Incandescent Meditation Over Class Enforcement

or, Tis’ agin’ nature. by Anthony McCarthy

In an interesting coincidence, the night before his death was announced my brother and I were discussing the weird story about Ron Paul’s concentration of financial support in Fairfield, IA, the U.S. base of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It turns out that the MMY was a big supporter of “Natural Law Parties” here and abroad. How enlightened it is to support any third party in the United States is a moot point, in all but the rarest cases it is a harmless eccentricity. The idea that any political formulation constitutes “natural law” sounds like asking for trouble. Any idea people have is natural only in the sense that people can be said to be a natural occurrence. Our ideas are at best representations of what we take to be nature, subject to all of human folly, never more than when we forget where they really come from and attribute atavistic potency to them . Perhaps keeping this in mind might eventually lead, by some kind of wacky metaphysics, to the Ron Paul connection.

The next morning, in the BBC’s coverage of the death of the MMY, something was said that raised my blood pressure a lot more than my usual six cups of coffee. It was, of course, all about The Beatles short lived discipleship in Transcendental Meditation. Dan Damon and the would-be hard bitten journalist he was talking to started going on about how foolish it was for “working class lads from Liverpool” to be looking past their proper lower class interests to seek enlightenment. Well, why shouldn’t four “working class lads” from anywhere look into whatever form of whatever they want to? Is enlightenment, even of the 60s jet-set Jnana sort, off limits for people from the working class? Even those who, by that time, were some of the richest people in Britain? How much money held for how many generations is required before you can step out of your place to seek after something more elevated than fish and chips and football fanaticism? You got more than a distinct impression that Damon and his guest thought the lads had gone beyond their station in life. The Beatles had violated the rules of their caste.

Fortunately, ridicule is about the only price to be paid for doing that, provided you’ve got enough money. Is it now the BBC's policy to discourage the underclass from getting above themselves?

Indecision 2008 by Anthony McCarthy

It’s been a really interesting experience, having so many good Democrats running for the presidential nomination. Tomorrow I’m going to have to choose who to stand up for in caucus. It's the first time in my life that I'm undecided this late in the season.

Kucinich was closest to my positions, though he certainly didn’t have a chance at the nomination and disappointed me with his lack of political acumen. His New Hampshire recount, in the absence of real evidence that there were problems with the vote and with no chance that it would change anything about the outcome, was ridiculous. I hope he survives the challenges for his Congressional seat and learns something from the experience, though that is a matter for his constituents to decide. Dennis. Love you, but symbolic candidacies are counterproductive.

Chris Dodd. What a shame that this serious and intelligent candidate didn’t have any chance of gaining traction. His failure is just more evidence of how the corporate media system actively destroys some of our best candidates through ignoring them. He would have made a very good president.

Joe Biden. I would have supported him in a general election if I had to, but it was clear from the beginning that wasn’t going to happen. He lost my support for the nomination in the 80s.

Bill Richardson made a very credible case for him being taken seriously as a member of the short list for VP. He also would probably have been a good president.

John Edwards was my early favorite among those who had any chance. His position in the best tradition of egalitarian populism and his passion mixed with sheer intelligence would have made him an excellent president. He would have been what Carter and Bill Clinton might have been. He had better policy positions than either of them ended up with and was cagey enough to be able to get more of it into law. He was the most prepared to avoid the dangers of Insider Washington and able to read history and the present. His credibility is why he was the target of the lying media from the beginning.

And now we have two very good candidates but can only choose one.

Hillary Clinton would be a very good president. I’ve said that Bill Clinton was the most intelligent president in our history but often not the wisest. Hillary Clinton has proven that she is more than his match in intelligence and much wiser. Her case that she had learned from her experiences as the lightening rod of the corporate media and the Republican lie machine as well as her own mistakes in national healthcare is rock solid. She is one of the indispensable people in the Democratic Party. My reservations about some of her past votes, especially the authorization given for Bush in Iraq, are valid but in politics you don’t get to vote for perfect candidates. There has never been one, not even Kucinich, with a perfect record.

Hillary Clinton’s election would also mean that it had been done, a woman had been elected President of the United States. That is not in any way insignificant, it would change things for women as few things have in recent years.

