breakfast of champions (updated)

Update: You can see many more of these fantastic ads here. I think I will start posting selections from these regularly. My favourite might be "Let Us Fix Your Tie".

Many thanks to Redsock for finding them.

choice is choice is choice

A couple of weeks ago, there was some buzz about a post by Judith Warner, a feminist writer who writes the blog Domestic Disturbances for the New York Times. Warner wrote "Outsourced Wombs" in reaction to an NPR piece about women in India who are bearing surrogate pregnancies for wealthy American couples.

The voice was commanding, slightly disdainful and officious.

"The legal issues in the United States are complicated, having to do with that the surrogate mother still has legal rights to that child until they sign over their parental rights at the time of the delivery. Of course, and there’s the factor of costs. For some couples in the United States surrogacy can reach up to $80,000."

This was "Julie," an American thirtysomething who'd come to India to pay a poor village woman to bear her baby. She went on:

"You have no idea if your surrogate mother is smoking, drinking alcohol, doing drugs. You don't know what she’s doing. You have a third-party agency as a mediator between the two of you, but there’s no one policing her in the sense that you don't know what's going on."

Would you want this woman owning your womb?

The Indian surrogate mothers quoted along with Julie in a report on American Public Media's "Marketplace" on NPR last week didn't much appear troubled by that kind of thought. After all, the money they were earning for their services — $6,000 to $10,000 – might have been a pittance compared to what surrogates in the United States might earn, but it was still, for their families, the equivalent of 10 to 15 years of normal income.

They couldn't hear Julie speaking in her awful, entitled tone. And if they had, would they have cared? "From the money I earn as a surrogate mother, I can buy a house," said Nandani Patel, via a translator. "It's not possible for my husband to earn more as he's not educated and only earns $50 a month."

We, however, can hear the imperious tone, so much more audible in radio than in the troubling print reports that have surfaced lately on Indian surrogate mothers' "wombs for rent." And we should care about how things sound.

Because what's going on in India – where surrogacy is estimated now to be a $445-million-a-year business — feels like a step toward the kind of insane dehumanization that filled the dystopic fantasies of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale. (One "medical tourism" website, PlanetHospital.com, refers to the Indian surrogate mother as a mere "host.") Images of pregnant women lying in rows, or sitting lined up, belly after belly, for medical exams look like industrial outsourcing pushed to a nightmarish extreme.

I say "feels like" and "look like" because I can't quite bring myself to the point of saying "is." And in this, I think, I am right in the mainstream of American thought on the topic of surrogate motherhood.

Unlike in France, where commercial surrogacy is banned, or in Italy, where almost every form of assisted reproduction is now illegal, laws in the United States are highly ambivalent on this most drastic use of reproductive technology. Commercial surrogacy is legal in some states, illegal in others and regulated differently everywhere, and little that's clear and conclusive about where a birth mother’s rights to a baby end and where the fee-paying mother's rights begin.

Like Warner, my first reaction to this story was revulsion.

On one side, I saw wealthy, spoiled Americans for whom the world is a giant marketplace of brown people who can be paid to take care of their every need.

Like many women my age, I know lots of women who have struggled with infertility and pregnancy loss. Intellectually I know we all want what we want, and the pain of not getting what you want from life is very real.

But in a deep, emotional sense, I have very little sympathy for people who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments and make a biological pregnancy the centre of their lives. Frankly, they make me sick.

I'm not especially concerned with whether people can have babies or not. Some can, some can't. Adopt. Or build a life without children. Accept that life doesn't always turn out as we plan, and move on. If infertility is a painful truth to live with, so is disability, so is cancer, so is losing a partner, so is... lots of things. Life is full of pain, and we adapt, and we transcend, and we move on. You can't buy your way out of everything.

And on the other side, I saw exploited women, forced by circumstance into selling their bodies. Of course, I immediately thought of The Handmaid's Tale, a nightmarish vision of women reduced to their reproductive functions.

But then I started reading the comments on Warner's post. And my mind started to change. Some excerpts:

While I have mixed feelings on this, it seems the wowen in this particular story are not being harmed. Rather, they are given excellent treatments and a chance to better themselves and their families. One article I read on the same clinic even mentioned how the women took english and computer classes during the day ro pass the time. I say let the women themselves and the parents of these babies decide if someone is being harmed in all of this. It seems that there is a degree of desperation on both sides, but at the end of the day, both parties seem satisfied.

. . .

A poor Indian woman does have other choices — she could always sell a kidney, couldn't she?

. . .

The Indian women quoted in your article are happy with the arrangement. YOU are squeamish. Under the guise of "protecting" women who are happy with the arrangement, you analyze its morality. Why are you qualified to set the moral standard?

Aren't you projecting YOUR "very meaningful" pregnancy experience onto theirs? And rather horrified, perhaps, that something that was very meaningful for YOU — is for sale by others & they are GLAD?

You have plenty of money. They don't. It's their call how to use their bodies.

...

Every day on the college campus where I worked, I saw solicitations for sperm donors, egg donors, and healthy medical research participants. These all seemed to pay well, and would be tempting to the college student in need of some extra cash. I agree the idea of "outsourced" pregnancies seems more disturbing, but perhaps it's just because the visual is more disturbing. Surely getting paid to take experimental drugs/vaccines or taking hormones in order to have eggs extracted is also "selling your body," and could be dangerous, as well.

Many jobs pay extra because of the physical risk involved. Why is only surrogacy problematic?

Commenters took all sides of the issues.

While I frequently find Ms. Warner's comments insightful and intelligent, I found this piece to be judgmental, harsh, and moralistic. Before you decide what is best for the infertile woman and her surrogate - walk in their shoes.

. . .

I have to say this is absolutely ridiculous! A woman who has to pay someone to have her child because they are soooooo desperate to be a mother needs a therapist. If a woman cannot physically give birth to a child she does one of two things. 1)Accept it and move on with her life, or 2) Adopt a child. There are thousands of children around the world who are in need of good, loving parents. A woman's world will not come to an end because she cannot give birth to a child.

. . .

This makes me ill.

. . .

Of course impoverished people are desperate enough to sell their bodies. Does that mean we should buy them? Should these people forever be resources to the "developed world" rather than further their own progress? And I don't understand the need for a surrogate 'womb' - please - there are millions of children that need parents. If it's a problem with the adoption system, fix it. Really, I don't get it. I'm a woman who is very very eager to have children but you know what, if it doesn't happen there's no way I'm going to pay someone to do it for me.

