The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Link

The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."

Nope, nothing controversial about that choice.

Of course, I doubt I will ever understand how someone who is pro-life could also be anti-contraception. It seems far more demeaning to a woman to say to her "Well, you shouldn't use contraception and you better not consider an abortion" but that is just me, I suppose.

[Prudence]

It's the same mentality as that which insists that strict Islamic laws are for the protection of women.

I'm going to rant now because I'm stuck somewhere doing something I don't want so I'm already peeved.

It is my opinion that certain men in patriarchal societies can't stand the idea that there is this one thing women can do that men can't. In some times and places it was considered dirty, demeaning, and unworthy of male attention. In others it's portrayed as an exalted role, placed on a pedestal, and controlled for our own "protection."

The result is the same: for those particular men (and the stark-raving mad women who support them) women are worth no more or less than that particular biological function. And anything that is perceived to interfere with that function is, by definition, unnatural.

It used to be, in Western society, that women were lesser minds, completely incapable of controlling our animal lusts, bent on continuing Eve's mission of dragging men away from their deserved paradise. Now we're lesser minds who are too innocent to fully understand the evils of the world that would drag us away from our noble, and only, mission of spawning future generations. If we had sex without the direct intent of procreating, well, then we would be tainted by lust, which is the sole prerogative of men.

It frustrates me until I can no longer speak. In a society where the pundits decry the evils of single or gay parenting, wail and moan about the poor boys who will grow up with no proper role model (because girls only need how to bake and clean from mom), the role of fathers is nonetheless marginalized. Fathers don't need paternity leave. They don't need to bond with their children. They don't need to attend t-ball games or go to PTA or help with homework or fix boo-boos or do anything except bring home the paycheck and occasionally administer discipline. The "parenting" is supposed to be the woman's job, the woman's only job, the job women are supposed to spend their whole lives wanting to do - and wanting to do by themselves. If dads are so necessary, why continue the ideal paradigm of dad works long hours to support mom and kids at home? Why not divide the labor so that kids benefit from both parents, not one parent and a wallet? Thild-rearing is called a privilege, but to too many men it's really perceived as a burden they want to ensure they don't inherit.

And lately I've been running into this attitude more and more. I don't know if it's because my recent spate of interviews has made me more sensitive or if it's sun sport or what, but lately any time I leave the safety of this rather enlightened community I run smack dab into a nest of mindless twits who ernestly insist that I'm completely misguided in my ambitions. I only *think* I'm suited to practice law. If I have functional girlie bits, I should concentrate on my "duty" to produce kids for my husband; only defective women pursue careers.

I'm frothing again and now I have to go to a seminar taught by a woman who thinks I have "credibility issues" she can't articulate. This should be fun.

[MouseWife]

Originally Posted by Prudence

And lately I've been running into this attitude more and more. I don't know if it's because my recent spate of interviews has made me more sensitive or if it's sun sport or what, but lately any time I leave the safety of this rather enlightened community I run smack dab into a nest of mindless twits who ernestly insist that I'm completely misguided in my ambitions. I only *think* I'm suited to practice law. If I have functional girlie bits, I should concentrate on my "duty" to produce kids for my husband; only defective women pursue careers.

Wow. What is more scary to me, because I am assuming, you are getting this from 'educated' people in the fields you are pursuing?

And, I have to agree with your comment about the Islamic laws...seen it for years...maybe about 6?

The choices of 'staff'; family friend, former Christian pregnancy counseling agency....

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by MouseWife

Wow. What is more scary to me, because I am assuming, you are getting this from 'educated' people in the fields you are pursuing?

Well, the educated people don't say it out loud. At least most of them don't. Not when there are women around. They just talk about you not being the right "fit" - because they already have "enough" women.

Actually, sometimes the other women are the worst. Many women do what they can to network and help others. But some buy into the "token woman" idea and have decided that's them - so they try to keep other women out to keep their own spot secure.

