On chick bloggers

Okay, so I was going to leave this one (and its followup this one) alone. Plenty of others have addressed it more eloquently than I ever could (and special props to Mary at Naked Furniture, who addressed it more succinctly and profanely than I ever could). But then, this weekend, I was told that I was smart and had a big vocabulary - but that was okay, 'cause I'm cute anyway. Blogosphere, feel my wrath.

It goes without saying that, whether or not Kevin Drum recognizes their existence, the Internet is chock full of blogs run by chicks or with significant female participation. The majority of them aren't terribly well-known; notoriety depends on gratuitous linkage from The Big Guys, and The Big Guys (who tend to be guys) tend to link to other Big Guys. For any blogger, regardless of gender, breaking into the cycle is a challenge; for whatever reasons, it's even more of a challenge for women.

Here, on my very own blog, I blather about politics. I like politics. I find politics interesting, I feel that I have a responsibility to know what's going on with the people who run my country, and it's nice to have a soapbox to stand on when I'm feeling particularly passionate about a certain issue. I also, on occasion, blather about non-political things. Religion is a favorite topic of mine, especially as it relates to politics, and there's also the occasional vent about family stuff, dating stuff, whatever - it's my forum and I'll gripe if I want to. Everything that I post is basically stuff going on in the world, filtered through my own personal viewpoint. That viewpoint is colored by a lot of things - my job, my lifestyle, my environment, my friends, my family, my socioeconomic status, and, yeah, my gender.

One of Kevin's more moronic commenters makes this point:

Women writers seem too often to address every issue through the prism of being a woman first and their self images as women whether it be as a feminist or a soccer mom. A litmus test should be this: a reader should be able to read an oped piece without knowing the author and should not be able to tell whether it was written by a man or woman. I believe Anne Applebaum would meet this test but I can't think of any other woman writer, certainly not Maureen Dowd or Susan Estrich.

I tend to be an open-minded person, and I don't throw words like "stupid" around lightly, but that is one of the most stupid, stupid, stupid things I've heard in my life. Why should we expect any opinion columnist to hide his or her own perspective in their writing? Newspapers are filled with writing devoid of bias; it's called the news. We turn to the opinions section to read what other people think about the news.

Wwren doesn't care about perspective; he's asking, "Why can't a woman... be more like a man?" Male opinion columnists are just as influenced by their gender as women are; it just so happens that, for whatever reason (and I could rattle off a bunch of them), in this still-patriarchal-after-all-these-years society, the male perspective is accepted as the default. My writing isn't identifiable as chick blogging because I make an effort to reference my ovaries in every post; I just have the occasional perspective that men can't immediately relate to, 'cause they're carting around a penis. Does this make my opinions any less valid than corresponding male opinions? Only, apparently, if you're Kevin Drum.

For the record, here are some invalid reasons that women are underrepresented in the top eschelons of the blogosphere:

• Women don't enjoy the vicious atmosphere of opinion writing. Bollocks. I love it. I love love it, and plenty of other women do as well. The fact is, half the time that we speak up, our voices are interrupted and drowned out by the much louder basso profundo of men who have, like, totally important things to say. And when we finally raise our voices loud enough to be heard above the fray, we're the shrews, and no one is interested in listening to us because we must have PMS or something. Oh, screw you so much.


• Women are slower at picking up the technology. Double bollocks. Blogger is as easy to use as Hotmail, and there tons of women who are bright enough to, like, type stuff into it and click "publish post." Why do these women not get linked by The Big Guys? You'll have to ask The Big Guys.


• We're all off popping out babies. Must... not... crush... computer. Guess what? The archetype of woman-as-baby-factory was out of style as of WWII. Some of have jobs. Some of us have hobbies. And some of us - not me, but plenty of others - have kids and yet still manage to post regularly - even on non-baby topics. I'm sure this revelation will shake the very foundations of our society; please remember to credit Practically Harmless.

For me, it's not a big deal. I started this blog as a clearinghouse for my own opinions, and the fact that I wasn't actually getting any traffic didn't bother me, 'cause at least I was out there. In recent months, when my traffic moved from "nonexistent" to "not a whole lot" (and for all I know, that's just due to my mom hitting "refresh" a couple of times whenever she visits), I thought it was spiffy that people were actually reading it. I'm not saying that I'm on any kind of level with Atrios or Kos - or Kevin Drum, for that matter. But don't you dare look me in the eye and wonder where I am. I'm handing it off to Kevin's commenter Morgan to sum it up quite nicely:

Fuck you asshole. The reason there are no 'women bloggers' is because you ass-hat men are not linking to them. They are everywhere. I read at least a fifty women bloggers who have a lot to say about politics and religion. But you're to busy jerking-off to see it. It's called a search engine shithead, use it.

