A week late and a few members short


Democrats hear from woman snubbed by GOP lawmakers

Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke was given her chance to talk to Congress Thursday, even though lawmakers were on a break and just a few Democratic allies were there to cheer her on.

But what a difference a week makes.

Last Thursday the Republican-controlled House Oversight and Government Reform Committee rejected Democrats’ request that Fluke testify on the Obama administration’s policy requiring that employees of religion-affiliated institutions have access to health insurance that covers birth control.

This week she received almost rock-star treatment as the lone witness at an unofficial Democratic-sponsored hearing. While the rest of the Capitol was mostly empty, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, three other Democrats and dozens of mainly young women supporters crowded into a House office building room to applaud Fluke as she spoke of the importance of reproductive health care to women.

Prominently displayed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., was a photo of five religious leaders, all men and all appearing at the invitation of the Republican majority, testifying last week with Fluke visible in the background, sitting in the visitors’ section.

Democrats pounced on that image of a hearing discussing contraceptive rights being dominated by men while the one person Democrats had asked to appear on the witness stand, a woman, was turned away. Pelosi, D-Calif., said they had since heard from 300,000 people urging that women’s voices be heard on the issue.

“We almost ought to thank the chairman for the lack of judgment he had,” in denying a seat to Fluke, Pelosi said.

Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., had said at last week’s hearing that the panel’s focus was on whether the administration policy was a violation of religious freedom. He said at the time that Fluke, invited by Democrats in her capacity as former head of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, was not qualified to speak on the religious rights question.

“I’m an American woman who uses contraceptives,” Fluke said, when asked Thursday by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., about her qualifications to speak on the issue.


What amazes me is the Republicans and SoCons act like they think this issue is a winner for them. This is the kind of whackdoodle stuff that send voters running to the Democrats.


It’s like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you’re wrong. – Molly Ivins


The last GOP debate in less than 60 seconds


Eyewitness reports say Newt won, Satanorum lost, Mitt was present and Paul was Paul.

I really don’t care anymore. The next four years are going to be very unpleasant no matter who wins.

Some Republicans are figuring out that the game has been rigged. Ace of Spades:

I believe the party wants to lose.

I believe the party has decided the problems facing us are so big that they cannot be overcome.

I believe the party has decided, maybe subconsciously, maybe consciously, that we are not up to the task, and the best thing to do is just duck out and Blame the Other Guys. Let them Own Their Problems.

If that’s the plan, let me know. We don’t have to contend very hard at all if our goal is to lose.

Easiest thing in the world, losing. Even easier when you’ve gotten practice at it.

I believe the party does not think it is capable of working positive good in policy. If so, I take it as knowing itself best, and perhaps it’s time for a new party.


Why should the Republican establishment want to win? They get everything they could dream of and the Democrats take the blame.


Ash Wednesday Poll

In honor of his Most Catholic Candidate Saintorum and their Most Sanctimonious First Couple Obama, I present you with the Crawdad Hole Poll of the day:

An honest politician stays bought


Obama to propose lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent

President Obama on Wednesday plans to propose a major overhaul of the nation’s corporate tax code, an election-year gambit that is likely to draw a contrast over a key policy issue with the Republicans vying to replace him.

Obama will propose lowering the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, however, he will seek to increase the amount of revenues raised overall through corporate taxation by eliminating numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills, according to a senior administration official.

Today, the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is one of the highest in the world, but an abundance of loopholes and deductions means that many companies pay far less than that — or nothing at all. Companies in the United States pay almost half the taxes than companies do in other rich countries, compared to the size of the economy, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

In his proposed rewrite, Obama will target oil and gas companies for tax hikes while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies, according to a senior administration official.


You watch – when the smoke clears the rate will come down but most of the loopholes and deductions will stay. Worst of all, the Republicans won’t have to take the blame for it.

Skunks don’t change their stripes. Obama is the number one beneficiary of corporate campaign donations. Pay to play is the Chicago way.



I thought Beelzebub was a Democrat?