Barack Obama is not the same kind of candidate as Hillary Clinton, he brings other qualities to consider. He matches Hillary Clinton in many things, though in some doesn’t come up to her experience, at least not yet. I don’t know if that lack of DC experience is all that much of a setback considering what having it can mean. One thing that he alone brings is the level of interest in his prominence in areas of the world such as Africa and the Middle East. It is possible that his election could do a lot to mitigate the damage done to the United States by the Bush-Cheney juntas and the Reagan years. His election would also mean that the election of an African-American had been achieved, overcoming the covertly racist policy of the Republican era.

We have to have a Democrat as President next year. The choice comes down to who seems to have the best chance to beat John McCain and I don’t know who that will be in November, it will have to be based on whoever seems most likely to defeat him tomorrow. Both of the choices are excellent incomparison to any Republican, both of them are indispensable to the Democratic Party.

Many people are wishing for some combination of Clinton and Obama on the same ticket and it would be very hard for Republicans to beat that combination. But don’t expect it to happen. Clinton - Obama is more likely than the reverse, I can’t imagine Hillary Clinton settling for VP after making such a credible run against all odds. Remember those who confidently expected little Ricky to beat her for the Senate? I might be wrong and hope I am. Wherever she ends up in government, she will be very important for the future.

I can imagine Obama accepting the VP position knowing that he would likely play a strong role as Al Gore did. His abilities and talents make him one of the most credible Democratic politicians we have today.

Whichever one is the Democratic nominee will have my support and can count me as a volunteer to get the Democratic vote out in November.

And Shuster Apologizes

You can view the video here.

Wonder how long it will take for us to be told how this apology is a sign of political correctness crushing the freedom of speech and so on? I'm sure all this is being written right about now.

My view on what Shuster said is that his statement, taken in complete isolation, might not have been worth criticizing. But it's not a statement living all alone in a tiny misogynistic hut somewhere in the Arctic. It's a statement fairly representative of the free-wheeling and jokey misogynism which has ruled the public airwaves for quite a while. Remember Don Imus and the "nappy-headed hos" statement? Remember all those hundreds of stupid things which germinate in Chris Matthew's mouth, especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton but also when it comes to women in general?

It's really this population of cool and flippant misogyny, the humorous disrespecting of women in general, that is the problem, and its presence inside the brains of so many pundits. Sadly, the only way of addressing that population is by picking out specimen samples and by holding them against some sunlight. I say "sadly", because the opposition will focus on those specimens, because the opposition will pretend that each of those specimens is unique, and because the opposition will insist on its inalienable right to hate on women.

The Law of Unintended Consequences?

The Indian Rights movement in Mexico has had some successes, at least if we limit Indians to only men:

Women in this Indian village high in the pine-clad mountains of Oaxaca rise each morning at 4 a.m. to gather firewood, grind corn, prepare the day's food, care for the children and clean the house.

But they aren't allowed to vote in local elections, because — the men say — they don't do enough work.

It was here, in a village that has struggled for centuries to preserve its Zapotec traditions, that Eufrosina Cruz, 27, decided to become the first woman to run for mayor — despite the fact that women aren't allowed to attend town assemblies, much less run for office.

The all-male town board tore up ballots cast in her favor in the Nov. 4 election, arguing that as a woman, she wasn't a "citizen" of the town. "That is the custom here, that only the citizens vote, not the women," said Valeriano Lopez, the town's deputy mayor.

Rather than give up, Cruz has launched the first serious, national-level challenge to traditional Indian forms of government, known as "use and customs," which were given full legal status in Mexico six years ago in response to Indian rights movements sweeping across Latin America.

This is a real dilemma in any legal system where the laws were all decided a long time ago, including the Islamic sharia law. Medieval law-makers didn't have today's views on equality and neither, it seems, did the old Zapotec traditions.

At the same time, it looks like Cruz has a good case:

The law states that Indian townships may "apply their own normative systems ... as long as they obey the general principles of the Constitution and respect the rights of individuals, human rights, and particularly the dignity and well-being of women."