Isn't that the cutest thing? The girl has a little opinion-winion! Yes, she do! Yes, she do! Don't worry, Morgan; you're cute anyway.

Update: Check out a pretty comprehensive overview of the entire controversy at Victory Soap.

One one question answered

Okay, so I pondered, in a recent post, how I could be so scandalized by Europe and the US's inactivity in response to the genocide in Rwanda but still be opposed to Bush's actions in Iraq. I mean, if you think about it, Saddam Hussein's mass graves and torture chambers and rape rooms are just as horrific as the mass murders in Rwanda; why is one more worthy of intervention than the other?

Well, ask and ye shall receive. Commenter Festinog over at GWBWYPGN?! gives us this credible explanation:

One should have been a UN led Policing Action (which is VERY different from a war, not just in terms of its mandate, but how it is actually enforced on the ground), the other WAS a unilateral military invasion.

And that's it. What was needed in both cases was international forces marching in, the world united against what amounts to the forces of evil, to defend those in need of defense and lawfully remove all of those individuals - be they Rwandan rebels or Hussein's entire government - responsible for the atrocities in question. What was not needed was a unilateral action by a Western president grown too big for his britches, who went in unprepared for the sheer size and responsibility of such an invasion.

Had the US responded to news of the genocide in Rwanda by bombing the everliving crap out of the country, killing many of the people we intended to save and leaving the country with very little infrastructure worth rebuilding, we would have ended up with what we're facing now in Iraq: one group of grateful survivors, another group of seriously ticked-off insurgents, and one really awful reputation in the world. We can't change the past, can't change our actions or lack thereof. But we can - and should - learn from the past, and that involves cooperation with a coalition of the enthusiastic, not just the willing, and the realization that destroying a village in order to save it is a pretty crappy strategy. We can't ignore evil when it crops up in the world, but we also can't respond with such overwhelming force that when we're done, there's no one left to save.

On Nicene Christianity

Okay, so I know I've been on just the tiniest Christianity kick of late, but I think it's not entirely inappropriate, considering how religion seems to be heavily contributing to today's global climate of generalized insanity. Fundie Islam is struggling for power in Iraq, fundie Christianity already has plenty of it here, lesbian Wiccans are saving the world in "Buffy" reruns, and now the Reverend Dr. Giles Frasier over at the Progressive Blog Alliance HQ" introduces us to the idea of "Nicene Christianity":

Nicene Christianity is the religion of Christmas and Easter, the celebration of a Jesus who is either too young or too much in agony to shock us with his revolutionary rhetoric. The adult Christ who calls his followers to renounce wealth, power and violence is passed over in favor of the gurgling baby and the screaming victim. As such, Nicene Christianity is easily conscripted into a religion of convenience, with believers worshipping a gagged and glorified savior who has nothing to say about how we use our money or whether or not we go to war.

The Good Reverend Doctor goes on to expound upon the institutionalization of Christianity throughout the ages, subverting its revolutionary message of, like, peace, and being nice to people, and loving thy neighbor and stuff, and neutering Jesus Christ into "a gagged and glorified savior who has nothing to say about how we use our money or whether or not we go to war." This carries all the way up to modern times, where Bush The Younger perverts the presence of Jesus in his life in order to start wars, contramand the Constitution and lay the smackdown on gays and old people. Per Rev. Dr. Frasier, "Bush may have claimed that "Jesus Christ changed my life", but Jesus doesn't seem to have changed his politics."

Amen.

Much thanks to Nick Lewis over at The American Street for the link.

On kangaroo courts/witchhunts/what have you

Okay, so courtesy of Kevin Drum we have the very reasons that the questions I asked in my last post may never be answered. We might never know, really, whether the invasion of Iraq has netted good stuff in the end, simply because we keep coming up with stuff like this from a military tribunal of a Guantanamo detainee:

"This is something the interrogators told me a long while ago," Idr complains during his so-called trial. "I asked the interrogators to tell me who this person was. Then I could tell you if I might have known this person, but not if this person is a terrorist. Maybe I knew this person as a friend. Maybe it was a person that worked with me. Maybe it was a person that was on my team. But I do not know if this person is Bosnian, Indian or whatever. If you tell me the name, then I can respond and defend myself against this accusation."