The Lightbringer


The Sludge Report:

SANTORUM’S SATAN WARNING

“Satan has his sights on the United States of America!” Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.

“Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”

MORE

The former senator from Pennsylvania warned in 2008 how politics and government are falling to Satan.

“This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country – the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age?”

“He attacks all of us and he attacks all of our institutions.”

Santorum made the provocative comments to students at Ave Maria University in Florida.


Like clockwork, a GOP contender rises in the polls past Mitt Romney and and suddenly the hounds of hell try to drag the contender down.

What’s surprising is this is an attack from the left. When is the last time you saw a Republican getting slammed for being too Christian? I can personally vouch that what Santorum was preaching is standard fundamentalist orthodoxy. Some churches spend more time talking about the Devil than they do about God.

What I want to know is whether this means we can take a closer look at what Mitt Romney believes? And can we go back and revisit Reverend Wright now?

Fair is fair.



Death by Taser


Via Hot Air:

FHP trooper cleared in use of Taser, which put woman in vegetative state

One day last September, Danielle Maudsley, clad in handcuffs, bolted out the door of a Florida Highway Patrol substation after she had been arrested in a hit-and-run case.

A dashboard video camera in a patrol cruiser in the parking lot captured Trooper Daniel Cole chasing her. Cole was only a few feet behind her when he pulled out his Taser and fired its electric probes into her back.

Maudsley spun, fell backward and smacked her head on the asphalt parking lot. She lay there, bleeding and crying as Cole stood over her. Then she went unconscious.

[...]

“Tell me that’s not excessive force,” Cheryl Maudsley said. “I’m not saying she was an angel, but she didn’t deserve that. He couldn’t reach out and grab her? He was an arm’s length away.”

Cole had arrested Danielle Maudsley after she was suspected of leaving the scene of two traffic crashes. She had a suspended license and blood tests later showed she had cocaine and oxycodone in her system, the report states.

While she sat in the back of his cruiser, Maudsley removed her right hand from the handcuffs, the report said. When Cole opened the door to take her out, she told him, “I took this off.”

Maudsley was placed back in handcuffs and Cole took her into the substation, according to the report. As he worked on paperwork in a conference room, he sensed that Maudsley was moving, turned, and saw her at the main exit. He asked where she was going and got up from his seat before she ran out the door.


She’s now in a persistent vegetative state – effectively dead. The official verdict?

Justified



Zombie Lies


Byron York turns one smear into another:

Despite a few positive touches, no one will be surprised to learn that “Game Change,” the movie, will present an overwhelmingly negative portrait of Palin. Roach — he also directed the one-sided, pro-Gore “Recount” about the 2000 election — even goes beyond the book to throw in some new material from his own research. Roach also compressed some events and turned descriptions of conversations into dialogue that may or may not have actually happened.

But put that aside. Why did Hollywood focus on only one-half of “Game Change”? The other half would have made a great movie.

It was certainly the most compelling part of the book, with no end of dramatic moments. The Clinton-Obama version of “Game Change” could have focused on the racially charged effort among white Democrats to stop the first black man with a serious chance of winning their party’s presidential nomination.

The alternate “Game Change” could have featured the spectacle of Bill Clinton, the nation’s “first black president,” doing everything he could, risking his own reputation and place in history, to stop an actual black man from winning the office.

The alternate “Game Change” could have featured white Democratic party elders torn over the Clinton-Obama contest, loyal to Mrs. Clinton yet impressed by Obama’s ability to speak “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one” (in the infamous words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid).

And then there was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. What a great role the fiery preacher from Chicago would have made! “Game Change” — the book — reported that Obama and his top aides knew all along that Wright would be a problem, and yet did nothing about it until Wright’s “Goddamn America” sermon burst into the news.

The alternate “Game Change” could have featured top Clinton aide Harold Ickes’ suggestion that the campaign hire a private investigator to probe Obama’s connections to Wright. “This guy has been sitting in the church for twenty f–king years,” Ickes is quoted in the book as saying. “If you really want to take him down, let’s take him f–king down.” Screenwriter Danny Strong — he also worked on “Recount” — couldn’t have written it better himself.

