:: "The Daily Dish" (of hot, steaming crap)

Andrew Sullivan stars in his own horrorshow: "I Am Moron."

Who would have thought that celebrity gay blogger Andrew Sullivan would ever find a point of agreement with Saudi fundamentalists on a social issue?

Long story short: Sullivan's latest column argues that Hillary's candidacy violates the spirit and intent of the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. That's the one that limits a President to two terms of office:

We also confront the issue of the 22nd amendment. I don't like it, but it's there. In fact, we may have the 22nd Amendment to thank for our current predicament. Bill Clinton should have been able to run for a third term in the full light of day under traditional democratic rules. Instead, we now have to grapple with re-electing him to a third (and even fourth) term via his wife. Yes, they narrowly fit the letter of the Constitution, but they sure do violate its spirit and intent.

Because, as the Saudis know so well, wives are not individual people. They are simply an extension of their husbands (or fathers, or oldest male relative). Legal rights apply to the man of the house; the little lady falls under his jurisdiction. Women don't need identity cards or passports, because it would be redundant - they are already listed as part of the nearest male's collection of chattel. And running for office? If you have a husband / father / brother in office, its redundant as well. You belong to him; he's an office-holder; therefore if you were elected to office it would mean your owner is occupying two political seats. And that just wouldn't be fair now, would it?

But maybe Sullivan has a point with regard to Constitutional intent. The 22nd amendment was added in the 20th century, but if you think about the Framers' Intent (cue dramatic music) you'll remember that they saw no reason for women, or slaves, to have the right to vote. Why bother, when they would only be reflecting their master's will? To allow a man's property to vote would be to violate the principle of 'one man, one vote.'

And so, in America's greatest throwdown on the role of women in society in the last thirty years, Sullivan enters the fray riding an enormous pig - a sexist pig.

Bareback, of course.

*photo, left: Andy and the pig he rode in on

Read more!

:: Yes, Race Will Be a Factor

Of course race will be a factor if Barack is the nominee - just as gender will be a factor if the nominee is Hillary.

Political reporter Matt Bai remarks, in blog post over at you-know-where, "In fact, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, there’s been remarkably little discussion at all about Mr. Obama’s race, which 20 years ago would have been the dominant subtext of every word spoken about him." He wonders what impact, if any, race will have on Barack's support in the primary and general elections.

It got me to thinkin'.

I believe we aren't hearing race-based negativity about Obama because we're still in the Democratic primary. Most Democratic campaigns - most Democratic operatives - wouldn't fight that way if their lives depended on it.

But if Barack were the nominee in the general, I guarantee you all hell would break lose.

Remember that Bush in 2000 used racist messages against John McCain in South Carolina, and he's a man of no color whatsoever. Imagine what the same operatives would do this time around.

My guess is this: they'd start by finding ways to talk about "affirmative action," eventually leading up to saying that Obama - who doesn't have much experience and hasn't "paid his dues" - was trying to use his race to get "political affirmative action" in order to "cheat" his way into the Oval Office. There'd be lots of talk about how Obama only cares about getting ahead, about how ambitious he is (read: doesn't know his place).

The moment Obama would try to defend himself, the operatives and their media friends (Matthews, Williams, O'Reilly etc) would counter-charge that Obama is playing the "race card" because he doesn't think he should have to face tough questions, and that's he demanding "special treatment" because he's black. After another week or two they'd start saying its really Obama who is the racist, while the GOP is truly for equality because they don't believe in "special privileges" for anybody.

This is, after all, what's already happened to Hillary. First it was "she expects special treatment because she's a woman / she was First Lady" then when she countered, it was "she's playing the gender card to avoid criticism." Not too long after this you start hearing "she's the one who is the real sexist."

Unfortunately, this gambit plays well with a lot of people, particularly those who don't think of themselves as racist or sexist but do believe that civil rights activists and feminists want "special privileges" for minorities and women and are out to game the system to their own advantage.