But hey - at least I'm white. My law school buddy was questioned at one interview solely on whether she would be a problem in the workplace because what it other people ate pork. She's half Egyptian. Coptic, not that it should be relevant. We had lots of laugh discussing how I was going to use her to take over the world by claiming different people served BLTs at their luncheons, naturally prompting her to blow up their offices.

[Not Afraid]

Well, women don't enjoy sex anyways, right? Of course, unless they are a slut.

[Strangler Lewis]

Prudence, if you go to a big firm, the only trait you'll be valued for is your ability to bill time.

Most women aren't raised to be stay at home moms. What this leads to in my neighborhood is a bunch of overeducated women flocking to our underfunded school to volunteer as room mom, do fundraising, or this, that or the other thing. I strongly suspect that most of these women vote against the occasional property tax increase that gets floated to help the school district because god forbid the schools should be properly funded; they'd have nothing to do. There were also like 20 volunteers for the "field trip" to the pumpkin patch, each with two or three kids to shepherd. When I was a kid, the stay at home moms drank, did lunch, had affairs and fired the cleaning lady.

No one should feel guilty about not attending t-ball games because t-ball should not exist in the first place.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

I strongly suspect that most of these women vote against the occasional property tax increase that gets floated to help the school district because god forbid the schools should be properly funded; they'd have nothing to do.

The 30 or so women who tend to do all the volunteering at my Sons school not only voted for the last property tax increase; they went door to door for weeks prior to the election campaigning for it....


Antedote; for what it's worth

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

The 30 or so women who tend to do all the volunteering at my Sons school not only voted for the last property tax increase; they went door to door for weeks prior to the election campaigning for it....


Antedote; for what it's worth

Not so here. The principal supported it apologetically, and we got a mailer from the separate 501(c)(3) that supports the school district. Maybe it was talked about at bingo night, but we don't go to bingo night. Right now our school is being run on a church model with too many people building their social life around penny ante fundraisers. The teachers send out notices, "We need glue sticks," and half the moms run to Staples in their SUVs.

I don't envy our principal. When I was in elementary school in New York, the principal was a beast to the children and a civil servant to the parents. Here, he has to be pastor--everybody's best friend and always with his hand out.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

When I was in elementary school in New York, the principal was a beast to the children and a civil servant to the parents. Here, he has to be pastor--everybody's best friend and always with his hand out.

That is very well put.

[Nephythys]

Speaker Pelosi Tempts Disaster
Nancy Pelosi has managed to severely scar her leadership even before taking up the gavel as the new speaker of the House. First, she played politics with the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee to settle an old score and a new debt. And then she put herself in a lose-lose position by trying to force a badly tarnished ally, Representative John Murtha, on the incoming Democratic Congress as majority leader. The party caucus put a decisive end to that gambit yesterday, giving the No. 2 job to Steny Hoyer, a longtime Pelosi rival.

But Ms. Pelosi’s damage to herself was already done. The well-known shortcomings of Mr. Murtha were broadcast for all to see — from his quid-pro-quo addiction to moneyed lobbyists to the grainy government tape of his involvement in the Abscam scandal a generation ago. The resurrected tape — feasted upon by Pelosi enemies — shows how Mr. Murtha narrowly survived as an unindicted co-conspirator, admittedly tempted but finally rebuffing a bribe offer: “I’m not interested — at this point.”

Mr. Murtha would have been a farcical presence in a leadership promising the cleanest Congress in history. Ms. Pelosi should have been first to realize this, having made such a fiery campaign sword of her vows to end Capitol corruption. Instead, she acted like some old-time precinct boss and lost the first test before her peers.

As incoming speaker, Ms. Pelosi will be dogged by skepticism — from within the party and without — about her political smarts and her ability to deliver a galvanized agenda.