Despite this specific protection, about a fourth of the Indian villages operating under the law don't let women vote, putting human rights groups in a dilemma: Most actively supported recognition for Indian governance systems, and few have therefore taken up the women's cause.

Note that last quoted sentence and then sigh.

I'm not sure how human rights groups can think of the word "human" as not covering women. But then I'm a feminist, I guess.

Friday Fluff Post

How hard it is to turn from the topics of my last two posts to something fluffy. Hard but also necessary, because I can't begin a weekend with all that pain on my mind, and I don't want to leave only sad and painful posts at the top of the front page. Yet doing the necessary reversal in one single post seems tasteless and shallow. But so it goes.

Let us then go all fluffy and shallow. Float comfortably in your chair or on your bed and pop in a piece of chocolate. Did you have a good week? Are you the same person you were a week ago? Any new gray hairs? Do your eyes look shinier now? Did you notice that the sun suddenly smells of spring?

I have a plan for something to sell on this here blog, by the way. I'm going to knit woolen chastity belts (from sizes XS to XL), and the front will have a picture of a nicely slithering snake. How much could I charge for those? I figure that each would take about eight hours of knitting and/or embroidery.

I bet they wouldn't sell, though. The alternative get-rich-quick-scheme is to make my most profound posts into little autographed booklets (perhaps with a lip-print from me on the cover) and to sell them on the blog for, say, 20 dollars each. That wouldn't work, either, but it's fun to imagine which posts would be included and why.

Or I could start an Echidne Advises series. You could send in all your most embarrassing questions and I could give you sage advice which would make no sense at all. "Yes, Clueless in Cleveland, your husband is quite right. They do stay outside during the act." Except that Dan Savage already has that covered.

Read any good books, lately? I just finished unSpun, by Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. It's all about how not to get cheated in this world of disinformation. I was planning to review it until I realized that it's not so cool to review a book on something that you are somewhat of an expert yourself, because what irritates you about the book is not really relevant for most readers. So I didn't review it (or rather, didn't post the review), but it's probably worth a read if you want to know the 47.5 ways politicians lie to you and how not to fall for those lies. I suspect that there are only three ways politicians lie, though, and that rewriting the book that way might have been more useful. And no, "he-said-she-said" is not neutral, and neither is an attempt to make the lying into a completely bipartisan problem. But other than that and a few fact check problems I liked the book just fine.

Was that praise lukewarm enough for you?

Henrietta the Hound is not doing too bad. She will never climb stairs unassisted but barking, that's something she can do without my help at all. As I can hear right now.

Have a nice weekend.

Today's Action Alert

Iran is planning to stone several people to death because of adultery charges:

The head of Iran's Judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi Shahrudi, should immediately revoke the sentences of death by stoning imposed on three persons convicted of adultery, Human Rights Watch said today. In separate cases, two sisters from the town of Shahriar in Tehran Province and a man from the town of Sari in the province of Mazandaran, are all at imminent risk of execution.
"The Iranian government is set to execute three of its citizens in a horrendously brutal manner," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The Judiciary must act now to end this inhuman form of punishment once and for all."

In February 2007, authorities arrested sisters Zohreh Kabiri, 27, and Azar Kabiri, 28, on charges of having "illegal relationships" based on accusations made by one of their husbands. According to Iran?s Islamic Penal Code, "immoral" relationships such as those between men and women who are not married, may be subject to criminal punishment. One month after their arrest, Branch 128 of the General Court of the city of Karaj convicted and sentenced the sisters to 99 lashes.

Six months after officials handed down and executed the sentence, additional accusations by the husband of one of the sisters resulted in a second trial on more serious charges of adultery. Branch 80 of the Karaj Penal Court of the Tehran Province convicted the sisters on these charges and sentenced them to death by stoning. The Supreme Court has approved the ruling and the sentence may be carried out at any time.

The Islamic Penal Code of Iran allows execution as a punishment for adultery, and allows it to be carried out by stoning for this offense. The practice involves throwing stones at the convicted individual, who is buried up to the waist (if he is a man) or up to the chest (if she is a woman), until the individual dies from impact of the blows.

Jabar Solati, the lawyer for the two sisters, told Human Rights Watch that since the sentence has already been approved by the Supreme Court, only intervention by the country's highest judicial official, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi Shahrudi, can prevent the stoning from being carried out.

