Glenn Beck's Tears

I'm working on a rather large project, inspired by the SXSW band statistics. This may or may not work; it may or may not come to pass. In the interim though, while I'm still full of boundless optimism, watch Colbert take on Glenn Beck:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The 10/31 Project
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

I have one question. Well, I have many questions. But the main one is this: How did this man become a conservative icon? He starts crying all the time! That isn't manly. How can one be considered a conservative manly man if you're tearing up every five seconds?

Police Hubris

Imagine a 12 year old girl. She's in Galveston, Texas. It's August; she's wearing shorts. Because it is August, in Texas. In her area of Texas, there have been a rash of highly publicized child abductions; in fact, a Houston police investigator, Holly Whillock, went on record stating that in addition to warning children "never to talk with a stranger or get into a car with one", "kids should also be told, run, fight back, scream and stay outside grabbing range". Now, imagine that she's in her front yard, in her shorts, on her way to flip the switch to the house's breaker. And that in the meanwhile, a van pulls up, three men jump out, and one of them grabs her while saying, "You're a prostitute. You're coming with me." As a 12 year old, what should she do?

This 12 year old did not go docilely. Unlike other children - say, me at 12 - she did not become paralyzed in the moment. She clung to a tree and cried for her father. For her trouble, she was beaten "about the face and throat" so severely she ended up in the hospital. And while in normal circumstances, she would be heralded as one of those quick-witted children who was able to escape from her abductor, in this case she was arrested - along with her father. Because the three men who tried to grab Dymond Milburn were plain clothed police officers. They were looking for three white prostitutes in the area; but Dymond Milburn is black. And as far as I can tell, standing in your own yard in shorts in August anywhere south (and a heck of a lot of places north) of the Mason Dixon line does not lend to the immediate assumption of prostitution.

What could possibly be the justification of arresting a girl and her father? In this case, that "it's unfortunate that sometimes police officers have to use force against people who are using force against them. And the evidence will show that both these folks violated the law and forcefully resisted arrest". Now, I'm not fully up on the laws regarding resisting arrest in Texas - or in Connecticut for that matter. What I do know about things like this, I have gleaned from Law & Orders' various incarnations and clones. What I do know is this: Miranda Rights, even in this day and age of Law & Orders, is a must when attempting to arrest someone. Two, generally, police officers identify themselves as such before attempting to make an arrest. Three, there is such a thing as undue force, and hitting a child who is clinging to a tree would probably fall under that.

Even without the string of abductions and attempted abductions in the area, I can't imagine any child willingly and knowingly going with anyone who declared that they were a prostitute. I can't imagine many children who would not be justified in running off, or any parent who would not attempt to extract their child from an unidentified adult's grip. The idea that the police department feel justified in charging Dymond and her father for attacking them after someone from another police department advocated doing just that is just ludicrous to me. I can't help but suspect that the Milburn's race plays a part in the incident, along with police hubris. I don't think every police officer or even a majority of police officers believe themselves to be above the law; and again, all I have to go on here is the various shows dramatizing law enforcement, which counts for less than even anecdotal evidence. But there seems to be more than just a little truth to the idea of closing ranks, of protecting fellow officers after they've pulled some egregiously stupid moves, and that a few bad apples plus loyalty induced by the badge sometimes equals a miscarriage of justice. And that seems to be what happened here. Dymond Milburn wasn't the same race as the suspects in question. The only indication she was a prostitute was that she was outside and wearing shorts. And I won't even venture a guess as to what was going through the officers' minds at the time of the arrest, because no good or logical or rational or plausible explanation is coming to mind and I would like to assume that there may be one.

What this case called for was not arresting an honor student for assaulting a police officer; from what I can tell, the police department would have been better served by putting the officers in question on probation while investigating the incident and issuing a formal apology to Dymond and her father while also assuming the costs of Dymond's hospital visit. Officers screw up; sometimes badly. Officers are only human; but their mistakes should not be justified or unpunished by the department of justice due to the actions of those immediately affected by the injustice implemented by said officers. The department needs to and should have looked beyond a quick and easy way to blame the victim and assumed the position that a fair and balanced institution should take. Now, there could be a zero-sum argument stating that if these two went uncharged, that it would set a precedent for others who assaulted an officer or who resisted arrest to look to; but there are often exceptions to rules. And if the police screwed up as badly as they seemed to have, then they would have been better served  to have owned the screw up.