It was a no-brainer for the caucus to end the misguided fight for Mr. Murtha, who belittled the need for reform. Now the pressure is even greater for Speaker-elect Pelosi to recover by leading the House to something actually worth fighting for — starting with credible anticorruption strictures. For this she needs gaffe-wary advisers, among them Mr. Hoyer, who has his own questionable record of flourishing in big-money politics. The new majority — led by a presumably wiser speaker — must realize by now that intramural vendetta is hardly a substitute for productive government.

Link

...and to continue building this "clean" congress they want to put Alcee Hastings in charge of the House Intelligence Committee- yeah- really impressive

Alcee Hastings, Bribery, and the House Intelligence Committee
Will Democrats overlook the next chairman’s past?

By Byron York

Eighteen years ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers came to believe that Alcee Hastings, at the time a federal judge in Florida, was guilty of impeachable offenses. Hastings stood accused of conspiring to take bribes, and, although it is little remembered today, Conyers served as the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee that investigated Hastings and unanimously recommended his impeachment. After the House voted 413 to 3 to impeach Hastings, Conyers went on to serve as one of the House impeachment managers who successfully argued before the Senate that Hastings should be convicted and removed from office.

<snip>

After interviewing Dredge several times, the FBI designed a sting operation. An agent, posing as Frank Romano, approached Borders to say that yes, the Romanos were interested in paying off Hastings in return for light treatment. Borders said it could be done. When Borders said that, the undercover agent indicated he wanted to go ahead with the deal, but had some questions: How do I know you really speak for Hastings? Can you arrange some sort of sign to show that Hastings is on board?

Sure, Borders said — how about I have Hastings show up somewhere at the time and place of your choosing? That will show that we’re working together. Borders and the FBI agent, posing as Romano, agreed that Hastings could give the signal by coming to the dining room of the Fontainbleau Hotel at 8:00 P.M. on September 16, 1981. If Hastings did that — all he had to do was show up — then everyone would know he was part of the deal.

When the time came, FBI agents had the hotel under surveillance. And sure enough, Hastings showed up for dinner at 8. (The FBI did extensive investigation to determine whether Hastings might have gone to the Fontainbleau by chance, or whether Borders, who on that night was in Las Vegas watching a prizefight, might have tricked Hastings into it. They found nothing to support that theory.) The signal was sent; Hastings was on board.

<snip>

Hastings did indeed throw out the judgment, and showed particular interest in making sure it was done quickly. “I want the order today,” he told his law clerk, according to testimony in the case. “Sorry for the rush, but the order has to go out today,” he told his courtroom clerk. A short time later, a pickup date for the full payoff was set.

<snip>

The verdict, in the face of what seemed to be solid and convincing evidence, was too much for judges on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Florida. Using the authority they have to discipline fellow judges in some circumstances, they hired John Doar, the legendary Kennedy Justice Department lawyer, to investigate. Doar came back with an extensive report suggesting that Hastings was not only guilty in the bribery case but that he had lied repeatedly under oath at his trial. The report, in turn, led two Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee to advocate impeachment proceedings. The Democratic majority agreed, and Conyers was placed in charge of the subcommittee investigation. While Conyers was extraordinarily protective of Hastings’ rights, he also became convinced that Hastings was guilty. The House passed 17 articles of impeachment.

<snip>

Hastings was convicted on Article 1. Among those voting to convict were Sens. Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller (who will soon chair the Senate Intelligence Committee), Robert Byrd, Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Daniel Inouye, and Frank Lautenberg. Hastings was then convicted on Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, and Article 5, which all concerned false statements he made at trial. He was acquitted on Article 6, convicted on Article 7, convicted on Article 8, and convicted on Article 9 — again, more false statements. Any one of those votes would have removed Hastings from office. The Senate decided not to vote on Articles 10 through 15, and Hastings was acquitted on Article 17. (On that one, 60 senators voted to convict, less than the two-thirds required.)

Link

Now, of course, the question is, should a man who was found guilty of impeachable offenses be entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive intelligence secrets? It’s a question Nancy Pelosi would undoubtedly prefer not to answer. But it’s not going away.