. . .

Am I missing something? What, exactly, is wrong with renting out your womb for a boatload of money (at least in your own country's economy)? It's not your egg or your partner's sperm. It's just your womb space. And you get a LOT of money. And medical treatment. In fact, as part of your rental contract, you have to be (oh horrors!) as healthy as possible for 9 months. Yes, I can see the moral issue here... oh wait, I can't. What's the big?

As part of the Haven Coalition in New York, I had the opportunity to work with feminists much younger than myself, whose attitudes I found more practical and less judgmental than many of my feminist peers. I had several Haven friends who had done egg donation to pay for college tuition, and I knew women who did sex work to finance their art. Their attitude: use what you have. It's my choice. Why shouldn't I?

There's little doubt that it would be a better world if these Indian women had more options through which to provide for their families. But that's not the world we live in, here and now. We can work towards that world, but these women can't wait for that day.

Once on this blog, I plugged a local food bank, and reminded people to give to the food bank in their own area. A commenter mentioned he doesn't donate to food banks "on principle," because charities relieve government from doing its job. I also think governments should do more to alleviate poverty. But what does that do for hungry people today? They can't wait for utopia to come to town.

It's all well and good to say "women shouldn't have to do this!" but then what do they do?

All my life, I've fought for the right of all women to control their own bodies. That goes for these women in India, too.

And if I'm disgusted at the lengths some people will go to have a biological child, my opinion doesn't change their reality. Likewise for the women who serve surrogates.

If this issue interests you, I recommend scrolling through the many comments at the Domestic Disturbances post. Good reading.

the harlem of the north? you wish.

I happened to notice this local headline this morning: "Don't call it 'Scarlem' - Scarborough councillors to debate today if area gets fair shake from city".

Scarborough is the east end of Toronto, once a separate town, now incorporated into the city. It has a bad reputation, although there are certainly nice areas in it. Trontonians like to call it "Scarberia," pronounced in withering tones of disdain.

Now, as a New Yorker, I'm all for withering disdain. But is this headline supposed to be a reference to Harlem? The article says: ". . . an invitation to Toronto Life magazine representatives to discuss an article portraying the former city as a bleak, gang-infested "Scarlem.""

Bleak, gang-infested? Harlem??

Scarborough wishes it was as vibrant, happening and desirable a place to live as Harlem! People all over the GTA would be flocking there to buy expensive homes on historic, tree-lined streets, eat at hip restaurants, go to jazz clubs and shop at boutiques.

If Trontonians are ragging on a place by comparing it to Harlem, they need to have their cool meters checked stat. They need to get on a plane to New York and go uptown. There are some bleak, gang-infested areas in New York City, but Harlem hasn't been one of them in, what, 40 years?

Am I reading this wrong? Because I'm ready to explode over here. Time to write a letter.

canadian blog awards voting is now open

EDITED WITH CORRECTED INFORMATION

Voting in round one of the Canadian Blog Awards is now open.

Wmtc is nominated in three different categories. That's a bit ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned, but if you'd like to vote, feel free. You can vote once per round. One vote per IP address, which means partners, roommates and other families get one vote per household. Not fair!

Allan blog - which last year won Best Sports Blog! - is nominated again. Now, he does care about this award. He's at a disadvantage, since the sport in question is not in season, so his regular readership is more limited. So if you'd like to indirectly help wmtc by helping Joy of Sox, please do!

Voting is here.

More specifically:

Best Sports Blog

Best Political Blog

Best Progressive Blog

Best Blog

(What can I say? The man is my biggest fan.)

free speech is for everyone, even idiots like ezra levant

At Progressive Bloggers, I've seen many posts about Ezra Levant's drama-queen turn in front of the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Most progressive bloggers, as far as I can tell, are ridiculing Levant. It's tempting: the neocon blowhard is an easy target.

But I'm disappointed at how many progressive people seem to think the Human Rights Commission is doing the right thing, and that Levant is the transgressor.

The man's opinions are loathsome. But are we so myopic that that we only believe in free speech for ourselves?

And if we are so selfish (and unprincipled) that we care only about our own rights, can't we at least understand that any law prohibiting certain speech or writing will eventually be used against us?

Thanks to Rusty Idols, I saw this Glenn Greenwald column defending Levant's right to free speech.

If you're not up on this bit of Canadian news, Greenwald will fill you in.

I've written several times before about the oppressive, dangerous hate speech laws which are common -- increasingly so -- in both Canada and Europe, whereby the Government is empowered to punish as criminals citizens who express offensive or otherwise prohibited political views. But here is a visceral illustration of what these sorts of laws engender that ought to give great pause even to proponents of such laws.

Ezra Levant is a right-wing Canadian neoconservative who publishes Western Standard, a typical warmongering, pro-Likud journal -- a poor man's Weekly Standard for Canadian neocons. In February, 2006, he published the Danish Mohammed cartoons, which prompted an Islamic group's imam to file a complaint (.pdf) against Levant with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, charging Levant with "advocating hatemongering cartoons in the media," and the imam specifically accused Levant of "defaming me and my family because we follow and are related to Prophet Mohammed."

Rather than dismiss the complaint as a blatant attempt to punish free thought and free speech, the Alberta Human Rights Commission announced that it would investigate. To do so, they compelled Levant to appear before a government agent and be interrogated about the cartoons he published, his thoughts and intent in publishing them, and the other circumstances surrounding his "behavior." Under the law, the Commission has the power to impose substantial fines and other penalties on Levant.

The hearing was closed to the public -- only his lawyer and wife were allowed to attend -- but Levant insisted on recording the proceedings and was directed by the Commission not to publish the video, but he did so anyway. Here are the noxious fruits of hate speech laws: a citizen being forced to appear before the Government in order to be interrogated by an agent of the State -- a banal, clerical bureaucrat -- about what opinions he expressed and why he expressed them, upon pain of being punished under the law. This is nothing short of stomach-turning.

. . . .

Technically, the complaint was filed under Canada's anti-discrimination and "human rights" legislation, but political life in Canada has seen numerous prosecutions for political opinions under that country's oppressive hate speech laws. Government investigations for political opinions are thus an accepted part of their political culture.