The tribunal president then responds, presumably with a straight face: "We are asking you the question and we need you to respond to what is on the unclassified summary."

Now, for all we know, this guy could be an al Qaeda operative planning terrorist attacks in his head while he's talking to the tribunal. Or he could be a taxi driver who got picked up in the expansive sweeps the US did at the beginning of the war years ago. If this is the way they're going to try him, we'll never really know; it's like dragging a random homeless guy off the street and saying, "Prove to me you're innocent."

And that's just the fit-for-TV version. The cable version includes what New York Times columnist Bob Herbert calls an "exercise in extreme human degredation" to the tune of abuses not conveniently caught by the camera of grinning Abu Ghraib MPs:

We know that people were kept in cells that in some cases were the equivalent of animal cages, and that some detainees, disoriented and despairing, have been shackled like slaves and left to soil themselves with their own urine and feces. Detainees are frequently kicked, punched, beaten and sexually humiliated. Extremely long periods of psychologically damaging isolation are routine.

And that's why we might never know if our intervention was really the best thing for Iraq - which should not be a question. What if European troops had charged into Rwanda to stop the genocide, only to lock up thousands of random Hutus and Tutsis, beat them into unconsciousness, and shackle them to the ground in a puddle of their own waste, all in the interest of putting down future rebellions? Would the net value of that intervention have been good or bad?

I realize that the following news is far from groundbreaking, but it's true: the tanner you are, the less value you have to much of western society. The Rwandans were dark enough that no one wanted to get involved at all. In Iraq, we were willing to get involved, but only on the condition that we could treat anyone like crap, lock anyone up, beat anyone down for information, in the name of peace. These guys are brown; if they're not terrorists, they know terrorists, or they could become terrorists, or at least they have no one to complain to. For a country that supposedly has so much respect for human life, we have a seriously funny way of showing it.

On Hotel Rwanda

Okay, so I saw "Hotel Rwanda" with my brother on Saturday, and I have to say that that's probably the most powerful movie I've seen in my entire life. And I don't say that lightly. "Schindler's List" is a very close second, but "Hotel Rwanda" is first, probably because it's about something that happened in my lifetime. The Holocaust was truly horrible, but it's something that I read about in books and saw on the History Channel; the genocide in Rwanda happened while I was alive, while I was even old enough to remember it, and that makes it that much more real.

And it makes it that much more shameful. Watching the atrocities of that conflict, the things that people did to each other for no other reason than that this guy is a Hutu and this guy is a Tutsi, two completely arbitrary designations, is absolutely mind-blowing and made me ashamed to be a human being. I'm not saying that I'm a wonderful person or without stain or anything like that, but I can't imagine taking another life in cold blood. I have enough trouble imagining being able to take a life in self-defense, killing just one. But my brother pointed out that during that period in Rwanda, there were literally millions of murders. Not only were these people willing to look another person in the eye and then take his or her life, they were willing to do it again and again and again. Not even dropping a bomb on millions or herding millions of people into a gas chamber - killing millions of people one at a time, killing friends and neighbors one at a time. And for no other reason than that the people were in a different group as decided by their height or the width of their noses or the whim of a bunch of Belgians.

Watching the American and European reactions to those atrocities, though, made me ashamed to be a white human being. One of the characters mentioned that people would see news footage of the dead bodies and the men marching around with machetes and say, "Oh, my God, that's horrible" - and then they'd go back to eating their dinners. And that's what happened. I mean, I remember hearing about it, and wondering why the Hutus wanted to kill the Tutsis and vice versa, and thinking that it's horrible and I wouldn't want it to happen to me - but that's as far as it ever got. That's as far as it ever got with anyone - countries would come in, armed to the teeth, with thousands of troops to pluck out their own white citizens, and then the citizens and the troops and the arms would take off, leaving all of the brown people to get hacked to death with machetes. And we, the rest of the world, were okay with that. Three thousand UN troops for millions of people was plenty. As long as it was just "isolated acts of genocide" instead of genocide proper, no one had to intervene.

