Devra has a must-read post on Jim Crow laws outside the South.

I agree with Elayne: There is something fundamentally wrong about turning the ashes of murdered people into a warship. Making the building of that warship an $800 million dollar pork project for Trent Lott's home town just compounds the indecency.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden demonstrates that you're not required to buy into your "heritage."

I think I have a similar ancestry on my father's side, although I'm not sure. My family's always been too poor, shiftless, and embarrassed to be aware of what came before. I don't know anything about my relatives -- not even names -- before my grandparents. But my father's from Tennessee, the family's been there since well before the Civil War, and there were a lot of photographs of people in uniform floating around my grandfather's house, so I've always assumed there was a hidden Confederate back there somewhere.

But I don't have to go back that far to find race hatred. That's my "heritage" as much as the spectral Confederate. As a child, I heard my father make statements that Archie Bunker would have considered going too far. And not just racist ones. Like Archie, my father was an equally opportunity bigot. I heard every anti-Papist slur in the air. And of course my father was married to a Catholic from Ireland -- which is probably one of the reasons I consider the psychology of bigotry infinitely complex.

Colleen Rowley may be one of Time magazine's Persons of the Year, but Ted Barlow discovered that the F.B.I. reserved its honors (and cash) for the man who blocked her.

Matt Yglesias looks at (and tentatively supports) Charles Rangels' proposal to reinstitute the draft, and his readers offer several objections well worth considering.

I have to admit that as the terrified mother of an 18-year-old boy, my first thought is, "Don't even think about it." And I'm not sure I buy in to Rangel's exhortation to "shared sacrifice." Society needs people to do many dangerous jobs, but that doesn't mean we expect every able-bodied person to put in time as a police officer or fire fighter. The important issue there (as should also be the case with the military) is that we should make sure people in those jobs have the tools and training to make the job as safe as we can make it, and should pay them adequately for their work.

But I think Matt is right in suggesting that there's a connection between the draft and the seriousness with which people take foreign policy. It is simply harder to convince people to go along with reckless wars if their own lives, or the lives of their children will be put on the line.

Julia's hate mail is worse than my hate mail. But I'm glad she mentioned it because it's a reminder of what uppity women deal with.

So how long do you think it will be before John Ashcroft looks into the connection between right-wing Christians and al-Qaeda?

I'm a word person. Numbers usually whiz right past my brain. But these numbers break down even my resistance:

Three million people died of AIDS this year, 80 percent of them in Africa.

One out of every five people in southern Africa is HIV-positive. In Zimbabwe and Swaziland, more than one-third of adults live with HIV.

In less than twenty years, 70 million Africans will die of AIDS.

That number -- 70 million people -- ought to trigger the same kind of response a looming genocide invokes: the knowledge that we won't be able to live with ourselves in the future if we don't do something to stop it now, that in a few years we'll be asking ourselves the same question we ask now about Rwanda -- how in God's name did we manage to sit by and watch that happen?

Fifty-eight percent of AIDS victims in Africa are women. That isn't significant because women's lives are in any way more valuable than men's lives, but because it extends the reach of the disease far beyond the victim. Seventy to eighty percent of food in Africa is produced by women. In times of famine, women have traditionally been the ones to set up networks to distribute food. But sick and weakened women inevitably devote less time to planting and harvesting crops, and to helping with food distribution. When the people who produce the food die, the entire community suffers. And of course it's a vicious cycle: malnutrition takes a toll on the immune system and speeds up the development of AIDS in people who are HIV-positive.

In Africa, you can't separate the AIDS issue from the hunger issue. People are starving because of AIDS; HIV-positive people develop AIDS because they're starving.

Yesterday's New York Times had an important piece by Kofi Annan on why current efforts to fight the famine in southern Africa depend as much on HIV and AIDS prevention as on traditional food assistance. It's a good piece, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. There are some important pieces of information that the secretary-general of the U.N. is too diplomatic to mention:

The president is too busy to care about Africa. Bush had scheduled his first trip to Africa as president for early next month. The Congressional Black Caucus urged the president to use the trip to promote awareness of AIDS in Africa, and to begin a US initiative to fight AIDS, but recently the president cancelled the trip. His focus is on Iraq. Africa has lost even the minimal amount of attention it ever had.

"Compassionate conservatism" is as much a scam abroad as it is at home. While sending Colin Powell out to lecture the world about fighting AIDS, the administration pledged only $500 million dollars to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS (the U.S. would need to give $2.5 billion to make its contribution equal that of Europe in terms of the size of the economy.) Bush fought a proposal by Jesse Helms, of all people (together with Bill Frist), for another $500 million for a program for HIV-positive African children, and when it passed anyway, he signed it only after convincing Frist to chop $300 million out of it.

Condescending, even racist, assumptions are built into the Bush administration's response to AIDS in Africa. Andrew Natsios, the head of America's foreign aid program, has argued against giving antiretroviral drug treatment to African AIDS patients because, Africans supposedly "don't know what Western time is" and are incapable of taking medicines on schedule. Antiretroviral treatment has been successful in Cote d'Ivoire, Senegal and Uganda, proving this racist assumption utterly absurd.

Corporate contributors come first. Rich countries, especially the US, continue to block efforts to loosen WTO patent rules so that poor countries can afford generic drugs, including AIDS medicines. Research by Oxfam shows that the availability of generics cuts costs dramatically. The pharmaceutical companies, despite promises, never lower their prices until faced with competition from generics. But the US has threatened sanctions against several countries with severe AIDS problems that have tried to obtain medicines, and has joined with other countries that are home to major pharmaceutical companies in opposing a pledge not to enforce the WTO agreement dealing with patents in cases of health emergencies like the African AIDS crisis. (American Prospect has a good article on the administration's choice of drug company profits over the lives of people in developing countries.)

Corporate contributors come first. (I know, I'm repeating myself. But that single sentence covers a lot of ground when you're talking about the policies of Bush, Inc.) The U.S. and Europe provide enormous subsidies for agribusiness which make it more difficult for farmers in poor countries to compete. We protect our own businesses, while insisting poor countries cut subsidies to their farmers.

You can hardly pick up a newspaper without reading a story about how hard it is to solve health problems and food shortages in Africa because of African governments' corruption and misplaced priorities. But let's be honest: Corruption and misplaced priorities are hardly unique to Africa.

Save the Children/ Oxfam Report on HIV/AIDS and Food Insecurity in Southern Africa (pdf)

Doctors Without Borders Background Information on HIV/AIDS Treatment in Developing Countries (pdf)

If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, and who is willing to destroy his own heart? -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

First, read this. Scroll down to the December 18th post if the links are being fussy, but read it before you read anything I have to say.

And now I have one quick comment to add. I will gladly join the battle against the hard core racists and the (to me far worse) people who exploit racism to foster their ambition. But there's a danger in doing that, and it isn't overreaction (you can not overreact to racism). The danger is that we all start to believe that racism is something over there, in some other part of the country, or in the heart of some other guy, and if we just get rid of those people, all the problems will go away. I want to get rid of Lott and Ashcroft and that creep who won a presidential primary in South Carolina by waving the Confederate flag, stroking BoJo University, and running with a rumor about his opponent's dark-skinned daughter as much as anybody else. But when they're gone, the problem won't disappear. You don't grow up in America without racism, and the legacies of slavery and segregation, effecting the way you view the world. Racism shapes the world all of us live in.

I'm sure I'll have more to say about this when I think about it some more. But the basic idea has been in the back of my head since the Trent Lott story broke, and Dominion's post made me want to at least bring it to the surface today.

Michael Kinsley on Bill Frist: He won his seat from an incumbent Democrat by using television commercials full of racial innuendo. Frist is undoubtedly a better person than his use of those commercials would suggest. Does that make them better or worse?

Worse. And are those commercials still kicking around?

A coalition of civil rights, religious and labor groups plan to deliver a message to Bill Frist: You say the Republican Party has changed, prove it by opposing judges with "records of deep hostility to core civil rights principles," supporting hate crimes legislation, and making a real commitment -- backed up with cash -- to election reform that insures that every vote actually gets counted.

UPDATE/ COMMENTS: I didn't comment on this item immediately, because my first thought was simply "Bravo," and that seemed pretty tepid and pointless. An hour or so later, the only way I can see a down side to this kind of pressure is if the Democratic Party lives up (down?) to our worst expectations. Either we keep out hateful judges, get hate crimes legislation passed, and make sure every voter has an equal chance to register and vote, and all the votes are equally likely to be counted (which is one of those wonderful issues where the morally right and the politically advantageous come together), or it is made clear not just to black voters (whose voting record suggests they don't really have any difficulty with the concept to begin with), but to white soccer moms and dads who get queasy around hardcore racists, that the Republican party's outreach to minorities is as phony as it gets. That's assuming the Democratic Party and the beltway liberals don't let the Republicans get away with calling opposition to civil rights "conservatism," (an insult to principled conservatives if ever I heard one) and pretending that problems with voting procedures (not to mention deliberate attempts to hold down minority voting) aren't forms of discrimination. But that's not going to happen, right?

Three blogs I'm adding to the blogroll (and a sample of terrific work)

Antidotal on the difference between fantasy and reality.

Long story; short pier did a post on the INS arrests that combines passion with a good deal of research on the history of INS abuses.

Burningbird explores an issue that intrigues me: What constitutes good weblog writing, and are the standards different from what makes print writing good?

No one is sure exactly how many Iraqi Americans there are (somewhere between 200 and 400 thousand), and their discomfort about expressing opinions makes measuring their political leanings virtually impossible, and yet the Bush administration "operates under the delusion that the majority of Iraqi Americans favor a war," as the vice president of the Arab-American Discrimination Committee puts it.

I'm not so sure "delusion" is the right word. This administration tends to believe -- or at least pretends to believe -- whatever is most convenient. And certainly the belief that a huge majority of Iraqi nationals support an invasion is convenient. If true, it would suggest that even people whose friends and families would be endangered by a war realize that there is no other way to get rid of Saddam.

But according to The Times, while there is certainly a base of support for invasion among Iraqi intellectuals, most Iraqis are more conflicted. They felt, even before the war talk began, that they were being asked to choose between two horrors: Saddam and the sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and they fear now that a war will make the lives of their friends and families even worse. They're not buying the argument that things will suddenly be better when Saddam is gone and not to worry about what it will cost to eliminate him.

In other words, they're in the same position as many other Americans who want to do the right thing and see nothing in front of them but horrible choices. The only difference is that, for the Iraqis, the choice is frighteningly personal.

Some Iraqi Americans are speaking out against the war, and the sanctions, but many are too afraid to do so, afraid that they are "poised to become the face of the new enemy," and that if they question American policy, their loyalty will be questioned. I suspect the fear is justified. The administration has an interest in selling the story that, as some State Department officials claimed, 80 to 90 percent of Iraqi Americans supported invasion. Given recent INS arrests over mangled paperwork, I'd be nervous about messing up Bush's storyline, too. Their fearful silence is very convenient.

I recently wrote a bit of memoir to explain why, emotionally, I don't think that charity is a substitute for a social safety net (which, in turn, is only a shabby substitute for genuine social justice). Molly Ivins lays out the facts of the issue. Because of Bush's policies:

* 36,000 senior citizens were eliminated from meal programs.

* 532,000 families lost their heating assistance.

* 50,000 children will be forced out of after-school programs.

And there's more. Dented cans (or even perfect ones), a few frozen turkeys, and a toy for the tot can't make up the difference. That doesn't mean you shouldn't donate to charity, but it's a band-aid, not a real solution. And making the poor poorer and then posing for pictures while you toss them a few crumbs is just plain mean.

The evolution of a southern strategy
"When you're from Mississippi and you're a conservative and you're a Christian, there are a lot of people that don't like that." -- Trent Lott

"I know that Republicans around the state are hurt and angry about the way Senator Lott has been treated. I encouraged them to take out their frustrations next year at the ballot box by electing Republicans from top to bottom, from governor to coroner." -- Jim Herring, Mississippi State Republican chairman.

Sam Heldman offers evidence from personal experience that Bill Frist's invocation of Marion Barry was an appeal to racism. Sam's post stirred up an odd thought: I'll start to believe the coded racial appeals have disappeared when I realize that it's been a long time since I've heard California politicians outside of San Francisco running against Willie Brown, or Republican pundits giggling about Al Sharpton as a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination.

Believe it or not, some people were blogging yesterday. Fortunately, you can still catch up on it today.

Alas, a blog starts with a simple summary of the discussion going on at Eschaton over whether, now that Trent Lott has accidentally dragged the Southern Strategy into the light, it is better to focus on exposing blatant Republican racism like voter intimidation and neo-Confederate ties, or on Republican policies that harm minorities. The first are easier to make people see, the latter are more important. You can always count on Barry to go deeper than the obvious, of course, and he does, making an good case that the fundamental issue is whether it is more important to help the Democratic Party, or raise issues of racial injustice.

Following up a wonderful Christmas Eve post on Republican tolerance of racial bigotry, PLA continues with an analysis of the Southern Strategy has played in presidential elections since 1968.

The Watch honors the spirit of Christmas with a post on the power of non-violence.

An introduction to modern corporate ethics
When 40 tons of toxic gas leaked from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India,in 1984, it killed 8,000 people in three days -- 20,000 in all so far. 120,000 people were left chronically ill. Eighteen years later, stockpiled chemicals are still leaking poison into the ground water.

In 1984, most Americans couldn't really comprehend the horror of thousands of people dying in one harrowing event. Unfortunately, now most of us can.

Bhopal was an accident, but a preventable one. Union Carbide had tried to cut costs at the factory by reducing safety measures. The safety siren, meant to alert the community, had been turned off. The company immediately evacuated their employees, but took three hours to inform the police about the leak, and did nothing to warn local people or give any advice on measures they could have taken to protect themselves from the gas.

Union Carbide paid an average compensation of $500 to each of the living victims of the disaster. That will cover their medical costs for five years. After that Union Carbide walked away, merging with Dow Chemical, which refuses to accept responsiblity for Bhopal.

Earlier this month, on the 18th anniversary of the leak, Bhopal survivors and international supporters brought "contaminated soil, water and brooms," and a demand for remediation measures, to Dow India in Bombay.

Dow's response? It's suing the survivors for ten thousand dollars.

"And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Merry Christmas

A lump of coal in his stocking just isn't enough
The daughter of Sisyphus has a Christmas wish for the president.

Would you like to hear my Ebeneezer Scrooge impression?
Thank you, Devra. You've beautifully and righteously vented on something that's bothered me most of my life -- the distinct lack of charity in a lot of "charity." I've never sorted toy donations, but I've done canned food drives, and clothing donations, and at some point I always end up mumbling to myself, "Exactly when did you people come to the conclusion that the poor aren't human?" The one donation to clothing drives that sends me round the bend is torn underwear. What kind of people think the poor are so desperate they'd wear someone else's old underwear? And are they sitting at home basking in the warm glow of their generosity?

Sorry -- charity drives bring out my most uncharitable side. And bad memories as well.