The movie also could have focused on Hillary Clinton’s anger at Obama’s ability to escape the Wright mess unscathed. “Just imagine, just for fun, if my pastor from Arkansas said the kind of things his pastor said,” Clinton told aides, according to the book. “I’m just saying. Just imagine. This race would be over.”


Neither Sarah Palin nor Hillary Clinton is currently running for elective office. Either or both of them may or may not run again in the future. Sarah Palin is a private citizen. Hillary Clinton is our Secretary of State.

I was aware that “Game Change” was a hit-job on Sarah. I didn’t know until now (although considering the authors it’s really no surprise) that it was also a hit job on Hillary.

The only thing “racially charged” about the 2008 Democratic primary were the charges of racism emanating from the Obama campaign. You could just as easily argue that supporting Obama was an effort to stop the first woman with a serious chance of winning the presidency. Bill Clinton was supporting his wife, not opposing Obama. Those “white party elders” York mentions were not loyal to Hillary, they secretly supported Obama from the beginning.

As for the Wright controversy, regardless of what may have been discussed in private the Hillary campaign avoided the issue and took no part. The alleged statement by Hillary is entirely accurate. Any other Democrat would have been sunk by such a close association with Wright (or Rezko or Ayers.)

The worst part about the race card strategy pursued by the Obama campaign is that it has given the Republicans a new issue to use against Democrats. Long after Obama is gone they will keep talking about it.


Most annoying commercial ever


This little piggy ad has got to be the most annoying commercial ever. It is the reason I will never buy GEICO insurance. The reason I bring it up is they made a sequel.

What commercials do you hate?

This is an open thread.



Happy Presidents’ Day!


Today is the day we honor all those men (and hopefully someday women) who have held the toughest job in the world.

Yeah, I know what you’re thinking, but they can’t all be winners, now can they?

This is an open thread.



Operation Detachment


On this day in 1945, the first of 70,000 Marines began landing on the beaches of a small volcanic island in the Pacific named Iwo Jima.

The island was defended by approximately 22,000 Imperial soldiers of Japan. The Japanese could not retreat or hope for reinforcement or rescue. They refused to surrender and were dug in deep.

One month later when the battle was over 6,800 Americans had been killed and 19,000 wounded. Of the Japanese, only 216 were captured and over 21,000 were killed. By comparison, less than 4,500 Americans were killed in the entire Iraq war.

By March 1945 in the European theater of WWII the fighting was winding down in the Western front as Nazi Germany shifted resources to the Eastern front to slow the Soviet advance. Meanwhile the Marines were preparing for the invasion of Okinawa, which was to be the biggest and bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater.

The Japanese leaders knew they were doomed to lose the war. They hoped that their fierce resistance would result in a negotiated end to the war rather than their total defeat. Allied estimates of casualties from the invasion of Japan ran into hundreds of thousands of American deaths and millions of Americans injured.

Ironically, the futile Japanese effort to avoid total defeat resulted in the use of a terrifying new weapon – the atomic bomb.



The GOP has a big closet


It doesn’t get any better than this:

Pinal County Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu has a reputation as a hard man– especially hard on immigrants. Some people have claimed he’s a sadist who takes delight in splitting up families and gratuitously ruining people’s lives. Last week the 43 year old Babeu, now a far right Republican candidate for Congress, was the toast of CPAC. Theylove hard men there.

Today Mitt Romney’s campaign booted Babeu from his position as a Romney for President Arizona co-chairman, reminiscent of the move his 2008 campaign did when Romney for President Idaho co-chair Larry Craig was arrested in a public toilet trying to have sex with a young-looking police undercover agent. Closeted gay Republican flock to Romney for some reason I’ll never understand.

It turns out that Babeu wasn’t just another garden variety, run of the mill Republican closet queen. The anti-immigrant fanatic had a long-time lover named Jose. And it gets much worse. The story was brokenby a respected Arizona veteran journalist Monica Alonzo. Babeu threatened his Mexican ex-lover with deportation when the man refused to promise never to disclose their years-long relationship.

