feminist blogs

John McCain says:

"Let me be very clear, I am not questioning his patriotism, I am questioning his judgement. Senator Obama has made it clear he values withdrawal from Iraq above victory in Iraq.

"He has made these decisions not because he doesn't love America but because he doesn't thinks it matters whether American wins or loses."

Yeah, that makes sense. Right, John. Ramble on.

Meanwhile, as McCain talks about the Iraq surge ("That's what this is about! That's what this is about!"), Barack Obama offers a reality check, pointing out that we should focus on the Taliban, sponsors of al Qaeda and co-sponsors of 9/11.

"As commander-in-chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban," Obama said.

He said he would add two U.S. combat brigades, 7,000 fighters and support staff, and would provide an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance for Afghanistan....

..."Six years ago, I stood up at a time when it was politically difficult to oppose going to war in Iraq, and argued that our first priority had to be finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan,'' he said. "Senator McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks."

Do you, dear reader, really thing that this election is about a tactical surge in Iraq that happened last year?

An all-out war has begun between Georgia and Russia.

This is a brief video I found that gives some of the background on the disagreement, but I’m admittedly ignorant of the nuances and biases inherent to the situation. Discussion welcome.

Rob has an analysis of the details so far, and Duck of Minerva provides an interpretation of some of the faulty claims coming from local press.

Other news? Thoughts?

KBR, the defense contractor doing a lot of heavy lifting in the upholding of our occupation of Iraq, has banned the use of personal cell phones by its employees. KBR and its previous parent company Halliburton are notorious for many things. One of those things is the rape and cover up of rape committed by its male employees against its female employees.

How are the two related? Well, the first and most widely-known woman to come forward with an allegation of rape and cover up is Jamie Leigh Jones. Jones was gang raped by her coworkers, then locked inside of a shipping container for days in order to prevent her from reporting the attack. The Justice Department never brought charges against her assailants, and extremely important evidence in the case was “lost” by KBR. But the relevant part is how Jones escaped: through the use of a cell phone. A “sympathetic guard” loaned the phone to her, which she used to call her father in the United States. Her father subsequently called his congressperson, who ended up securing Jones’ release. If that “sympathetic guard” (you know, the one who didn’t set her free) hadn’t handed her that cell phone, god only knows where Jamie Leigh Jones would be today. But it just might not be alive, let alone acting as a major anti-rape and anti-KBR activist.

So. KBR employee is raped by her coworkers and then kidnapped and held prisoner. Employee secures her release through use of a personal cell phone. KBR doesn’t really give a shit about any of it. Employee makes a lot of noise about the incident, making KBR look really bad, even if not actually impacting the company financially. KBR bans personal cell phone use.

Now, whether or not Jones’ case and the number of similar allegations of rape and cover up that have come to light directly led to the ban of cell phones, we do not know. KBR isn’t talking, and only says that the ban is related to “a safety and security concern.”

But clearly, the safety and security of its female employees is not a concern. Maybe there was a valid safety and security concern that led to the ban. Or maybe “safety and security concern” means “the safety and security of our government contracts and image.” Looking at KBR’s long, repulsive history in this area, I tend to lean towards the latter, and I’m far from being the only one.

But let’s assume for a moment that KBR’s decision to ban cell phones has absolutely nothing to do with Jones’ case and others like it. Let’s be extraordinarily generous and pretend that their goal is not to prevent more rape victims from reporting the attacks perpetrated against them or speaking to loved ones about their rapes and rapists. Doesn’t matter. Even if KBR was not intentionally trying to stifle rape victims and put them in even more danger, I don’t give a shit, because that’s the end result we’re looking at. It will give the large number of victims one less recourse to ensure their safety. It will further isolate them from everyone outside of the company, leaving them with little to no support in a hostile climate. And it will embolden rapists within KBR, as if they needed that extra help. At this point, Jamie Leigh Jones’ story is well-known, and one has to assume that this is particularly the case within KBR. What exactly is stopping rapists from trying the whole thing all over again — now that they know there will be no real consequences for their actions, and even if their were, they’re now less likely to get caught in the first place?