Abdullah Farivar, 49, also faces execution by stoning. In December 2006, authorities in the northern town of Sari arrested Farivar on charges of adultery. A year later, Branch Two of the Penal Court of Sari convicted Farivar and sentenced him to death by stoning. The Supreme Court has approved the sentence. According to statements attributed in the media to Farivar's family, local authorities informed them last week that the sentence would soon be carried out.

According to the Human Rights Watch, only intervention by the highest judicial officer, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi Shahrudi, can prevent the stoning from being carried out. You can find his e-mail address and other possible addresses here. Remember that a polite letter works better.

Stay At Home And Keep Your Mouth Shut

This might be the best summary of the patriarchal message to women in general, and those in Basra, Iraq, in particular:

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.

...

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."

...

Sawsan, another woman who works at a university, says the message from the radicals to women is simple: "They seem to be sending us a message to stay at home and keep your mouth shut."

This, too, is part of the new liberated Iraq: People who have decided to be the judges and executioners of others, people who torture in the name of God, those people are now wielding real power. Got democracy?

The Fox Dyslexia

It's an odd little feature of Fox News, that tendency to reassign Republican politicians they don't like to the Democratic Party. They did it with Mark Foley during the Congressional page scandal and now they have done it with John McCain. McCain is not a well-liked candidate among the Republican base.

But why would someone bother to play this "R to D" game? It's so very childish. Or does Fox actually have an employee who can't tell the letters apart? And if so, why are they never mixed in the other direction? Or are they and we don't hear about that?

The whole matter is a trivial one, but it explains the difficulties I have with the desire for bipartisanship in the Congress. I am not at all convinced that the Republicans are going to play that game at all. Why else this silly letter game or the equally silly custom of refusing to call the Democratic Party by its proper name and instead shortening it to the Democrat Party? Such practices are not an example of bipartisanship or even of adult politics.

Nasty

More here.

Diabetes Study Partially Halted After Deaths

This is the headline of Gina Kolata's article in the New York Times about a large study on diabetics. One part of the study compared the benefits from very rigorous control of blood sugar to a program of somewhat looser control. The obvious hypothesis was that trying to get the blood sugar levels to as close to nondiabetic levels as possible would be a good thing, in this case a good thing in preventing heart attacks. What the study found instead is stunning:

For decades, researchers believed that if people with diabetes lowered their blood sugar to normal levels, they would no longer be at high risk of dying from heart disease. But a major federal study of more than 10,000 middle-aged and older people with Type 2 diabetes has found that lowering blood sugar actually increased their risk of death, researchers reported Wednesday.

The researchers announced that they were abruptly halting that part of the study, whose surprising results call into question how the disease, which affects 21 million Americans, should be managed.

The study's investigators emphasized that patients should still consult with their doctors before considering changing their medications.

Among the study participants who were randomly assigned to get their blood sugar levels to nearly normal, there were 54 more deaths than in the group whose levels were less rigidly controlled. The patients were in the study for an average of four years when investigators called a halt to the intensive blood sugar lowering and put all of them on the less intense regimen.

The results do not mean blood sugar is meaningless. Lowered blood sugar can protect against kidney disease, blindness and amputations, but the findings inject an element of uncertainty into what has been dogma — that the lower the blood sugar the better and that lowering blood sugar levels to normal saves lives.

Medical experts were stunned.

Note that the patients were randomly assigned to each treatment group. This means that the differences in the death rates are not because one group was in worse state of health to begin with, say. The differences must be in the treatment regimes themselves, and if you read the linked article you will find that the researchers worked very hard to find the reason for the excess deaths, other than the lowered blood sugar, but failed to do so.

This study reminds us of the possibility that something "everybody knows to be good" may in fact not be good at all. It also reminds us of the need to do studies of this type, even in areas where "everybody knows what works."

This post might be a good place to talk about the importance of randomized controlled trials in medicine. Such trials consist of randomly allocating patients into one treatment regime or another or of randomly allocating them into a treatment regime and a control regime with no treatment but perhaps a placebo. Ideally these trials should be "double-blind", too, meaning that neither the patients nor the people who administer the treatment can tell who is in which group. That way the trial avoids finding differences just because the very act of getting treated could make a difference in either the patients' self-assessment of health or in the way the providers view their health.