I have to admit, this is partly a personal issue. I went through a period as kid when Christmas was ruined every year by the guy from the church (not our church, some other damn church) pulling up in a station wagon loaded with food boxes. My mother was too polite to turn him away.

It started when I was eleven -- just old enough to begin reading adult body language. A man with a crew cut, wearing a bright red cardigan, carried a cardboard box into the apartment and set it on the kitchen table. My mother was in her robe, her hair in curlers, getting ready for work. She worked night shift. I could tell that she was in hurry and embarrassed to be seen like that, and that she wanted the man out of the apartment fast. But he hung around, asking stupid questions and glancing at everything out of the corner of his eye. I remember realizing that my mother was trying to maneuver to get him with his back to the couch, because the couch had a spring sticking out. She had covered it with a towel, but you could still see the outline of the spring, and the towel looked ratty anyway. Every poor person fixates on one thing that makes them feel especially poor, an objective correlative of poverty, and for my mother it was that sofa. She could buy her clothes at Goodwill and go without food at least once a week, she could handle being awakened by phone calls about my father's gambling debts, but somehow she felt less poor if she thought no one saw the sofa.

My mother was from Ireland. I once read that during the potato famine, Irish peasants who realized they were about to die would find a corner of the houses that couldn't be seen from the window, and huddle there to wait for the end, humiliated by their starvation. And, strangely, I smiled when I read that sad detail, because it reminded me of my mother. You're all right as long as no one sees.

The man in the red cardigan just didn't get it. He hung around chatting, as if he were waiting for something. And eventually my mother figured out what he wanted and gave it to him. She asked if he had a lot more deliveries to make. I think she was just trying to remind him to get going, but that question turned out to be exactly what he wanted. He started rambling on and on about how many people his church helped at this time of year and how proud he was of all those fine people, and how good it made him feel to help. My mother kept looking at the door. And then he said that what he had in the car was for the people in our building, and he looked at a piece of paper and told my mother which other apartments he was spreading his Christmas cheer to.

Kids who grow up in violent homes learn to pick up the exact moment an adult becomes angry -- before they do anything. When the man named the other charity cases in the building, I could see a change in my mother's expression that I'm sure the man couldn't see. She kept smiling, but anger was building under the surface, made worse by the fact that she had to keep smiling and playing the part of the grateful poor lady.

The anger came out after the man left. My mother screamed and cried that he was going to tell half the people in the building that she couldn't even feed her kid. And all the time she was jerking the curlers out of her hair, because priorities are priorities, and she was late for work. And anyway, she screamed, headed for the kitchen, that was a lie. A no-good lie. We always have food, except the day before payday, and we don't need their garbage. She took cans out of the box -- some dented, some labelless, others just useless. Beets, lard, hollandaise sauce. I remember looking at that little yellow can and wondering what it was. Did it come from Holland, and was it made of daisies? My mother picked up the small frozen turkey. "I don't want this garbage," she screamed -- and she threw the turkey to the floor, and stormed out of the kitchen. She'd thrown it so hard, it dented the linoleum.

She left for work, and I put the canned charity away. There was one large box of kiddie cereal. The bottom of the box had gotten damp, and when I picked it up, it split open, and all the cereal scattered across the floor.

Whenever I hear about welfare taking away people's dignity, I always remember crawling around on the kitchen floor, trying to pick up the sugary colored rings of private charity.

I thought of the man who sucked the air out of Christmas a few days ago, as I was reading an article about President Bush urging Americans to give more to the needy. I'd second the idea, of course. It certainly wasn't his plea for time and money that bothered me. It was a president being photographed putting canned peaches and spinach in a bag, without thinking about the fact that there are more important and effective things he could do to help the needy. But of course that assumes that the point is to help those in need, and not to provide photo-ops for presidents, and chances for the middle class to feel good about themselves while getting rid of their garbage.

Thank you to everyone who sent me ideas for fixing my archives yesterday, including Dwight Meredith, who suggested burning candles and chanting nursery rhymes in Arabic (don't know any Arabic, so I went with Gaelic prayers and Italian lullabies). After trying a dozen different suggestions, I finally followed the advice of my favorite conservative, Eve Tushnet -- I ripped out my archives link and made new links myself. And now, thanks to Eve, I have archives!

This entry has also been posted at Stand Down -- the anti-war blog that explores reasons for opposing war with Iraq from multiple politcal perspectives. If you'd like to comment, you can do so here.

The Liberal Media in Action
Thank you to Donald Johnson for pointing out to me that the New York Times got around to publishing something this morning on a topic Kerim Friedman wrote about a few days ago and I picked up on yesterday: the outing of companies that did business with Iraq, providing support for Saddam's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. Oddly, the Times quotes "American officials and private weapons specialists" who say Iraq's weapons declaration includes the names of 31 foreign suppliers, including two small American companies, both of which are now out of business, and one of which was owned by an Iraqi immigrant.

The Times' numbers are decidedly out of synch with those published a few days ago in the German newspaper Die Tageszeitung (and picked up by The Independent), which include 24 US companies -- Honeywell, Unisys, Sperry, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, Eastman Kodak, and Bechtel among them -- and 150 foreign companies in all. In all honesty, I have no way of knowing whose numbers are more accurate, but it seems dishonest to me to cite one set of figures, and one list of companies, without at least noting that others have been named. The oddity is compounded by the fact that at the end of the article, the Times quotes Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project On Nuclear Arms Control, who argues that any company that did business with Iraq deserves to have its identity revealed: "If you look at the scale and frequency of the exports of some of these companies, it's clear that they were deeply involved in Iraq's chemical weapons program. They must have known what was going on."

That's a bold statement. So, New York Times, where's the rest of the list?

Can somebody on Blogspot with functioning archives help me? For some reason, my archives expired in September. That's a bit of a problem because I occasionally get e-mails from people saying, "Remember that thing you wrote a few weeks ago on [fill in the blank, but it's usually Nigeria]? How do I get that?" And unfortunately my answer is always "Your guess is as good as mine." I can find everything I've written on my editing page, and I've even e-mailed old posts to people who've asked, but I have no idea how to get them to show up on the site. Ampersand even blogged about my late lamented archives (okay, that wasn't the most important part of his post, but the topic did arise.)

I just looked around and realized this is not just one of the things you have to live with if you're stuck on Blogspot. CalPundit has archives. Ignatz has archives. PLA, Rittenhouse, and Two Tears all have living, breathing, up to the minute archives (and good ones at that). Am I doing something wrong? My settings are on weekly archives (I'd change it to monthly, but since it's not working anyway, there doesn't seem to be any point.) I've tried republishing the archives so many times over the past few months it's ridiculous. Does anyone have any suggestions for bringing my archives back from the grave?

More awards! Jesse Taylor has opened nominations for The Year's Most Annoying Conservatives. I think his readers pretty much have it covered already, but go over and see if you can think of anybody who's been getting to you all year to add to the list. Personally, I'm with the reader who said Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Osama bin Laden should tie for first place -- people who sell the idea that God is full of hate should be lumped together, even if they call their hatred by different names, and they certainly top my list of people I wish would just go away.

CHAPTER 3
Everything you always wanted to know about John Ashcroft*

John Ashcroft's opposition to school integration in Missouri may have been politically motivated, but it sometimes had a gratuitously mean edge. In 1984, when he was in his final year as Attorney General of Missouri, and was running for Governor of the state, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold most of the school desegregation plan that Ashcroft had vigorously fought during his tenure as AG, including a voluntary transfer program which permitted students from predominantly black suburbs to attend schools in predominantly white suburbs. The court did agree with Ashcroft that the state should not pay for the that part of the program, since it didn't have anything to do with integrating schools in the city. Ashcroft immediately moved to cut off payments for the 311 African American students in the program -- a move that, if implemented, would have forced them to return to their former schools with only three months left in the school year. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch called Ashcroft's action a "cruel way to deal with students who had placed their educational hopes in their new schools." Fortunately for the students, the court ordered the state to continue the payments until an agreement could be worked out between the state and the suburbs. Ashcroft called the decision allowing the black students to stay at the same school through the end of the year "a gross miscarriage of justice."

...........................

*but were afraid to ask.

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

That Western companies helped Saddam Hussein build weapons isn't news. But some bits and pieces of information about that assistance that have filtered out over the past few days disturb me, even though I haven't figured out how much weight to give them, and how to string them together yet:

* According to Die Tageszeitung, Iraq's report to the UN Security Council lists 150 foreign companies -- including American, British, German, and French -- who provided Saddam Hussein with equipment and expertise for his weapons program from 1975 on, including support for building nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

* Some of the companies were providing support as recently as last year.

* The dossier documents methods the companies used to cover up their activities.

* Information about foreign companies' involvement with Saddam Hussein was collected by UN weapons inspectors between 1991 and 1998. However, the five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China -- have blocked release of the relevant information.

* The non-permanent members of the Security Council received an expurgated version of Iraq's weapons declaration report, with the names of foreign companies blacked out, although the censors did an incomplete job and left the names of some German and Swiss companies in the report.

* Die Tageszeitung quoted sources close to Dick Cheney as saying the Bush administration was hoping to prove a German company was continuing to co-operate with the Iraqi regime over the supply of equipment allegedly useful in the construction of weapons of mass destruction.

* Relations between Germany and Washington are strained because of Germany's outspoken criticism of a possible military strike against Iraq.

* Among the American companies listed are Honeywell, Unisys, Sperry, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, Eastman Kodak, and Bechtel.

* British officials said the list of companies appeared to be accurate.

* Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses.

* I can't find any articles on the subject in either The New York Times or The Washington Post -- and I'm hoping that has something to do with my lousy research skills.

.................

More information and comments at Stand Down

........................

Sources:
Leaked report says German and US firms supplied arms to Saddam

Parts of declaration cut from Iraq weapons report

Arms report names Western suppliers

U.S., others aided Iraqi nuke program

Die Tageszeitung's List of Companies
.

Obviously the Republicans want Trent Lott out because he hurts their carefully crafted image. But there's another reason percolating under the surface. I've been thinking about it for a few days, because hints of this other motive peeked out in a couple of conversations I had with Republicans, and now the Christian Science Monitor has picked up the thread: They're afraid that with Lott around, the party (and, indeed, Lott himself) will have to be so sensitive that they're forced to move left on racial issues. The administration's backing off on support for the Supreme Court case challenging racial preferences at the University of Michigan, and Trent Lott's statement on BET in favor of affirmative action make conservatives nervous. What are they going to have to do to avoid the appearance of racism? Are there right-wing judicial nominees who might have squeaked through before Thurmond's Centennial who won't past the smell test now? And will that reduce the party to hunting for moderates? Will cutting millionaires' taxes while education, welfare, and health care wither suddenly be seen in a different light -- and force Bush to do the unthinkable: put the needs of the most vulnerable citizens (of all races) ahead of the wish lists of his corporate friends?

Relax, Republicans. It's not going to happen. I wish it would, but it won't.

The party is going to have to be a little more careful about race than it has previously been, whether Trent Lott goes or stays (but having him around scratches the wound and complicates matters). In many ways, that's a good thing for the country. Assuming we still have a remotely functioning press -- a big assumption, I admit -- the Southern Strategy just got harder to play. Bob Jones University may find few politically powerful speakers. Interviews with Southern Partisan magazine are probably not going to pass unnoticed by the mainstream press. It will get a lot more difficult to play footsie under the table with bigots. Your South Carolina strategy will be noticed in Southern California. And that's a good thing -- a small rip in the fabric of hypocrisy.

But when it comes to policies, nothing will really change. Genuine change requires understanding that the effects of slavery and segregation continue to gnaw holes in the promise of America, in psychological as well as economic ways, and that we have a continuing moral obligation to look for ways to undo the damage. The modern Republican Party, even at it's best, has never believed in that obligation. It's been about tokens, and twisting the language of justice to unjust purposes. In the CSM story, there's a revealing remark. An affirmative action opponent who believes the Bush administration will eventually file a brief opposing the Michigan program, offers a way of selling that opposition: "I think the way this drama has played out actually puts the president in a very good position.... He can say, 'I think racial discrimination is wrong..., and for exactly that reason, my administration is filing a brief telling the Supreme Court that they should rule against racial discrimination in college admissions.' "

Yes, we think discrimination is bad, and therefore we're going to put all our effort behind ending the massive discrimination against white people. Republicans think that will sell, and they're probably right. But the fact that they're thinking of that even now, while the fruit of that thinking is on the front page of the paper every day, says a lot about how deep their understanding of the problem goes.

I'm an odd sort of political junkie in that I tend not to pay much attention to electoral politics until I absolutely have to. I suppose when it comes right down to it, I'm too much of a moralist to feel comfortable with all the compromises involved, and so firmly on the left that I don't expect to have a real choice. I can count on the fact that my favorite candidate is not going to win. I haven't voted for a presidential candidate I actually liked since George McGovern (and I thought he was a bit too conservative.) Most of the time, I'd prefer to vote Green, but I understand that the Republicans also prefer I vote Green. You never saw a grin as smug and satisfied as the one that appeared on the face of one of my husband's Republican friends when my husband said he was considering voting for Nader. (The grin changed my husband's mind -- you've got to watch your body language, Republicans, you're giving the game away). Basically my attitude is, I despise Bush and therefore I'll hold my nose and vote for any Democrat you put in front of me.

I am capable of being embarrassed by my ignorance, though. Recently someone asked me what I thought of Howard Dean, and my answer ("Uh, the guy from Vermont, right?") was rather humiliatingly stupid. I would have been better prepared if I'd read this London Times article, which seems to me a good, fair, and simple (I need that) introduction. Count on the Brits to explain American politics in a way that even a politically clueless American like me can understand.

And the next time someone asks me about Howard Dean, I'll be able to say, "That's the best we can do, huh? Well, at least he's not Bush." (Once the campaign really gets going, rather than put on a bumpersticker for my favorite candidate, I may just have one made up that says, "Not Bush." That pretty much covers the possibilities I can live with.)

Score one -- maybe -- for the expression of outrage.

The people who own Nestle have an interesting sense of timing. Ethiopia is in the middle of a drought which has left millions in danger of starvation. The number of people requiring emergency food aid could reach 15 million over the next few months. Nestle decided this was a great time to demand $6 million from the Ethiopian government as payment for a company nationalized in 1975, which Nestle didn't even own at the time.

I hate to cut into VH1's monopoly on the eighties, but do they know it's Christmas?

That was yesterday's news. Today's news is that public outrage over Nestle's greed forced the company to promise to pour the money back into Ethiopia. Of course, it would be better if they didn't take the money out of the country in the first place. And it would be better if the promise to put the money "in a long-term viable investment in Ethiopia which will contribute to the economic development of the country" didn't arouse suspicions that they're talking about something that is more in the long-term interest of Nestle than of Ethiopia. (This is, after all, the same company that made a fortune on pushing powdered milk over breastfeeding in countries where, because of unsafe water, bottle-fed babies were 25 times more likely to die than breastfed babies.) Business may be business, but when people are starving, contracts and long-term investments are way down on the priority list. But at least Nestle got nudged in a decent direction, and I guess that's cause for a small Christmas celebration. Without chocolate.