A similar complaint was recently filed against Mark Steyn, arising out of the publication in Maclean's of an excerpt from his odious book, America Alone. That complaint was also filed by a Canadian Muslim group, claiming that the passage "misrepresents Canadian Muslims' values, their community, and their religion." Steyn will also now likely be hauled before some government tribunal, forced to account for the ideas and opinions he expressed, incur substantial attorney fees in defending himself, and be subjected to the trauma of some government proceeding against him which can result in numerous punishments.

People like Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are some of the most pernicious commentators around. But equally pernicious, at least, are those who advocate laws that would proscribe and punish political expression, and those who exploit those laws to try use the power of the State to impose penalties on those expressing "offensive" or "insulting" or "wrong" political ideas. The mere existence of the "investigation," interrogation, and proceeding itself is a grotesque affront to every basic liberty.

For those unable to think past the (well-deserved) animosity one has for the specific targets in question here, all one needs to do instead is imagine these proceedings directed at opinions and groups that one likes. If Muslim groups can trigger government investigations due to commentary they find offensive, so, too, can conservative Christian or right-wing Jewish groups, or conservative or neoconservative groups, or any other political faction seeking to restrict and punish speech it dislikes.

Down that ugly path lies people like Newt Gingrich, openly advocating that the First Amendment be narrowed considerably to exclude advocacy of "radical Islam" as a means of combating terrorism. People who favor and seek to exploit Canadian and European hate speech laws are but opposite sides of the same tyrannical coin as Gingrich and his allies who are eager to restrict political expression here.

I often post about Americans who are punished for expressing dissenting opinions. Why is it wrong for the US to punish people for expressing themselves, but OK for Canada? Because Canada is coming at it from a supposedly liberal point of view, under the guise of protecting minority rights? That can't matter. What matters is that the government is restricting freedom of expression, and every progressive person should oppose that.

More from Greenwald:

There are numerous ways to combat advocacy of rancid ideas. Using the power of the Government to force people to "justify" their opinions to government tribunals and face punishment for them is, by far, the most malevolent -- far more dangerous than the expression of any particular idea could ever be.

UPDATE: Law Professor David Bernstein previously noted that Canada's hate speech laws have had unintended consequences, as such laws inevitably do:

Moreover, left-wing academics are beginning to learn firsthand what it's like to have their own censorship vehicles used against them. For example, University of British Columbia Prof. Sunera Thobani, a native of Tanzania, faced a hate-crimes investigation after she launched into a vicious diatribe against American foreign policy. Thobani, a Marxist feminist and multiculturalism activist, had remarked that Americans are "bloodthirsty, vengeful and calling for blood." The Canadian hate-crimes law was created to protect minority groups from hate speech. But in this case, it was invoked to protect Americans.

Just like Bush followers who bizarrely think that the limitless presidential powers they're cheering on will only be wielded by political leaders they like, many hate speech law proponents convince themselves that such laws will only be used to punish speech they dislike. That is never how tyrannical government power works. [Full column with links here.]

I couldn't agree more.

I hate how this fuels that ridiculous "liberal fascism" trope. Type "ezra levant human rights commission" into Google Blog Search and you'll see what I mean.

the sexist world we live in

As you may (or may not) have noticed, I'm not blogging about the Democratic primary races. It's impossible to block out altogether, but I'm paying as little attention to the circus as I can. If you read this blog, you know I think the whole US election system is a bankrupt, corrupt, anti-democratic sham. No viable candidate will make meaningful change, and any candidate who would try, will not be viable.

We'll all be happy to see the face of the US change (if indeed it does - I won't be surprised if "something happens" and they dispense with even the pretense of elections), but will the direction of the US change?

So. I don't care about the Democrats, and I care very little about this election. And you damn well know I don't care about Hillary Clinton!

But I do care about sexism.

It comes as no surprise that a female presidential candidate is earning a special place in hell from the rabidly right-wing US media. Canadian media is not immune to sexism - Belinda Stronach's change of hair colour made front-page, above-the-fold "news" - but if you don't dabble in US media, it's hard to imagine what's going on. Jamison Foser at Media Matters dissects Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball" to give you an idea.

This was brought to my attention by my friend James, who sent me this post from Group News Blog, where Sara Robinson (who you may know from Orcinus), links to a post from Media Matters, which itself references a post from firedoglake. Whew! That's a ton of cred.

With acknowledgements to all those sources, here's Foser at Media Matters.

Put simply, Matthews behaves as though he is obsessed with Hillary Clinton. And not "obsessed" in a charming, mostly harmless, Lloyd-Dobler-with-a-boom-box kind of way. "Obsessed" in a this-person-needs-help kind of way.

More than six years ago, long before Hillary Clinton began running for president, the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine reported that, according to an MSNBC colleague, Matthews had said of Clinton: "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."

Even before that, Matthews told the January 20, 2000, Hardball audience, "Hillary Clinton bugs a lot of guys, I mean, really bugs people like maybe me on occasion. I'm not going to take a firm position here, because the election is not coming up yet. But let me just say this, she drives some of us absolutely nuts."

Not that there was much chance his feelings would go unnoticed by even the most casual Hardball viewer.

Matthews has referred to Clinton as "She devil." He has repeatedly likened Clinton to "Nurse Ratched," referring to the "scheming, manipulative" character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest who "asserts arbitrary control simply because she can." He has called her "Madame Defarge." And he has described male politicians who have endorsed Clinton as "castratos in the eunuch chorus."

Matthews has compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser" and questioned whether she is "a convincing mom." He refers to Clinton's "cold eyes" and the "cold look" she supposedly gives people; he says she speaks in a "scolding manner" and is "going to tell us what to do."

Matthews frequently obsesses over Clinton's "clapping" -- which he describes as "Chinese." He describes Clinton's laugh as a "cackle" -- which led to the Politico's Mike Allen telling him, "Chris, first of all, 'cackle' is a very sexist term." (Worth remembering: When John McCain was asked by a GOP voter referring to Clinton, "How do we beat the bitch?" Allen reacted by wondering, "What voter in general hasn't thought that?" So Allen isn't exactly hypersensitive to people describing Clinton in sexist terms.)

