Monday, March 21, 2011

Guess what? Libya is all Hillary's fault! Woo hoo!

The Clinton Derangement Syndrome raises its itchy greasy acne-pocked sexist head once more, with a fab slam article on how Libya is all Hillary's fault (plus it's Bill's fault, too) accompanied by an unflattering picture because why not, eh? They print unflattering pix of Gaddfi, don't they?

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

White House Stones Afghan Women: "Gender Issues" = Pet Rocks

Yes, the liberal Democrats in Washington DC are throwing Afghan women under the bus, because gender issues are just pet rocks, see, and there's this a big fat effin' bus, see, and somebody's gotta get thrown under it, and that would be you, sweetie.

A senior U.S. official involved in Afghanistan policy said changes to the land program . . . stem from a desire at the top levels of the Obama administration to triage the war and focus on the overriding goal of ending the conflict.

"Gender issues are going to have to take a back seat to other priorities," said the senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal policy deliberations. "There's no way we can be successful if we maintain every special interest and pet project. All those pet rocks in our rucksack were taking us down."

The changes come at a time of growing concern among rights advocates that the modest gains Afghan women have achieved since the fall of the Taliban government in 2001 are being rolled back.

New rules being drafted by President Hamid Karzai's government would bar private safe houses for women who are fleeing abuse and place new rules on those seeking refuge in the country's 14 public shelters, including forcing women to submit to medical examinations and evicting them if their families want them back. The proposed rules would also bring the shelters - funded by international organizations, Western governments and private donors - under the direct control of the Afghan government.

Even the Soviets and the Shah were better on the great pet rock of gender equity, were they not?

But hey, ladies, don't get your panties in a twist.

No biggie.

Fighting the War on Two Fronts

Well, dog my cat or something, I inadvertantly stepped on a twitter hornet's nest, and I'm just so sorry that I did. I mentioned in a tweet that I thought the conditions of Bradley Manning's confinement, as I understand them, seemed rather Abu Ghraib-y to me: being kept naked, in solitary confinement. Now, if this is not the case, then I will happily STFU.

If it is the case, I will not happily STFU, and my unhappiness at his being kept in such conditions does not merely include Manning's condition, but extends to anyone who would keep anyone in such conditions anywhere anytime.

I am happy to wage war on two fronts: toward the right wing, and toward the left, when it appears to be supporting things I think ought not to be supported: you know, like keeping one's fellow humans in unacceptable conditions. You don't like it? Meh.

Obama is too timid-centrist for me. Always has been, still is. I held my nose and voted for him, and I'm glad he won. That being said, I don't appreciate a lot of what he is doing, and I don't appreciate a lot of what he is not doing. However, I dislike the behaviors and goals of the rabid right wing much much much much more.

Right wing, left wing, throwing people into solitary confinement, naked, and keeping them in those conditions is unacceptable. Stripping people naked is a form of humiliation, and sexual humiliation at that, and it is not a method to address suicidality. Mental hospitals all across America are filled with suicidal people who, remarkably enough, still have their clothes on.


Here's what Arthur Silber has to say re: Manning. Go fight with him.