CHAPTER 2
Everything you always wanted to know about John Ashcroft*

As governor of Missouri, John Ashcroft twice vetoed measures passed by the Missouri legislature which would have made it possible for volunteers from nonpartisan organizations like the League of Women Voters to register new voters in St. Louis, a Democratic-leaning city, which was about 50 percent black. The measure would have made it as easy to register in the city of St. Louis as it was in St. Louis County -- which was mostly white and Republican, and where volunteer deputy registrars could be, and were, commissioned. By making it more difficult for voters to register in St. Louis than in the suburbs, Ashcroft managed to surpress the African American vote, which aided him in his 1988 re-election bid.

...........................

*but were afraid to ask.

Chapter 1

Jeb Bush stepped up boldly yesterday to criticize Trent Lott. Not for rhapsodizing on segregation, mind you, but for doing something really unforgivable -- hurting Republicans.

"It doesn't help to have this swirling controversy that Senator Lott, in spite of his enormous political skills, doesn't seem to be able to handle well," Governor Bush told The Miami Herald in an interview published today. "Something's going to have to change. This can't be the topic of conversation over the next week."

I knew we could count on the president's brother to recognize the important ethical issues at stake here.

And also demonstrating his sense of priorities, Bush restored the civil rights -- including the right to vote -- of an FBI agent who was convicted of obstruction of justice for destroying a report criticizing the bureau's handling of the Ruby Ridge shootout. Bush obviously learned from his past mistakes and is making amends. And certainly this should more than make up for the thousands of legal Florida voters who were knocked off the voter rolls when they were classified as felons.

I'd really like to believe in the basic goodness and sanity of my fellow Americans. But sometimes they make it so damn hard.


(Via reading & writing)

I'm sure you've already heard that Bill Clinton told the truth. The man might lie about small things, but he told the truth when it counted: "They try to suppress black voting, they ran on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina, and from top to bottom the Republicans supported it."

Republicans have won elections by making it harder for African Americans to vote and by luring racists to the polls. That isn't a shocking statement to anyone who pays attention to politics, but it is stunning -- gloriously so -- when a politician says it. Even one who's not running any more.

I suspect Sam Heldman has it right. It won't be long before Clinton is accused of exploiting race in order to stick it to the Republicans and maybe benefit the Democrats. But so what? If Democrats hem and haw and try to play nice, Republicans will seize on insignificantly small disagreements to accuse them of playing politics. If Democrats stand up and boldly tell the truth, Republicans will accuse them of playing politics. Given the circumstances, they might as well tell the truth. The truth is always easier to remember anyway.

I don't pretend to understand the political machinations of the fight over Trent Lott. Who will benefit from this, Democrats or Republicans? Is this the first crack in revealing the strategy that has animated the Republican party for the past generation (in which case, Ashcroft goes next), or can the Republicans send Trent Lott into the wilderness and make everyone believe that their "seg"-tolerating days are over?

I honestly don't know, maybe because I just haven't thought about it much. I've gotten quite a bit of mail on the subject, so I know other people are thinking about it, but I just don't seem to be able to wrap my mind around the subject. To me, this is more an ethical than a political question. Trent Lott needs to go because if there's no cost to expressing support for segregation almost forty years after the Civil Rights Act, something is so rotten at the core of the American system that you might as well just give up on it. And I don't believe that's the case. If that benefits Republicans, I'll live with that, because the alternative is worse. But it's equally important not to let up on the Republican Party -- not for political reasons, but because the big lie that Republicans have worked hard to attract minorities shouldn't stand. They've worked hard to change their image; they've done little or nothing to change their ways. (I think Matt Yglesias is one of the smartest bloggers around, but I have to disagree with him on this issue: Bush has played racial politics with the best of them. Bob Jones, the Confederate flag, rumor-mongering about John McCain's adopted daughter. And let's not forget that he "won" an election by having his little brother surpress the black vote in Florida. What's new about Bush is that he's far better than Lott at talking out of both sides of his mouth.)

But even though I can't quite get a grasp on the politics of this issue, I have to admit, Clinton's statement cheers me. Clinton and I have probably been on opposite sides of issues almost as often as we've been on the same side, but there's two things I know you can count on Clinton for -- a good speech and an astute reading of how an issue plays out politically. Maybe now that he's not running for anything, he figures he can tell the truth and shame the devil, but deep down I suspect he's still reading whether or not it's a good time, politically, to tell the truth. The man's only been out of office two years, and I don't think politicians can turn honest that fast. But since his political instincts are obviously infinitely superior to mine, I'm encouraged by his honesty. I think it's at least possible he knows what he's doing.

It's always a good time to tell the truth. Maybe it's a smart time as well.

Yesterday I posted lyrics for Nina Simone's 1963 classic Mississippi Goddam. Two readers wrote to remind me that Phil Ochs had a pretty good understanding of Mississippi politics as well. Phil updated this song a few years later under the title "Here's to the State of Richard Nixon." ("where the wars are fought in secret, Pearl Harbor every day") I wish he was still around to update the song one more time.

Here's To The State of Mississippi
by Phil Ochs (1964)

Here's to the state of Mississippi --
For underneath her borders the devil draws no line;
If you drag her muddy rivers, nameless bodies you will find.
Oh, the fat trees of the forest have hid a thousand crimes;
The calendar is lying when it reads the present time.
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of.
Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of!

And here's to the people of Mississippi --
Who say the folks up north, they just don't understand;
And they tremble in the shadows at the thunder of the Klan;
Oh, the sweating of their souls can't wash the blood from off their hands;
Where they smile and shrug their shoulders at the murder of a man.
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of --
Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of!

And here's to the schools of Mississippi --
Where they're teaching all the children that they don't have to care,
All the rudiments of hatred are present everywhere,
And every single classroom is a factory of despair,
And there's nobody learning such a foreign word as "fair."
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of --
Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of!

And here's to the cops of Mississippi --
They're chewing their tobacco as they lock the prison door,
And their bellies bounce inside them when they knock you to the floor;
No, they don't like takin' prisoners in their private little wars,
And behind their broken badges, there are murderers and more.
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of --
Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of!

And here's to the judges of Mississippi --
Who wear the robe of honor as they crawl into the court,
They're guardin' all the bastions of their phony legal fort;
Oh, justice is a stranger when the prisoners report,
When the black man stands accused, the trial is always short.
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of --
Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of!

And here's to the government of Mississippi --
In the swamp of their bureaucracy, they're always bogging down,
And criminals are posing as the mayors of the towns;
And they hope that no one sees the sights and no one hears the sounds,
And the speeches of the governor are the ravings of a clown.
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of --
Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of!

And here's to the laws of Mississippi --
Congressmen will gather in a circus of delay,
While the Constitution's drowning in an ocean of decay;
"Unwed mothers should be sterilized," I've even heard them say;
Yes, corruption can be classic in the Mississippi way.
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of --
Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of!

And here's to the churches of Mississippi --
Where the cross, once made of silver, now is caked with rust,
And the Sunday morning sermons pander to their lust;
Oh, the fallen face of Jesus is choking in the dust,
And Heaven only knows in which God they can trust.
Oh, here's to the land you've torn out the heart of --
Mississippi, find yourself another country to be part of!

CHAPTER 1
Everything you always wanted to know about John Ashcroft*

When John Ashcroft ran for Governor of Missouri in 1984, one of the centerpieces of his campaign was bragging about the fine work he had done as the state's Attorney General in opposing desegregation of St. Louis public schools. He called the desegregation plan "an outrage against humanity."

...........................

*but were afraid to ask.

I've discovered so many interesting blogs since I started reading them that sometimes it's hard to keep up. I just don't have time to read everything I want to. But one thing I've learned: Whenever Avedon Carol writes a long piece, read it. Today she has an essential essay on the politics of race -- in both parties. I'll come back to this topic, but right now, just go read Avedon.

My car radio is pretty limited. The public radio station fades in and out and the really good locally programmed station that I listen to at home doesn't come in at all most of the time. That leaves me with one talk radio station, one "classic rock" station, and one oldies station that are occasionally worth listening to. So today, as I was driving around doing my Christmas shopping, I had a choice between Jimi Hendrix (I love Hendrix -- but not on a car radio, thanks), Rod Stewart singing "Hot Legs" or Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh won. I figured there could at least be some comic relief there.

I quickly decided to go back to fuzzy Jimi Hendrix, but not before hearing about some poll that showed that two-thirds of all Republicans think that what Trent Lott said was no big deal. Rush Limbaugh seemed to think that meant the press was blowing it out of proportion. I had two reactions. If the poll is real, it ought to cue the one-third of Republicans who still have something vaguely resembling a conscience that they're in the wrong party. If it isn't true, it should cue all conservatives who still have something vaguely resembling a brain to turn off Rush.

Even if they have to listen to fuzzy Foxy Lady.

I just can't get this song out of my head for some reason:

Mississippi Goddam
(1963) Nina Simone

(The name of this tune is Mississippi Goddam
And I mean every word of it)

Alabama's got me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam!

Can't you see it
Can't you feel it
It's all in the air
I can't stand the pressure much longer
Somebody say a prayer

Alabama's got me so upset
Tennessee made me lose my rest
And everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam!

(This is a show tune, but the show hasn't been written for it, yet)

Hound dogs on my trail
School children sitting in jail
Black cat cross my path
I think every day's gonna be my last

Lord have mercy on this land of mine
We all gonna get it in due time
I don't belong here
I don't belong there
I've even stopped believing in prayer

Don't tell me
I'll tell you
Me and my people just about due
I've been there so I know
They keep on saying "Go slow!"

But that's just the trouble
Too slow
Washing the windows
Too slow
Picking the cotton
Too slow
You're just plain rotten
Too slow
You're too damn lazy
Too slow
The thinking's crazy
Too slow
Where am I going
What am I doing
I don't know
I don't know

Just try to do your very best
Stand up be counted with all the rest
For everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam!

(I bet you thought I was kiddin' didn't you?)

Picket lines
School boycotts
They try to say it's a communist plot
All I want is equality
for my sister my brother my people and me

Yes, you lied to me all these years
You told me to wash and clean my ears
And talk real fine just like a lady
And you'd stop calling me Sister Sadie

Oh but this whole country is full of lies
You're all gonna die and die like flies
I don't trust you any more
You keep on saying "Go slow!"
Go slow!

But that's just the trouble
Too slow
Desegregation
Too slow
Mass participation
Too slow
Reunification
Too slow
Do things gradually
Too slow
Would bring more tragedy
Too slow
Why don't you see it
Why don't you feel it
I don't know
I don't know

You don't have to live next to me
Just give me my equality
Everybody knows about Mississippi
Everybody knows about Alabama
Everybody knows about Mississippi Goddam!

The front page of yesterday's LA Times featured a poll showing that Americans are more doubtful about the need for war with Iraq than has been suggested, and that support for a ground attack on Iraq is decreasing. But it was a poll result buried at the end of the article that caught my attention: Seventy percent of Americans believe that if there is a war, we have an obligation to stay after the war is over and help rebuild. Unfortunately, that's an easy sentiment to exploit (The oil companies are laying pipelines all over the place. You don't call that rebuilding?) But at its heart it speaks to the decency of the vast majority of Americans. We expect to be held accountable for the consequences of our actions.

But rebuilding Iraq is off somewhere in the future. I wish someone would take a poll right now asking Americans if we have a moral obligation to help rebuild Afghanistan. I suspect (or at least hope) you'd find roughly that same seventy percent who say we do.

So how come we're abandoning that task and taking on a new one?

Human Rights Watch has issued a report on conditions in Afghanistan -- in Herat province in particular -- which documents that for women living under warlord rule (in this case, the rule of Ismail Khan, the governor of Herat) things haven't changed nearly enough since the Taliban were driven out. Many girls have been allowed to return to school, and women to some jobs. However, they can still be arrested for failing to veil themselves, driving, or speaking to a man on the street. Troops continue to enforce Taliban-era restrictions on music and dress, targeting women and girls for abuse. In addition, Khan has censored women's groups, intimidated women leaders, and even recruited boys to spy on girls and report "un-Islamic" behavior.

Ismail Khan and his warrior bands have received substantial military and financial support from the United States.

Hamid Karzai has made a bold move in the direction of breaking the warlords' control -- which is probably the most important task in improving the human rights situation, and protecting the rights of women in particular, in Afghanistan. On Tuesday he issued a decree banning senior politicians from military activity (in other words, no warlords allowed in the government) and announced that he will attempt to disarm the private armies that rule most of Afghanistan within the next six months. Heavy weapons handed over would be given to the still-forming Afghan national army. The private armies' weapons include tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery pieces, field guns, multiple-rocket launchers, and antiaircraft guns. Among the warlords most reluctant to give up weapons and hand control of their armies over to the national government is Ismail Khan, who so far has not responded to Karzai's decree.

Karzai doesn't have the power to control the warlords without help from the international security force. He's not getting it.

The Turks, currently in command of the ISAF, are going home ( according to the BBC, to prepare for war with Iraq). A combined corp from Netherlands and Germany will soon take their place. But discussions about getting the peacekeepers outside of Kabul have been abandoned. The UN Security Council resolution that created ISAF prohibits the troops from taking part in operations outside the capital. The US has suggested that coalition forces in several provincial capitals could work on both military and civilian projects, but humanitarian workers have already been targeted in many parts of Afghanistan, and are worried about any further blurring of the line between soldiers and aid workers.

HRW insists that all countries involved in Afghanistan -- including the US -- need to stop funding the private armies (the US is still using them to go after Taliban and al-Qaeda stragglers), and give all aid directly to the central government. We need to support Afghan women's groups and protect women leaders from threats and intimidation. And the ISAF needs to be expanded and sent out into the provinces. Women's lives are in danger.

But just in case Bush and Company don't really care about women's lives anymore, there is one other thing they should know. The chaos created by the warlords is threatening the trans-Afghan pipeline project as well.

Maybe that will get Bush's attention.

The good old liberal New York Times ran a strange article this morning keeping alive the well-debunked myth that conservatives were the ones who tore into Trent Lott, and -- grab your hat, we're headed into the Twilight Zone here -- asserting that this "fact" disproves Al Gore's statement that that "the nation's conservative news media acts as a monolithic Republican support system." The Times gives a prominent place to Rich Lowry's laughable comment that conservatives have worked so hard, and with such great idealism, in overcoming their racist image, and they couldn't stand to see that image torn down by someone like Lott. Not the racism, mind you, just the image.

Howell Raines, let me introduce you to the man Trent Lott is least likely to send a Christmas card to this season.

The Los Angeles Times at least touched on the obvious fact that the main reason Lott is in trouble with conservatives is that they've never liked him personally and don't think he's done enough to promote the right-wing agenda. According to the Times many Republicans question whether Lott is even conservative enough. (Most of the Republicans I know are fairly moderate. I don't know any truly insane, to the right of Trent Lott Republicans, so I won't even take a guess on how true that is.)