If nothing else, best case scenario, this move shows KBR’s incredibly callousness towards rape survivors, its indifference if not promotion of its corporate rape culture, and its total obliviousness to the consequences of its own actions.

But KBR long ago gave up its right to be given the benefit of the doubt. So I still think it shows that when it comes to rape cover up, KBR knows what the hell it’s doing, and knows that no one will even bother trying to stop them.

Thanks to SunlessNick for the links.

cross-posted at the Curvature

INCITE! is one of my favorite feminist organizing projects and I’m excited to spread the word about their gorgeous new website. If you don’t already know about their amazing anthology, The Color of Violence, I highly recommend picking it up (especially since I helped craft the chapter that intersects with trans issues, toot toot.) Even if you don’t have a copy, the website is right at your fingertips, right now. Go check it out!

I especially want to draw your attention to one of the centerpieces of their website launch, the Organizing Toolkit To Stop Law Enforcement Violence Against Women of Color & Trans People of Color. If you have any doubts as to whether police brutality is a feminist issue, their analysis does a much better job of explaining than I have recently. Their toolkit highlights the fact that law enforcement violence against women and trans people often becomes invisible, while at the same time stressing the need to work in coalition with other organizations that struggle against the police state, institutionalized violence against people of color, immigrant rights, and so forth. (See in particular the joint statement put out by INCITE! and Critical Resistance, the prison abolitionist organization founded by Angela Davis and others.) They’re simultaneously working to integrate a gender analysis into conversations about police brutality, and also raise awareness that this isn’t just a problem that happens to young, straight black men.

INCITE!’s toolkit addresses everything from law enforcement violence against marginalized women and trans folks on the streets to violence in immigration practices and against native communities, police brutality against sex workers, and strategies for community accountability — which could be an alternative to calling the police, especially for people and communities who can’t always do that. I’ll quote a couple of my favorite sections after the jump.

Also, check out this sweet poster version.
(more…)

If you didn’t catch Keith Olbermann’s screed last night — inspired partially by President Bush’s commitment (which he didn’t really keep, apparently) to give up golf in honor of those servicemen killed in the Iraq War — it’s worth watching. Oh, and buckle yourself in — it’s a pretty wild ride: As genuine as Olbermann [...]

[This is a content summary only. Click on the headline for full links and additional content. Thanks!]

Interesting how one can write an entire op/ed about the anniversary of Israel’s creation and not mention the word “Palestinian” once. “Palestine” gets one mention, in a quote from someone else — but there’s no indication that there were ever people who actually lived (or continue to live) in Palestine. They’re simply invisible.

The Nation does a better job in pointing out that this is indeed a somber anniversary, and that, like American society, the people of Israel remain deeply divided about their country’s leadership and the choices that leadership has made. They also remain deeply divided and conflicted about their own identities. There’s no question that the history (and ongoing reality) of persecution of and discrimination against Jews makes a strong moral case for the creation of a Jewish state. And the fact that Israel is home to 41 percent of the world’s Jews suggests that many Jewish people have themselves decided that such a state was needed.

But the creation of that state came at great expense, and its conservative leadership continues to place major roadblocks in the way of any sort of peace. The unwillingness to grapple with history — a history of moving onto someone else’s land, which Americans too share — leaves many wounds wide open. And the refusal to allow Palestinians to pick their own leadership and to define their own existence makes it impossible to accomplish anything. There are certainly huge numbers of extremists on both sides, and I’m often tempted to say “a pox on both their houses.” But there are enough people invested in some sort of equitable and human rights affirming solution that we shouldn’t give up hope quite yet — true justice may be impossible (and I’m not even sure what that would look like at this point), but an acceptable solution isn’t. Of course, that’s going to require some representations and voices other than the “Greater Israel” religious right-wingers and the Suicide Bomber stereotypes.

So I’m glad to see publications like The Nation highlighting the voices of people from the Palestinian diaspora. One thing Edward Said highlights in The Question of Palestine — and something that probably feels familiar to a lot of people in marginalized groups — is the media’s decisions to constantly talk about the Palestinian people instead of talking to them, or listening to them. So entire articles will be written about Israel/Palestine without a Palestinian voice. It’s nice to see The Nation countering that. Maybe one day the New York Times will follow suit.