The initial random allocation of patients is very important, because only by random allocation can we guarantee that the differences we might find later on are not caused by initial differences between the patient groups.

Some of you may wonder how ethical such studies could be. After all, isn't it unethical not to give patients a treatment? The usual answer to that question is that these trials should be held when nobody really knows if one treatment is any better than another treatment or if a treatment is better than doing nothing. In that state of real "not-knowing" a participating patient faces the same initial risk of not getting the best possible treatment, whichever group he or she might be assigned to. If the new treatment turns out to be superior to the alternative the trial is stopped and all patients transferred to the new treatment regime. If, on the other hand, the new treatment turns out to be inferior to the alternative (or to have severe side effects), the trial is also stopped and all patients transferred to the control regime.

This diabetes study brings the point home rather forcefully. We might have well assumed that it would be wrong not to put all the patients on the most rigorous regime of blood sugar control. But the study proved otherwise.

Meanwhile, in Kenya

Violence is not yet under control after the recent elections. Women have been forgotten in the mediation to end violence but not by the violence itself:

As post-election violence escalates in various parts of the country, thousands of people are each day fleeing their homes to seek safety in makeshift camps, becoming known as internally displaced people, or IDPs.

It is now recognised that women and children are bearing the brunt of the raging conflict, and now the red light is on. Sexual abuse has been thrown into the equation, and these two vulnerable groups are suffering double jeopardy.

First, they have to deal with the trauma of being violently uprooted from comfortable and familiar environments to live under deplorable conditions where their existence is dependent on relief efforts.

Then, it is emerging that sexual violence targeting women and girls is rampant in the camps. It follows that the recovery of women and children already traumatised could be fundamentally compromised.

Reports from the internal refugee camps paint a grave picture indeed, and there is a likelihood that the cases coming to the attention of aid workers could just be the tip of the iceberg.

So it goes.

For the Victims of the Storms

Monkeyfister points out the great toll of the recent winter storms and also provides addresses for those who wish to help the sufferers.

What I'm Listening To

I'm on a blues streak, recently. But I have always liked the voice of Mississippi John Hurt:

Do I Dare To Eat A Peach II?

The reason for the titles of this post and the one below is that the particular line echoed in my head when I read the responses by Amanda at Pandagon and Ann at feministing.com to Robin Morgan's "Goodbye To All That (#2)." Both Ann and Amanda reacted strongly to this statement in Morgan's piece:

Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .

Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous "Obama Girl" flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn't her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said "made me feel like a dork."
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they're not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can't identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking "what if she's not electable?" or "maybe it's post-feminism and whoooosh we're already free." Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, "I could have saved thousands—if only I'd been able to convince them they were slaves."

Ann's response:

This is all incredibly offensive to me -- not because of who I support in the presidential primary, but because of who I am. A younger woman. A younger feminist woman.

The above section of Morgan's essay is incredibly condescending. It completely fails to recognize that there are a variety of valid reasons younger women might decide to support Obama. Not because they think the "Obama Girl" video is empowering. (Uh, to the contrary.) Not because their boyfriends told them it wasn't cool to vote for Hillary. Not because they're "post-feminist." Not because they are in denial about the existence of sexism. Because they've taken a look at his position on the issues and decided that he would make the best president.

And Amanda's:

Usually when I'm being accused of being some tee-heeing bimbo who is only playing at politics, it's usually by some conservative white dude who can't think his way out of a paper bag, but feels entitled to believe his every thought is gold served up with caviar. Hearing it from a fellow feminist, someone I recall was a brilliant radical feminist when she was my age, is shocking. I know Morgan probably doesn't know me from Eve, and thus I shouldn't take it personally. But it still hurts tremendously. I'm not shaking in fear of my boyfriend finding out that I'm a feminist (I think he knows), nor am I afraid to talk up Clinton's strong points to men. I do it all the time, and haven't gotten any funny looks, even though I'm prone to phrasing things in provocative ways. (Favorite talking point: "She'd probably be a better President than her husband.")