But you'll have to go a little beyond the major newspapers before you get to the really important point: Republicans want Lott out fast not just because he tars their name, but because the longer the story plays out, the more likely it is that people will notice other Republicans who've played similar games.

Joe Conason did a great piece yesterday on John Ashcroft's ties to segregationists. Josh Marshall went after Ashcroft as well. Timothy Noah pointed out that Strom Thurmond is not quite as reconstructed as the press (and, in particular, the New York Times) would have us believe. Hesiod is piling on George Bush I's warm and fuzzy feelings for the 1948 Dixiecrat presidential candidate. Paul Krugman is going after the Republicans' "soft spot for theocracy" (which he seems to have discovered via Atrios .) And in a weird piece defending Lott (I think, it's hard to tell), William Saletan argues that a lot of the Republicans now going after Lott have plenty of "politeness to bigots" and "amnesia about struggles for civil rights" to answer for as well. (Saletan seems to suggest that his makes Lott somewhat less condemnable; I'd suggest it means the condemnation so far has been much too narrowly focused.)

It can't be repeated too often: It isn't just Lott.

Lady Sings The Dixiecrat Double Entendre Blues

In honor (or perhaps I should say dishonor) of Trent Lott's nostalgia for the good old days of segregation, Devra recently posted lyrics (and a link, if you'd like to listen) to Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit," a song about lynching. Keeping in mind Pat Buchanan's breathtakingly stupid choice of words in defense of Lott* it was a well-chosen musical accompaniment to the news.

Devra's post started me thinking about something I read a long time ago about Billie Holiday, "Strange Fruit," racism, and the interpretation of words.

Try to imagine Lady Day in an evening gown, a white gardenia tucked in her hair, on stage in a nightclub, singing a graphic song about lynching, while her audience sipped champagne. It's impossible, grotesque. And in fact, Billie was generally reluctant to sing the song, partly because, as you can imagine, it took a lot out of her. In her autobiography she  says she threw up every time she had to sing it. But she also had mixed feelings about the song because her audiences so often missed the point. She'd sometimes get bizarre requests to sing the "sexy" song about "black bodies," which unnerved her to say the least. Proof, if you need any, that as often as not, even the most eloquent voice is not heard.

When she did perform the song, it was usually at the end of a show. Two different kinds of audiences heard "Strange Fruit." One was a group Billie trusted. If she sensed that an audience was with her -- not just that they liked her act, but that they understood and appreciated the artistry of a woman who was changing the shape and structure of popular song -- she would sometimes sing "Strange Fruit" as a gift, the way you might share a painful secret with a friend who could understand that sharing was an act of trust and honor.

But she also used the song as a weapon. In Lady Sings The Blues she describes a scene that was all too common:

This white boy stayed around just to bug me. When I started singing...he'd start kicking up a storm of noise, rattling glasses, calling me nigger, and cursing nigger singers.

When she had that kind of audience, she would pull out "Strange Fruit," spitting out the words, as if to say, I know who you are, and I understand everything I need to know about why you're treating me this way.

One song, with many meanings -- most of them within the artist's control.

Southern trees bear a strange fruit

You don't have to start with a work of art to sing one song in different ways. You can start with words like "states' rights" and "traditional values." There's nothing wrong with the words themselves. Here in the central California suburbs, when Republicans I know hear politicians talk about things like "states' rights," what they hear is a message of smaller government and more local control. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to be in favor of. In some instances, I'd even agree with them.

But that arguable, respectable message is not what people in many parts of the country heard when Ronald  Reagan, for instance, proclaimed his belief in "states' rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers -- James Chaney, Mickey Schwerner and Andrew Goodman -- had been murdered in the early sixties, and where there were still many people who deeply resented their state's loss of its "right" to segregation and intimidation of black voters. It does not make the tiniest bit of difference whether Ronald Reagan was a racist. Signaling that hard-core racism was acceptable was despicable. For many people who regard themselves as liberals, it remains, more than twenty years later, unforgivable. Maybe it gnaws at moderate Republicans, and even many conservatives, as well, but I haven't heard any complain about it.

What Reagan did was a mirror image of what Billie Holiday did. When she wanted, as she put it, to "bounce something off that cracker," she used a song to send a message of defiance (real defiance -- as she well understood -- would have landed her in jail, or worse). Reagan, facing the descendents of Lady Day's nasty hecklers (and quite a few even more dangerous sorts) sang a cozy little lullaby of acceptance. Compare Billie's unspoken, but nonetheless clear I can't hit you the way I'd like to, but here's what I think of you, cracker to Reagan's equally clear I can't come straight out and agree with you, but you boys know I'm on your side. It's the same technique, with vastly different results.

It's amazing -- sometimes appalling -- what an artist can accomplish with a few words.

And Reagan is far from the only one to use the device.

Pastoral scene of the gallant south

John Ashcroft, who made his name as a politician opposing school desegregation in St. Louis, gave an interview to Southern Partisan magazine in 1998, which the editors introduced by  noting that he was a "champion of states' rights and traditional Southern values." Sounds fairly innocuous, but one of the traditional Southern values Southern Partisan promotes is the notion that the Declaration of Independence contains "deliberate lies" like the idea that all men are created equal.

According to Richard M. Quinn, the magazine's former editor, in the South the magazine "is considered mainstream conservative." If you read "conservative" as a longing to return to the "values" of the past, I suppose there's some truth in that. Here's the formula for a "mainstream conservative" magazine: recipes for sweet potato casserole, articles on country music and NASCAR, suspicion of central government and disdain for taxes -- I'm okay with this so far, but then there are:

* revisionist articles on why slavery wasn't as bad as it's detractors suggest (apparently slave owners were strong supporters of "family values"),

* paeans to former Klan leader David Dukes as "a Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal,"

* praise for "the effectiveness of the original Ku Klux Klan,"

* political commentary on the fact that "Negroes, Asians, and Orientals... have no temperament for democracy" (the author goes on to pat himself on the back, of course, for being bravely "unpolitic" in asserting this),

* and a denigration of Martin Luther King as "a man whose role in history was to lead his people into a perpetual dependence on the welfare state."

Makes you wonder about a politician in the South who describes himself as a "mainstream conservative," doesn't it?

I don't know whether John Ashcroft subscribes to Richard Quinn's definitions of "state's rights" and "Southern values," but most of the readers of his magazine do, and you don't have to be an expert code-reader to recognize the I-am-one-of-you message Ashcroft was sending to those readers. There's just no other, more innocent explanation of Ashcroft's praise for the magazine as a source that "helps set the record straight." Or his to-the-barricades call for "traditionalists" to "stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda." These people are Confederate leaders and Ashcroft didn't want anyone to be taught that there was anything perverted about their agenda. As in the case of Trent Lott's statement, I can't come up with a reading of that sentence that any decent person would subscribe to.

Here's a fruit for the crows to pluck.

Trent Lott, Thad Cochrane, Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms, and Dick Armey have all been interviewed by Southern Partisan.

Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Intelligence Report," describes an interview with the magazine as a way of pandering to an audience with racist leanings. It's a way of doing so without offending voters who would take less kindly to overt racist statements.

This wink and nod strategy isn't just a matter of nasty and unfair politics. The truly objectionable part of the whole thing is that when prominent politicians play this game, they leave hard-core, blatant racists with the impression that their beliefs are still respectable. They give people a license to be racist.

Here is a strange and bitter crop.

Why are liberals harping on this so much now, and disdaining Republican "apologies?" Because it's a ugly game that has driven most of us crazy for as long as we've been aware of politics. You'd have to have been old enough to vote before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to remember a time when Republicans weren't playing this loathsome game. (And by sheer coincidence, 1964 happens to be the year Strom Thurmond became a Republican, as well as the first presidential election year in which Trent Lott was eligible to vote.) The rest of us have wondered all our political lives why most people weren't as outraged by it as we are. Finally, they are. Trent Lott's statement helps expose the game even to people who normally don't pay much attention to politics.

In the end, this isn't about politics, it's about moral accountability. It's about standing up in front of your audience and singing the song straight. And it's about time.

--------------------------------------

*Pat Buchanan: "What we are witnessing is the lynching of a good man who made a bad choice of words in a birthday tribute to an old man whose sins are no more scarlet than those of the rest of us."

The New York Times has started what looks like a very interesting series of articles on the Ten Commandments. Over the next ten days, they'll be taking one commandment each day and exploring how people reckon with it in their lives. How does a soldier, for instance, interpret the fifth commandment (the sixth if you're Jewish or Protestant) -- Thou shalt not kill?

The first article in the series is about a couple whose daughter died, and who found nothing but pain in the way they had always interpreted the first commandment -- as an assertion that everything that happens in the universe reflects the will of God. They were fortunate to connect with a rabbi who told them they didn't have to simply accept that commandment, but could challenge it.

So far, it looks like one of those rare occasions when the press takes seriously the moral struggles of people of faith, rather than defining religion as a set of simplistic rules.

A few days ago, I mentioned a moving essay Jeralyn Merritt wrote about passing on her sense of justice and compassion to her son. From today's New York Times comes a reminder that some people define "family values" in a somewhat less inspiring way:

Mr. Lott was staunchly opposed to [James] Meredith's integration of Ole Miss. "Yes, you could say that I favored segregation then," he told Time magazine in 1997. "I don't now." He added, "The main thing was, I felt the federal government had no business sending in troops to tell the state what to do."

Back at home, the turmoil at Ole Miss was roiling Pascagoula and even Mr. Lott's family. Ira Harkey Jr., editor of The Pascagoula Chronicle, was writing editorials denouncing racial violence and criticizing Barnett for fighting the integration of Ole Miss. In response, a group of local people — many of them shipyard workers, Mr. Harkey says — harassed him for months, threatening violence and even shooting out his office windows.

Some time later, Mr. Harkey said, he received a letter from a woman who told him that if he did not publish her letter it would prove "you are truly an integrationist and I hope you not only get a hole through your office door but through your stupid head." It was signed Iona W. Lott — Mr. Lott's mother.

"I called her, asked if she'd sent it to me, and she said she certainly had sent it to me and she meant every word," said Mr. Harkey, now 84.

Dwight Meredith is taking nominations for the "Koufax Award" for best left of center blogging in various categories. It's a nice opportunity to say something nice about a few good and hard-working people. Never let it be said I turned down the chance to offer a well-deserved compliment. My nominees:

1) Best Blog -- Eschaton. That's a no-brainer. I can't even think of a close runner-up.

2) Best Writing - I could come up with a dozen nominees off the top of my head, but for sheer style, grace, and wit, The Rittenhouse Review is in a league by itself.

3) Best Post -- A few nominees (and I'm certain some obvious ones have slipped my mind):

* Rittenhouse on "Al Gore and the Alpha Girls"

* Rittenhouse's skewering of the conservative attempt to make political capital out of the Pennsylvania coal mine tragedy.

* Rittenhouse's nuanced take on the Mike Taylor ad (Come to think of it, maybe Eschaton does have some competition for best blog)

* Ampersand on domestic violence and the men's rights movement.

* Ampersand on anti-Semitism.

* Ampersand's take down of Glenn Reynolds' post on feminist mankillers -- "Conservatives lie about feminists!" (The competition for best blog is heating up here)

* CalPundit on Glenn Reynolds and Martha Burk

* Making Light's post-election essay on political action.

* Making Light's September 11 anniversary post.

* PLA's list of examples of Bush administration secrecy

* PLA applying the Al Gore consistency standard to George Bush.

* PLA's extensive list of Bush lies.

* PLA's case for focusing on disarmament, not regime change in Iraq (and apparently we have another nominee for best blog.)

4) Best Single Issue Blog -- Talk Left and Ignatz (To be fair, both Jeralyn and Sam talk about things other than law -- but that's the main focus)

5) Best Comedy Blog -- The Poor Man or Sisyphus Shrugged -- tough choice. I'm assuming you can do stuff other than comedy and still fall under the category of "comedy blog" if one of the things you do best is make people laugh.

6) Best Comedy Post -- Once again, a dozen spring to mind, but nothing comes close to Pandagon's channeling Peggy Noonan chaneling Tupac Shakur.

7) Best Series -- It's a tie: PLA on thimerosal, autism and the Homeland Security bill, and everything Atrios has done recently on Trent Lott.

8) Best Commentor -- How can I choose between Ted Barlow and CalPundit ?

9) Best New Blog -- definitely need a list of nominees here.

10) Best Special Effects -- Alas, a blog , of course.

Kissinger Quits As Chairman of 9/11 Panel

I'm in a mild state of shock here, especially since Kissinger resigned under pressure to disclose his business clients. It's still possible in America today for business conflicts of interest to bring someone down? Amazing. I thought that old-fashioned little ethic had been swept away for good. A little crack of sunlight cuts through the clouds.

The Twelve Songs of Christmas (plus a few extra)

skippy would like to know your favorite Christmas carols. Here's my list, in no particular order (other than the fact that this is the order they're in on my iTunes Christmas playlist):

1) Merrry Christmas Baby -- by just about anybody (it's a hard song to screw up), but the Charles Brown original is as slow and gently sexy as it gets, and Etta James' version is just plain hot. Otis Redding's version also has a special place in my heart (well, actually, the feelings runs all through my body, but you probably don't want to hear about this thing I have for Otis Redding…).

2) Santa Baby -- Eartha Kitt (Madonna? Oh, please -- it's Christmas and there's only one Madonna.)

3) The Rebel Jesus -- Jackson Browne and The Chieftains. And perhaps we give a little to the poor/ If the generosity should seize us/ But if any one of us should interfere/ In the business of why they are poor/ They get the same as the rebel Jesus. Who says Christmas is only for Christians?

4) Santa Claus Go Straight To The Ghetto -- James Brown. What's Christmas without funk? If you still feel like dancing, try Clarence Carter's Back Door Santa or Wilson Pickett's version of Jingle Bells.

5) Merry Merry Christmas -- Koko Taylor. Hotter than Etta James (and that's saying something).

6) Nothing But A Child -- Steve Earle. Okay, strictly speaking, it's not a Christmas carol, but it's in the vicinity.

7) Father Xmas -- The Kinks. Father Christmas, give us some money. We'll beat you up if you make us annoyed… When Christmas gets stickily sentimental, this one saves my sanity.

8) St. Stephen's Day Murders -- Elvis Costello. Another antidote when I'm o.d.ing on Nat King Cole.

9) O Holy Night -- Rickie Lee Jones. Every version of this song I've ever heard has been by a singer with a big, show-off voice. Rickie Lee's version is quiet, humble, awe-struck and a little off-key. The first time I heard it, it seemed to me far closer to the spirit of the song, and now I don't want to hear any other version.

10) Jingle Bells -- Duke Ellington. Having heard too many badly done instrumental jazz Christmas carols as a child, I have a deep aversion to the form. But this one is the exception. Every conceivable variation on the theme is in here -- there was just no excuse for anybody else to record the song after Ellington. (Except Wilson Pickett, of course).

