feminist blogs

Ezra says it perfectly, so I’m just going to quote him in full:

This really seems to be the difference between liberals and neoconservatives on foreign policy, doesn’t it? Neocons envision a near-static population of terrorists, and prescribe an aggressive policy of killing them in order to rid the world of terrorism. Liberals see a dynamic population of terrorists and prescribe broad policies meant to blunt their popular appeal and deprive them of public support. Neocons looks at the liberal prescription and say, essentially, “you’re not killing enough of them.” And liberals look at the Neocons and, aghast, say, “stop making so many more.”

When the Bush administration was gearing up to invade Iraq, the plight of Muslim women was used as one of a handful of human rights justifications for war. They conveniently conflated “Muslim women” with “women in Afghanistan living under the Taliban,” and most Americans seemed to be under the impression that Iraqi women were roundly oppressed. In fact, women in Iraq had more rights under Saddam Hussein than they do under the current Iraqi constitution. I’m no Saddam apologist, and I don’t think that women’s rights are particularly grand achievements when human rights are virtually non-existent. However, we can’t ignore the fact that women in Iraq are inarguably worse off now than they were before we showed up.

The images in the Basra police file are nauseating: Page after page of women killed in brutal fashion — some strangled to death, their faces disfigured; others beheaded. All bear signs of torture.

The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other “rules” that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce.

“Fear, fear is always there,” says 30-year-old Safana, an artist and university professor. “We don’t know who to be afraid of. Maybe it’s a friend or a student you teach. There is no break, no security. I don’t know who to be afraid of.”

Her fear is justified. Iraq’s second-largest city, Basra, is a stronghold of conservative Shia groups. As many as 133 women were killed in Basra last year — 79 for violation of “Islamic teachings” and 47 for so-called honor killings, according to IRIN, the news branch of the U.N.’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

One glance through the police file is enough to understand the consequences. Basra’s police chief, Gen. Abdul Jalil Khalaf, flips through the file, pointing to one unsolved case after another.

“I think so far, we have been unable to tackle this problem properly,” he says. “There are many motives for these crimes and parties involved in killing women, by strangling, beheading, chopping off their hands, legs, heads.”

“When I came to Basra a year ago,” he says, “two women were killed in front of their kids. Their blood was flowing in front of their kids, they were crying. Another woman was killed in front of her 6-year-old son, another in front of her 11-year-old child, and yet another who was pregnant.”

The killers enforcing their own version of Islamic justice are rarely caught, while women live in fear.

Boldly splattered in red paint just outside the main downtown market, a chilling sign reads: “We warn against not wearing a headscarf and wearing makeup. Those who do not abide by this will be punished. God is our witness, we have notified you.”

Women in Afghanistan — you know, the ones we liberated from the burqa — aren’t doing much better. Women’s rights leaders have been murdered. Girls in school are prime targets for religious fundamentalists. And fundamentalist religious groups are taking hold of large parts of the country.

Three cheers for “liberation.”

Anti-choice activist Robert Ferguson

Gotta love the anti-choice nuts at Operation Rescue. The backstory: They’re going after Dr. Tiller, a Kansas abortion provider, for approximately the 340,986th time. Dr. Tiller is a favorite of theirs because he’s one of the last abortion providers in Kansas, and he provides late-term abortions. One of their followers shot him in both arms a few years ago, his clinic has been vandalized on numerous occasions, his workers are regularly harassed, and he’s Target #1 for a “pro-life” movement that murders doctors. Tiller’s home address, family members’ information, and pictures are all posted on “pro-life” websites. For protection, he lives in a gated community, has a high-level security system surrounding his home, and wears a bullet-proof vest to work every day.

Operation Rescue and other anti-choice groups harass Tiller constantly — in person and in court. They stalk his employees, sifting through their trash and encouraging local businesses (like their dry-cleaner or their mechanic) not to service “baby-killers.” They picket his clinic. They put up heinous websites about him — I don’t recommend googling “Dr. Tiller,” but if you do, you’ll see what kinds of websites I’m talking about. They sue him. They also attempt to bring criminal charges against him. Usually, those charges are so flimsy that they don’t make it past a grand jury; they are, however, expensive and time-consuming for Dr. Tiller, which is the point.

I would encourage everyone to read this article about anti-choice harassment and stalking in Wichita to get a fuller idea of what’s going on out there. It’s a must-read piece, and if you haven’t seen it yet, give it a look.

The latest harassment of Dr. Tiller includes yet another criminal charge for which there is very little evidence. Operation Rescue, however, has decided that it’s important for them to subpoena the private medical records of women who have had abortions in Dr. Tiller’s clinic, and to show the Grand Jury photographs (taken by Operation Rescue, natch) of the women walking into the clinic — and don’t worry, they’ve already posted those photos online anyway. They claim that no privacy rights are violated because the women’s faces are blurred in the photos, and identifying information will be redacted from the records.

All of which, as we know, is crap. But here’s where it gets (unintentionally) funny: They have a press release running in Christian “news” sources this week, complaining that an editorial and a political cartoon in a Kansas paper are unfairly compromising the Grand Jury’s work. The anti-Operation-Rescue editorial reads, in part:
(more…)

After all, they must be wondering how we can be leaders of the free world -- a nation others look up to -- if we don't torture people we don't like?