That made me think about my own attitude toward the current war in Iraq. Hadn't I really kind of been saying the same thing? "Yeah, Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, and there were the rape rooms and the mass graves and the ordered executions, but is that enough to intervene? Is that enough to risk American lives?" And as horrible as it sounds, I don't really have an answer to that question. Why are the two situations different? Is it because the atrocities are on a different scale, or because one was government sanctioned? Or am I just too stubborn to admit that Iraq needed outside intervention just as much as Rwanda did?

Stubborn or not, I've got a lot of questions that will only be answered with time. Reconciling more than a thousand coalition dead and thousands of Iraqi civilian dead with thousands of Iraqis murdered by Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction that never existed with democratic elections with America's loss of credibility in the world with... whatever might mean that the questions will never answered, or never answered to anyone's satisfaction. But they're questions worth discussing, if only to find out what we can do as people such that Rwanda and Iraq - and the Holocaust, for that matter - can be prevented in the future. And if there's a movie that can facilitate that discussion, I think it's beyond Oscar-worthy.

On snappy answers to stupid questions

Okay, so Newsweek's Rod Nordland did a live chat on MSNBC yesterday to discuss the leadup to and results of the Iraqi elections. Some of the questioners seemed to have their stuff together, which is always a good thing; some seemed more intent on making their points than actually getting their questions answered, which is to be expected. Rod certainly seemed to have his stuff together. Read the whole thing, 'cause it's good reading, but do take note of the question that people keep asking and the best answer I've heard yet:

Dallas, TX: The pictures of voting Sunday in Iraq and the incredible turnout demonstrate the determined will of a courageous people. Even if President Bush was wrong in invading Iraq, doesn't the result make it all worth while?
Rod Nordland: It was indeed a very heartening occasion. Still, Bush didn't invade the country to bring it democracy. By that reasoning, we should also invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, etc., none of which have anything even remotely resembling democracy. No WMD, remember, which was one reason, and no al Qaeda, the other reason - until after we invaded. And Iraq now is the biggest producer of terrorists in the world, which it wasn't before.

... which barely topped this runner-up:

Hopatcong, NJ: Do you, Masland and Dickey mean "F---ing Murderers" when you say "insurgents" and "fighters" in your STUPIDITY? I've grown sick and tired of you "politically incorrect" reporters. Why don't you have the gumption to call a spade a spade?
Rod Nordland: OK, you're an idiot. How's that?

On a lazy Wednesday evening

Okay, so it's one of those cold and rainy days in Atlanta where all you really want to do is curl up on the sofa with a cup of tea and/or a bowl of Italian wedding soup and watch "The West Wing" because we all want to be Allison Janney when we grow up. Alas, tonight, "The West Wing" is being pre-empted by a State of the Union address by a far inferior president. Now, I intend to watch the SOTU anyway, if only because I've been suffering of late from a low-grade nausea that I'm waiting to develop into something serious, but it would appear that The Regular Staple has plans tonight, because they've already done us the courtesy of pre-blogging the speech (and welcome to the blogroll, by the way, TRS, 'cause you made me snort Diet Dr. Pepper all over my keyboard).

I do have another reason for watching tonight's address, though. I'ma be listening hard for three specific words, and if I hear them, I will donate one hundred of my very own dollars ($100/VO) to a charity of my reader(s) choosing. Throw down suggestions under Comments, and anyone who watches the speech should let me know if they hear the words, just in case I miss them.

The words of the evening are Osama bin Laden.

On jumping on the courage train

Okay, so far too much of my really good really bad material comes from Atrios. In this case, we hear tell of Congressional Republicans who intend to show up at tonight's SOTU with purple fingers to show solidarity with Iraqi voters.

Okay, Repubs, it's time to get off the freaking train. Off. Off! You've never figured it out before, so I don't know why I'd expect you to get it this time, but this is not your moment. You didn't and have never and would never need to face down the danger they did in order to do something as simple as vote, and you've never and most likely will never feel the fear that they live with every single day. They didn't do it so that you could congratulate yourself on a half-assed job well done and take credit for everything that they accomplished, or so that you could wave your purple fingers around and pretend that all of the American and Iraqi lives lost are suddenly hunky-dory.

As with so many other things, someone else has said it better than I could; in this case, it's Charles Pierce (also, of course, courtesy of Atrios):

You do not own their courage.

The people who stood in line Sunday did not stand in line to make Americans feel good about themselves.

You do not own their courage.

