feminist blogs

Or so the major news outlets are reporting. Deborah Jeane Palfrey was found dead this afternoon.

Read our previous posts: Vanessa on the outcome of Palfrey's trial ("a pointless, slut-shaming witch hunt"), and Samhita on how the Washington dudes who purchased sex were let off the hook.

UPDATE: More from Thomas and Carissa at Blue Lyon.

"Theft"? When it will require a Superdelegate coup to win -- mathematically it's her only chance -- that amounts to a theft, in my book.

I wouldn't be so antagonistic towards Hillary, but she has been the chameleon this entire campaign. In fact, at least since 2004. The only thing clear about Hillary is her ambition.

The Democratic destruction continues. Congratulations to the DLC.

On This Week, Republican candidate John McCain defends his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts: He opposed them because they weren't combined with spending cuts.

But he would push through his own tax cuts, even without spending cuts.

Straight talk? Ha!

And you have to hear him defend his embracing of his own controversial pastor's endorsement. More straight talk there, too. Yep.

Yes I mock, though I think the nervous liar's giggle was probably genuine.

Video.

[Memo to George: I note that McCain isn't wearing a flag pin, either. So why didn't you ask that, too, if it's such an important issue?]

This is horrible news:

The Triqui indigenous community of San Juan Copala, which declared autonomy on January 21, 2007, has suffered the bitter loss of two young women. Felicitas Martinez, age 20, and Teresa Bautista, age 24, were traveling in a rural part of Oaxaca state on route to the statewide meeting “For the Defense of the Rights of the Peoples of Oaxaca,” when gunmen opened fire on their vehicle late Monday. The gunfire killed the two women, and wounded three others in the vehicle, a man and wife and their three-year-old child, the Oaxaca attorney general’s office said in a statement.

Did you catch that? They were 20 and 24 years old, respectively. For me (someone who works in journalism), this news was a stark reminder that being an independent lefty journalist means very different things and carries very different burdens depending on where you live and the color of your skin. These women were infinitely braver and more dedicated than I will ever be.

The community radio station they worked for is called La Voz que Rompe el Silencio (“The Voice that Breaks the Silence”).

Feminist Peace Network has information on which authorities to contact to demand an investigation into the murders and punishment of those responsible.

Watching the news online, it was clear what the debate story was today:

Washington Post television critic Tom Shales, in an April 17 article headlined "In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC," described the debate as "another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances." Shales added that the debate "dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia" and "seemed slanted against Obama."

Time magazine's Michael Grunwald, in an April 17 article headlined "The Democrats Play Trivial Pursuit," wrote, "Obama's memoir dripped with contempt for modern gotcha politics, for a campaign culture obsessed with substantively irrelevant but supposedly symbolic gaffes," and added, "Last night at the National Constitution Center, at a Democratic debate that was hyped by ABC as a discussion of serious constitutional issues, America got to see exactly what Obama was complaining about."

In an April 16 article on Editor & Publisher's website, Greg Mitchell wrote, "In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame."

You don't need to go to Daily Kos to find cries of assent to these assessments.

Greg Mitchell writes on HuffPo:

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax.

The Philly Enquirer's poll has, at the time of this writing, about half of all views rating the questions as "terrible, a waste of time."

Even ABC admitted that the heat was on. As MSNBC noted:

By midafternoon Thursday, more than 15,600 comments were posted on ABC News' Web site, the tone overwhelmingly negative....

..."Why not have Paris Hilton moderate next time?" one poster wrote. One man repeated the word "bad" 48 times. A sampling found opinion was running against the network about 8-to-1.

Did the message sink into the skulls of Gibson and Stephanopoulos?

"The questions were tough and fair and appropriate and relevant," Stephanopoulos told The Associated Press. "We wanted to focus at first on the issues that were not focused on during the last debates."

The criticism comes with the territory, he said. "It's one more sign of how engaged people are over this election," he said.

Engaged on a higher level than ABC was willing to present, apparently.

It didn't help to learn that presumably George Stephanopoulos was throwing questions seeded by right-wing commentators.

But watch the NewsHour, and the story is all about the petty issues.

LINDA DOUGLASS: Well, certainly they expected the questions on Reverend Wright. Certainly they expected the questions on the statements that he made about small-town America being economically depressed and turning to guns and religion. They expected all of that.

But it was the relentlessness of it, the fact that they didn't get into health care, or gas prices, or college tuition, or whatever in the beginning that I think took them aback. They were prepared for many other kinds of questions.

And you could see that Obama himself was becoming irritated. But the one thing you can't do in a situation like this, if you are the candidate who feels aggrieved by how the moderators handled you, the one thing you cannot do is blame the press for the questions they ask. That never works as a tactic.

Enough about armchair quarterbacking. What about the facts?

MARGARET WARNER: So, Brooks, in defending himself, based on your analysis, did Obama stretch the truth in any way?