Matthews repeatedly suggests Clinton is a "fraud" for claiming to be a Yankees fan, despite the fact that all available evidence indicates that Clinton has been a Yankees fan since childhood. In April of 2007, former Washington Post reporter John Harris, who has written a book about Bill Clinton, told Matthews to his face that the attacks on Clinton over her history of being a Yankees fan were false. Harris said: "Hillary Clinton got hazed over saying she was a New York Yankees fan. It turned out, actually, that was right. She had been a lifelong Yankees fan. But people were all over [her] for supposedly embroidering her past." But Matthews doesn't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of his efforts to take cheap shots at Clinton: At least twice since Harris set him straight, Matthews has attacked Clinton over the Yankees fan nonsense, once calling her a "fraud."

Matthews has described Clinton as "witchy" and -- in what appears to be a classic case of projection -- claimed that "some men" say Clinton's voice sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard." In what appears to be an even more classic case of projection, Matthews has speculated that there is "out there in the country ... some gigantic monster -- big, green, horny-headed, all kinds of horns coming out, big, aggressive monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn't shown itself: it's based upon gender."

Matthews has suggested that Hillary Clinton "being surrounded by women" might "make a case against" her being "commander in chief." He once asked a guest if "the troops out there" would "take the orders" from "Hillary Clinton, commander in chief." When his guest responded, "Why wouldn't they listen to a [female] commander in chief? Sure," Matthews responded: "You're chuckling a little bit, aren't you?" When his guest responded "No," Matthews couldn't quite believe it, sputtering: "No problem? No problem? No problem?"

Matthews has wondered if she is unable "to admit a mistake" because doing so would lead people to call her a "fickle woman." He has said that Clinton is on a "short ... leash" as a presidential candidate, lacking "latitude in her husband's absence" to answer a question. He has, at least twice, called Hillary Clinton an "uppity" woman -- both times, pretending to attribute the phrase to Bill Clinton. But, as Bob Somerby has explained, there is no evidence Clinton has ever used the term.

One of Matthews' favorite topics is Clinton's marriage. After The New York Times ran an article purporting to count the number of nights the Clintons spend together, Matthews' imagination ran wild, and the MSNBC host couldn't get the Clintons' marital life out of his mind. At one point, Media Matters counted 90 separate questions Matthews asked guests about the topic during seven separate programs; the number undoubtedly grew after we stopped counting. In the middle of one of Matthews' bouts of obsessive speculation about how often the Clintons are "together in the same roof overnight, if you will," Washington Post reporter Lois Romano asked him, "[W]hat is your obsession with logistics here?" In response, Matthews snapped at her: "Because I'm talking to three reporters, and I'm trying to get three straight answers, so I don't want attitude about this. It's a point of view -- I want facts. Tell me what the facts are, Lois, if you know them. If you don't, I don't know what you're arguing about."

Matthews has claimed: "[T]he reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." John McCain's political career got started after he left his first wife for a wealthy and politically connected heiress, married her, and ran for Congress. But Chris Matthews doesn't suggest that the reason McCain is a "U.S. senator ... a candidate for president ... a front-runner" is that he "messed around." Even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said Matthews' comments about Clinton went too far: "I mean, it's rough business what these people over there [at MSNBC] are doing. We don't do that here. We would never say that Senator Clinton got her job because her husband messed around. I mean, that is -- that is a personal attack. And it is questionable whether a network should allow that or not."

Matthews periodically gets it into his head that the most important question in the world is whether Bill Clinton will be a "distraction" or whether he will "behave himself." He badgers Clinton aides about the question and warns that Bill Clinton "better watch it." He asks if Clinton will be a "good boy" or be guilty of "misbehavior." Matthews is not so subtly referring to Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. But curiously, he doesn't have the same concerns about McCain or about Rudy Giuliani, as I wrote nearly a year ago.

Think about this for a second: Chris Matthews is holding it against Hillary Clinton that her husband cheated on her. But he doesn't hold it against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani that they cheated on their spouses. Matthews seems to think women are to blame when their husbands have affairs -- and men who cheat on their spouses are blameless.

And then there's Matthews' fixation on Hillary Clinton's "ambition." In December 1999, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson appeared on Hardball to discuss Clinton's Senate campaign. Matthews asked Wolfson eight consecutive questions about whether Clinton was "ambitious." Finally, Matthews said, "People who seek political power are ambitious by definition," leading Wolfson to tell him: "if you say so. If it will make you happy, I'll agree." If Matthews has ever displayed as much interest in the "ambition" of male candidates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, he has done so in private.

You can go here to read the whole piece, complete with copious links and sources.

Sometimes sexism in the media is so commonplace, it becomes invisible. Sara Robinson uses a highlighter to give you the idea.

Just in case some of you don't quite entirely understand how deeply offensive some of Matthews' leering, condescending cracks are, I'd like to put the sensible high heel on another foot and see how truly ridiculous it looks. Let's imagine that Matthews has been on the air for ten years regularly spouting comparable bilge about politicians from another group.

Let's consider, just by way of example, about how far his career might have gone if he'd been saying pretty much the same stuff about African-American men.

Imagine that, back in 2001, Matthews got on MSNBC and said of Colin Powell: "I hate him. I hate him. All that he stands for." Or that he told the Hardball audience: "Colin Powell bugs a lot of whites. I mean, really bugs guys like me on occasion....let me just say this, he drives some of us absolutely nuts."

Consider what would happen if he referred to Jesse Jackson as a "black devil," and likened him to Step'n Fetchit, who "steals whatever's not nailed down because he can." Or called him "Willie Horton." Or described white politicians who endorse him as "self-hating ni**er-lovers." Or described his walk as a "strut." Or wondered aloud if white troops would take orders from him, and laughed when his respondent called him on it. Or called him "uppity" -- on at least two occasions.

How would people respond if Matthews showed the same salacious interest in the intimate details of the Obamas' marriage as he has in the Clintons'? Media Matters says they counted 90 questions on the matter over seven programs -- and then gave up counting. What if he badgered Obama aides on whether or not Michelle would be "a good girl," or guilty of "misbehavior," and warned that she'd better "watch it"?

What would the reaction be if Matthews became obsessively fixated on Andrew Young's "ambition" -- to the point where he asked a guest eight consecutive questions about whether or not he's "ambitious"? Or if he accused Young of being "anti-white" and insisted that "he should just lighten up on this racial 'the whites are coming to get me' routine?" Or if he wondered aloud how Young could serve as an ambassador without "shucking and jiving" for the president?