11) Good Morning Blues -- Ella Fitzgerald. The title doesn't sound Christmasy, and in its original incarnation it wasn't, but Ella twisted it up a bit and made it a classic. Ella Wishes You a Swinging Christmas is my second favorite Christmas album of all time.

12) Go Tell It On The Mountain -- Odetta. From the best Christmas album ever: Christmas Spirituals. In case you need reminding what the whole point of the holiday is -- and even if you don't.

I don't want to be fussy or anything, but who thought it was a good idea to name a plane that will be carrying troops and heavy weapons into combat "The Spirit of Strom Thurmond?"

James Carroll has written a beautiful tribute to Philip Berrigan and the continuing relevance of his moral vision.

US Set To Use Mines In Iraq
To prepare for a possible war with Baghdad, the Pentagon has stockpiled land mines at U.S. bases in countries ringing Iraq, according to Pentagon records. The decision to make the mines available comes despite a recent report by the General Accounting Office, Congress' investigative arm, concluding that their use in the 1991 Gulf War impeded U.S. forces while doing nothing to impair Iraqi forces.

The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which went into effect in 1999, has been signed by three-quarters or all nations, including all NATO countries except the United States and Turkey. It obligates countries to stop making, stockpiling and using landmines. A few reasons why the treaty has gained such widespread support:

* Experts estimate that there are currently 80 million land mines buried in 80 countries, and that it will take over 150 years to get rid of them all.

* Since 1975, landmines have killed over a million people.

* More than 20,000 people are killed or maimed by landmines each year.

* Ninety-five percent of those killed by landmines have been civilians.

* UNICEF estimates that 30-40 percent of mine victims are children under 15 years old.

* According to the International Red Cross, landmines kill or maim someone every 22 minutes.

* Because landmines remain in the ground for decades, they pose a continuing threat to civilians long after a war has ended. This enormously increases the difficulty of rebuilding war-ravaged countries.

* In May of 2001, 8 senior, retired U.S. admirals and generals wrote to President Bush stating that landmines "are outmoded weapons that have, time and again, proved to be a liability to our own troops." Mines have caused over 100,000 U.S. Army casualties since 1942.

I know there are intelligent and reasonable conservatives out there, because I got an e-mail from one of them yesterday. He objected -- very politely (God, I love people who object politely) -- to my statement that Trent Lott was not an aberration in the Republican Party and the party shouldn't get away with pretending that he is.

My reader had a point, and maybe I did overstate it a bit. (I've been known to do that kind of thing.) Unless someone can prove otherwise to me, I'll accept that George W. Bush doesn't have a racist bone in his body. (Or at least he's no worse than the rest of us. You don't grow up in America without ingesting a certain amount of racism) I suspect you'd have to go all the way back to Nixon to find a truly racist Republican president or presidential candidate. I'll even entertain the notion that the average Republican is no more racist than the average Democrat. But that isn't the issue.

For a generation, the Republican Party has coddled and mobilized racial bigotry for the sake of winning elections. It was a conscious policy, which Kevin Phillips, an advisor to Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign, described, in The Emerging Republican Majority, as an attempt to "make an ideological bid for the anti-civil rights South." Lee Atwater expanded that strategy by prodding tensions between blacks and working class white ethnics. The racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic Bob Jones University has been a traditional stop for Republican presidential candidates at least since Reagan. Republicans have been experimenting with how much subtle (and occasionally not so subtle) racism they can inject into campaign ads for as long as I can remember (and my political memory goes back a good thirty years).

The Republican Convention of 2000 and Bush's run as a "compassionate conservative" might look like an attempt to back away from that strategy, but at the same time Bush was hiring gospel choirs, he was speaking at BJU, pandering to Confederate flag wavers, refusing to condemn either a supporter who referred to the NAACP as "the national association of retarded people" or his own Louisiana campaign chairman who purchased mailing lists from former Klan leader David Duke. And in the end, of course, he "won" an election by disenfranchising voters, most of them African American.

That the Republican Party felt it had to present a tolerant face to America says something very good about the vast majority of Americans. We are a better country than we were forty years ago, and overt racism doesn't sell as well as it once did. But even while it was serving up that tolerant face, the party wanted the benefit of the racist vote. It got it. Having reaped the benefit, though, it ought to have to pay the price as well. Call it penance. Call it justice.

Trent Lott is an unrepentant racist, and I'll grant that most Republicans are not. But for me the fact that they aren't, that they know better, and are willing to exploit racism -- and to nourish and sustain it by doing so -- makes them morally worse than the poor dumb racists who are just looking desperately (and futilely) for someone more pitiful than them. That's something I've believed most of my life, and the Lott Affair just holds it up to the light so we can all take a good look at it.

That's why I not only want Trent Lott out as majority leader, I want it to be very clear that he's a Republican, that the Republican Party has provided a forum for people like Lott for decades. They're pretending they don't know what could make a man behave that way, and they shouldn't get away with it.

UPDATE: The New York Times has a good article this morning on the modern Republican Party's exploitation of race.

UPDATE 2: Well, this seems to be a trend. Paul Krugman has a particularly fine analysis of the Republican strategy on race. And I couldn't agree more with Krugman's reading of Bush's "rebuke" of Lott. He hasn't called for Lott to step down, and he won't unless he's pushed to the wall. He wants the benefit of looking like one of the good guys to most Americans, while at the same time keeping Lott in place and sending a simultaneous message that while politics forces him to say all that sanctimonious, politically correct nonsense, he doesn't really mean it. The issue isn't whether he really does or really doesn't mean it. The issue is a deceitful and disgusting strategy which abets racism, and -- as Krugman points out -- a press that overlooks it.

UPDATE 3: Tom Tomorrow dissects the Republican spin machine's current effort to deflect blame and CalPundit is all over the strange myth that conservatives responded with outrage to Lott's statement, while liberals took a pass.

UPDATE 4: If Republicans are going to enjoy the fruits of that poisonous tree, they shouldn't complain about the lot of racist crap used to fertilize it. -- The Flaming Moderate

This morning my local paper had a charming letter to the editor containing the usual cliches about the antiwar movement consisting of nothing but warmed over hippies. This is central California. The farmers are still mad about the sixties. And you’ve heard it before, right? You would think it would be kind of hard to sell the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Methodist Church Council of Bishops, and General Wesley Clark as warmed over hippies, but of course the message of how mainstream and serious the antiwar movement really is hasn’t gotten out yet.

It’s moving in the right direction, though. Yesterday Max pointed to United for Peace, which includes several church groups and other non-radicals along with the usual suspects. Today Salon has an article about Win Without War, a coalition which includes the National Council of Churches, NOW, NAACP, the Sierra Club, MoveOn, Working Assets, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, Physicians for Social Responsibly and Veterans for Common Sense. This being fame-addicted America, it also has a fair share of celebrities (you can find their names, and add yours to their petition here) and while the media has ignored even huge antiwar demonstrations, it apparently finds it harder to ignore famous, even semi-famous, people. Janeane Garofalo got a chance to tear into the Iraq policy on "Good Morning America."

I prefer the voice of a less famous person, Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, who told Salon that normally when the NCC takes a political stand, they provoke controversy among ordinary churchgoers. This time people aren’t criticizing them, they’re telling the Council to speak louder.

Watch out for those noisy Lutheran hippies.

Just go read The Watch on how the Information Awareness Office plans to keep an eye on everything we buy, read or ingest, with one exception -- guns.

Trent Lott on amnesia:

I was 7 years old when, you know, Strom first ran for president. I don't really remember anything about the campaign.

I wasn’t born when Strom Thurmond ran for president, but I can’t remember a time when I didn’t know about the platform he ran on. I asked my 18-year-old son if he knew anything about Strom Thurmond, and he didn’t have any problem recalling the ugly details. The anti-teacher party has told us again and again that American schools are so bad that high school students don’t know a thing about the past, but somehow the election of 1948 seems to have made it into my son’s history books. Either Trent Lott is a liar, or his knowledge of American history is so pitiful that alone should disqualify him to be House Majority leader. And there’s some reason to suspect complete stupidity -- Lott couldn’t remember who ran against Harry Truman in 1948 either.

A hint, Senator.



But I’m still going for evil over ignorance -- a conclusion hard to avoid as Josh Marshall adds to the evidence and Pem digs into the Bob Jones University connection.

The one thing that is really important to point out here, though -- as both Slacktivist and Locust Eater have done -- is that Trent Lott is not an aberration within the Republican Party. He is the Republican Party. And not only should Lott not get away with this garbage, the GOP should not get away with pretending that they didn’t know about it and have nothing to do with it.

UPDATE: Uh...Senate Majority leader. I think I'll take a break from making fun of other people's ignorance until my own brain returns.

As you may have noticed, I didn’t post anything yesterday. It was one of those days when the total effect of the news leaves me feeling numb and dumb. I got up and looked at the front page of the Los Angeles Times and discovered that Bush and Company are not only talking about invading countries if they perceive a threat, but using nuclear weapons as well.

It was early, so I read the sentence again, thinking I must have misunderstood. Sane people don’t casually casually toss out threats to use nukes, right?

The anti-proliferation strategy codifies a national security evolution that began with last year's Sept. 11 attacks, and repeats the administration's threat to use preemptive and overwhelming force — including nuclear weapons — against what it perceives as imminent danger of an attack.

With this gang I suppose there’s always a possibility that tomorrow they’ll insist they were misunderstood or only kidding. What’s the matter with you liberals? You don’t have a sense of humor? What, you think we’re going to nuke a country just because we don’t like them?

North Korean missiles in Yemen are apparently no problem.

And while we’re on the subject of nuking countries we don’t trust, Christopher Hitchens, the humanitarian conscience of the hawks, has come out unabashedly in favor of American imperialism. Well, that’s been the implication running through most of what he’s written for the past year, so I suppose it was only a matter of time before he made it explicit.

Sort of like the Republicans running ads with uncomfortably racist undertones for an entire generation before the House Majority leader came out in favor of segregation. (Memo to Hitchens: If the imperialism piece causes you more grief than you intended, just say you didn’t intend to offend anybody, and then go on arguing implicitely for imperialism, without being quite so up front about it. That strategy seems to be working for Trent Lott.)

I was still trying not to step in the filth of birthday praise for a man who, according to the New York Times once said, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negroes into our homes, our schools, our churches" -- only to learn that those weren’t exactly the ancient and for some inexplicable reason esteemed Senator’s words. Mikhaela Reid tracked down the more repulsive -- and apparently unprintable -- version of the speech that the Times didn’t quote. I have to admit, I can understand the Times not wanting racist garbage in their newspaper. The problem is, it would be nice if we didn’t have it in the Senate either.

Anyway, racism, imperialism and nuclear weapons all tied up in one day’s package (Merry Christmas!) had me feeling yesterday that I really didn’t want to read anymore news, and definitely didn’t want to talk about it. Today I want to scream about it. I hope you do, too. If we all do it together, maybe they'll hear us.

Hip Hip Hooray!

In defense of feminism
A few days ago, I started an e-mail conversation with an interesting and articulate 19-year-old woman. In the course of a conversation about the relevance of feminism she noted that she and her friends had all grown up without experiencing any discrimination because of their gender. I told her I thought that was wonderful, and that not many women I knew in college in the seventies, not even relatively privileged women, could have said the same thing. But I reminded her that the experience of a university student is not universal. Just as a single example, I noted that my husband teaches in a community college where many of the students are poor and either immigrants or the children of immigrants. And the girls are often going to school with no support from their families, because their families don’t think girls should be educated. He has a student right now who would like to go on to a university next year, but her parents do not believe it is right for a girl to leave home. My husband would call himself a feminist, and the advice he gives her, the help he provides in getting her where she wants to be, grows out of his feminist values.

Our conversation about the meaning of feminism follows.

………………………………

Helping poor and immigrant women get educated? Now, that is a cause worthy of feminism.

You’ve probably heard this before, Jeanne, but if the feminist movement is going to have any relevance to my generation you need to start talking more about causes like getting education and health care to poor women (as per your example) and talking less about how fashion magazines exploit us. Frankly, we bristle at your implication that we are merely passive receptacles of media images and that we don’t know how to think for ourselves.

I, and just about all of my peers since high school – both female AND male – support the equal rights of women to be healthy, independent, educated, and respected. But most of us would hesitate to call ourselves feminists, and that’s due to the unappealing dogma we’ve been hearing from self-proclaimed feminist leaders. Feminism may yet prove relevant in the US today, but it will need to re-consider what the most serious issues are currently facing women around the world. And that means thinking beyond bikinis and beauty pageants.

Best,

Julia

………………………………

Well, I have to admit, now I'm the one who's baffled. I gave you an example of a local issue I care about as a feminist, and your response is to tell me the problem with feminists is that they don't care enough about the thing I just told you I'm concerned with, and they worry too much about issues that I've never mentioned.

Do you see a small error in logic here?

Over the weekend I saw a cartoon, I think it was in the NY Times (I read a lot of papers, so sometimes I get them criss-crossed), that expressed pretty much what you're saying, I think. There was a series of panels with an obviously poor woman holding a child and talking about her needs -- child care, equal pay, access to education, health insurance -- and another woman, wearing a shirt that said "feminist" on it was not paying attention. Then, in the final panel, the "feminist" turned away and said something about Augusta and the importance of making sure women could get into fancy golf clubs.

The cartoon infuriated me because it couldn't possibly be more dishonest. I pay a lot of attention to "women's issues" in the news. I read a lot of feminist news feeds. I’m a pretty alert and aware feminist, and I never heard of Augusta until the issue started turning up in men's blogs. It wasn't something feminists I know were paying any attention to. Men still have the loudest voices, you see, and they determine what is news, and what they decide are the important "women's issues" are often things active feminists care little or nothing about. I still haven't written anything about Augusta because I don't know or care much about it. I vaguely know that it has something to do with some women (or is it one woman?) who want to join a golf club and can't because of their gender. And if somebody asked me what I thought, I'd probably say, gee, that doesn't seem fair, but it's not the kind of unfairness that animates me. In the same way, if someone asked me what I thought of beauty pageants, I’d have to say I find them somewhat creepy and anachronistic. But unless someone else brings it up, the topic wouldn’t enter my head.

In the entire time I've worked on this blog, I think the only time I've mentioned beauty pageants was when some of the Miss World contestants threatened to back out of the pageant to protest the stoning sentence of Amina Lawal -- and that was to praise them for using whatever influence they had to call attention to a horrible injustice. (I'm less pleased with their decision to back off from the boycott -- and I wonder why they did so -- but I haven't written much about it because it's been hard to find information about it.) The only time I remember mentioning media images effecting women is when I wrote about something every woman I know with a young daughter was talking about -- the fact that the popularity of pop princesses like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera was influencing the kind of clothing that was available for girls, and that it was getting hard to find clothes for seven-year-olds that didn't make them look like tiny hookers. I have no doubt that you're no passive consumer of media images. You're old enough and wise enough to know better. But I am concerned -- as is every mother I know -- about the image the media is selling to small children.