[...]

Meanwhile, Babeu, a former boarding school headmaster who claims he was repeatedly molested as a child by a Catholic priest, is still deluding himself that he can continue running for Congress against GOP incumbent Paul Gosar. That should be over by Monday. Babeu’s press conference a couple hours ago is stunning. He admitted he’s gay and tried painting himself as a victim, although he did admit the relationship between himself and Jose.


I came to the conclusion a few years ago that the more homophobic a male politician or religious leader is, the more likely he is familiar with the taste of trouser snake. But this case hit the trifects. A closeted gay anti-immigrant sheriff/congressional candidate blackmailing his illegal immigrant lover. They even have pictures.

Babeu (Baboo?) has already resigned/been dumped by the Romney campaign. I’m betting his run for Congress will be over in a week. Any bets on how long before he has to turn in his badge?



Hillary vs. Obama


Over at Reclusive Leftist, Violet addresses The Question whether Hillary would have done anything differently than Obama:

Hillary Clinton has never compromised on reproductive rights. In every situation, on every vote, in every speech, she has been firm about women’s right to control their own reproductive health. Her universal healthcare plan from the early 90s (“Hillarycare”) included coverage for abortion, and her refusal to compromise on that point is one reason the plan went down in flames. And that was abortion. It is beyond belief that she would offer up a needless compromise on contraception.

As for saying a nice thing about Doug Coe, again, you have to look at Hillary’s life and career. Is there any evidence that she is a secret godbag out to impose Dominionism on the country? Has anything in her life suggested that? Have any of her political stances suggested that? Did she do that as Senator? Is she doing that as Secretary of State?

No. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, a progressive, and a feminist. She’s also a Methodist, with a quiet personal liberal-Christian faith. That’s who she is.


Obama, on the other hand, has spent his whole career avoiding taking stands on any topic that is the least bit controversial. He voted “present” (rather than “yes” or “no”) 129 times while a state senator in Illinois. He was against the war in Iraq in 2002, then said his position on Iraq wasn’t much different from George Bush’s in 2004. In 2007 he was against the war again, but as president he followed in Bush’s footsteps.

He attended a church for twenty years but paid no attention to the sermons. He hung out with crooks and radicals when it was helpful to his career, but tossed them under the bus and got amnesia when those friendships became problematic.

The only consistency in Obama’s whole career has been doing what was good for Obama’s career. Everything else is negotiable.



Give Obama the finger


No, not that one – the big red one. Apparently it all started with Jan Brewer. Then Erin Sherbert of the SF Weekly wrote this headline:

Obama Coming to San Francisco, Where Nobody Will Wag Their Fingers in His Face



John at The City Square reports:

Naturally, the SF Bay Area Patriots responded by making the theme for this rally to be “wag your finger” at Obama.


I think they have hit on the perfect anti-Obama theme. Those big foam fingers are cheap and easy to make. They come in different colors and can be customized. Every different group (left and right) can join in protesting Obama and his policies.

Imagine a diverse group of protesters appearing wherever Obama goes, all wagging big foam fingers. But the fingers are red, white, blue, green, pink or whatever depending on whether the protester is Tea Party, OWS, environmentalist, feminist or in favor or marijuana legalization.

That way if you’re a lefty and want to protest Obama’s policy of remote-control assassination but don’t want people to think you support the Tea Party, you can make your cause and your affiliation (or lack thereof) clear.  Groups could have the name of their organizations printed on the back and sell them as fundraisers.



Talented Taylor Swift


Taylor Swift won two Grammy awards last weekend, bringing her total to six. Not bad for a 21 year-old. The video above was made when she was only sixteen. Taylor wrote it in twenty minutes when she was a fifteen year old freshman in high school.

I wish I had the interest on all the money she has earned since then.

This is an open thread.