Every single example above is an exact racist corollary to some sexist remark Matthews has made to or about a woman over the course of his career.

A guy says this stuff about black people, and everybody gets it. He's a bigot, infected by so many stereotypes that he's unfit to comment on matters of national importance, and unworthy of a single moment of the country's precious airtime. Newscasters don't make it to the national level if they're they least bit prone to saying this kind of stuff on the air. Don Imus lost his job over saying things like this about black women, and that was a good day for everybody but him. In 2008, serious people just don't talk that way about African-Americans any more.

But, evidently, you can still get paid several million dollars a year by getting on national TV and talking this way about women, and nobody will ever think to call you out on it.

Continuing Sara's analogy, I don't hear too many white people joking about lynching. At least not in front of black people. But men will joke about rape in front of women. Aw c'mon, lighten up, don't have a stick up your ass. Can't you take a joke?

This was sent to me by DeanG, a progressive from Texas (they're out there, people!) and a long-time reader of wmtc.

As reported in the Chronicle (Jan. 11, 2008 issue):

The competition's most popular topic was, believe it or not, rape. The first comic told two rape jokes. Another said he could never be a rapist because he likes to sleep after sex. Yet another said he would call his victim the next morning because he's such a nice guy.

Er, ha.

Later one of the competitors began his act by promising the audience that he wouldn't tell any rape jokes. He broke that promise two minutes later with a one-liner about using "ropes and formaldehyde" to solve his romantic problems.

Ha again.

Ha indeed. I guess I was just born without the "rape is soooo funny" gene. These fine, upstanding young men are attending college with our daughters, sisters, cousins, friends. I mean, I've always known that rape is a major issue on most college campuses. I just didn't know it had become fashionable to make sport of it.

Now some of you are firing up your keyboards right this very minute to tell me to lighten up, get a sense of humor, stop being such a feminazi. One, I'll just point out it was a man writing the Chronicle article who found this vein of humor offensive. Two, I'll remind you that it is precisely because I do have a sense of what is humorous that I find this stuff not funny, but disturbing. If you think it's funny, it's because you think there is something inherently funny about men coercing and forcing women to have sex. You are okay with laughing about sexual violence.

If you are comfortable with the realization that you like laughing at women's pain, then go ahead and laugh your head off. But do me a favor, and call me again sometime in the future after your sister or wife or mother or daughter gets raped, and tell me again how funny the rape jokes are.

Oh, wait, you don't think a little forcible persuasion actually counts as rape? Well you are in good company; when I was a graduate student at Duke, a survey of undergraduate men showed that something like over twenty percent of them were A-OK with forcing a woman to have sex with them, if they thought they wouldn't get caught. I'll bet those guys would think these jokes are hilarious.

Unsurprisingly, the 5 women in the New Jersey competition did not lace their routines with rape jokes. Though we are told "one did sing a ditty about not wanting to be raped".

The whole thing just makes me tired.

What do you want to bet that there are far, far more people who will be outraged by the news that Harvard has established 12 postdoctoral fellowships for women and minorities in chemistry and chemical biology, than there are who will be bothered by the notion of undergraduate men mocking rape victims?

I wholeheartedly thank Zuska for this, but the best part of the post is the comments. I encourage you to read them. Some excerpts:

Men telling rape jokes is all about making certain that women understand that they present themselves in public only at the pleasure, and with the forebearance, of men.

Women telling rape jokes *can* be about the humour of transgression, depending on how it is done. Men, no way.

Transgressive humor only works when the joke teller is not operating from a position of privilege vis a vis the taboo being transgressed. South Park is funny because the children are completely utterly powerless, and don't even understand the nature of the taboos they are transgressing.

Posted by: PhysioProf | January 10, 2008 3:44 PM

There is a difference between joking about taboo subjects and being a member of a dominant group joking about doing bodily harm to another person. "Baby eating" jokes, for example, are more acceptable because they mock the old stereotype of witches (women) and jews(minorities) eating Christian babies. It's sort of re-claiming a stereotype. Dead baby jokes are more acceptable because nobody actually makes a habit of killing babies. (Now I'm not saying that these jokes are funny)

But, being a white person joking about "stringing up" a member of another race IS NOT cool, because a lot of white people in recent history have actually done that. Also, being a man joking about raping a woman isn't cool for the reason that it feel threatening to us women.

Posted by: haydin | January 10, 2008 3:49 PM

I'm not usually troubled by a darker, "inappropriate" humour, but this crosses a line. It reminds me of an evening out at a restaurant with a group of men who, assuming I was idiotic as there were, joked that they'd could all share statutory rape charges because they found the young waitress so attractive.

I'm a gay man that straight men assume is straight, what I've heard from some straight men out of earshot of women is abhorrent. Attitudes need to change.

Posted by: Matty Smith | January 10, 2008 3:50 PM

It's been 40 years since my college girlfriend was raped on her way to my apartment. I still think about what it did to her, and don't find rape humor funny at all. However, rather than scolding men for poor taste, insensitivity and boorishness, I would rather hear women come back with castration jokes or colonscopy jokes. It takes a thick skin to succeed in a hypercommunicated world.

Posted by: Howard | January 10, 2008 4:28 PM

"would rather hear women come back with castration jokes or colonscopy jokes."

No, that doesn't work. It's not the same.

Rape jokes are so offensive because, as PhysoProf said, they're made out of a sense of superiority over women.

Castration doesn't happen regularly to men. It's not something the average male has to fear. So men can just shrug of jokes like this. But women do have to fear rape.

Part of rape jokes also is, that the jokes isn't just a joke.

For example jokes about dead babies are mostly just stupid, but never as offensive as a rape joke, because nobody (sane at least) would ever entertain the idea about killing babies. But part of rape jokes is the idea (the temptation) to actually do it. When, for example, a male makes a rape joke about a waitress, it's not only a joke, but also shows the desire (resp. lust) of this male towards the waitress. Yes, part of rape jokes in male groups is that the idea of rape is entertained (though mostly not conducted).

A dead baby joke can be very offensive if told to, for example, parents who just lost a baby. No one in their right mind would do that and claim it's funny.

It's the same with rape jokes.

So no, rape jokes can't be funny. (When told by men. I can entertain the possibility that they could be funny when told by a woman, though I can't imagine a situation where they would be funny even then.)

Posted by: student_b | January 10, 2008 5:00 PM

. . . .