Via Raw Story: The Blotter: CIA Bans Water-Boarding in Terror Interrogations:

The officials say the decision was made sometime last year but has never been publicly disclosed.

One U.S. intelligence official said, "It would be wrong to assume that the program of the past moved into the future unchanged."

A CIA spokesman said, as a matter of policy, he would decline to comment on interrogation techniques, "which have been and continue to be lawful," he said.

So said David Addington, Cheney's legal counsel and chief of staff.

Redstate notes that "Cheney Warned Of Iraq 'Quagmire'":

I don't know what to say. Maybe something like I hate it when he's right? I don't think Iraq is a quagmire. Progress is being made. So much so that even the New York Times had to acknowledged it and there is talk of some Democrats being worried about facing a voter backlash for pandering to the left wing defeatists.

I was speaking with a Marine Master Sargent last week. He was getting ready for his second deployment to Iraq. Asked what he thought of our efforts he said He has 25 years in the Corps, looking to make it 30, he expects he will have three more Iraq tours. He thought for a moment and said 'we just need more time. You have to give us more time.'

The problem with Cheney's use of the q-word is that ever since we gave up in Vietnam, quagmire equates to failure in our political lexicon. We have not failed in Iraq, not yet, regardless of what the Democrats and the main stream media say. Another problem is that we can't look at the post-9/11 world through pre-9/11 lenses. September 11th changed everything.

- READ MORE -

When reasonable, Constitution-abiding people argue that no one--and especially "suspects" and "persons of interest"--should be imprisoned (and denied legal representation) without being charged with a crime, we are often told that we are "unpatriotic" and "weak." What will our accusers, then, tell members of the National Rife Association, who are arguing that suspected terrorists should not be

According to your definition, there are so many of us terrorists crawling around, you could never scoop us all up and bring us to justice. But give me a break--how can we not "insult" someone whose mission is to make people feel ashamed of themselves and to oppress more than half of the population, causing everything from hopelessness to death? The Pope, according to the Vatican, is "someone

Insight from the man at PC magazine:

Nastiness is an earmark of many bloggers, podcasters, and members of
the herd; a few insane people; and those who feel that being an
out-and-out mean and profane presence on the Internet is cool or funny.
The level of nastiness that floats around the Net in various forms,
forums, and Web sites is incredible. When O'Reilly first proposed his
rules of the road for bloggers, I thought it was silly at worst and
wishful thinking at best. Nothing would come of it except a debate and
various columns like this one and the one from Tennant. The thinking is
that once all this is brought to light, maybe people will rethink the
way they act online.—next: It's Hopeless >

It's hopeless. Nothing will come of it. After the Kathy Sierra thing
blows over, the meanness will continue unabated, with all sorts of
dispossessed and borderline psychopaths blowing off steam online in one
way or another—usually by calling people names or being hypercritical.
This seems to be a reflection more of society as a whole than of the
psychological problems of a few individuals. There are too many people
who go online searching for validation of their life choices. Anytime
they run across anything that questions or counters their decisions,
they see it as a personal attack, and they'll often strike back,
attacking the perceived "enemy" in a personal manner. It all seems so
ridiculous, since these people likely don't know each other at all....

...But no matter, the whole thing is hopeless. Let's just go back to work.

- READ MORE -

And it really is their war -- a war they've rubber-stamped and refused to oversee, let alone question, since it started.

Now they don't want to talk about it.

The day's events ended the initial phase of what looms as a yearlong
confrontation between the new, Democratic-controlled Congress and the
commander in chief.

Reid told reporters he would no longer attempt to win passage for
nonbinding measures and would turn his attention to legislation
designed to force Bush to change course. House Democratic leaders
intend to do likewise.

In typical Republican style, they consider anything that questions the Bush policy to be tantamount to inviting screaming suicide bombers into small town America. They also tried to claim that the Democrats just want to leave American troops hanging in Iraq.

Because if you don't kiss George W. Bush's feet, you must want to kiss the feet of terrorists. Right?

At issue are Republican attempts to prevent Representative Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania from requiring that our troops are properly equipped with body armor, armored vehicles and training -- things the Republicans neglected to provide over their years of ruling Congress.

Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record),
D-Pa., has described a series of provisions that would require the
Pentagon to meet certain standards for training and equipping the
troops, and for making sure they have enough time at home between
deployments.

Murtha and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said these provisions were designed to protect the troops.

Republicans argued the effect would be to deny troops needed reinforcements and are expected to try to block the restrictions.

Yes, the GOP logic is it's better to send our troops in ill-equipped and un-trained so they can get into the fight faster. Never mind that we have Army and National Guard troops in un-protected Hum-Vees and Marines in amphibious vehicles that are designed to float, not to repel rocket-propelled grenades.

You know, the Republicans sure love to talk a big game, puffing out their chests, thumping like Kong, but when it comes down to it, they'd rather fund bridges to nowhere and tax cuts for rock stars and CEOs than give our armed forces what they need to do their job. It's a damned good thing the GOP is out of power for the time being, or they'd have us sending into Iraq green recruits wearing nothing but skivvies and Sketchers, and leaving defense of our homeland to the ROTC and Boy Scouts.

read more