Here’s the song that won Taylor her fifth and sixth Grammys:



Amazing


This is from the New York Times:

Inside the brain-and-cognitive-sciences department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are what, to the casual observer, look like dollhouse versions of surgical theaters. There are rooms with tiny scalpels, small drills and miniature saws. Even the operating tables are petite, as if prepared for 7-year-old surgeons. Inside those shrunken O.R.’s, neurologists cut into the skulls of anesthetized rats, implanting tiny sensors that record the smallest changes in the activity of their brains.

An M.I.T. neuroscientist named Ann Graybiel told me that she and her colleagues began exploring habits more than a decade ago by putting their wired rats into a T-shaped maze with chocolate at one end. The maze was structured so that each animal was positioned behind a barrier that opened after a loud click. The first time a rat was placed in the maze, it would usually wander slowly up and down the center aisle after the barrier slid away, sniffing in corners and scratching at walls. It appeared to smell the chocolate but couldn’t figure out how to find it. There was no discernible pattern in the rat’s meanderings and no indication it was working hard to find the treat.

The probes in the rats’ heads, however, told a different story. While each animal wandered through the maze, its brain was working furiously. Every time a rat sniffed the air or scratched a wall, the neurosensors inside the animal’s head exploded with activity. As the scientists repeated the experiment, again and again, the rats eventually stopped sniffing corners and making wrong turns and began to zip through the maze with more and more speed. And within their brains, something unexpected occurred: as each rat learned how to complete the maze more quickly, its mental activity decreased. As the path became more and more automatic — as it became a habit — the rats started thinking less and less.

This process, in which the brain converts a sequence of actions into an automatic routine, is called “chunking.” There are dozens, if not hundreds, of behavioral chunks we rely on every day. Some are simple: you automatically put toothpaste on your toothbrush before sticking it in your mouth. Some, like making the kids’ lunch, are a little more complex. Still others are so complicated that it’s remarkable to realize that a habit could have emerged at all.

Take backing your car out of the driveway. When you first learned to drive, that act required a major dose of concentration, and for good reason: it involves peering into the rearview and side mirrors and checking for obstacles, putting your foot on the brake, moving the gearshift into reverse, removing your foot from the brake, estimating the distance between the garage and the street while keeping the wheels aligned, calculating how images in the mirrors translate into actual distances, all while applying differing amounts of pressure to the gas pedal and brake.

Now, you perform that series of actions every time you pull into the street without thinking very much. Your brain has chunked large parts of it. Left to its own devices, the brain will try to make almost any repeated behavior into a habit, because habits allow our minds to conserve effort. But conserving mental energy is tricky, because if our brains power down at the wrong moment, we might fail to notice something important, like a child riding her bike down the sidewalk or a speeding car coming down the street. So we’ve devised a clever system to determine when to let a habit take over. It’s something that happens whenever a chunk of behavior starts or ends — and it helps to explain why habits are so difficult to change once they’re formed, despite our best intentions.

To understand this a little more clearly, consider again the chocolate-seeking rats. What Graybiel and her colleagues found was that, as the ability to navigate the maze became habitual, there were two spikes in the rats’ brain activity — once at the beginning of the maze, when the rat heard the click right before the barrier slid away, and once at the end, when the rat found the chocolate. Those spikes show when the rats’ brains were fully engaged, and the dip in neural activity between the spikes showed when the habit took over. From behind the partition, the rat wasn’t sure what waited on the other side, until it heard the click, which it had come to associate with the maze. Once it heard that sound, it knew to use the “maze habit,” and its brain activity decreased. Then at the end of the routine, when the reward appeared, the brain shook itself awake again and the chocolate signaled to the rat that this particular habit was worth remembering, and the neurological pathway was carved that much deeper.

The process within our brains that creates habits is a three-step loop. First, there is a cue, a trigger that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and which habit to use. Then there is the routine, which can be physical or mental or emotional. Finally, there is a reward, which helps your brain figure out if this particular loop is worth remembering for the future. Over time, this loop — cue, routine, reward; cue, routine, reward — becomes more and more automatic. The cue and reward become neurologically intertwined until a sense of craving emerges. What’s unique about cues and rewards, however, is how subtle they can be. Neurological studies like the ones in Graybiel’s lab have revealed that some cues span just milliseconds. And rewards can range from the obvious (like the sugar rush that a morning doughnut habit provides) to the infinitesimal (like the barely noticeable — but measurable — sense of relief the brain experiences after successfully navigating the driveway). Most cues and rewards, in fact, happen so quickly and are so slight that we are hardly aware of them at all. But our neural systems notice and use them to build automatic behaviors.