These are strongly worded reactions to a strongly worded paragraph (though I don't think that Morgan was addressing young feminist women in that paragraph). My initial idea was to write one of those soothing can't-we-all-get-along post on the topic, the type that I'm so good at writing and being ignored for. But after an hour or so I realized that I couldn't write that post without coming across schoolmarmish. I also realized, to my great astonishment, that although I think I get the points of both Robin and of Ann and Amanda I can't really cook them together into some nice feminist pie. What is, is.

But what I can do, perhaps, is to point out a reason for the anger of many older feminists when they discuss feminist support for Barack Obama.

It has to do with the one obvious success story of the second wave of feminism: that of getting the doors opened for women who wanted to participate in the upper eschelons of our society. Granted, those doors were mostly only opened for white upper-class women, but opened they were. Or at least left ajar.

One important strategy in that battle was to push "first women", women who were going to hold some job never previously held by women. Remember that thirty years ago most medical school or law school classes had very few women and that both the boardrooms of corporations and the U.S. Congress were pretty much stuffed with penises (peni?). Each new "first woman" gave cause of celebration, because her existence was a sign of changing times and because having women in powerful roles worked to diminish the stereotypes of women as weak and over-emotional and only suitable for being helpmates. In that sense the "first women" helped to diminish the general level of sexism in the society. At least they offered ammunition to those women who wanted to argue back to the misogynist comments about women's feather-brainedness.

That the success of opening up the public sphere of women was only partial goes without saying. But that it was a success is why the younger women today can take a medical school class that is fifty percent female as just a statistical number, with no special significance.

Now move fast forward to the present time, one where a woman is running for the Democratic nomination in the presidential race, a woman whose record on policies concerning women is quite good. How would a feminist not voting for her look like from the place where the second wave strategy of pushing "first women" resides? Note that I'm not arguing that this particular strategy is necessarily the correct one today or that it even necessarily was the best possible one forty years ago, only that I can understand why ignoring its successes (whether permanent or not remains to be seen) could be very painful for those who worked for them.

Do I Dare To Eat A Peach I?

Robin Morgan dares, I think, because she dared to write this pro-Clinton piece: "Goodbye To All That (#2)." Her piece presses all the buttons, some more carelessly than others, and wades straight into the major controversies of this Democratic primary, but it also says some very important things. You might want to read it before continuing with this post.

Now take a step back, and look at the two Democratic primary leaders as demographic specimens: In the right corner we have Barack Obama, a black man, and in the left corner we have Hillary Clinton, a white woman. He is privileged as a man, she is privileged as a white person. Can you see the oppression Olympics begin? Can you hear the questions about who it is who has really been oppressed in this country, and who it is, therefore, that should get the golden cup? Can you imagine how very ugly all this could turn out to be? And can you imagine how very awkward all this is for black women, say? Astonishingly, the only group which is not touched by any of this directly consists of white men, which also happens to be the group that has traditionally held almost all the power.

I don't want to participate in the oppression Olympics, but they are ongoing as I write, and Morgan's piece does contribute to them. I'm not sure if that can be avoided, given the initial setup, unless we manage to find someone obviously the most oppressed at the present time to stand as the surprise candidate. Perhaps a survivor of the Rwandan genocide. Yes, I know that was flippant, and I apologize for it, but the point needed to be made: Electing either Clinton or Obama does not make any difference to the oppression Olympics. Neither of them has personally suffered the whole extent of the cruelty and oppression that we humans are capable of inflicting on the out-groups, and their election will not kiss the wounds and make them all better. In reality they are both fairly fortunate individuals.

Let's look at the race-and-gender question from a different angle: We now have a chance to elect either the first black president or the first female president in the history of the United States. Who should wait for the next round? And when will the next realistic round be?

See how impossible the questions are? The usual reaction of wise feminists seems to be to refuse to participate in the oppression Olympics. What does this refusal mean? As far as I can tell it means not supporting Clinton just because she is a woman. Whether it means not supporting Obama just because she is black I have no way of telling. Perhaps. Then the decision between the candidates would be made on the basis of their policies which are astonishingly alike, with few exceptions. Or it could be made on some other grounds, such as ability to engage, perceived experience or age. I'm not too happy with the age criterion, given the prevalence of age discrimination in this society, too.