I think 'student_b' has got it right.

We could make jokes about, for example, babies turning cannibal -- which could be funny for the simple reason that no such thing would ever happen, yet it is ghoulish to think about.

But a joke about rape? Rape can happen, and it isn't a negligibly rare event. What if a big bruiser made a joke about raping one of the men present? How funny would that be? No one in their right mind would make a rape joke. But someone in their wrong mind might.

Men aren't the only ones to be wrong-minded. Women joke about castrating their men, cutting their throats, and setting fire to them. Check the news stories: all these things actually happen.

Posted by: Nelson Muntz | January 10, 2008 6:33 PM

. . . .

Ugh, ugh, ugh.

And I'm with Student_B. It just isn't the same. It's all about power and fear. Fear and power. Two sides of the same coin.

It must end. We must speak up.

Rape jokes just aren't funny.

Posted by: whymommy | January 10, 2008 10:40 PM

That's a sample. I recommend reading them all.

what does a war cost?

I think a lot about the hidden costs of war.

Last July, the cost in dollars was $12 billion a month. This in a country where millions of citizens do not have access to basic health care or decent education, where thousands are still homeless from a hurricane (that private corporations continue to profit from).

The most obvious cost is measured in lives - as of today, estimated to be between 80,000 and 90,000 Iraqi civilians and 4229 "coalition" (3922 US).

But as terrible as those numbers are, they are only the beginning. Amputation, paralysis, blindness, poverty, homelessness, mental illness, alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide... What else? What am I missing?

Today the New York Times - you know, the paper that did so much to justify the invasion? - began a series called "War Torn". Subtitle: A series of articles and multimedia about veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who have committed killings, or been charged with them, after coming home.

It's a long article. Here's a brief excerpt.

Late one night in the summer of 2005, Matthew Sepi, a 20-year-old Iraq combat veteran, headed out to a 7-Eleven in the seedy Las Vegas neighborhood where he had settled after leaving the Army.

This particular 7-Eleven sits in the shadow of the Stratosphere casino-hotel in a section of town called the Naked City. By day, the area, littered with malt liquor cans, looks depressed but not menacing. By night, it becomes, in the words of a local homicide detective, "like Falluja."

Mr. Sepi did not like to venture outside too late. But, plagued by nightmares about an Iraqi civilian killed by his unit, he often needed alcohol to fall asleep. And so it was that night, when, seized by a gut feeling of lurking danger, he slid a trench coat over his slight frame — and tucked an assault rifle inside it.

"Matthew knew he shouldn't be taking his AK-47 to the 7-Eleven," Detective Laura Andersen said, "but he was scared to death in that neighborhood, he was military trained and, in his mind, he needed the weapon to protect himself."

Head bowed, Mr. Sepi scurried down an alley, ignoring shouts about trespassing on gang turf. A battle-weary grenadier who was still legally under-age, he paid a stranger to buy him two tall cans of beer, his self-prescribed treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

As Mr. Sepi started home, two gang members, both large and both armed, stepped out of the darkness. Mr. Sepi said in an interview that he spied the butt of a gun, heard a boom, saw a flash and "just snapped."

In the end, one gang member lay dead, bleeding onto the pavement. The other was wounded. And Mr. Sepi fled, "breaking contact" with the enemy, as he later described it. With his rifle raised, he crept home, loaded 180 rounds of ammunition into his car and drove until police lights flashed behind him.

"Who did I take fire from?" he asked urgently. Wearing his Army camouflage pants, the diminutive young man said he had been ambushed and then instinctively "engaged the targets." He shook. He also cried.

"I felt very bad for him," Detective Andersen said.

Nonetheless, Mr. Sepi was booked, and a local newspaper soon reported: "Iraq veteran arrested in killing."

Town by town across the country, headlines have been telling similar stories. Lakewood, Wash.: "Family Blames Iraq After Son Kills Wife." Pierre, S.D.: "Soldier Charged With Murder Testifies About Postwar Stress." Colorado Springs: "Iraq War Vets Suspected in Two Slayings, Crime Ring."

Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving.

About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, among them 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father slammed her against a wall when he was recuperating in Texas from a bombing near Falluja that blew off his foot and shook up his brain.

A quarter of the victims were fellow service members, including Specialist Richard Davis of the Army, who was stabbed repeatedly and then set ablaze, his body hidden in the woods by fellow soldiers a day after they all returned from Iraq.

Think of every soldier who resists. How many lives do they save?

january 11 protests

At View Images, you can see a large number of excellent photos of yesterday's day of protest. (Type "january 11 protests" in the search bar.) The site asks you not to reproduce or distribute them, but I hope you'll click.

Think Progress has posted photos of protests in Istanbul, London, Brussels, Manila, Budapest and Washington DC.

Protesters in London held an all-night vigil in front of the US Embassy.

Eighty protesters were arrested in front of the US Supreme Court. Here's a photo of one of them, with her baby.

Here's a photo from a protest in Fresno, California. (Maybe our friend Granny was there.)

Here's a report with some photos from a protest in Dallas, Texas.

It's moving to see so many people, all over the world, give of themselves to stand for justice. For some people, standing for peace and justice is a way of life. Activists in Needham, Massachusetts have been doing so for five years.

The writer asks: "For some of us who have passed the vigil-keepers many times in the past five years, their presence serves a purpose that goes beyond their specific cause. Their constancy and steadfast devotion raise humbling questions for the rest of us, such as: What cause do I believe in fervently? And what am I doing to support and promote it?"

what i'm watching: tsotsi

We saw "Totsi" last night. I'm very partial to redemption stories, and this one is very well done - not sugar-coated, not overly predictable, and not too heavy-handed.

I don't put any stock in the Academy Awards, but if you do, Tsoti won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.

hello pot, meet kettle

Front page headline in today's Globe and Mail:

Bush calls on Israel to end Palestinian occupation

The mind boggles.

six years on: guantánamo must be closed

Guantanamo Bay Fact Sheet

6.5 x 8 feet – approximate size of cell in Guantánamo

1805 – number of days that hundreds have been held at Guantánamo Bay without charge or trial as of December 10, 2006

430 – Approximate number of people in custody at Guantanamo Bay as of November 17, 2006

14 – number of "high value detainees" held at Guantanamo

13 – age of Mohammed Ismail Agha when taken into US custody in Afghanistan in late 2002 before later being transferred to Guantanamo

10 – number of people in Guantanamo who have been charged with any crime

Attempted Suicides

350 – incidents of self-harm in Guantanamo Bay in 2003

120 – incidents were "hanging gestures" in 2003

110 – incidents of harm/suicide were reported for 2005

34 – number of prisoners whose self-harm incidents were labeled "attempted suicide" by the US since January 2002

23 – number of prisoners that tried to hang or strangle themselves in August 2003

[21– number of the 23 prisoners whose attempts were written off as "attention-getting" gestures

2 – number of the 23 prisoners classified as attempting suicide.]