Don't believe it? Check out the latest Maureen Dowd column, where she claims both Clinton AND Obama feel "entitled" to the presidency. The groundwork is already being laid.

I'm just as certain that the GOP will go racist against Barack as I am certain that they'll go sexist against Hillary. The Republicans don't have a really good nominee of their own lined up. They are going to have to work triple time cultivating the "anyone but" vote if they want to get their people motivated.

In this respect, no Democratic primary frontrunner has an advantage or disadvantage - neither Clinton, Obama nor even Edwards (the GOP has already started insinuating he's "swishy" i.e. the expensive hairdresser, the Breck girl comments, Coulter calling him a particular epithet). Things are going to get ugly no matter who is our nominee.

Of course, an attack like this would unify and energize a lot Democrats - myself included. Nothing would turn me into an Obama supporter faster than the first salvo of dirty GOP campaigning.

The only distinction I might draw is that I think Hillary's supporters know to expect this - I'm not sure Barack's supporters do. Read more!

:: I Don't <3 Huckabee

I just don't feel I can point out often enough what a yahoo Huckabee is. But today, the lovely and talented Ann Telnaes did my job for me!

And please, can someone please explain and real, substantive difference between Hilary and Obama, besides style? Anyone? Buffy?

P.S. You are not allowed to use universal (or nearly) health care as an example. Read more!

:: There's conservative, and then there's just plain dumb

This is priceless. In a house stop in New Hampshire, Mike Huckabee is asked whether is "Christian beliefs" would keep him from supporting prevention programs advocated by the Global AIDS Fund. While he never actually says no, he does spend a great deal of time talking about how asking someone who is HIV+ to have safer sex is like asking someone to drive not as drunk as they would otherwise. Or to please not be quite so violent with their partners.

Well, gosh, that sure cleared it up for me.

Our friends at Pandagon and Pam's House Blend had fun with Huckabee's '92 statement that AIDS patients should be quarantined. I was willing to knock that up to being an ignorant redneck -- I mean, we were already well into the epidemic, but frankly, a lot of poor Southern states were totally behind the ball then and now.

And it's not like I was cheering for Huckabee either -- sure, he's a charming, rock-music-loving Baptist preacher man, but I'm pretty sure he's well convinced that I'm going to hell for any number of factors of my lifestyle (the drinking, the sex, the belief in a woman's autonomy).

But now I'm quite quite he's truly evil. Let's sum up, shall we?

• AIDS patients should be quarantined (watch him defend it here)
• Marriage equality will destroy civilization
• Being HIV+ and using a condom is like beating your wife a little less
  

Oh, and he's willing to admit evolution into the classroom as "the prevailing scientific theory" but he thinks students should be exposed to others.

Wow.

So tell me, do any of the other Republican candidates rival this one for the Ignorant Redneck award? Read more!

:: Ladies, This Is Serious

The New York Times' John Tierney has gone too far.
We know people: let's get them to contact the Times.

Long story short - John Tierney, now posting in the New York Times' science section since he was demoted from the op-ed page, has written a lot of stupid things. But the latest drives right past stupid all the way to evil.

Tierney has posted TWO items defending "female circumcision."

I really didn't think such a thing would be possible in the New York Times, but yes, Tierney has twice devoted his column space to defending "female circumcision" (according to Tierney, "female genital mutilation" is a deliberately inflammatory term dreamed up by radical feminists to "subvert debate").

I'll give you the details in a moment. But first - my point. We know people. These people need to write the New York Times to (1) set the record straight, and (2) ask them what the fuck they're thinking allowing this sort of trash into print.

Now, the details: Tierney's first post appeared on November 30. He called it "A New Debate on Female Circumcision." [I know; don't even get me started with the "new."] It begins:

"Should African women be allowed to engage in the practice sometimes called female circumcision? Are critics of this practice, who call it female genital mutilation, justified in trying to outlaw it, or are they guilty of ignorance and cultural imperialism?"