Because now Dymond Milburn and her neighbors have more reasons to not trust the police, to think that police officers in general and the justice department in particular are biased, unfair, and unbalanced. That the civilian is always lower on the totem pole than the officer. And that African-Americans are still profiled by police officers and are still not subject to the same justice as their white compatriots. Whether or not any of those things are empirically true (and I would say that in some cases and places, certain ones certainly are), that is the way it will be perceived. But perhaps even more important than how these events may be perceived is how these events have affected the accused in particular, how being grabbed and beaten by the very people who are paid to protect and serve her and her community has affected Dymond Milburn. For the trauma she suffered alone, the police department should have put aside their hubris and their privilege and acknowledged the fact that their own put an innocent 12 year old in the hospital, simply for doing what she should have been doing in the event she was grabbed off of her front lawn by anyone she didn't know.

Yikes Is Right

I kind of love this video from The Daily Show; maybe I'm giving Americans too much credit, but I'm not sure that we need to be treated like kindergardeners in order to best understand the economic crisis. Props aren't always a bad thing; drawings aren't always a bad thing. I had a philosophy professor who used stick figures to better demonstrate her examples. It worked partially because she had as much fun making them and having us guess what they were as we did guessing what they were. And because there was never the feeling that she thought we were idiots. That cartoon, the domino demonstration, even PBS' attempt to explain the financial crunch, all make it seem like those on camera think that those of us sitting on our couches are somehow incredibly mentally deficient.

Which is why I have been enjoying NPR's Planet Money podcasts. These are people who do not talk down to me; that may be a product of their medium. Visuals do not translate well over audio communication, and so the opportunity to bring out the cartoons and the oversized dominoes is very much lessened. At the same time, these seem to be people assuming that those of us who are not economists and who may have had no clue about how an economy ran until about a month or so ago can at least grasp the very basic facts of the situation. And they explain everything in grown up words.

The Power Of A Brilliant Headline

Sometimes, a headline just catches your attention, and you are forced to read it. Like, for instance, the one from Feministe saying, "So it turns out that the gays are going to ruin your marriage after all." I think it is "the gays" part of the title that gets me so. Have a look-see. I especially like Jill's last line of, "Hopefully, the cake issue is next on the Pacific Justice Institute's docket".

Anyway, the article Jill links to is a hoot, all about a couple's protest because they aren't called "bride" and "groom" on their marriage certificate and how this apparently impacts their rights. I would almost think it was ganked from The Onion, it is so full of what could be satirical goodness. Like how the not-bride says, "We're traditionalists - we just want to be called bride and groom", but how the end of the article states, "For now they are busy with their family (she has two children from a previous marriage and he has three)". Apparently, they both weren't traditionalist enough to stay married previously, nor remain celibate - or at least not cohabitate - until they remarried. But that kind of hypocrisy should be expected, so I forebear and just gave a little chuckle.

What I really liked, though, is this:

"Bird and Codding have refused to complete the new forms, a stand that has already cost them. Because their marriage is not registered with the state, Bird cannot sign up for Codding's medical benefits or legally take his name... ...Bird said she does not know what she will do if she should become ill and need insurance."

Like, say, the fears and issues every homosexual couple had prior to their being legally allowed to wed? How ghastly a feeling that must be! Am I right? These two, and the movement behind them, are like two incredibly spoiled children holding their breath because they are being made to share the cake with the rest of the kids. It is childish, stupid, and self-denying because they could have a piece of their damn cake (and the same size too) if they would just suck it up and deal with the fact they can call themselves whatever they please but that the state has to, due to that whole "all men are created equal" ideal crazy Jefferson had, be nondiscriminatory. But no; instead they have decided to voluntarily live with the same fears and tribulations homosexuals were forced to live with, proving nothing other than the fact that they are idiots who can't see past the end of their own noses.

Note: Sarah Palin Is An Idiot

"They made us line up in bathing suits and turn our backs so the male judges could look at our butts. I couldn't believe it!"

Sarah Palin, to Vogue as reported by Newsweek.

I was speechless at such an admission. Even I, in my never having watched a beauty pageant ways, knew that beauty pageants consisted of several parts and that a bathing suit competition was one of those parts. I shudder at the fact that someone would enter a beauty contest and not recognize that they would be (a) judged on their physical appearance, and (b) objectified in the suit the pageant mandated they bring. The whole point of a beauty pageant, from the whole judging perspective, is to examine the physical beauty of the contestants! I suppose the contestants may enter for some other reason - I hear a lot of them offer scholarship options - but on the whole, no one enters a beauty contest without being ready for the objectification. The sole reason why one would enter a beauty pageant - even for the scholarship money - is because they think they are beautiful enough and fit enough and fit the paradigm of beauty well enough to win!

