Shocking news: Another politician embarrasses South Carolina

Congressman Joe Wilson, who undoubtedly embarrassed his southern mama with his bad manners last night.






As soon as I heard the heckler during President Obama's speech, I knew what state he was from.

I just knew, probably because of my recent town hall meeting experience.

I cringed, told Mr Daisy what I thought, Twittered OH NO (or something to that effect) and waited to be proven right. And I was. I am just grateful it wasn't Bob Inglis (far too polite to do that, even if in full ideological agreement with the heckler) or somebody closer to Greenville County.

But still: ANOTHER RIGHT WING EMBARRASSMENT FOR THE STATE. Ye Gods.

Politico writers Daniel Libit and Victoria McGrane:

On his Twitter feed Tuesday, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) wrote that at a parade he attended in Chapin, “many people called out to oppose Obamacare which I assured them would be relayed tomorrow to DC.”

It wasn’t quite the next day, but Wilson did indeed bring the August town hall boorishness to Washington when he shouted “you lie” at President Barack Obama during Wednesday night’s health care speech before Congress.

Within 15 minutes after Obama wrapped up his remarks, Wilson’s website server had crashed and his Wikipedia page had been locked on account of “vandalism.”

In an interview with CNN immediately after the president’s address, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called Wilson’s behavior “totally disrespectful,” and joined a chorus of Democrats calling on the congressman to apologize.

Wilson’s office soon followed with a statement expressing regret for the outburst.

“This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill,” Wilson said. “While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.”

A short while later, Wilson’s office put out a notice that the congressman had called the White House to personally apologize. A Democratic source told POLITICO that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel accepted the congressman’s apology.

This is not the first time the Wilson has stirred controversy with his remarks.

In 2004, Wilson was forced to do a similar walk-back when he challenged the patriotism to Rep. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), calling the Democrat “viscerally anti-American.”

That same year, Wilson grabbed headlines again when he called on Sen. John Kerry to apologize for testimony the Democratic presidential candidate and Vietnam veteran gave to a Senate panel in 1971 about the Vietnam War.

“Many veterans, including myself as a veteran,” Wilson said at the time, “view John Kerry’s testimony that day as one of the worst public slanders ever against the valor and character of the American military.”

That statement drew the rebuke of former Democratic senator and Vietnam veteran Max Cleland, who noted that Wilson had in fact avoided fighting in the war by receiving a student deferral.

As stated above, Wilson memorably shouted "You lie!" Apparently he believes this will get him re-elected.

Politico's Glenn Thrush writes:

All eyes were on Barack Obama entering Wednesday night's address to Congress, but a little-known South Carolina Republican may have done more than the president’s combative speech to unify besieged Democrats around health care reform.

The night's defining moment — which Democrats hope to transform into a turning point – came when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "You lie!" as Obama claimed his plan wouldn't offer free care to illegal immigrants.

Wilson's boorishness — for which he quickly apologized — enraged audience members on both sides of the aisle.

It also overshadowed a speech that included some of Obama's harshest attacks on his GOP critics to date, including a denunciation of "death panel" alarmists as liars — a veiled swipe at Sarah Palin — and a warning to Republicans who want to "kill" reform.

Well, what did you think of the speech? Comments welcome on the speech, Obama, and ill-mannered Joe Wilson.

Wordless Wednesday: Philosophical Water Tower

Graffiti reads: Evil thrives when good men do nothing.



Rutherford Road, Greenville, SC.

Non-muslim feminists face off over the veil

Natalia Antonova writes astutely about the recent "debate" over the hijab in Salon.

I put "debate" in quotes, since it isn't recent and isn't a debate, more of an ongoing, convoluted ideological brawl.

Okay, so two well-known Jewish feminists dueling over the hijab have been given ample coverage in a well-trafficked lefty space... during Ramadan? Oh dear God. (Pardon expression.) I was cringing already, before I clicked on Natalia's link.