The impetus for Tierney's post was a panel discussion held at the American Anthopological Society's annual meeting. Tierney approvingly cites one panelist, who is described thusly:

"Dr. Ahmadu, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Chicago, was raised in America and then went back to Sierra Leone as an adult to undergo the procedure along with fellow members of the Kono ethnic group. She has argued that the critics of the procedure exaggerate the medical dangers, misunderstand the effect on sexual pleasure, and mistakenly view the removal of parts of the clitoris as a practice that oppresses women. She has lamented that her Westernized 'feminist sisters insist on denying us this critical aspect of becoming a woman in accordance with our unique and powerful cultural heritage.'"

He also quotes some freakshow, Richard Shweder, from the University of Chicago:

"Dr. Shweder says that many Westerners trying to impose a “zero tolerance” policy don’t realize that these initiation rites are generally controlled not by men but by women who believe it is a cosmetic procedure with aesthetic benefits. He criticizes Americans and Europeans for outlawing it at the same they endorse their own forms of genital modification, like the circumcision of boys or the cosmetic surgery for women called “vaginal rejuvenation.” After surveying studies of female circumcision and comparing the data with the rhetoric about its harmfulness, Dr. Shweder concludes that '‘First World’ feminist issues and political correctness and activism have triumphed over the critical assessment of evidence.'"

Oh yes, Richard, please tell us ignorant, hysterical feminists the truth about this minor cosmetic procedure. [I can't wait to look up what else this creep has written].

Tierney concludes with the following:

"If I were asked to make a decision about my own daughter, I wouldn’t choose circumcision for her. But what about the question raised by these anthropologists: Should outsiders be telling African women what initiation practices are acceptable?"

I'm going to keep my critique to a minimum. Beyond the horrible misogyny (I'm not even going to start) there's the horrible racism: Tierney never mentions the African and Arab women and men who oppose FGM, and frames the question as whether the "enlightened" west should be telling the "ignorant savages" what to do.

Then, to my utter disgust and amazement, Tierney excreted a second post on the topic. "'Circumcision' or 'Mutilation'? And Other Questions About a Rite in Africa" appeared today. Tierney makes like he's going to address the critics of his previous post, then pulls a bait and switch and repeats the same argument he made before, but with more detail.

Here's the gist of it:

"My conclusion... is that the harmful practice claim has been highly exaggerated and that many of the representations in the advocacy literature and the popular press are nearly as fanciful as they are nightmarish. A close and critical reading of the much publicized 2006 Lancet publication of the “WHO Study Group on Female Genital Mutilation,” which received widespread, immediate and sensationalize coverage in the press because of its purported claims about infant and maternal mortality during the hospital birth process, suggests to me that again there is not very much to write home about." [....]

"The best evidence available at the moment suggests to me that the anthropologist Robert Edgerton basically had it right when he wrote about the Kenyan practice in the 1920s and 1930s as a crucible in which it is not just the courage of males but also the courage of females that gets tested: “…most girls bore it bravely and few suffered serious infection or injury as a result. Circumcised women did not lose their ability to enjoy sexual relations, nor was their child-bearing capacity diminished. Nevertheless the practice offended Christian sensibilities”. As Charles put it in his comment: 'Personal revulsion is not a good basis for making general policy.'"

In case you didn't catch that - Tierney is saying that (1) FGM is really not that bad, and (2) we shouldn't oppose it. While this "initiation rite" may offend our delicate sensibilities, its not our place to question a practice that most African girls think is just hunky dory.

Along the way, in neither post does Tierney mention that "female genital mutilation" is the term used by the World Health Organization and the United Nations overall; that a number of African countries already outlaw FGM; that FGM, as a custom, has nothing to do with Islam; that there are strong indigenous movements against FGM; and that there are plenty of facts available from experts working at reputable international agencies.

I know I'm repeating myself, but I really can't believe that we're so uncivilized that the most prestigious newspaper in the country will actually publish a "debate" over whether or not one should oppose the partial or complete amputation of little girls' genitals. Is there anything a person can't say about women? Are there no depths to which we can't sink?

I am so sick of this. Read more!