Yes, I'm Cute; Now Shut UP

So, new job. Creepy guy. And of course, my "creep magnet" is always on, so the creepy guy is not only the person who trains me but also takes a big liking to me -even though I made sure I gave him the death glare and allowed him to catch a glance the book I was reading (that being "The Beauty Myth") as I blocked myself from his view with it. One would think that would have been enough to get him to back the hell off. But no. Like most creeps, a violation of personal space was a must -as was this: he called me "cute". After staring at me long enough to make my skin crawl. So, here's the deal. I understand we live in a culture that bases women first and foremost (and sometimes solely) on their looks. I understand that a lot of men feel free to comment on strange women's looks. But get this: don't. Seriously. There are very few times in my life when I want a strange guy walking up to me and telling me that I'm cute. Because almost from right there, I know that you're not really a guy I want to know. One, you've decided to talk to me based solely on physical appearance and then told me that straight out. I understand we decide who to talk to a lot of the time on proximity and appearance -and we choose to talk to people we are in some way (though not always sexually) attracted to. You know what works better than "you're cute" though? Almost anything else. What can a person really say to "you're cute"? "You can thank the randomness of my genetic code"? "Talk to my parents"? "Fuck off, you asswipe"? Two, a guy who feels "confident" enough to pass judgement out loud about a woman's physical appearance is almost always a guy who seems to feel like he deserves some kind of physical reciprocation for the compliment. Which, no.

So, some ground rules. Talking to someone you find vaguely (or really) attractive about something else -the clothing, the book, the weather, the traffic, dogs, cats, balloons, music, etc- will probably elicit a much more productive response -and as an added benefit, it doesn't make you look like a giant asshole. Also, quick glances are a fine thing, but long stare-downs are the opposite of good. Those looks are rude, intimidating, and have more to do with the "right" to stare at a woman than any compliment. And if the woman in question doesn't seem interested in talking to you, acknowledge her right to be left alone.

Because I don't want to be judged based primarily on my cuteness, partially because that will some day fade and I would rather be judged for something more substantial than fleeting access to attention and praise. But also because I don't care if some random guy finds me attractive. I'm not on this earth to be eye-candy to some jackass, and neither are any other women walking the street. And I should have the right to exist in a space -in a work space, on a street, in a subway, in a restaurant, in a store- without being harassed. Because that is what the "you're cute" is. It is harassment, because I didn't invite the comment, and those comments are made out of the mistaken belief that I should grant my time to any guy who comes my way and deigns to offer his opinion of my physical appearance. So for all the guys out there who think you're delivering compliments to the random girls you find cute? Most likely, you're not. And I'm tired of coming home and feeling beaten up and bloody because I have to fend off men who believe they are entitled to my time, my attention, and my gratitude. So the next time a guy I don't know "compliments" me by telling me that I'm cute, I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm good enough to take home, whatever it is that day, he is getting my knee to his groin. Because I have had it up to my eyeballs with the kind of "compliment" that makes me feel like I'm just some sort of blow up doll and not a real person. So, yes. I'm cute. I had the wonderful fortune of having good genes in terms of getting a physical appearance that is now culturally acceptable. Now, shut up and leave me alone until you have something of substance to discuss.

Oh, Those Kooky PETA People!

A few days ago, I wrote about PETA's double whammy of insensitive "advertising". I've found a picture of the ad they want to put on the border fence between Mexico and America:

To that, I say, "Wow".

Megan Wright

Feministing.com has so many stories about violence against women today that all of them have been combined into one blog post. They are all horrific, but one in particular had a comment on a linked-blog I found particularly true. It is the case of Megan Wright, a girl who was allegedly raped by three men in a dorm room and later committed suicide in the aftermath. The detective in charge of the investigation did not look very far into the accusation, and decided that because the boys held up a sign to the surveillance cameras stating "I WANT TO HAVE SEX" and signed by Megan that she had given consent. Now, maybe Megan wrote the sign, and maybe she didn't. Maybe she signed it, and maybe she didn't. However, I can't help but feel that if even one of the three boys felt in the middle of all the sex that there was the possibility there may be a rape accusation in the morning, then maybe it wasn't so consensual. That the sign could have been written under some form of coercion. Another possibility is that the boys were engaging in an act of "slut shaming" -ie, making this girl feel badly for giving it up at all (though that still reeks of coercion to me); either way, this isn't exactly behavior that screams innocence to me.

And that brings me to this insightful comment:

"It is such a myth that women wake up and decided [sic] rape is a better alternative to shame. Considering how much more her name has been sloughed through the mud, and how awful her treatment was, that seems evidence that this young woman made a very hard decision to come forward with rape charges."