Habits aren’t destiny — they can be ignored, changed or replaced. But it’s also true that once the loop is established and a habit emerges, your brain stops fully participating in decision-making. So unless you deliberately fight a habit — unless you find new cues and rewards — the old pattern will unfold automatically.

Fascinating stuff. I’m really interested in stuff about brain chemistry (dumbed-down for a social science major) and how it affects behavior and personality.

But the article is titled How Companies Learn Your Secrets.

That’s right. They aren’t doing all this fancy research in order to make the world a better place for humanity, they are trying to make YOU a better consumer. And by “better” I mean “easy to manipulate.”

Why shouldn’t they? There are no laws against it. Every year they get better at it. The old fashioned way was to sell you the products you need, but the more efficient way is to convince you that you need the products they sell. Products, services and candidates.

David “Spoony” Atkins:

I’m what they call a Qualitative Research Consultant, or QRC for short. Here’s my website. There’s even a whole association of us who meet regularly to discuss ideas and tactics. Together with the AAPC, the MRA, the AMA, ESOMAR, and a whole host of other organizations you’ve never heard of, we have more power and control than you know. We’re extremely good at what we do, and we do it all behind the scenes, appealing to and manipulating your subconscious brain in ways that your conscious brain has little to no control over.

Give us a little money to test some things out, and we can work magic. Our business is persuasion, and we’re very good at it. Just watch PBS Frontline’s series, The Persuaders to get just a small inkling of what you’re up against. We can make a company that earns a 38% gross profit margin manufacturing purely propriety products seem hip, cool and progressive. We can take sugar water and sell it back to you as a health drink, and even Whole Foods shoppers will believe it. We can take 30 different brands of vodka with almost exactly the same ingredients, and make you understand instantly just what kind of person drinks which brand, and how much you should expect to pay for each, without a moment’s thought. For any given category of products, I can show you a bunch of different brands, and you’ll be able to tell me a wealth of information about each one, despite the near absolute similarity of their actual products to one another. One exercise we QRC’s like to conduct involves actually turning a brand into a person in a group discussion; it’s called personification. And you wouldn’t believe how effectively and universally we can tailor a brand’s image, right down to what kind of car that “person” would drive, and what music he/she would listen to.


Each of us is unique – we all respond a little differently. The more they know about you, the better they know how to push your buttons. So where do they find out about your buttons?

You tell them. Do you use any kind of shopping or member discount card? Do you shop online? Do you use a bank or credit card to pay for your purchases? Does your cell phone track your movements? Do you Facebook or use Google services? Do you enter personal information (like their addresses and birthdays) about your friends into Facebook? Do they enter your personal information in their accounts?

Somewhere out there people are compiling information about you. They know your shopping habits, what websites you visit, who your friends are. In most cases you have given them permission to gather this info. They share it with each other, and with the government too.

You are probably being watched right now.



Serious Smut


Hard to believe we’re living in the 21st Century, ain’t it?

Just what you want to hear: Planned Parenthood works around the clock to hook your kids on sex

Recently, American Life League came out with a six-minute exposé of Planned Parenthood that was so appalling that I would have had a hard time believing it was true had it not been about Planned Parenthood. The video included clips and images from PP educational materials — cartoons and the like — and the gist of the clips was that teens should learn to pleasure themselves and each other as soon as possible.

[...]

The point of the ALL’s video was simple: Planned Parenthood has a vested interest in hooking the next generation on sex. They’re in the abortion business. They depend upon unwanted pregnancies to stay in business. They know no unwanted pregnancy occurs without sex, so they encourage sex — albeit “safe” sex.