BROOKS JACKSON, FactCheck.org: Well, yes. One of the things for which we're criticizing him is that he said that, in regard to that lapel pin, the American flag lapel pin, he said, "I never said that I had refused to wear it."

Well, in fact, less than a year ago in Iowa, he told a TV interviewer that after 9/11 he had decided not to wear the pin because it had become, in his view, a substitute for true patriotism, which is upsetting a lot of people and being talked about.

So he's engaging in a little bit of rewriting his own history.

You really have to see the video where Brooks Jackson and Linda Douglass smirk with self-satisfied pride over their easy proclaimations as "the facts."

And then:

MARGARET WARNER: And, Dan, do the Obama people feel that some of these issues that were brought up last night, these personal issues or things he said or associations he's had, do they think they're really invalid or do they actually think these are potential vulnerabilities?

DAN BALZ: Well, I think they certainly recognize that the controversy over Reverend Wright is likely to be a problem in the general election. I think at this point they think they have weathered most of these in the nomination battle.

All of the polling that came out over the last few days shows no particular damage from the comments he made at the San Francisco fundraiser about how small-town Americans are bitter about their situation and cling to guns and religion and things like that.

I think they believe that -- I mean, I know they were quite worried when that erupted. I think they think that that has not been a serious problem.

Again, the Old Media are stuck in their Old Story. Even when they are the story. Even in the face of criticism, they insist upon focusing on trivia rather than on things that matter.

Lapel pins? Who "loves America more"? Puhleez! I'd have expected more from the NewsHour, but they were as lazy as ABC. Something to remember during the next pledge break.

Marriage: Do it for the economy!

Well, that's what some groups would like us to think...

Divorce and out-of-wedlock childbearing cost U.S. taxpayers more than $112 billion a year, according to a study commissioned by four groups advocating more government action to bolster marriages.

Sponsors say the study is the first of its kind and hope it will prompt lawmakers to invest more money in programs aimed at strengthening marriages. Two experts not connected to the study said such programs are of dubious merit and suggested that other investments - notably job creation - would be more effective in aiding all types of needy families.

But who needs jobs when you have a husband, right? The study was sponsored by four organizations that identify as part of a "marriage movement" - Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Families Northwest, and the Georgia Family Council (an ally of Focus on the Family). So yeah, not biased at all.

Studies like these are not just about promoting marriage, of course, they're about promoting traditional marriages. And the idea that women don't need a job (just a man) has hurting women welfare recipients for far too long. So if we're worried about the economy, let's focus on jobs, education, and affordable child care for parents - not weddings.

Thanks to Monica for the link.

Maybe it's just how the NewsHour is selling the news, but here's what we see:

First we get John McCain, opponent of the King holiday, proponent of the Confederate flag over South Carolina, pretending to be a McCain admirer.

Then we get Hillary Clinton, talking about steps backwards and how it is just as hard for her as it was for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And we want to just vomit. What dreck. (What's worse is that we know that somehow, in some way, Clinton really has a progressive racial conciousness, but she simply has a serious problem with expressing any sort of authenticity.)

And then we get a snippet of Barack Obama, who's talking not about how Dr. King was such a remarkable America (which he was), but about Dr. King's message -- and how we are or are not living up to it.

Two panderers eager to kiss a dead man's ass, and one leader who takes up the dead man's message and challenges us.

So which candidate is the most presidential here?

[No transcript or audio here, save for the discussion after.]

3 recessions under Bush presidents. (3 Republican recessions, many would say.) But this one is the worst since the post-War period [audio].

Should we really be surprised?

UK-based videocasting channel Truetube has a great series on feminism, Feminism 3.0. It includes pieces on feminism in India, the Hijab, sex, and a piece about "random acts of feminism" where they interview yours truly (below). Check it out...

Early Thursday morning there was a huge fire in Mt. Pleasant, a neighborhood in NW DC. The neighborhood is predominantly Latino, although quickly gentrifying as well. An entire apartment buidling was destroyed in this fire, which displaced around 200 people, mostly low-income Latino immigrant residents.

It's a complicated story, unsurprisingly for those who are familiar with struggles around gentrification and housing. The building was one that had been neglected for a long time, in what some would say was an attempt by the owners of the building to force out their low-income residents. Well now nature has done it instead, although the source of the fire is as of yet unclear (I smell a rat). Luckily no one was hurt.

So now we've got a crisis in Mt.Pleasant, with a ton of displaced people who have lost everything. If you happen to be in DC, there are some donation options: you can donate supplies (like clothing, Bottled Water, Blankets, Trash Bags, School Supplies, Gift Cards, Baby Formula) or money to some local orgs and businesses that are serving as facilitators for this process. Also a friend of Jen's is organizing a happy hour tonight to raise money for the displaced people.

These sites provide the best information on how to help: Hear Mt. Pleasant, Neighbor's Consejo, then info about the fundraiser tonight.

Why do things like this always affect the most vulnerable populations? Not only are these people out of a home, but their building will probably be turned into luxury condos they can't afford anymore. It's just so frustrating.

Pictures of the fire here.