They did not stand in line to justify lies about Saddam and al-Qaeda, so you don't own their courage, Stephen Hayes. They did not stand in line to justify lies about weapons of mass destruction, or to justify the artful dodginess of Ahmad Chalabi, so you don't own their courage, Judith Miller. They did not stand in line to provide pretty pictures for vapid suits to fawn over, so you don't own their courage, Howard Fineman, and neither do you, Chris Matthews.

You do not own their courage.

Read the whole thing. It should make all of us, on both sides, at least a little ashamed and embarrassed about the way we've ridden this election for our own purposes. It's time to get off. This isn't our train.

On democracy in Iraq, f'real

Okay, so it would appear that elections in Iraq went off without any major hitches, which is fantastic. Despite threats of violence from, let's face it, lots of folks, Iraqi election officials estimate somewhere around a 60 percent voter turnout for Sunday's election, which is better than a lot of the elections here in the US (and American voters don't have to face down crazies strapped with explosives on their way to the polls). And while it sucks to say that the deaths of 44 Iraqis comprise a hitchless election, the fact that it happened at all is a good, good sign for Iraq.

Of course a shout-out goes to the Iraqi security forces that managed to keep the (relative) peace with such success, and an even bigger shout-out goes to the US troops that trained them - and especially those who gave their lives to make this happen. You'll never hear me say that the initial invasion of Iraq was a good idea, and I can't think of a single argument that will make me believe it, but the world is certainly better off without Saddam Hussein in power, and this first step toward real democracy for Iraq means that the abject chaos of the past few years might end well after all. Is it worth it? I'll have to get back to you on that. But in today's international climate, "ending well after all" is certainly better than nothing, and I'll be the first to admit that it's better than I had predicted.

So what happens next? Good question. Ted Kennedy seems to think that we need to pull our butts out of Iraq, and as much as I hate to say it - no, Teddy, no, for a lot of reasons. The first reason is the classic: we broke it, we have a responsibility to fix it. I won't argue that the presence of American troops isn't an irritant to most of the insurgents that are causing the trouble, but that isn't a reason to pull out before the job is done. I think that a scheduled pullout can be effective as long as departing US troops are replaced by equally trained and equipped Iraqi troops; otherwise, we're not only removing any source of authority but also telling all of the neighborhood kids when Mom and Dad are going out of town. As much as I hate to see Americans over there in the line of fire, I recognize that it's because Iraq isn't ready for us to go.

However.

Bush has said that if the newly elected Iraqi government tells him to get out, he'll get out. Mr. President, I'm going to hold you to that. Among the many and ever-shifting goals you've listed for your invasion of Iraq is the spread of democracy to an undemocratic land, and that's done. If the democratically elected government says that they're ready to handle this on your own and that you need to be on your way, you have to respect that - even if you disagree. You can only give them as much help as they're willing to take, they'll have to have total self-government sooner or later, and a continued military presence in Iraq will do nothing but further chip away at your already shaky credibility. This is their party now, and you've given your word. Be a man for once.

On a completely unrelated lighter note - saw Laura Bush on the Today Show this morning, and she looked faboo. A woman her age needs to wear a little color around her face, as long as the color isn't that Barney-the-Dinosaur purple that she wore to meet Hillary Clinton at the White House. Laura, America loves you in that red suit - don't ever change.

Update: Sigh. Such is the price of premature blogging. I had only just hit the "publish" button when I came across this letter in the AJC, "Liberals owe Bush an apology." The letter writer says, "Now that the Iraqi elections have been held, I wonder whether the Democrats will have the character to congratulate President Bush on a job well done[.]"

Wonder no longer, Mr. Kazmarek - the answer is not no but hell no. Bush didn't do this. Thousands of coalition and Iraqi troops did this while he sat back and snarked for the cameras. Plus, while I'm still madly optimistic about peace and democracy on Iraq's horizon (which is odd for me, because I'm not the optimistic type), I also have to acknowledge the fact that this election isn't a magical Band-Aid that will quiet the insurgency, bring peace among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and make lions lie with lambs. The withdrawal of US troops - which has to happen sooner or later - might well lead to the collapse of an unstable country further destabilized by Bush's invasion. So no, I'm not going to congratulate President Bush on anything other than his own dumb luck. I'm going to congratulate the American and Iraqi security forces that made this possible, and I'm going to congratulate the ballsy Iraqis who took their lives in their hands for the opportunity to vote.