It sounds to me as if your image of feminists comes not from reading or listening to feminists but from passively accepting what anti-feminists tell you.

What do real feminists really care about?

This week, the Feminist Majority Foundation is focusing on issues that have been centerpieces of its activism for a long time -- lobbying to expand the International Security Force outside of Kabul in order to protect the lives of Afghan women, and urging the president to release UNFPA funds which provide essential maternal and child health care around the world and which will be used for everything from fighting AIDS in Haiti to training midwives in Algeria.

NOW is highlighting things like protecting the Family Leave Act, getting out information about Wal-mart’s treatment of its employees (the majority of whom are women), and court rulings that threaten access to reproductive services.

NOW’s Legal Defense and Education Fund focuses primarily on poverty, violence against women, and how "welfare reform" effects women.

Ms. Magazine fronts an article on how the recent election results effect women’s issues, a profile of Dolores Huerta, the co-founder of the United Farmworkers Union, and an article on UNFPA. (You might see a pattern here -- access to health care for women in developing countries is a bit of an obsession with real feminists.)

If you comb through those feminist publications and organizations, you might find something buried in there about beauty pageants and golf courses, but it is far from the central issue. There may, for all I know, be feminist organizations obsessed with things like that. And if there are, all I can say is that isn’t my feminism, and it isn’t the feminism of women I know and work with.

If you pay attention to feminist theory and activism, and also read the mainstream media, you’ll quickly discover that one of the downsides of calling yourself a feminist is that powerful people lie about you. Daily. And since they have more power and louder voices than you do, most of the time they’ll get away with it.

It’s your choice whether you want to let them get away with it.

Take care,

JD

Jeralyn Merritt’s Talk Left is on the short list of blogs I read everyday, even if I don’t really have time to read blogs. I do so partly because Jeralyn’s understanding of legal issues helps me make sense of so many things going on in the world today. But in all honesty, I read Jeralyn not just for information, but because her combination of intelligence and compassion are rare, and it gives me a little more faith in the world knowing that reasonable and decent people have some tools to slay the dragons.

It cheers me even more to know she’s passing on the tools. Today Jeralyn has a post up about her son Nic, a college senior, who is interning at Cardozo Law School Innocence Project and applying to law schools. It’s not just a piece on mom’s (well justified) pride. It’s a wonderful essay about passing important values on to children. I have an 18-year-old son, and while he’s nowhere near as far along the path to figuring out what he wants to do with his life as Nic is, I’ve had that same sense of pride and astonishment when I see my commitment to justice and compassion for others show up in him. It’s probably the best thing about being a mother.

You’ll hear politicians throw around the term "family values" all the time. But this is what family values are really about: passing on values like compassion and the genuine patriotism of believing the system can (and must) work. Our liberal family values -- when you think about it, they’re something to take enormous maternal (or paternal) pride in.

Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves (Part 3)
When I started adding the women who’ve been piling up in my "I really should add this one to my blogroll" list, I said I was going to almost double the number of women bloggers on the right. Actually, the number has increased a bit since then. There was an interesting side benefit to writing about women bloggers -- people started sending me names and URLs. Not bloggers asking to be put on the list, just readers who had other favorites they wanted to let me know about. I didn’t share the high opinion of all of them. A few were probably good, but wrote about things that just don’t interest me. But I was introduced to many good blogs that I never would have heard of (or would have taken a lot longer to find, at any rate) if I hadn’t raised the issue. Maybe it’s a reflection of one of those little pieces of women’s wisdom that gets handed around a lot: The first step in solving a problem is to start talking about it.

Some recent discoveries:

This Woman’s Work

Blog Sisters

Brief Intelligence

Bookslut

Just two days ago The Agonist linked to an Iraqi blogger. I’d seen the blog before, and found it intriguing, but wasn’t quite sure it was for real. Sean-Paul’s post made me a bit less suspicious that it was a hoax, and I decided I was going to follow it more carefully, and probably link to it. This morning I went to look at Where Is Raed and discovered that the blog has been shut down and its archives wiped out. Blogs disappear regularly, but this disappearance worries me.

Mikhaela Reid on the "problems" we could have avoided if Strom Thurmond had his way.

Fundamentalists Losing Favor with Public

WASHINGTON -- The American Family Association, a far right lobbying group in Washington, released results from a recent survey that shows mainstream Americans see evangelical Christians as one of the least likeable groups in the country.

Researchers from the Barna survey asked respondents how they felt about evangelicals, born-again Christians, ministers, and other groups of people in society. According to the survey, evangelicals came in tenth out of eleven, narrowly beating out prostitutes.

Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?

(Via The Watch)

The Ladies' Wear Department

Aziz Poonawalla recently pointed out that some of my comments on "religious" issues and attempts to control women jibe with much of what he said in his post comparing burkas and bikinis. I agree, and I also think that his post is extremely thoughtful and interesting. If you haven't already read it, you should.

The first time I read the piece, two memories came back, both from when I was about twelve or thirteen. One was an overheard conversation between my mother and one of her friends. The friend was a little younger than my mother, in her early thirties at the time, and extremely pretty. She didn't know she was pretty, but she was. I remember hearing her tell my mother about a fight she just had with her husband because they had been invited to a "pool party" at his boss's house, and she had been the only woman there in a one-piece bathing suit. He was angry at her because he thought the one-piece made her look dowdy, and it made him look bad if everybody thought he had a dowdy, boring wife. Everyone already knew he was Catholic, and here she was, confirming all the stereotypes about uptight, puritanical Irish women. She had to wear something that made her uncomfortable so he could look good.

(Of course, on the other side, is a memory of wearing a bikini for the first time myself, when I was about fifteen. It was one of those early ‘60s, mod, belted numbers -- the kind Ursula Andress wore in Dr. No. Only this was the end of the decade, and tie dye or crochet would have been more in style. I got the bikini off the sale rack at Zody’s, with my first paycheck from my waitressing job, and was proud of that, but I also knew it was hopelessly out of style, and thought there was a distinct possibility that I looked like an idiot. I came outside wearing the suit, and before I got halfway down the steps of our apartment building, another friend of my mom's said, very loudly, "Christ, I'd kill to have a body like that again." My fragile little adolescent ego was kept aloft on that sentence for years. It would have been better, though, if my ego had not been so thoroughly crushed that it needed that sentence to get it off the ground.)

The other memory comes from Catholic school in the mid-sixties. A lot of things changed in the Catholic Church after Vatican II, and among the   more sudden, visable changes were nuns' habits. The Benedictines at my school had the classic penguin look: white wimple, black veil and floor length belted black dress, with a black scapular hanging in front. But one year we returned to school and found that the wimple had been reduced to a white band set back from the forehead, so that a little clump of hair showed in the front (I still remember a boy walking into the classroom the first day after summer vacation and blurting out, "Oh my God, Sister Hope's got hair!" -- It was Lucille Ball red, so it did kind of shock everyone). The veil was not much more than a hand-towel sized thing hanging from the headband. And it turned out that Sister Hope not only had hair, she had legs as well.

And I remember being well aware that Sister Hope -- who was one of the most dignified women I have ever known -- was not comfortable in her minimized habit, and I noticed that boys who would not have dared to get out of line the year before, suddenly felt free to tease her and joke with her, and in some small, subtle way the authority of the nuns, the only group of women I knew as a child who had some authority, slipped. Pope John XXIII is one of my heroes, and I think Vatican II was one of the high points in Church history. (I’m still looking forward -- probably in vain -- to Vatican III.) In the long run, I think nuns are better off out in the world and freed from restrictive clothing. More importantly, the nuns I know seem to think so. But when I was twelve, I knew that something had been lost as well as gained. That's often the way things work.

The point of all this being, I don't think clothes themselves have any intrinsic meaning. And yet they are loaded with meanings and implications for the person wearing them -- especially for women. And that’s probably why, though I’ve never been offended by any item of clothing, I’m angry to the bone when someone with power tells a person with less power what to wear.

I wasn't planning to post anything today, but I happened to notice a small item at the bottom of the Los Angeles Times' obituary page this morning that I couldn't fail to at least mention.

Philip Berrigan died Friday night.

The irony, for me, is that on my desktop is a sticky with a link to an article I read a couple of weeks ago, and wanted to come back and write about. I just needed to work some things out in my head first. (I'm not there yet -- as will soon be apparent.) The article is about a man who a lot of people might call a relic of the sixties, who, unlike many people well-known for their activism in that decade, was still fighting with the same passion he had more than thirty years ago. The man, of course, was Phil Berrigan.

In 1968, Father Phil Berrigan, his brother Daniel and seven other anti-war protesters went into a draft board office in Catonsville, Maryland, scooped up draft records, carried them out to the parking lot, and set them on fire with a batch of homemade napalm. Then they waited for the police to come and arrest them.

I was fifteen. I was in my first year of public school, after spending eight years with priests and nuns. A few months earlier, the first political candidate I had ever campaigned for had been gunned down in Los Angeles, not far from where I was living at the time. Not long before that the most eloquent spokesman for peace and justice since Jesus was murdered in Memphis. That year Americans got to see a picture of a prisoner shot in the head by a South Vietnamese general, our ally. The war had gone on so long that as a fifteen-year-old in 1968, I literally could not remember a time when Vietnam wasn't in the news. I literally did not believe the war would ever end.

Which might -- or might not -- explain why I thought the action of the Catonsville Nine, the simple commitment to life and Christian pacifism expressed in the action of using the most grotesque weapon of that war to oppose the war was perfect. It summed up the horror of the war in a way that no words could. I have a vague memory of Dan Berrigan telling an interviewer to remember that the substance they used to destroy paper was also used on the skin of human beings. Visualize it and remember.

When I was fifteen, I couldn't stop visualizing it. That was the effect that Dan and Phil Berrigan had on me. I simply could not forget, ever, that every day my country was burning the skin off human beings, and that in some way I, as an American, was morally responsible for that violence. And that, of course, was their point.

I'm less certain of the wisdom of that action now. We've all seen too much of the simple, unbending morality of religious certitude, and the idea that it justifies things that might not otherwise be justifiable, and I have to question it, even when it is a moral commitment I share.

And yet, when I read the article about Phil Berrigan's continued activism a couple of weeks ago, his unbreakable sense that in fighting the "Pax America," he was still engaged in the same Biblically rooted struggle that he'd been fighting for most of his life, I have to admit I felt that something was gloriously right and just in the world. I wouldn't join him in smashing the implements of war. But I admit to a certain sense of satisfaction in knowing that, as an old man, Phil Berrigan was still doing it.

Damn! It's probably not a good idea to write when I'm this angry, but I have to get this off my chest. I just got an e-mail responding to the post I put up this morning about trying to draw attention to women bloggers. The gentlemen informed me in no uncertain terms that the only reason I get any attention from other bloggers is because I'm a woman. All the people who have linked to things I've written have done so only because of some dumb affirmative action ethic.

Silly me. I didn't even know it was be kind to dumb broads month.

I was sort of vaguely under the impression that I get quite a few links because I work hard to find stories, and facts behind stories, that a lot of other people miss. I thought it might have had something to do with the fact that I'm a fairly decent writer. Apparently not.

Did you ever have words flung at you that feel like fists?

The freedom-hating, anti-capitalist feminist Andrew Sullivan went after the other day takes a bite out of Andy. Think he'll ever learn that it isn't nice to lie about what someone said ?

What Jill Nelson said that Andrew Sullivan defined as an example of feminists who hate free societies:

I don’t buy that the issue’s the pageant, the abortion, the bathing suit, or the burka. What this is really about is men protecting men’s domination of women across geography and religion to perpetuate the tyranny of an acceptable womanhood created and enforced by men.

The status of women as defined by religion is being used by men as a convenient front to cloak the real issues men are concerned about — oil, globalization, control of the world’s resources and power foremost among them. Yet the truth is that most religions are misogynistic and oppressive toward women, and who asked for these defenders anyway?

While I’m well aware of both the real impact and profound symbolism of exporting Western values, standards and most of all products, around the world as part of globalization, I don’t believe that Muslim or Christian men are really concerned about the rights of women. As far as I’m concerned it’s equally disrespectful and abusive to have women prancing around a stage in bathing suits for cash or walking the streets shrouded in burkas in order to survive.

In a world where, East or West, Muslim or Christian, Jew or Hindu, millions of women and children live in poverty and ignorance, without education, health care, or decent housing, in communities and countries fraught with violence — often from the hands of the very men who swear they’re concerned about protecting us — you’d be hard-pressed to find more than a handful of women who care about Miss World or any other beauty pageant.

It’s time for women to speak out against the violence toward others done in the name of protecting the sanctity of women. The truth is that it doesn’t positively alter the life of any woman, anywhere, if the Miss World pageant is driven out of Nigeria, or if a physician who performs abortions is murdered, or if Muslim and Christian clerics engage in wars of intolerant words that incite real violence.

Isn’t it past time that women, across geography and religion, talk, unite, and raise our voices for what women really want and need? Certainly there must be a way for us to join in a discussion of how we believe the world can become more fair and equitable. If nothing else, we must raise our voices and declare that there must be an end to intolerance and violence. We can start with that being done in our names.

Now if someone could only explain to me why I know Andrew Sullivan's name, in fact can't avoid hearing Andrew Sullivan's name, but until now I've never heard the name of a woman who writes this eloquently and sensibly -- or maybe someone already did.

I agree with Jeralyn about John Kerry, but I still think this 1971 cartoon (via Eve Tushnet) is funny.

Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves (Part 2)
I got an amusing e-mail this morning from a reader who was offended by the very idea of a "sexist list" of women bloggers. Well, as somebody more articulate than me once said (I can't remember who, probably either Winston Churchill, Dorothy Parker, or Mark Twain -- between the three of them, they seem to have said pretty much everything worth saying): What's the point of writing if you can't offend someone? The kicker was the remark that men don't make an issue of things like this. You'd never hear a male blogger say that he was putting someone on his blogroll just because he was a man. Men are above that sort of nonsense. (By the way, does anybody remember Rex Harrison as Henry Higgins in "My Fair Lady," singing the hilarious ode to clueless misogyny, "A Hymn To Him," perhaps better known by its refrain: "Why Can't A Woman Be More Like a Man?" -- I don't know what made that pop into my head.) Men never complain about unfairness.

Honey, give me more than my fair share and I promise I won't complain about it either. Word of honor -- I'll take it like a man.

Now the truth is, I'm not adding a lot of women to my list because they're women. I'm adding them because they're good, interesting writers who I enjoy reading. In fact, a lot of them stayed off my list longer than they should have because even though I started writing this blog thinking I would write about nearly everything that interested me, at some point I realized that I had an audience that was primarily interested in politics, and while some of the women I'm adding are purely or mostly political writers (and some of them pretty gender-neutral in their writing), a lot mix political, personal, spiritual and a lot of other issues together -- as I do, but with a different balance. They didn't seem to quite fit on my blogroll.