My personal experience is that you don’t need to teach kids about sex – they’ll discover it on their own. But if you want to avoid things like teen pregnancy, STD’s along with massive amounts of guilt, shame and embarrassment, you DO need to teach kids about sex.

BTW – When you try to repress the normal human sex drive, it pops out anyway but in perverted ways – like pedophile priests, bestiality and rape.


A rock and a hard place


As Occupy Boston struggles with a sex-offender ban, its weaknesses have been laid bare

It was after 10 pm on Tuesday, January 10, in the stale, bright basement of the Arlington Street Church, where now-nomadic Occupy Boston was holding a meeting. At issue was something that would seem straightforward: a proposal to prevent level-three sex offenders from being a part of Occupy. But suddenly, it felt as if the entire movement could be splintering. Two nights earlier, the sex-offender proposal was blocked. And now, as the Occupiers attempted to deal with the aftermath, the room filled with a tense whirlwind of emotional outcries about feeling triggered and targeted by misogyny, sexism, and homophobia.

Within the first half-hour of the assembly, it was clear that a typical GA wouldn’t work for the night’s anxiousness. So instead, it became more of a Quaker-style community speak-out, with rows of about 75 chairs reorganized into a circle. The facilitator told the group to “let a spirit guide them,” and to speak as they felt inclined, without being called on. Someone handed out stress-relieving clay; the room even took a moment for “spiritual grounding” as someone from the Faith and Spirituality working group sounded a Tibetan singing bowl. It all worked surprisingly well for the first three hours.

But eventually, it broke — people started lashing out, yelling, antagonizing, walking out of the room. A new hand gesture was soon established for the night’s GA — a fist covered by an open hand, to signal oppressive language or verbal abuse — but it wasn’t working. Overall, the night confirmed that, as one Occupier put it, “Shit’s boiling over right now.”

The fight over whether to ban level-three sex offenders has become an even larger issue — highlighting the weaknesses of the open, consensus-based process that Occupy GAs rely on. And according to representatives from other Occupy cities, the issue isn’t unique to Boston.

“As it went on, it became really painfully obvious how broken things are and how far we have to go to repair them,” Women’s Caucus member Ariadne Ross said the next morning. “By the end of the night I was feeling worse than when we started.”

[...]

The conversation surrounding sex offenders began percolating after December 20, when the GA passed a “Mutual Aid Working Group Proposal” allotting cash to help homeless persons who’d been displaced by the dismantling of Occupy’s Dewey Square camp — a pool that at least one registered sex offender attempted to access.

So on December 27, an Occupier named Sarah Barney brought a proposal to the GA to ban sex offenders. Her proposal generally states that if a member of Occupy Boston is found to be a level-three sex offender (a person convicted of a sexual crime whom the court deems to be at especially high risk for reoffending), the Safety working group would ask them to leave for one week, during which time the GA would vote on whether the accused should be asked to leave Occupy Boston permanently.

For Barney, a mother who often brought her five-year-old son to Occupy Boston, the issue was larger than the mutual-aid proposal.

“It stemmed from one specific incident, finding out that someone who lived at Dewey Square had gone to jail for nine years for two counts of sexual assault and rape of children under the age of 16,” said Barney.


When Occupy Wall Street began they intentionally adopted a strategy of “occupying” public spaces in defiance of the law. They didn’t want permission, they wanted to engineer confrontations with the police in order to get publicity and sympathy. That strategy worked fairly well for the first month or so.

It was easy to foresee the flaw in that plan – the encampments would be magnets for the professional homeless and other dregs of society. Free food, shelter and a group of people who refused to cooperate with the police is a criminal’s dream.

At first the Occupiers didn’t mind these newcomers. It swelled their numbers and provided a core group willing to physically live in the encampments through the oncoming winters. But some of these newcomers were predators. The rebels without a clue found themselves dealing with people their sheltered lives had not prepared them for.

The Occupiers had painted themselves into a corner. They couldn’t deal with the sexual assault problem themselves and they couldn’t call the cops. They were terrified the publicity would harm the movement but they couldn’t cover it up. They tried to cover it up and that ended up making things worse.