3 – number of prisoners who died in detention of apparent suicides at Guantanamo Bay

Detained without Adequate Proof

55% – percent of detainees not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States

40% – percent of detainees who have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda

18% – percent of detainees who have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda or Taliban

8% – percent of detainees characterized as Al Qaeda fighters

Bought Detainees

At the time when the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies:

86% – detainees were not detained on the battle field but were instead arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody

66% – detainees were captured by Pakistani authorities

20% – detainees were captured by the Northern Alliance/Afghan authorities

8% – detainees were captured by the US authorities

3% – detainees were captured by other coalition forces

All over the world today, ordinary people, clad in orange, will gather to call attention to the plight of other human beings who had the bad luck to be in the way when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001. In this story from Amnesty International, there's already photo from today's demo in Australia.

Hundreds of thousands of peace and justice groups all over the world - as well as thousands of elected officials in Canada, the UK, Japan, Israel, Germany and other countries - are calling for an end to this horror. Meanwhile, the US continues to operate outside of international law and democratic process.

From Amnesty International:

This anniversary is not just about Guantánamo. The detentions there are only one part of the unlawful detention policies and practices that the US government has adopted since 11 September 2001 in the name of counter-terrorism and national security. These include secretly transferring detainees between countries ("renditions"), holding them in secret detention sites and subjecting detainees to interrogation techniques and conditions that amount to torture or other ill-treatment.

Please think about what you can do to add your voice to this global shout. The ACLU has lots of ideas, and it's not too late. You can find a demo and join others standing up for human rights.

Human Rights Watch articles about Guantánamo here.

Witness To Torture on what's been done.

Canadians can also use this day to call attention to Canada's own special shame, Omar Khadr. There's a powerful essay about Khadr here at Counterpunch. Canadian Robert Billyard writes:

As a government in abdication, official Ottawa - our peerless politicos and esteemed civil servants - have become acolytes to The Empire as they retreat from governance and anything that resembles moral scruples.

The disgrace is theirs and ours. Theirs for doing nothing and ours for letting them get away with it.

get them while they're finger-painting so they don't get us over here

A US force has stormed a kindergarten in a Shi'a-dominated district in Baghdad, smashed toys, doors and windows and arrested three of its guards, the Iraqi government said on Tuesday.

US troops raided Kanari kindergarten in the Jamila area of Sadr City in Baghdad where they smashed children's toys, doors, windows and roofs, according to a statement by the media centre of the Iraqi cabinet.

"No evidence was found during the raid on the kindergarten that proves the school's involvement in terrorist acts or that it is used for storing weapons," the statement said.

The reason for the operation was not immediately known.

No comment. What is there to say?

u.s. dod will not investigate kbr gang-rape case

A follow-up.

The Defense Department's top watchdog has declined to investigate allegations that an American woman working under an Army contract in Iraq was raped by her co-workers.

The case of former Halliburton/KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones gained national attention last month. An ABC News investigation revealed how an earlier investigation into Jones' alleged gang-rape in 2005 had not resulted in any prosecution, and that neither Jones nor Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been able to get answers from the Bush administration on the state of her case.

In letters to lawmakers, DoD Inspector General Claude Kicklighter said that because the Justice Department still considers the investigation into Jones' case open, there is no need for him to look into the matter.

. . .

Jones' lawyers also professed disappointment. "How could the Department of Defense refuse to help [Jones]?'" asked attorney Stephanie Morris, who noted that the criminal investigation into Jones' allegations has been going on for more than two and a half years, without apparent results. [More here.]

My earlier posts about this case are here and here.

start them early and train them right

We started watched "The Journals of Knud Rasmussen" the other night, the second movie by Aboriginal director Zacharias Kunuk.

We both really liked his first film, "Atanarjuat the Fast Runner". "Atanarjuat" is the first feature film made in Inuktitut, the language spoken by the the Inuit people. It's based on an ancient Inuit legend, and is a gripping, compelling story. It's also a chance to visualize how early hunter-gatherers lived, what their daily lives might have been like. That was fascinating.

With that in mind, we expected to enjoy Kunuk's "The Journals of Knud Rasmussen". But no. To say we didn't enjoy this movie is being kind. We couldn't sit through it. It was just plain boring. You know I'm not a shoot-em-up, car-chase, armies-on-the-plains kind of movie watcher. But geez, something has to happen. Anything!

Because we didn't like this movie, I ended up watching "Futurama," and because I was watching "Futurama," I ended up seeing an ad... And this ad that drove me crazy.

I didn't write down the name of the "toy" being sold, but Googling, I found this: Rose Petal Cottage, part of the Dream Town collection by Hasbro.

It's a playhouse. In the ad, two happy, long-haired, white girls are opening and setting up the playhouse, which is filled with "accessories" - which, of course, are sold separately.

And what are these accessories?

A toy washing machine.

A toy kitchen sink.

A toy muffin-making set.

And of course, a toy nursery, complete with crib and baby.

To which I can only say: AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

I can barely articulate my disgust. I am reduced to rhetorical questions.

Do you see how early the indoctrination begins?

Are these toys playhouses ever marketed to boys? Or are girls the only people who need to practice laundry, baking and child care? (Does anyone really need to practice doing laundry?)

Why is work marketed as play? Of all the infinite varieties of play these girls might want to try - all the building, creating, climbing, colouring, running, pretending, experimenting - why do they need to play at doing the fucking laundry??

I'm not suggesting that baking and child care are drudgery on the order of laundry (although for me they would be much worse!). Baking - real baking, of real food - can be fun for any child. All children can enjoy playing with dolls. But link baking, laundry and baby in a "dream house" marketed exclusively to girls, and you've created a very specific kind of monster.