That is an apt observation. Yes, there are cases to the contrary. Yes, there will always be women who falsely accuse men of rape. Yes there was that Duke rape case. Yes, that will be brought up by rape apologists, rapists, mainstream America, and Men's Rights Activists when rapes are reported for the foreseeable future. But even if women's rights groups have a depressed figure in their 2% of false rape accusations (and I think they probably do), the FBI's 1996 study puts the figure only at 8%. I'm more for using that figure than ones given by women's rights groups or MRAs because the FBI has less of an agenda than either side. And yet, almost every single woman who comes forward saying she has been raped gets hit with the insinuation that she is falsely accusing the man involved. It has replaced the panty defense in the rape apology arsenal.

I happen to agree with the quote; no sane woman would report a rape to reduce the shame of having sex -mostly because as soon as most women do they are accused of making it up. In most cases, consensual sex is not a publicly known event. There are cases in which it is; pictures, video tapes, a roommate happens to be present. But often, the only people who know if sex went down that night are the people who engaged in sex. If a rape is reported and investigated and brought to trial, the circumstances of the rape become known to more than just the two people involved. Parents, friends, jurors, and the people in the courtroom now all know -and on top of that, the normal defense is that the sex was consensual, that the girl wanted it, and that she is a liar and a scarlet woman for bringing false charges before the court.

Secondly, there is less shame around sexual involvement now. There is still shame, don't get me wrong, and often it is gender-based. Jessica Valenti's book She's a Slut, He's a Stud says so in the very title. But there is a degree of sexual freedom now available to women that has never before in modern history been present. And because of that, there is less of a "she's dirty, she's worthless, she's the cow who gave away the milk for free". Women's worth is still tied, in part, to her sexuality; but it is getting better.

Which leads me to this point: those who slut shame, those we insinuate the women are accusing men of rape because they are embarrassed or feel dirty after they have had sex are part of the problem because they further inculcate that idea into the minds of society; the idea that women shouldn't have sex, that women shouldn't like sex, and that women should be ashamed to have it and thus when they do immediately have to cry rape. The media, these MRAs, and so on are part of the problem because they reinforce gender and societal stereotypes. 

And those stereotypes hurt women like Megan Wright, and they hurt other women who have been raped and who are strong enough to bring that charge forward. I hate those women who do falsely accuse men of rape, because they make it that much harder for women who have been victimized to be taken seriously. But we have to all do our part to take these accusations seriously, to really examine them without jumping to conclusions about how she slept with the whole swim team or how he obviously did it because he's a thug/has an earring/privileged rich white boy/etc. Because this is too important an accusation to be playing around with. Lives, the ones of the people accused and the lives of the accuser, depend that we investigate these claims thoroughly, seriously, and without prejudice. Megan Wright deserved that; the Duke Lacrosse players deserved that; and countless other victims deserve it too.

Yeah, We're Doing Really Well

China is hacking our government computers. At least, that is what some lawmakers claim, among them Virginia representative Frank Wolf. Wolf has said that four of his computers have been illegally accessed since 2006, leaving me to ask a few questions:

1) How many computers does one representative need?

2) Why wouldn't Wolf have brought up his concerns after the first or even second computer was compromised?

3) Is Wolf simply technologically incompetent and in killing 3 computers over 2 years decided that instead of 'fessing up to blame the Chinese?

4) Why doesn't the US government just switch over to Macs?

These allegations come amid speculation that Chinese officials copied the information present on a government laptop and was trying to use that information to hack into Commerce Department computers.

The Chinese, of course, deny all allegations of wrong-doing. Apparently, they don't have the technology necessary in order to perpetuate such crimes. Not that they wouldn't; they just haven't progressed that far yet.

Meanwhile, England seems to have decided to take out the middle man by leaving confidential files just laying around. And instead of pulling straight from the plot of the next Coen Brothers film, Burn After Reading, the person (or people) who found the files didn't try to blackmail the government and instead took them to the BBC. The BBC has, after conferring with lawyers, decided not to expose the information that had been clearly marked "For UK/US/Canadian and Australian Eyes Only". Good for them.

This comes after a laptop, containing 600,000 prospective military recruits' religions and banking information, was stolen from a car; and after tax officials lost disks that contained information on half the population of Britain, including their banking records. Back in America, the Pentagon acknowledged last month that its computer network is "scanned or attacked by outsiders more than 300 million times each day".

The whole thing just kind of makes you want to live off the grid, doesn't it?