Imagine, for a moment, that the two front-runners in the Democratic primaries were John Edwards and either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Would that make the choices easier? And what is it you learn about your own choices in that imaginary situation? Yes, I know that John Edwards is actually the most progressive of the three. But he is also a white guy.

Take one further step back. What got us into this mess in the first place? Could it be a political history totally dominated by white guys? Look at the Republican candidates for presidency and what they offer in gender and race variety. In some ways we are fighting for the one scrap that has fallen off the establishment table, the one chance for some power, and we are fighting each other while those at the table snicker. We are not asking how to make sure that the political pipelines have lots of people of all ethnic groups and both sexes, lots of people being mentored to take over one day. Instead, we are fighting each other for the one juicy bone.

So much for the oppression Olympics. But race and gender enter the discussion in a different form, too, having to do with electability. Are American voters, on average, more racist than sexist or the other way round? Many Democrats want to beat the Republicans, because so much is at stake here, and they want a nominee which can win against whoever the Republicans might nominate. Does this mean that Hillary Clinton would be a BIG mistake, because people hate her so? Because she is a cold, calculating bitch who cries or just a very unpleasant creature? Would Barack Obama play better? How can we guarantee that we elect the most likely to win in the general elections?

This is about oppression, too, but from the other side, and the commentary is as depressing to me as following the oppression Olympics. Either we should award the crown to the one who deserves it the most or to the one who deserves it the least, it seems.

These are my thoughts on one of the themes Morgan's piece discusses. The next post on peach eating will address the generational divide among feminists.

No End In Sight

I do not love the primaries. For one thing, they have been going on for far too long and there is no end in sight even now. But your mileage may vary.

About An Old News Story

This was in my last week's to-do list, but I never got around to it then:

Washington County Circuit Judge W. Kennedy Boone III has been reprimanded by the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities for referring to three women of color in the Public Defender's Office as "the Supremes" and for suggesting that a defendant who wanted to replace his public defender be given an "experienced male attorney."

Boone made the comments in open court April 24, 2007.

The judicial disabilities commission concluded that Boone's comments were "undignified and disparaging," according to a notice of the reprimand printed in the Jan. 18 edition of the Maryland Register.

The Maryland Register is published every two weeks as a temporary supplement to the Code of Maryland Regulations, according to its Web site.

"I have no defense," said Boone, who called the notice of the reprimand a fair document.

Boone appeared remorseful Tuesday afternoon as he discussed his comments.

He said he holds all three attorneys to whom he was referring with the "Supremes" comment in high regard, and he said each of the women has built a solid professional reputation.

The judge acknowledged that his comments were "highly suggestive, if not indicative ... of racial and sexual bias," he said.

"I lost it that day, at that time," Boone said. "At the end of the day, I felt terrible."

Boone's initial comments are an example of the kind of incidents that some of us experience and some of us do not. If you belong to the latter group you might find the reactions on feminist blogs, say, a tad exaggerated. If you belong to the former group you know better than that.

It's not having to experience something like this once or even a few times that rankles. It's having to experience it a lot. Even if men like Boone only "lose it" once, there are enough of these guys out there to make some women the focus of a lot of vitriol over time. The men who don't act out their misogynistic or racist anger don't realize how repetitive these slurs can be in the lives of some women, especially if they "stick out" because of ambition or because of working in a male-dominated industry.

Some Places To Find Exit Polls

Always remember that the voting may not be over and that some of these polls may be based on either very few voters or an unrepresentative sample of voters.

Given that, here are a few articles on the early exit polls.

And for your enjoyment: Big Maybelle:

The Privacy And Civil Rights Commission

The government has one of these. Did you know that? But it has no members (or had none last Friday, at least):

The Bush administration has failed to nominate any candidates to a newly empowered privacy and civil-liberties commission. This leaves the board without any members, even as Congress prepares to give the Bush administration extraordinary powers to wiretap without warrants inside the United States.

The failure rankles Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), respectively chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee.