Who decides on these things? Where is the Muslim feminist? (I actually met one on my JOB here in conservative South Carolina, so I do know they exist.) Were they afraid a Muslim feminist would not be able to comment intelligently on her own culture and religion? Or were they going for the famous feminist "names"? In this corner, Naomi Wolf, and in this corner, Phyllis Chesler!

Predictably, this is cast as a cool, multicultural Third-Waver vs old-fogie Second-Waver, although plenty of Second-Wavers (including me) have harshly criticized Chesler's unending anti-Islamic jihad. (And her comments quoted in Salon must be read in that context. Below, I have linked her own blog, so that you can judge for yourself.)

Natalia, who has lived in Islamic countries, comments:

On one hand, I think Islam (at least classically speaking) is more more tolerant of the human body than, say, Christianity (being at least a nominal Christian myself, I do often think about this divide). Yet you can’t deny that not all aspects of veiling or purdah are all about celebrating family [as Wolf claimed], some of them are there to celebrate prudishness, sexual anxiety, dehumanization of women, gender apartheid, and The Grand Tournament of Punishing Sluts. Who are sluts? Well, any women who don’t fit into whatever arbitrary standard of what is “appropriate” out on the street today. Something tells me that Wolf has never overheard, say, a clutch of women loudly discussing another for looking like a “slut” because her hijab does not cover her eyebrows. Maybe she will one day, and a dash of actual complexity will be introduced to her further writings on the subject.

Salon writer Tracy Clark-Flory correctly reports that Chesler tends to freak out about the idea that the veil could be anything but oppressive:

Chesler is horrified by Wolf's argument and doesn't pull any punches in a blog response titled "The Burqa: Ultimate Feminist Choice?" It bears the taunting subhead: "Naomi Wolf Discovers That Shrouds Are Sexy." Chesler hyperbolizes Wolf's argument, suggesting that she sees women in chadors as "feminist ninja warriors" and "believes that the marital sex is hotter when women 'cover' and reveal their faces and bodies only to their husbands."

She goes on to contend that "most Muslim girls and women are not given a choice about wearing the chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, jilbab, or hijab (headscarf), and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, caned or lashed, jailed, or honor murdered by their own families" and asks whether Wolf is so "thoroughly unfamiliar with the news coming out of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan on these very subjects." (Never mind that Wolf is talking specifically about the experiences of women she encountered in Morocco, Jordan and Egypt, as well as those of women in France and Britain, where there is great political resistance to Muslim dress.) This caused Wolf to e-mail Chesler to ask that she correct "terrible inaccuracies" in the post. Chesler hit back, posting Wolf's e-mail along with a hostile response; yesterday, she posted a related item with the subhead, "The Hundred Year War Begins."

It's always a very nasty, immoral act to publish someone's email. To me, a pretty LOW thing to do. Chesler takes the LOW ROAD, then. Automatically. And she brought her crew, too! That famous radical feminist David Horowitz has jumped into the fray. (Caution, extremely unpleasant and noxious link.) And Chesler responds to the Salon piece, angry, of course. (And we wonder why Second-Wavers have such bad reputations?)

[EDIT ADDED 9/10/09: Reader Histfan upbraids me and maintains that Wolf gave Chesler permission to publish the email, although on my first reading, this was not evident. Wolf's words on page 2 of the Chesler post: "You are welcome to reprint this letter on your website, actually please do, I don’t know how to do so." I have issues with this, since of course she knows how to do so, it's called leaving a comment on a blog, and even I have managed to learn how to do that... so I dunno the reason for Wolf's sudden net-ignorance? But I have added this for clarification and correction.]

Sometimes, you just can't think of anything to say. Natalia does, thankfully:

Of course, I agree with Wolf about the aspect of choice. I don’t care what Phyllis Chesler, or anyone else, feels about the veil, the burkini, the hot-pink catsuit I saw a woman wear on the bus today… You don’t get to tell anyone how to farking dress. I don’t care what you may think their reasons for dressing this or that way are.

Amen! I am so tired of women policing each other!