There was a element of sexism in my sense that they didn't fit. Sexism isn't just flat out hatred of women. It involves all kinds of subtle ways we devalue women's lives and contributions. We all grow up so immersed in sexism that it effects everyone. Including women. And including women who define themselves as feminists. And when I thought some styles of women's writing "didn't fit," what I was thinking, I realized, is that because a lot of women tend to approach things from a very different angle than men, there was something not quite right about it. Different, therefore wrong. Even though I liked it.

But eventually I realized it's my blogroll, I can do whatever I want with it. (I grew up in a time when women -- at least poor, Irish Catholic women -- didn't think, let alone say, "I can do whatever I want" with anything, so sometimes it takes me awhile to find those words -- another little legacy of sexism.) If my blogroll's got people on it who write about needlepoint and church suppers and decorating and volunteer work and fat and chocolate and two-year-olds' temper tantrums and homeschooling and why John Ashcroft is one of the poorest excuses for a human being God ever made, and that's not what most people (especially male people) expect when they read a political blog, well, that's what it is. That's the way a lot of women write and think -- valuing experience and interesting connections, not argument. Men just aren't used to it because it's the way we talk to each other, not to them. (Most of them anyway. I do know a few wonderful men who are in on the secret.) Maybe if we start, they'll get used to it. Maybe we'll change the way people think about political discourse. (Believe me, there's a lot of overlap between politics and cleaning up after small children.)

So, diatribe completed, here is my latest batch of first-rate women bloggers. I hope they are especially offensive and blatantly female today. If they're not, I may have to take up the slack. Otherwise, what's the point of writing?

The Bitter Shack of Resentment

Easy Bake Coven

Mad Musings of Me

The Reader

Noli Irritare Leones

I think I'm entirely too female. I answered c to every question.

District Attorney Robert Morgenthau asked a judge today to throw out the convictions of the men accused in the Central Park jogger case. Glenn Reynolds has a smart and fair discussion of the topic, although he lets Ann Coulter off the hook too lightly. CalPundit picks up the slack.

Terrific. I came up number one in "googles adult nasty jokes." My mother would be so proud…

From the e-mail bag: Nigeria
After posting a couple of pieces about Nigeria over the past few days, I discovered that I have a lot of very intelligent readers who were ready to give me lessons in the history of Nigeria -- which was very helpful of them, because as I was writing I had been thinking that in order to make any sense of things, I really needed to find out more about Nigerian history than I knew, especially recent history. I also got a lot of mail from people who were upset that I failed to grasp the subtle concept that religion (or one particular religion anyway) is a horrible thing that makes people crazy. I'm afraid I don't feel any further enlightened after reading those letters. Below are a sampling of the ones I found interesting.

.......................................................

One of the things that gets overlooked in analysis of these unfortunate riots is that they have less to do about some dramatic, symbolic clash between Islam and the West, and more to do about the politics of Nigeria. Nigeria is another cobbled-together imperialist state, like Yugoslavia or Uganda/Rwanda, and therefore is divided between animists/Christians in the South and Muslims in the north. The reason this division is so sore is a problem endemic to Nigeria, it has little to do with "those crazy Muslim fanatics" and more with Nigerian history. You cannot magnify the situation to be a microcosm of the world, it simply does not work. -- Dylan Suher

……………………………..

In 1999 Obasanjo won a democratic election, taking over from a caretaker dictator after the previous dictator Abacha died. Obasanjo has had a couple years to deliver a better economy and basically could not…The rise of fundamentalism is due to the failure of the democratic forces. This is where fundamentalism and dependence on religion comes from. When people work so hard and still cannot succeed, they have to find answers somewhere. In our society it's easy to see how your work is rewarded, so religion isn't as important.

It's not specifically Muslim. Just a few months ago I read an article which mentioned at length the rise of Christian fundamentalism in Nigeria -- "The Next Christianity," from the Atlantic.

The thing that is hard to understand is that the West was happy Abacha was gone, and tried to help out. Specifically the IMF went in and took care of the old debt and gave out economic advice. So why turn against the West in this way?

The answer is that the IMF, despite it's good intentions, hands out economic advice that is simply hurting the people of Nigeria to the point of starvation. Raise taxes, cut social spending, balance the budget and privatize sound like good ideas, but they are simply not working for Nigeria's economy.

Add to this the general deflation of commodity prices brought on by the deflation of the US dollar, and Nigeria's exports have seen universal price collapse. Oil, coffee, cocoa, all fell through the floor. The problem hasn't been fixed and so of course they're still suffering.

When people are suffering like this they turn to groups that they have no natural inclination to join. In a shrinking economy, this is what people do -- they retreat to their tribes and fight over the scraps. -- Eric

…………………

I wanted to comment on something you wrote:

"And isn't it strange that there is a sudden need to control women in the most brutal way imaginable in a country where very strong and radical women in the Niger Delta are standing up for their rights, and achieving a great deal? Is there a connection? And why am I the only one who seems to wonder about that?"

I think you are implying that increased activism by women in the Niger Delta agitated enough conservative Nigerian men in the North to repress local women/the Pageant. While plausible, I don't think it works in Nigeria. Please correct me if my interpretations of your post are incorrect.

[Ed. note: A little bit incorrect. I didn't mean to suggest there was a direct correlation. I just found it curious that within one country there were some very forceful women getting international attention, and at roughly the same time there is a movement to suppress and even brutalize women. The interplay of assertion of rights and backlash is often subtle and strange, and I was more wondering aloud about it than asserting an answer.]

Nigerians tend to think locally first. Seeing Northern and Southern Nigerians argue over their then military government at a forum many years ago was quite illustrative to me of the significant divisions within the Nigerian polity. This was reinforced as I spent a couple of years meeting expat Nigerian political types and reading Nigerian media while working as a researcher in Washington. I would be surprised if a crackpot semi-Islamic Hausa or Fulani politician would feel remotely threatened by a bunch of Ibo or Ogoni Christian/traditional faith women protesting oil production in their back yard. An obvious exception would be if his family had a direct financial stake in the oil scheme.

As the NYT article you linked to shows (though I disagree with the writer's assertion that the Federal system in Nigeria is necessarily bad) the assertion of an overtly Islamic society is (and has been) a regional and ethnic issue for the Hausa and Fulani Northerners. Non-Hausa and Fulani immigrants to the North often convert to Christianity as means of self-identification. The Muslims and Christians have been fighting in the north central belt well before the reinstitution of democracy in 1999, usually in the spring and with much higher death rates than the Miss World riots.

As to why you seem to be the only person wondering about all this, it's because most Americans don't care about Africa until there is an external political argument that can be illustrated there. The warblog folk are all happy to talk about Nigeria now because there is both a Muslim villain (no he's not clergy but so what?) and because of the way the western media covers it (neutrally reporting fighting between Muslims and Christians; conservatives would rather point out the Muslims started it). I don't want to open a media bias discussion with you, but in the latter case the story is often framed among conservatives about defenseless Christians story being attacked by the Muslims. My reading certainly shows the Muslims started this, but the Christians quite definitely fought back, which as a Christian I'm rather perversely proud of. But none of this makes good warblog copy does it? -- M. Herman Yam

Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves
Me and my big mouth. Not long ago I criticized TAPPED for not including a reasonable sample of women writers on their blogroll. It's not just a matter of numbers. Women often bring different perspectives to issues, and readers lose out if all they hear are men's voices -- no matter how interesting and intelligent those men are (and TAPPED's choices are all terrific).

This morning I got an e-mail from Jim Capozzola pointing out another blogroll with an overabundance of y chromosomes. He's right -- twenty-nine bloggers, and only two women (I hope I got it right this time. I miscounted TAPPED's list -- which probably justifies their decision to leave an innumerate like me off their list, although they still have no excuse for passing over the other women I mentioned.). One of the two women, I admit, I'd never heard of, but was glad to discover. I'll be adding Mikhaela's News Blog to my blogroll, too -- and reading it often. The other woman I read every day -- before anyone else does, in fact.

I'll spare you the re-run of the rant -- although I would like to send you over to Elayne Riggs , who had some interesting comments on the topic and then some equally interesting follow-up comments, exploring it from a different angle than I did. Pem has more to say on the need for women's voices.

All of this got me thinking about the number of women on my blogroll. A quick glance will tell you men vastly outnumber women on the list, but I've got a pretty respectable number of women, too -- sixteen (possibly more, there are a few people on my list whose gender I'm not certain of). I haven't made any particular effort to search out women writers, although I admit when I find a good new blog, the fact that it's written by a woman is a plus. It makes blogtopia (thank you skippy ) a little less lonely.

I've also got a file full of blogs that I've been looking at and considering adding to the blogroll. Some of them are blogs I've discovered through someone else's blogroll, a mention in someone's post, or through my own referrer log. Quite a few are blogs by people who've asked me to add them to my blogroll, and I found them interesting enough that I added them to my file to look at a few more times before deciding to put them over on the right. (One interesting phenomenon: I've never gotten a request from a woman blogger to be added to the blogroll. I don't know why.)

Anyway, there's something funny about my file of blogs to look at. About half the blogs on it are by women. A lot of them have been there quite a while, and I've almost put them up several times, but just as I was about to, they'd decide to revamp the blog's look, or go on hiatus, or write in a purely personal way that, while interesting, didn't really reflect what attracted me to the blog in the first place. So I ended up with a big file stuffed with wonderful women bloggers. The past week or so, I've been thinking it might be interesting to post them all together -- and Jim' e-mail, I think, just gave me an excuse to do so. But the list is now so long, I'm afraid if I put them all up, the ones at the bottom of the list will just get ignored. So over the next few days, I'll be roughly doubling the number of women on my blogroll. Here, in no particular order, are the first five:

The Watch

Plucky Punk's Happy Land

(Woolgathering)

This Land Is My Land

Deep Language

The best news of the day: Saad Eddin Ibrahim, the Egyptian pro-democracy advocate who was imprisoned because of his efforts to monitor elections in that country, has been granted a retrial by Egypt's highest court, and his been released from prison.

There are two excellent articles in today's Salon that deal with women's issues. And -- hallelujah! -- neither one is premium.

The first is about the roughly 325 women (there's no exact count), mostly maquiladora workers, who have been murdered in Ciudad Juarez in the past ten years, and how globalization contributed to the social conditions that made those crimes both more likely and more unsolvable.

The second must-read article is an interview with Geraldine Brooks about the complicated history of women in Islam. It's inevitably sketchy, but it's a good -- and interesting -- introduction to the topic.

Are you ever haunted by a news story? I'm still trying to put together pieces of the puzzle to understand how and why more than 200 people died in rioting over the Miss World pageant in Nigeria. Everyone but me seems to have put the pieces together already and mentally filed the story away, but I think that's because most commentators started with big, simple pieces. The more pieces I find, the less sense it all makes. Some pieces:

* Sister Semira Carrozzo, a nun who runs a school for both Muslim and Christian children in Kaduna, says that relations between the groups, until now, have been good. When the rioting broke out, Muslim friends immediately called to make sure she was all right.

* Two years ago more than 2,000 people died in a month of religious rioting in Kaduna over the new state government's imposition of sharia (Islamic) law on the sizeable Christian minority. There were also violent clashes in 1987 and 1992.

* According to Sister Carrozzo, those respsonsible were primarily unemployed boys between the ages of 17 and 18, " all ready to sell themselves for 100 naira," and easy to manipulate.

* Every commentary I've read begins with the fact that the riots were a response to an article by a Nigerian journalist which was offensive to Muslims. But a reporter in Kaduna could find very few people in Kaduna who had heard of the article, or who even knew anything about the Miss World pageant. The riots didn't start until four days after the article was published.

* Some of the wounded say they were shot by soldiers firing randomly into crowds.

* There will be a presidential election in Nigeria in April. Amnesty International expects to see increased violence in Nigeria in the months leading up to the election.

* Some of the rioters were shouting campaign slogans and circulating political posters.

* The population of Kaduna is 1 million. Both Christians and Muslims claim to be the majority.

* Northern Nigerian politicians have attempted in many ways to reveal the "weakness" of the current president, Olusegun Obasanjo, who is a southerner. The cancellation of the Miss World pageant is viewed in Nigeria as a major blow to his administration.

* There is oil in southern Nigeria. There is no oil in northern Nigeria.

* Nigeria has few police and relies on vigilante groups for much of its law enforcement. According to Amnesty International, these groups have been responsible for hundreds of extrajudicial killings in recent years. Many of the groups are ethnic militias, or ethnically-based political groups who combine intimidation of political opponents with law enforcement activities.

As is so often the case in following a story, it probably would have been easier to form a judgment if I'd collected fewer puzzle pieces.

………………………………

Some sources:
The truth behind the Miss World riots

Ugly saga of Miss World reveals split

NIGERIA: Vigilante violence in the south and south-east

Nigeria's Violence Not a Simple Christian-Muslim Clash

Kevin Raybould has some very interesting things to say about liberal attitudes toward the press. Because there's a myth of a "liberal press," which anyone with progressive views who reads and watches the news knows is a distortion on a grand scale, a lot of us develop a kind of siege mentality, assuming the press is one huge, right-wing, corporate-paid mob, which will always be against us. And if we think we can't win, we won't. It's another example, I think, of leftists preferring to see themselves as brave and lonely outsiders, battling lost causes, instead of doing the hard work of making our voices heard.

"What would you have done differently after Afghanistan?" Anyone seriously dissenting from current policy needs to be able to answer that question. Sean-Paul Kelley deserves a lot of credit for beginning to pull together some answers. I look forward to future posts on the subject.

CalPundit reviews Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening Storm.

I'm stretching back here, but even though I saw Matt Yglesias' comment on Glenn Reynolds' crusade against the raging hordes of man-killing feminists a few days ago, I made the mistake of not coming back to read the comments. Read the comments. (I was especially interested in the mix-up over the words patriotism and patriarchy. Sometimes mistakes are very revealing.)

One problem with political blogging is that there's far too much news and information that I'd like to say something about. Sometimes, when I'm drowning in it, I make lists, with headlines and URLs, of things I'd like to come back to. At times, I'm looking at so many articles that I want to just list them all on the blog -- here are a few blatant examples of sexism and here are a few subtler ones, here's one of corporate greed and here's one of individual human kindness; on one side I've got a few examples of the light that people of faith bring into the world, and on the other proof that there is no greater evil than a mean person who thinks God is on his side.

Occasionally I do that. More often, I just trash all the headlines and URLs and start fresh -- God knows, there will always be more examples of misogyny, greed, saints and demons coming around the pike -- sometimes all rolled into one article.

The problem for me is that, for the most part, I'm not a "here are more examples of things I like and dislike" kind of writer. My frustration with the mainstream press is only partly that they miss stories I think are important and want to call attention to (which is one of the values of blogs -- all those pairs of eyes combing back pages, small newspapers, foreign news, the Congressional record, and Defense Department reports, for buried treasure -- armies of I.F. Stone wannabes.) My bigger issue is the miniscule attempt to understand anything, to put things in context, to connect bits and pieces of information in any reasonable way. Or even to throw a lot of contradictory stuff together and admit, "I can't make any sense of this chaos whatsoever." The press has too many quick answers, and not enough modest questions. And no one seems to remember last week's stories, let alone even a small bit of history.