They sowed the seeds of their own destruction.


If you need to set aside a special space where women can be safe, women aren't safe


BWVAKTBOOM


This new ad campaign by PETA enters some serious WTF territory:

Living With BWVAKTBOOM

All over the world, regular guys are choosing a vegan diet, unaware of the erotic consequences. As a result, an epidemic is spreading among their “loved” ones: BWVAKTBOOM, “Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom out of Me.”

For years, women have been open to the physical, emotional, and karmic benefits of veganism. But now, more and more men are discovering the perks of a plant-based diet. More specifically, a dramatic increase in their wang power and sexual stamina.

Unfortunately, the consequences of all this mind-blowing intercourse can often lead to sex injuries such as whiplash, pulled muscles, rug burn, and even a dislocated hip.


I’m not sure who this campaign is trying to target. I seriously doubt there are that many guys who wish they could perform more often. It’s more likely they are wishing they had more opportunities to perform with a partner. Are there really that many women who want their boyfriends transformed into non-stop hump machines?

Changing his diet is unlikely to affect a man’s technique. It might affect his waistline but it certainly won’t do anything about the size of his cucumber. Improved nutrition won’t make him more thoughtful or considerate either.



At least they’re in the same ZIP code


Occupy 90210 to Protest “Big Money” During President’s Visit

Occupy 90210 protesters will gather more than a mile from the home of a daytime drama TV show producer’s mansion Wednesday night when President Barack Obama visits the home for a $35,800-per-ticket fundraising dinner.

The group will gather at Will Rogers Memorial Park — which is indeed in the Beverly Hills 90210 ZIP code — to protest what they call the “corrupting role that Big Money plays in politics.”

[...]

“While Obama dines at a $35,800 a plate fundraiser in the home of a 1% TV producer, we will be one and a half miles away occupying Will Rogers Memorial Park,” according to the Occupy 90210 Facebook page.

Obama’s fundraising campaign in the run-up to the 2012 election in November is expected to shatter records. The fundraising effort in LA will benefit the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee for Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

“The buzz is that Barack Obama will have the first billion dollar campaign expenditure,” said NBC4 political analyst, Sherry Bebitch-Jeffe.

The Occupy 90210 event also serves as a fundraiser to support Hunger Action LA’s Veggie Voucher Program.


90210 is Spoony’s backyard. No word yet on which event he’ll be attending.

(h/t HelenK)


Fear is the mind-killer

Not Sarah Palin


Actress Who Plays Palin Found Her Selection ‘Pretty Terrifying’

The prospect of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008 was “pretty terrifying” to actress Julianne Moore, who plays Palin in HBO’s upcoming Game Change movie about the 2008 campaign, but not because she feared Palin’s policies. Instead, the self-described “longtime liberal” dreaded Palin might allow the GOP ticket to win: “I really felt like, ‘Oh my gosh, the Republicans might have this election’” since “she was so electrifying.”

[...]

Moore explained how she recognized Palin’s political appeal:

Here’s a woman who’s a parent, who’s an actual working mother, who worked her way up from local government, who was definitely middle working class, married to a commercial fisherman….She was incredibly relatable, she was attractive, she was young; she was speaking to a wide portion of the population that didn’t feel that they’d been noticed or seen or heard.

[...]

“I would say, as a registered Democrat and longtime liberal, I think that I speak for a lot of women when I say that when [Palin] burst onto the scene, the way that she did that was pretty terrifying because I really felt like, Oh my gosh, the Republicans might have this election,” Moore recalled of her first perceptions of Palin back in 2008. “She was so electrifying as a figure, it kind of blew everyone away.”


At last, some honesty.

The freak-out over Sarah Palin began within hours of the announcement that she had been selected as John McCain’s running mate. All the supposed reasons for the freak-out came later.

Is it just me or has the media been kinder to Sarah the past few months? Now that she’s no longer a potential candidate for this cycle they have no vested interest in tearing her down.

If (when) Mittrick Romneysantorum loses to Obama in November, will that make Sarah the front runner for 2016?



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.