The following is a new article by Tim Mitchell, published in the “depth” section of PopPolitics magazine. Mitchell analyzes how critically discarded “versus” horror films can tell us a great deal about how we see conflict in the post-9/11 world. Horror is like any other genre of film: The most popular titles of a given [...]

[This is a content summary only. Click on the headline for full links and additional content. Thanks!]

Though not surprising, this is incredibly disturbing — and indicative of yet another failure of a lazy corporate media and a twisted, absolutist government that seems to be taking its cues from fascist regimes:

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

(more…)

When dealing with the NCAA, you can be certain that there will never be a shortage of hypocrisy. As March Madness gives way to April Sadness, two wonderful examples came flying out of the NCAA cupboard. The NCAA has, over the years, condemned the practice of scalping tickets at their events. Now the folks at the [...]

[This is a content summary only. Click on the headline for full links and additional content. Thanks!]

It’s like a perfect storm of right-wing policies: The War on Drugs, women’s liberation by way of imperialism, and “freedom” at the barrel of a gun.

Khalida’s father says she’s 9—or maybe 10. As much as Sayed Shah loves his 10 children, the functionally illiterate Afghan farmer can’t keep track of all their birth dates. Khalida huddles at his side, trying to hide beneath her chador and headscarf. They both know the family can’t keep her much longer. Khalida’s father has spent much of his life raising opium, as men like him have been doing for decades in the stony hillsides of eastern Afghanistan and on the dusty southern plains. It’s the only reliable cash crop most of those farmers ever had. Even so, Shah and his family barely got by: traffickers may prosper, but poor farmers like him only subsist. Now he’s losing far more than money. “I never imagined I’d have to pay for growing opium by giving up my daughter,” says Shah.

The vast majority of the world’s opiates originate in Afghanistan. To fight drug production, the solution has been to target individual farmers and destroy their crops — without offering them any other option for survival. And the U.S. keeps mucking it up. We offered farmers other crops (wheat, etc), but once it was grown there weren’t enough buyers (I guess we didn’t think that far ahead).

And it’s not just farmers who are suffering because of these policies — it’s girls.

Angiza Afridi, 28, has spent much of the past year interviewing more than 100 families about opium weddings in two of Nangarhar’s 22 districts. The schoolteacher and local TV reporter already had firsthand knowledge of the tragedy. Five years ago one of her younger aunts, then 16, was forced to marry a 55-year-old man to pay off an older uncle’s opium debt, and three years ago an 8-year-old cousin was also given in marriage to make good on a drug loan. “This practice of marrying daughters to cover debts is becoming a bad habit,” says Afridi.

Even so, the results of her survey shocked her. In the two districts she studied, approximately half the new brides had been given in marriage to repay opium debts. The new brides included children as young as 5 years old; until they’re old enough to consummate their marriages, they mostly work as household servants for their in-laws. “These poor girls have no future,” she says. The worst of it may be the suicides. Afridi learned of one 15-year-old opium bride who poisoned herself on her wedding day late last year and an 11-year-old who took a fatal dose of opium around the same time. Her new in-laws were refusing to let her visit her parents.

Gul Ghoti is on her first visit home since her wedding six months ago. She says it’s a relief to be back with her father and mother in their two-room mud-and-brick house, if only temporarily. “My heart is still with my parents, brothers and sisters,” she says. “Only my body is with my husband’s family.” She says she personally knows of two opium brides who killed themselves. “One of the girls had been badly beaten by her husband’s brother, the other by her husband,” she says. Ghoti says she’s considered suicide, too, but Islam stopped her. “I pray that God doesn’t give me a daughter if she ends up like me.”

The life expectancy for adults in Afghanistan is 43. Almost half of all children are not enrolled in primary school. Only eight percent of girls attend secondary school. More than half of all children under 5 are suffering from moderate to severe stunting. Only 34 percent of people in Afghanistan have access to adequate sanitation facilities. For every 100 people in Afghanistan, 5 have a phone. One has internet access. Women in Afghanistan have a 1 in 8 lifetime risk of maternal death. (By contrast: The rate in neighboring Pakistan is 1 in 74; the rate in Sweden is in in 17,400).

Thanks to Miss Sarajevo for the link.