Connections and contradictions -- that's what interests me. My lists of things to write about usually consist of articles that speak to each other in some way that I can't immediately explain. I hope that by writing I can at least begin tying threads together.

Last week, I posted a conversation that focused in part on conflicts between respect for minority cultures and women's rights. After reading it, Ampersand sent me a link to a very interesting and relevant article, Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? by Susan Moller Okin. (Another value of blogs: Interesting people send you interesting stuff.) The premise of Okin's essay is that many non-European cultures (she focuses on immigrants to Europe) are much more patriarchal, and have traditions far more damaging to women, than Western liberal societies in general, and that to grant "group rights" to minorities in the name of multiculturalism is to lock women within those minority groups into oppression. No one should have a cultural right to oppress another person.

I've got to admit, it's a compelling argument, and one that articulates well a lot of inchoate thoughts I've attempted to pull together.

She opens with a stunning example: In the eighties, France began permitting polygamy -- but only for immigrants from countries that allowed it. This accommodation of minority cultural rights at the expense of women's rights was obviously an enormous mistake. Reporters who interviewed immigrant women stuck in polygamous marriages found that they all regarded it as a nightmare, made worse by the crowded conditions they lived in after moving to France, which often led to violence among women, or directed at each other's children (Leila Ahmed, in Women and Gender In Islam documents similar patterns of violence in polygamous marriages, and an awareness in Muslim literature as far back as the middle ages that polygamy made women's lives miserable.) Eventually, the French government realized its mistake and banned polygamous marriages. One wife will be legally recognized; all other marriages are annulled.

In case you missed the full implication of that, I'll spell it out. Message to wives number 2 through 4, and all their children: You're on your own, guys. You may starve, but at least you're no longer oppressed.

Merci, I guess.

God only knows why the French started accepting polygamous marriages, but they didn't end them because they were bad for women; they ended them because 30-member families were a drain on the welfare state.

And if political correctness was running rampant in France in the eighties, then why, at roughly the same time polygamous marriages were being accepted, were the French banning Muslim girls wearing headscarves from public schools , on the grounds that it was both a violation of the separation of church and state -- although crosses and yarmulkes were permitted -- and a violation of women's rights?

That's not a rhetorical question. There's a contradiction there that I honestly can't make much sense of. I'm not sure how much "political correctness" comes into play, but if it's there at all, it's clearly not the only factor, and it combines with some obvious insensitivity to valid cultural differences that deserve to be respected. The relevant question doesn't seem to be "Were the French too politically correct?" but rather "Do the French have any sense of when to draw lines and when to leave people alone?" (And let's follow it up with the obvious question -- Do we?) Ban headscarves and allow polygamy? Throw together one part political correctness and one part boneheaded cultural insensitivity, stir it up, and I don't know what to call it. For lack of a more politically correct term, stupidity will have to do.

No sooner did I finish reading Okin's essay, than I stumbled across an article illustrating the complexity of the issue: In October, an Australian judge ruled that a 50-year-old Aboriginal man (who had murdered his former wife) was not guilty of raping a 15-year-old girl because her parents had sold her to him in marriage. Since the arrangement was "traditional," the judge ruled, the man had every reason to believe that punching a child, putting his foot on her neck, firing off a rifle when she resisted him, and raping her were "morally correct." It was just part of his culture.

Political correctness gone stark raving? Could be. You could just as easily read it as cultural imperialism on steroids. The strongest objections to the ruling came from Aboriginal women, who were angry not only about the lack of protection for women, but about the way the court "pathologized" their culture. Arranged marriages were traditional, they pointed out, but in a context that contained many provisions for ensuring women's safety. Those conditions no longer exist (wiped away, to a large extent, by colonialism and its residue), and rape and violence against women are not "traditional." The women resented the insult to their culture. A bit more "political correctness," more awareness of the culture, might be called for. Valuing women's lives might be a nice little touch as well.

Just as I was thinking about the conflict between women's rights and cultures that devalue those rights, the Miss World riots erupted, which seemed to exemplify that conflict in the extreme. Salman Rushdie and Andrew Sullivan both described the riots as Muslim attacks on liberal Western culture. And they made a few good points. The riots began when a Nigerian woman journalist, Isioma Daniel, casually wrote that if Mohammed had seen the Miss World contestants, he might have chosen one as his wife. And certainly there aren't many liberal values more sacrosanct than the right to say whatever you damn well please, and if people are offended, that's their problem. I liked Rushdie's arrogant call for "more Rushdies." There is no doubt that the Muslim world needs more reasonable and moderate critics of the madness. (I don't mean to suggest that the critics aren't there, but their voices aren't often heard -- and why is a part of a whole other discussion.) But sometimes outrageous, deliberately provocative voices make people appreciate the moderates -- so a few more Rushdies probably wouldn't hurt either.

But unlike the always sure of themselves Messers Sullivan and Rusdie (that Victorian certitude seems to require a Victiorian title of respect), I was also left with a lot of unanswered questions -- some, perhaps, irrelevant, but refusing to go away nonetheless.

When did beauty contests -- just another way to exploit women -- become the epitome of Western liberal values?

Why did the contestants, who initially refused to go to Nigeria to protest the stoning sentence of Amina Lawal, back down? (Their protests made the newspapers; the backing away was virtually silent) What kind of pressure was put on them, or what persuasion offered? Why did Amina Lawal suddenly stop mattering?

And why did this happen in Nigeria, when there are other Muslim countries in Africa, even countries with Christian-Muslim conflicts, where nothing like this has happened? (Sunday's NY Times had an article -- on the back page of the opinion section -- exploring some possible answers to that question, but the simpler answers offered by the writers with bigger names are more likely to become the common wisdom.)

And why, in all the posturing about the fatwa issued against the Nigerian journalist, did no one seem to notice that it was a politician who issued it, and clerics and Islamic scholars who told him what he could do with his fatwa?

And isn't it strange that there is a sudden need to control women in the most brutal way imaginable in a country where very strong and radical women in the Niger Delta are standing up for their rights, and achieving a great deal? Is there a connection? And why am I the only one who seems to wonder about that? Is it really such a strange question?

And should I read anything into the fact that both Rushdie and Sullivan aim a good measure of their anger about the Miss World riots at feminists, who seem to be culpable because they failed to appreciate how important a part of Western liberal values beauty pageants are? (And will the gentlemen be disappointed to learn that Isioma Daniel apparently doesn't share their anti-feminism, since her next writing will appear in the feminist publication conservatives most love to mock -- writing not about Miss World, but about a topic neither one of them has considered worthy of notice: the radical women of the Niger Delta. I've been combing the press for months digging up stories on those women, and I wouldn't miss that article. Somehow I don't think Andrew Sullivan will be reading it. Isioma Daniel served her purpose for him as a means of attacking Muslims; what she has to say about women fighting the oil companies will probably be less compelling.

And in Sullivan's bizarre attempt to blame "puritanical, anti-capitalist feminists" who "hate free societies," do I hear a message to Western women: You'd better be grateful for the oppression we have here, because obviously our form of patriarchy is better than their form of patriarchy?

Thank you, I guess.

And while I'm on the subject of our own brand of patriarchy, I have to mention two recent articles. The first is about marketing plain white sleeveless undershirts under the charming name "wife beaters." There's even a company that sells the shirts on the Web that has, as part of its advertising, a "Wife Beater Hall of Fame," including Ike Turner and Mike Tyson, and offers a discount to anyone providing court records, a restraining order, or a probation officer's phone number to prove a domestic violence conviction. Capitalism in action. (Will capitalists be apologizing for this outrage? Can we take them seriously if they allow this dark side of capitalism to go unchallenged?) The seriousness with which the LA Times takes this ugly trivialization of violence against women is probably summed up in the article's headline: Politically incorrect fashion term: Legitimizing the use of 'wife beater' to describe a type of undershirt worn by the hip has struck a nerve. "Politically incorrect" is, of course, a very fashionable thing to be -- and probably will remain so after the tee shirt has joined shoulder pads and bell-bottoms on the Goodwill racks. Fashionable battering. Suddenly our brand of patriarchy isn't looking so good.

And while we're on the subject of women and the darker edges of capitalism, you must read Liza Featherstone's article on Wal-Mart in the current issue of The Nation:

From the Third World factories in which its cheap products are made, to the floor of your local Wal-Mart, where they're displayed and sold, it is women who bear the brunt of the company's relentless cost-cutting.

I just hope Andrew Sullivan doesn't read it and decide that Wal-Mart's right to make a fortune off female poverty is another Western liberal value we're required to stand up for.

Ain't Too Proud To Beg
Actually, under normal conditions I am too proud to beg, but a woman in my town, Maliha Zulfacar, who is a native of Afghanistan, and who used to teach at Kabul University, is trying to raise money to build a child-care center at the University, both to educate children and to allow women to study, work and teach at the school. If you read this blog, you know how important programs like this are, and so, just in case you're thinking of making a charitable contribution this month and aren't quite sure where to put your money, I thought I'd make a suggestion.

A while back, I ranted a little about TAPPED's failure to notice that there were plenty of women with blogs worth reading. In case anyone's interested, Ms. magazine just started a blog called Ms. Musings (which I've added to my blogroll), and in one of the first posts asks for links to good blogs written by women. I've already mailed links to a few of my favorites. You might want to let them know some of yours.

The Los Angeles Times had a pretty good article today on the Iraqi Kurds, but toward the end, I tripped over this odd (to me, anyway) paragraph:

Economically, Kurdistan remains in limbo. A new fast-food outlet complete with golden arches has introduced Big Macs and Happy Meals -- but as McDonal's. "I have to wait until sanctions end to make it the real thing," said owner Suleiman Kasab, a former hamburger flipper at a McDonald's in Austria.

Why does the American press fixate on US corporate hegemony as the ultimate goal for every society? Last week, I mentioned a Time article on Iranian dissent which was accompanied by a photo of an imitation Carl’s Jr. in Tehran, which I thought implied that the important thing about rebellion against clerical control of Iran is not the possibility that Iranians may soon be more free than they have ever been, but that they will soon get to eat real hamburgers. In the LA Times article, the implicit becomes explicit: One of the biggest problems the Kurds have is that their McDonald’s doesn’t have a d in it. I don’t know, but among all the problems in the economy of Kurdistan, I doubt that the lack of genuine Happy Meals is high on many people’s priority list.

More on Turkey and the Kurds

This entry has also been posted at Stand Down -- the anti-war blog that explores reasons for opposing war with Iraq from multiple politcal perspectives. If you'd like to comment, you can do so here.



Christopher Hitchens had a tough Thanksgiving week. First Bush appointed his least favorite war criminal, to head the investigation into possible intelligence failures that preceded the September 11 attacks. To his credit, Hitchens was quick to denounce the decision, and not a shred of historical revision appeared in his essay. I was a little afraid Hitchens might have changed his mind and decided that secretly bombing Cambodia was actually a preemptive strike, and killing Allende was a model for regime change, but fortunately Hitchens does, apparently, still have some integrity (although there was that strangely gratuitous final paragraph in which he seemed to suggest that people who agree with him about Kissinger are paranoid, but I won't pick on him too much for that -- just on a rhetorical level, making a case that the people who agree with you are paranoid is a little tricky, and you have to have some pity on a man trying to pull it off.)

But Bush was apparently not done make Hitchens' life miserable. For the coup de grace, he sold out the Kurds. Okay, "sold out the Kurds," might be an exaggeration at this stage. But certainly it's reasonable to see some discomforting moves in that direction in the New York Times Thanksgiving Day revelation that the administration is "mounting a major effort to enlist the support of the new Islamic government of Turkey for a northern front if there is a war with Iraq," including offering economic aid for their support. (Am I hypersensitive, or does the term "hit man" spring to anyone else's mind when they read about paying one country to attack another?) The administration also made it clear that they won't support a separate Kurdish state in northern Iraq -- a concern for Turkey, which has its own problems with uppity Kurds. (Minorities get a little restive when they're tortured, and asked to serve as human mine detectors.)

That lack of American support for a Kurdish state isn't necessarily a huge problem. The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world without their own state, and if they wanted to make a case for Kurdish independence, they'd certainly have a good one. But the Iraqi Kurds have disavowed the call for an independent state, and want only a Kurdish region set aside as part of a democratic Iraqi federation. At least that's the best they think they can get, and they're willing to settle for it. (The Turkish Kurds have not yet given up on the idea of an independent Kurdistan -- so any move by the US to assure the Turks that the Kurds will never have a homeland is selling them out. Sadly, there was never much hope that it would be otherwise.)

The bigger danger for the Kurds, if the Turks are a major part of Bush's war strategy, is that northern Iraq could end up with a new name -- Turkey. The main issue is -- surprise -- oil. Kirkuk and Mosul, two cities in northern Iraq, are loaded with oil. Turkey has almost none. Not only would the Turks like to get their hands on that oil for its own sake, they want to keep it out of the hands of the Kurds. A wealthy and powerful Kurdish region is not something they want on their southern border. Wealth and power tend to make oppressed minorities a little hard to deal with. In September, Ozdem Sanberk, the former Turkish ambassador to Britain, told a reporter, "If the U.S. intervenes, and in the first days the Kurds enter Kirkuk and Mosul, the Turkish army will move in." In fact, the Turkish army already has troops inside the Iraqi Kurdish zone, and is already planning to send more to stop any flow of Kurdish refugees into Turkey when full-scale war breaks out.

Hamid Efendi, the top Iraqi Kurdish military commander, says that if the U.S. attacks, his forces will immediately go after Kirkuk and Mosul. Massoud Barzani, a prominent Kurdish leader, insists that Kirkuk, which lies just outside the current Kurdish autonomous zone, should be the capital of the Kurdish region in a post-Saddam Iraqi federation. ( His principle rival, Jalal Talabani has shown more flexibility on the issue, and has played down the possibility of Turkish opportunism, but has also complained of being left out of both military planning and planning for post-war reconstruction.) Mosul is within the Kurdish controlled no-fly zone. Turkey has an Ottoman-era claim to the two cities, and since the Gulf War Turkish nationalist politicians and media have been reminding Turks of the "Turkishness" of the region. There is a substantial Turkmen minority in the Kirkuk, as well, and the Turks could easily use the cover of protecting the rights of fellow Turks in order to occupy northern Iraq. (They have a history of doing that sort of thing, of course.)

For now, I'll set aside questions about the wisdom of relying heavily on the support of a country with severe human rights problems, (particularly regarding the Kurds, and including Kurdish women), as well as the issue of whether this is a good time to support a government in the hands of a party with Islamist roots. Turkey's AK Party appears relatively moderate, and willing to work with secularists (despite its somewhat disturbing chairman) and might prove that Islamic democracy is not a contradiction in terms. But they haven't proven it yet, and wariness, at the very least, is certainly called for.

Focusing only on the Kurds, however, it's seems pretty clear that the Bush administration can't juggle alliances with the Kurds and the Turks. It will have to choose. And it looks like it may already have done so.