On religious freedom

Okay, so I know I've been remiss in my updating lately, and with the recent re-inauguration and the quote-crisis-unquote with Social Security and Condi naming "outposts of tyranny" and all, I've got metric buttloads of material. And it'll all come, fear not. But until I've got a few things nailed down in my own life, you're going to have to settle for this paragon of wingnuttery, courtesy of Atrios:

As Mr. Scott points out, the glorious Constitution is there to protect the rights of Christians to profess their faith. This country was founded by good Christians and the Constitution guarantees our right to express our religion.

It just is completely beyond me how we have allowed Liberals to deny us this guaranteed right.

Oh, they raise ridiculous arguments like other (false) religions would be "upset" if they were forced to pray alongside the righteous in schools or council meetings.
Surely those others would appreciate the opportunity to be saved. As God's chosen people, we Christians have the right to express our religion and praise tolerant, patient and merciful God, and I don't want to read any more letters from Liberals suggesting non-believers should be allowed to express their superstitions just because we Christians can express ours.

Although it does seem to be one "heterosexually yours" away from a missive from our friend Jesus' General, it looks like this might be one of those things that's just way too weird to be a hoax. It's been said before, by people far wiser than me - God, please protect me from your followers.

On harmless puppies

Okay, so the first Totally Random Yahoo! Search of 2005 is...
what kind of puppies are harmless for children?

I'll look beyond the fact that Yahoo! doesn't really respond to direct questions so much and move straight into a good chuckle about the shock that some poor mother is going to get looking for harmless puppies on this blog. Yes, ma'am, we've got puppies here, but they're not really appropriate for children.

And confidential to What Kind of Puppies: try a Brittany. They're cute, bright (generally), energetic and child-friendly.


Aww.

On New Year's resolutions

Okay, so it really has been a while, but I've had my stuff to do lately. Mostly, it's just been the wackiness involved in making Christmas happen, and then New Year's after that (and might I say, go Dawgs). And while I have to say that I wasn't as overflowing with the Christmas spirit as I have been in past years, it's never a bad thing to spend time with your loved ones, especially if there's free loot involved.

Of course, all of that is over now, and we've got 362 days of 2005 lying before us like freshly laid linoleum, just waiting for someone to Rollerblade across it and leave little black brake marks that Mom will yell about for days. This is the time when people start making resolutions, telling what they're going to do differently, how they can improve their lives in the fresh, sparkly New Year.

Now, I'm not usually one for New Year's resolutions. They aren't usually kept. The best resolutions happen not because last year's Dilbert desk calendar has gone in the trash and the cellophane is off of this year's Dilbert desk calendar; the best resolutions happen because something has changed in your life that causes you to realize that maybe a Denny's Scram Slam isn't the best breakfast every day, that maybe your persistent cough is related to the unfiltered Marlboros you've been smoking since you were in the womb, that maybe your neighbors would like you better if you kept the goat sacrifice to Saturday nights only. So I've got some changes that I'm going to make, not because my DayRunner now says January in the corner but because things have come up in my life that indicate a need for change. So here goes.

1. I resolve to shut up about politics already
Now, before you get all excited, this blog isn't going anywhere. But I've come to the realization that the vast majority of my political discussions come to one of the following two ends: one, they agree with me (almost exclusively my fellow Dems, so that's just preaching to the choir) or two, they disregard my argument entirely and brand me a liberal kook (hard-core Kool-Aid Republicans). It calls to mind the old adage of wrestling with a pig, or teaching a pig to whistle, or dancing with a pig, or something. The point is the futility of making a pig do what a pig doesn't want to do. So I'm out.

Fear not - I'm still going to be all up in your grill bemoaning the injustices of the world, slagging off dumb, puppety Republicans, and blatantly stealing content from other blogs. But the focus is going to be less on basic whingeing and more on doing something about it - I resolve to light a candle instead of just cursing the damn darkness.

2. I resolve to pay more attention to the people who actually have power
And, by implication, less attention to the people who just piss and moan. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are really annoying. They say things that aren't true, and they encourage bad thoughts and bad thinking among their (considerable) audiences. But in the end, they don't mean that much. The people to worry about aren't the ones who say bad things but the ones who do bad things. And while I don't feel that I've been remiss in exploring the faults and foibles of the Bush administration, I do feel that I need to concentrate more on the folks in power, rather than the folks who, being largely powerless, sit around on their bony/fat asses and encourage uber-conservative America to be more judgmental, more xenophobic and more self-satisfyingly moralistic than they were going to be anyway.