And it comes back to that. I am often "offended" by the clothes I see both women and men wear every day. So? They didn't ask me before they put them on, and it is none of my business. Conversely, they can keep their mouths shut if they don't like what I am wearing.

But Natalia also describes the experience of women "on the ground"--so to speak. She doesn't quite accuse Wolf of "slumming"--but comes very close:

Chesler does, however, have a point when she says that the Muslim world can be just as “debauched” as anything you’d ever see in the West; people just hide that sort of thing better, they don’t flaunt it, it’s all very surreptitious, but it happens. Closed societies deal with repression in all sorts of colourful ways. Considering the amount of so-called Muslim men that regularly tried to solicit sex from me while I was in Jordan, I just don’t buy Wolf’s insistence that society is somehow purer and human interaction is less explotative when most of the women are veiled. I found Wolf’s own wearing of shalwar kameez and headscarf in Morocco to be touching. Personally, I’ve worn the veil to escape sexual harassment, and no, it was not a “calming” or “serene” experience, it was an “oh crap, now I get to pretend to be someone else just for a scrap of respect around here” kind of experience.

I don’t like Chesler’s blanket, baiting statements about Islam, especially as Islam does often get confused with culture, but I’m not going to sit here and say that trying to pass as a Muslim for fear of something genuinely bad happening to me was a bit of wonderful cultural exchange I’d gush to my friends about. It would be as silly as expecting a woman who is, say, forced to take off her headscarf for fear of Islamophobic attacks to gush about it as well. I don’t mean to say that Wolf has no right to frame her experience as she sees fit – hey, I’m glad she enjoyed, I wish I could have felt the same, if only for a moment or two – but I do hope she at least realizes that when she says “choice is everything” she has to apply that to her own situation as well, and perhaps realize that choice can have a bit of a gray, fuzzy area around it.

Indeed. Within patriarchy, we only have limited choices, and make our lives within the boundaries we know. We all do. And that awareness is a global radical feminist awareness, not demonizing the evillll Muslims as the "worst of the worst," but as a particular manifestation of patriarchy.

But we are groping for these truths. Because we are not Muslim and in a very real sense, we have to admit that on a religious level, we don't know what we are talking about.

I'll end with Natalia's incisive wind-up, because I can't improve on it:

The publicity must be pretty good for both Wolf and Chesler right about now (and awww, look, isn’t it sweet? They both agree that porn is ba-yud), but if I was a Muslim woman watching all of this, I’d probably feel as though I was in a room full of people who were telling me to be quiet when the adults are talking.

And with that, I wish a prayerful Ramadan to my Muslim readers.

Why is the Catholic Church the last feminist frontier?

Jesus carries the cross, stained glass from St Mary's, Greenville, SC.








The comments at the recent Feministe thread by Aunt B got me thinking. Even though Aunt B (whom I adore!) was careful to counsel pagan commenters not to trash the monotheists, some could barely contain themselves. Understandable. But this thread, combined with Thursday's post (about North Carolina cops that may have overreacted in the shooting of Courtland Smith) and the recent arrest in the Jaycee Dugard kidnapping in California, helped me clarify some issues.

Male law enforcement vs female law enforcement, for starters. Viva la Difference!

Although I am as interested as the next scandalmonger in the case itself, and how Philip Garrido managed to hide an 11-year-old girl, later a woman with two children (!), in his backyard for 18 years (!), I found myself far more impressed with the rank-and-file college law enforcement officers at the University of California at Berkeley, Lisa Campbell and Ally Jacobs, who sniffed him out in a totally non-violent fashion. No guns drawn, no pre-dawn raid, no outrageous look-at-me behavior ala the David Koresh debacle. They asked questions. Something was amiss. They asked him to come back the next day! (appealed to his ego and desire to talk) As one who has been very critical of law enforcement on this blog... let me say this might be the most impressive example of police work I have ever seen. Bloodless, sharp, making intelligent use of databases and psychology.

It came down to their weird vibes about his daughters, and the realization of his parole officer: but...he doesn't have any daughters.

