the President is going to be punished by suburban voters for his supposed anti-suburban views is basically one click to the left of the arguments put forwards by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck that Barack Obama is a “racist” out to get white people.  I have no idea if that’s his intention, but that’s the effect.  And without a real willingness to grapple with these realities of white flight and racism that are part of suburban formations, a lot of Kotkin’s arguments don’t really make sense.  Like this:

In addition, the president’s stimulus—with its $8 billion allocation for high-speed rail and proposed giant increases in mass transit—offers little to anyone who lives outside a handful of large metropolitan cores. Economics writer Robert Samuelson, among others, has denounced the high-speed rail idea as “a boondoggle” not well-suited to a huge, multi-centered country like the United States. Green job schemes also seem more suited to boost employment for university researchers and inner-city residents than middle-income suburbanites.

Except that some of the biggest beneficiaries of public transit by rail are the very suburbanites in middle American cities that Kotkin claims to fiercely defend.  Austin is a medium-sized city, and its light rail is being stymied by some pretty nasty political forces, but if they ever let it work, then the main beneficiaries will be people who live in the suburbs and work in the city---the traditional suburbanite the Kotkin is slobbering all over in barely-concealed “Real American” style.  In Dallas, it’s already working (and well) this way---giving suburbanites a break from endless amounts of traffic going to and from work.  But I can see where Kotkin is skeptical that people will actually use this transit. 

Read All...