Of course there's nothing wrong with "playing house," and when kids invent a "let's pretend" game on their own, it can be a fun exercise of their imaginations.

But that's not what Rose Petal Cottage is about. This is gender-role indoctrination and insatiable consumerism all wrapped up in one neat, expensive, made-in-China package.

And my final rhetorical question: What century is this?

On the toy's website, there's a link to watch the commercial.

nova scotia declared part of red sox nation

The 2007 World Series Trophy came to Halifax this week! There are deep regional and cultural connections between New England and the Maritime Provinces, and I thought this tangible evidence was really cool.

The trophy's appearance was the work of the Bluenose Bosox Brotherhood, a Canadian branch of Red Sox Nation diehards who found themselves in the spotlight for a few days.

For Wright — a fan since his father took him to his first game at Fenway Park when he was six — the chance to see, photograph and maybe even hold the trophy is simply too good to pass up.

"It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for any fan of the Red Sox, my goodness," Wright said this week from his Halifax home. "I can't believe they have agreed to do this.

"The Yankees, those bums, would never bring it here."

Wright is a member of the Bluenose BoSox Brotherhood, a collection of more than 100 stats-spouting supporters who lobbied extensively since the team's latest World Series win in October for the trophy to come north.

Apparently not everyone was happy about the arrival of the trophy.

I guess the little guy is a Yankees fan.

job news

Good news: my weekend job was just made permanent.

This is the firm that offered me a raise and promotion, then withdrew the offer, then made another offer of more work for less money.

This week they offered me the same job (my current position) on the same terms, but as a permanent, rather than contract, employee.

In the practical sense, not much changes - I don't work enough hours to be eligible for benefits - but increased job security is a good thing. I've also been doing some legal transcription at home to fill in extra income, and the combination has been working out well.

Looking back through wmtc posts labeled "my working life," I'm reminded that I was hoping to get work as a private ESL tutor or editing university students' term papers. Neither of those things have happened.

The problem with those options is the lack of an accessible, steady stream of work to tap into. If I can't find a steady source - and if it's very time-consuming and competitive to get the work in the first place - the usefulness as a support for my writing life greatly diminishes. And after my adventure with the notetaking work - investing so much time and effort, only to abandon it - a steady, easy, predictable income-earning routine feels very important.

january 11: wear orange (and other things to do)

I am trying - always - to not bombard you with pitches for activism.

I try to space those posts out, looking for some middle ground between the urgency of the need, and the reality of organizing. If you pile on too much, it all blends together and just gets ignored.

But the urgency is real. The occupation of Iraq drags on, the rumblings of an attack on Iran get louder, my friends the war resisters need safety. I feel a deep personal need to try to move more people into more action.

Nowhere is the urgency more dire than for the US's great shame, happening every minute of every day, on that little island off the coast of Florida.

This Friday, January 11, marks six years since the first detainees were brought to the prison at Guantánamo Bay. For a timeline of what's been happening since, see the ACLU or Witness Against Torture.

Both these groups are spearheading a national and international effort to draw attention to this travesty and demand: Close Guantánamo!

The action is simple: on January 11, wear orange, the colour of the prisoners' jumpsuits.

The ACLU has an excellent organizing tool that every person concerned - ashamed, angry, disgusted, depressed - about Guantánamo can use.

GOT 1 MINUTE?
• Sign the Pledge
• Join on Myspace or Facebook
• Download factsheet
• Sign up for ACLU's Mailing List

GOT 5 MINUTES?
• Get an armband
• Send an E-card: Tell 5 friends about January 11
• Add a button to your website
• Get "Why I'm Wearing Orange" for your office or notebook
• Print a Poster
• Share the Pledge with others

GOT 15 MINUTES?
• Write a Letter to the Editor
• Write a Blog Post

More time?
There's more you can do...

I urge you to go here to get the links. At the very least, we can all sign the pledge and wear orange this Friday. Even better, find a local action - and go.

Witness Against Torture has been campaigning to shut down Guantánamo for several years. They've staged some very bold protests, wearing hoods, masks and orange jumpsuits. You can read about their protests here.

To learn more about who is being held at Guantánamo go here and here. (As I post this, CagePrisoners.org is not working, but hopefully that is a temporary glitch, not something worse.)

I know it can be overwhelming. There are so many people asking for your time and your money. But please, this Friday, take one small action to stand in solidarity with some of the most direct victims of the US's reign of terror. Wear orange - and tell someone why.

wmtc meets canadian hope

We finally met Tom and Emilio last night! Allan and I had dinner with Nick and Mason and the two new arrivals.

Things seem to be going well for them, apart from the usual annoying nonsense that seems inevitable with such a big move. They seem to feel really at home in Toronto - which is very easy to do. Listening to their experiences reminded me of those first few weeks, when I walked around amazed at how friendly everyone is.

I was really touched to hear Tom say that, for the first time in years, he's sleeping through the night - because he no longer has to worry his family being broken up, about Emilio being deported. Crossing the border brought me a tremendous sense of relief and peace, but I can only imagine the difference it makes to these men.

There are several more multinational same-sex couples following in Tom and Emilio's path - a path blazed by Gito and Juan. And since almost 11,000 Americans emigrated to Canada in 2006, we can assume there are even more who don't blog.

* * * *

On a more mundane note, this dinner brought us in to Leslieville, a Toronto neighbourhood we hadn't really seen yet. As a urban-transplant in suburbia, I'm slooowly adding to my knowledge of Toronto, increasing my options and my mental map when we come in "to town" (as they say out here). I love living in Mississauga, but part of its appeal is that Toronto is right down the street.

election fraud story update

After reading the New York Times Magazine story on electronic voting, I updated that recent thread.

It's here if you are interested.

george mcgovern: a call for impeachment

George McGovern, who is spending his twilight years trying to rebuild democracy, has written a call for impeachment.

Why I Believe Bush Must Go
Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse

by George McGovern

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.

Today I have made a different choice.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly "high crimes and misdemeanors," to use the constitutional standard.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team's assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged — perhaps even by a congressional investigation.

In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion — by far the highest in our national history.

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?

. . .

Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.

As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, "it wasn't until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country’s laws — that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law — and repeatedly violates the law — thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors."

I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won't be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I'd like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin.

There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered.

I don't love the United States the way George McGovern does, but I truly admire the man and his dedication.

You can read the whole piece in the Washington Post or here on Common Dreams.