Bingo. Garrido, you are busted.

As I said, I am extremely impressed with these women. The fact that one chatted with the girls as the other cop talked to dad? Utter brilliance. And they followed their instincts; one came right out and said she was a mother, and something just wasn't right. YAY FOR MOM COPS! More of these, please.

Would Courtland Smith have been mowed down by one of these women? I just don't think so.

At left, DEAD AIR's kind of cops: UC-Berkeley law enforcement officers Alison Jacobs and Lisa Campbell, smelled a rat. Photo from Examiner.com.



Thus we see, bringing women into traditionally-male occupations can have some unexpected benefits, BECAUSE (not in spite) of our woman-ways. In politics this can also be true, particularly in local politics, which involves lots of hands-on work with constituents.

Now, what about the Church? Yes, I refer to the behemoth to which I nominally belong, the Catholic Church.

~*~

For the life of me, I can't understand why feminists support the right of women to fight in patriarchal, colonialist, nationalist wars; become law enforcement officers enforcing unjust laws; head up capitalist businesses that think nothing of destroying the environment (and even depend on doing so, for profits), etc etc etc... but if I should say "Well, I would like to have been a priest!"--all hell breaks loose, you should pardon expression.

Feminists are not supposed to want to be priests unless they are Episcopalian. Then it is marginally okay, but still not really okay. But women seeking equality within the Catholic Church? No. Bad. You CAN'T GO THERE.

Why not?

I see no reason why women should not be priests, monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes. NO REASON.

Are feminists endorsing this? No.

Are women outside of the Church bringing their considerable political leverage to help women who are trying to make this happen? Ha!

No.

As we see from Aunt B's thread: you are not supposed to want this. One cannot be, they say, a feminist and believe in monotheism. But of course, you CAN be a feminist and drops bombs on people you don't know, under orders of your (patriarchal, one assumes) government.

Why is one acceptable and the other not? Why is one regarded as MORE PATRIARCHAL than the other?

Looking at those super-duper cops, I can't help but think an increase in women officers would be GOOD for all law enforcement, despite my general misgivings about the institution of law enforcement. Likewise, I know that an increase of women priests would be good for the Church. In just the same way.

Did I just compare priests to cops? Wow, I guess I did. But my point is how patriarchal and male-dominated an existing institution already is. I'd say the military and the government, as well as the world of Fortune-500 companies, qualifies. They are patriarchal not just in the sheer number of males, but in their overall approach, culture and values.

Again, I refer to my comparison above... a situation that did not need to become deadly, in which deadly force was used. And a situation in which a known sex-offender was harboring a kidnapped child for 18 years, and simple TALKING and CHECKING HIS STORY, was able to flush him out.

I think many women might well be better at the actual job of being a priest, as well as lots nicer.

Yes, I want a Wise Latina for a priest, please! If one can sit on the Supreme Court, why not the Roman Curia?

Why are those of us who seek equality in the Catholic Church, being ignored and called unfeminist, when others who want to participate in patriarchal institutions, are enthusiastically exhorted to do so?

This is a double standard I find infuriating... and besides that, I just don't get it.

I'd like to discuss that here, if people are up for it. Play nice and be respectful, although pointed and intense questions are welcome. I'd really like to get to the bottom of this, actually, and a follow-up post will likely be the result of any qualitative and in-depth discussion.

Caution: No name-calling and baiting of any kind; I have already blocked the IP address of one troll this week, and I am ready to block more if I have to.

(Our Lady of Guadalupe candle is from my Flickr page. And a very Happy Birthday to you, Blessed Mother!)

Odds and Sods - Happy Labor Day!

Left: Official grandchild of DEAD AIR, with properly patriotic Uncle Sam hat.



Enjoying my day off with some frozen blueberries and the LAW AND ORDER marathon. What are you doing to enjoy your holiday?


Cracker Lilo reports that FOCUS ON THE FAMILY had to lay off 75 employees. Too bad Dr Dobson wasn't one of them!