"I urge the president to move swiftly to nominate members to the new board to preserve the public's faith in our promise to protect their privacy and civil liberties as we work to protect the country against terrorism," Lieberman said.

"The White House's failure to move forward with appointing the new board is unacceptable, and I call on the administration to do so as quickly as possible to prevent a gap in this vital mission," Collins said.

An interesting mathematics problem, that one. The set of members is an empty set, and that empty set is keeping a careful nonexistent eye on our privacy and civil rights. What is the total number of eyes protecting us?

Of course on some level this gives us total privacy, from that particular board. Heh.

On Andrew Sullivan and Feminists

Sullivan has written a stern piece of advice for all silly feminists who still might want to vote for a woman as the Democratic presidential candidate:

There were also, of course, the now famous New Hampshire tears - to evoke sympathy. And the blunt appeal on gender grounds alone. And the refusal to disavow the use of her husband for her own political purposes, even as he told lies and cast racist aspersions about her opponent. And, on the eve of Super Tuesday, the tears again. Can you imagine a male politician breaking down in public the day before a crucial vote - and expecting it to help?

It's time feminists realized that Clinton is a dream gone sour. If you believe in women in politics, in female leaders who lead by themselves, on their own merits, with no strings to pull and husband-presidents to rely on, do yourself a favor and vote for Obama.

One day, there will be a woman worth electing to the White House. But not this one.

There is a name for pieces like this in the wonderful world of blogs, and it's "concern trolling", pretending being on your side and just pointing out unfortunate negatives which you should take into account to do better. All Andrew Sullivan wants is, after all, what is good for feminists and for the Democratic Party, right?

Well, not quite. Sullivan is a conservative and one famously known for thinking that women are biologically unequipped to hold real power in the society. Here he teaches us in 2000 in an article titled "He Hormone":

So it is perhaps unsurprising that those professions in which this trade-off is most pronounced -- the military, contact sports, hazardous exploration, venture capitalism, politics, gambling -- tend to be disproportionately male. Politics is undoubtedly the most controversial because it is such a critical arena for the dispersal of power. But consider for a moment how politics is conducted in our society. It is saturated with combat, ego, conflict and risk. An entire career can be lost in a single gaffe or an unexpected shift in the national mood. This ego-driven roulette is almost as highly biased toward the testosteroned as wrestling. So it makes some sense that after almost a century of electorates made up by as many women as men, the number of female politicians remains pathetically small in most Western democracies. This may not be endemic to politics; it may have more to do with the way our culture constructs politics. And it is not to say that women are not good at government. Those qualities associated with low testosterone -- patience, risk aversion, empathy -- can all lead to excellent governance. They are just lousy qualities in the crapshoot of electoral politics.

Sullivan has made the argument about women's possible biological inferiority more than once.

Which really makes this new piece fairly astonishing: If women can't make it in the "crapshoot of electoral politics" because of their sad lack of testosterone, why would one Andrew Sullivan need to write an anti-Hillary treatise? Nature should take care of her pitiful attempt at grabbing power without the necessary testosterone.

Of course it's equally astonishing that he expects feminists to listen to what he says on a topic in which he has firmly identified his stance long ago. Our Andy doesn't like women at all, you know.

Then there is that last paragraph from the quote:

One day, there will be a woman worth electing to the White House. But not this one.

Note that I'm not saying that a feminist should vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama or the reverse or vote at all. That decision is based on many concerns and the gender of the candidates may not be the decisive one for a voter here. But it is also very important to point out that the idea that one day women will get their chance has been used over and over again in the history, and that "one day" will never come if its arrival depends on people like Andrew Sullivan and on their permission.

Because there is always something else that is more important than women. A war must be won before they can get the right to vote, or a depression must be fixed before women's concerns can be addressed, or a revolution must be finished first or an occupier must be vanquished, or something else equally important must take precedence. Women. Never. Come. First.

I remember an interview with an Afghan man when the Taliban first came into power there. At first his daughters could go to school only in burqas and wearing gloves. Then they couldn't go to school at all. This educated man said that the time to worry about his daughters' education was to be later. First they needed to get the warring over. And so it goes. Always.

In twenty years' time, when some future Andrew Sullivan gives you that very same excuse, remember this post.