Which is not to say I'm not going to pin Ann Coulter to the mats and make her my bitch if she says something even remotely stupid. I'm just going to give the rest of the country more credit for recognizing that she's stupid.

3. I resolve to be a better Christian
And I mean a better Christian Democrat. As if you hadn't noticed, conservatives have basically co-opted Christianity for their own nefarious purposes. They've become the party of goodness and morals simply because they were quick enough to claim it first. From an advertising/marketing standpoint, it's a bright move; brand yourself as the party of values and Jesus and apple pie, and the other guy is reduced to "me too" marketing.

Well, I'm not buying it. Conservatives don't get to corner the marked on Christianity and then live as an example of What Would Jesus Never Do. Doug's got a great take on it over at GWBWYPGN?!, but basically, here's the deal: the Bible tells us to be generous to those who are less fortunate (and I will give props where props are due, as President Bush recently upped our contribution to the tsunami victims by a factor of ten; hello to $350 million aid). The Bible tells us not to judge, lest we be judged. The Bible tells us that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. If you want to really live by the word of God, remember these words: "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me." I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I really don't think I'd be one to spit on The Almighty, even if he did look kind of like a homeless veteran. Every person who dares call him- or herself both Christian and Democrat has a responsibility to live up to both of those names, if only to show the conservatives how it's supposed to be done.

If you get the chance, run to your local Blockbuster and pick up Saved!. In addition to being an interesting commentary on the tactics of the Religious Right, it's also funny as all get out.

4. I resolve to date more civilians
Just a little personal resolution there. I want to make it clear that I don't chase uniforms (although it has been argued that they chase me). I actually believe that military men should wear their uniforms everywhere they go, to make them easier to avoid. It's just not fair: you walk into a bar and sit down next to a heterosexual man who has a nice body and a decent haircut and knows how to iron. What girl wouldn't go for that? It's entrapment.

Regardless, I have, to date, been screwed over by four out of five branches of the uniformed services. Unless anyone knows a Coastie who's interested in using me and discarding me like a Jiffy Lube shop rag, I think it's time for me to find myself a nice accountant.

5. I resolve to chill
That's it. I resolve to blog more, work less; party more, obsess less; read more fiction and less fashion; drink more decaf and less high-test. Even if my first four resolutions go to hell and I find myself a whining, impotent, judgmental little shit dating a man in uniform, hey, I've been there - I like to call it 2003. The least I can do, the smallest gift that I can give myself, is to be a whining, impotent, judgmental little shit dating a man in uniform and sleeping nights.

Merry Christmas, happy New Year, and good luck with 2005. Practically Harmless isn't going anywhere - same bat time, same bat channel.

On the importance of adhering to gender stereotypes

Or, you go on a date with the gender roles that you have, not the gender roles that you might want or wish to have.

Okay, so every couple of years, a new theory is born on men and women and how they should or should not relate to each other. A few years ago, the big deal was The Rules - quite literally a rulebook for women, an instruction manual to teach them how to take back the power in their interaction with men, pretty much by playing hard-to-get. When to call, when not to call, how far in advance to set dates, how long to wait before sleeping with a guy - Rules. And it was a big deal. And some women thought it was a great idea, and some thought it was a lousy idea, but most people had something to say.

Now, the newest and biggest is He's Just Not That Into You, a phrase which "Sex and the City" viewers will recognize from that show because the book was written by the writers of, well, that show. The idea behind this book is that women always make excuses for guys, why they don't call, why they're inattentive, when, for the most part, he's just not that into her. It's refreshing, really, kind of a strong cup of coffee for women who try to relate to men the way they relate to other women. It doesn't ask anyone to change their ways for someone else; it just requires men to be men and women to accept that. And I can accept that.

Except.

Except that men aren't always men. Sometimes, men are just as womany as women are. Despite the fact that men are supposed to be predictably and penis-centric and generally mannish, some men will insist on being multifaceted and multilayered and on playing little mind games. And while everyone has the right to be only as straightforward as they choose to be, it really confuses the hell out of everyone when some crazy rebel man chooses to reject the stereotype and play mind games. Or, for that matter, when a woman chooses to reject the stereotype and be straightforward and upfront (and guys, don't even pretend you don't know what I'm talking about).