[Cutbacks] include a staffer at "Love Won Out," a conference series about "overcoming" same-sex attractions that Focus on the Family announced last month would be ceded to another religious organization.

"Love Won Out"? Sounds like it should belong to our side.

...

I spend a great deal of my time at work attempting to locate appropriate and digestible foods for certain people to eat. There is a book for these folks titled What to Eat when you Can't Eat Anything, and they aren't kidding with that. Meowser writes more on this topic:

My shrink (who’s not autistic) told me that a couple of years ago, she was having Gut Issues herself. So she, following the advice of a nutritionist who believed in the “systemic candidiasis” gut theory, went on a dietary regime for two years that was not only gluten and casein free, but also low carb. (So much for being vegetarian on a diet like that, huh?) The idea was that those nasty yeasties would have nothing to yeasty-feast on and would eventually die off and go away. She was already quite thin and wasn’t interested in weight loss, and she did eat small amounts of potatoes, brown rice, and oatmeal, enough that she wouldn’t go into ketosis. And she ate as much protein, fat, and non-starchy vegetables as she wanted, lots and lots of each of those, so didn’t go hungry. And, she said, “My gut issues cleared right up.” She’s now back to eating much more omnivorously, with no problems.

Now, think about what a diet like that would consist of. Or, more to the point, think of everything you’d have to eliminate. Obvs, no baked goods, no fruit (!), no pasta, no white rice, probably no alcohol, no desserts — and most especially, no chocolate. For two years. Are your coffee beans broken? I can’t do that. Yeah, there’s an end in sight and I wouldn’t have to do it forever, but would it feel that way? Besides, how do you stick to something like that and never fall off? I don’t have a lot of confidence that there wouldn’t be recidivism, especially living with two skinny men (one an extremely active 18-year-old) who heart their carbs and would be very cranky not having them in the house unless it was a matter of life and death for me, or at least a matter of my being able to work versus not being able to.

I say, go for it. But then, I am still fond of my Calorie Restriction and Meowser thinks I shouldn't!

If you try a diet, no matter how wacky, and you FEEL GOOD? Stay with it. You have found a gem, The Secret, the veritable Holy Grail...gluten-free or meat-free or raw or however bizarre it might be, do it. I hate to sound like an old hippie, but here it is: Listen to your body.

I think so many of us have simply forgotten how to do that. Modern life isn't engineered that way; immediate gratification, Starbucks and M & Ms tend to be the quick panacea for our overworked souls and psyches.

I constantly slip up, but I get back up and try again. I am still attempting to achieve the 50-75% Raw Food Thing. When all is said and done, I just feel better when I eat more raw foods.

Yesterday, fabulous Tamara brought me a basket of vegetables that she grew herself. It was beautiful and scrumptious, and her generosity was so greatly appreciated, especially as I once again try to bring back the raw to my diet. THANK YOU, DEAREST TAMARA!!!

...

Gilbert Shelton is following me on Twitter! I am thrilled! HI GILBERT!

Never underestimate the power of a good Stealie avatar!

...

Best spiritual blog is Kelly's wonderful KIKIPOTAMUS THE HOBO, which you should be reading every day if you seek grace in small things.

...

Kittywampus writes about Sarah Palin's almost-son-in-law, Levi Johnston, telling tales in Vanity Fair. As I said on her blog, call me a cynical parent, but I don't believe anything disaffected teenagers say. Period.

Probably, First Dude (Todd Palin) went to sneak ONE beer in the garage, and Levi transforms this fact into Melodramatic Teenage Narrative: Sarah makes him drink all his beers in the garage!

Uh-huh. I think you all know how much I dislike Palin, but: been there and done that. I have to sympathize with her on this one, God help me. I can't imagine that Levi could put the bong down long enough to pay attention to anything too important.

Smells like Teen Spirit!

...

And finally, your DEAD FROM CUTENESS for this round... meet Renegade Evolution's new adorable babies: Sharon and Ozzy!

Warning, terminal cuteness awaits.