So here's my pledge to men: I promise to be the girliest damn girl out there. I promise to never really tell you what's on my mind. I promise that if you ask what's wrong and I say "nothing," there really is something wrong. I promise never to remind you in advance of special occasions, and then to get my feelings hurt when you forget. I promise to take two hours to get ready for a date, to have the chef prepare my entire meal without butter, and to drag you only to movies with a John Williams score and actors far hotter than you. I promise to get offended when you don't call, to smother you with affection in front of your tough-guy friends, and to smack you publicly for checking out a perfectly attractive girl in a short skirt. I promise to push for girlfriend status two weeks into the relationship, to keep a toothbrush at your place, and to give you cutesy stuffed animals at every gift-giving occasion.

In return, I ask you to be mannish. Not manly - mannish. You must always speak your mind, even when tact would tell you to shut up. You must wear jeans to nice restaurants, and ripped jeans on more casual outings. You must ignore me whenever you work on your car - and you must spend at least two hours a day working on your car. You must call me up only when you're looking for tail. You must show affection with a firm slap on the ass, never commit to a date more than two hours in the future, and blow off dinner and a movie if one of your friends just bought a new firearm. You must tell wild stories to your friends about what a firecracker I am in the sack so that they leer at me whenever they see me. When I start talking to you, your eyes must glaze over a minute and a half into the conversation.

It's not pretty, but it's consistent.

Now, you might ask, wouldn't it just be easier to be straightforward? Would the world truly implode if a woman said what was really on her mind, instead of trying to figure out in advance what his reaction might be and adjust her statement accordingly and then complain because he doesn't know the real her and she just isn't being fulfilled? Could the apocalypse really come of a guy telling a girl that he's not interested in her romantically but would love to get a beer sometime - or, alternately, that he's interested in her only sexually and that she should expect attention from him only when he's trying to get some?

Well, uh, yeah.

On going to war with the Army you have

Okay, so Donald Rumsfeld has a message for American troops stationed in Iraq: Go home and die.

Okay, well, not really, but he got pretty close to it in Wednesday's "town hall"-style meeting at Camp Buehring in Kuwait. Spc. Thomas Wilson had the testicular fortitude to stand up at said meeting and ask, "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?"

Good question, really. And Rumsfeld's answer, after he hemmed and hawwed and had the question repeated like a contestant in the national spelling bee, came up with a peach of an answer: screw you. "You go to war with the Army you have," he said, "not the Army you might want or wish to have," then went on to explain that "you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can (still) be blown up."

Wow, that's profound and comforting. And not at all negligent of his responsibilities to the soldiers and Marines that, as Secretary of freaking Defense, he is personally sending into battle. How the man can be so blase about the issue of properly arming and protecting his troops is beyond me. Or maybe it's not. I mean, if you think about it, Rummy isn't in any danger. Outside of his occasional Iraqi field trips, in which he tries to raise troop morale by telling them that he needn't bother arming them 'cause they could just die anyway, he splits his time between the Pentagon and the White House. The man's idea of body armor is having the right kind of cup on when he plays squash on Thursday. The thought of actually having someone shoot anything harder than a marshmallow at him is beyond his ken. Which is why when the troops actually wanted his support, it was "you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can still be blown up," but when he needed to save face and look like a team player, "we must prevail" and "we must win."

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I will point out the recent discovery that the National Guardsman posing the question in question was actually coached by a reporter. Embedded reporter Edward Lee Pitts, upon hearing that troops and only troops would be allowed to ask questions at the meeting, got together with a couple of guardsmen beforehand to make sure his question was asked. In a further completely boneheaded move, considering that things like this always come out in the end, Pitts failed to mention his own role in the proceedings when he filed his story that evening.

As a journalist (such as I am), I'm kind of pissed at this guy. With all of the recent controversy over the role of embedded reporters in the War on Terra, this Pitts guy certainly isn't making us look any better. The general sentiment from much of the military is that the media is sneaking around, looking for all kinds of underhanded ways to nail them, and as good as Pitts's intentions might have been, that's kind of what he did here.

None of that, however, changes the question that was asked and the answer that was given. It doesn't change the fact that our troops are scrounging in junkyards to ghetto-rig armor for their Humvees, it doesn't change the fact that families are saving their pennies in order to send body armor to their sons and daughters in Iraq, and it doesn't change the fact that, when faced with all of this head-on, Rummy threw up his hands and said, "Wow, that wacky war! What can you do, huh?" Here's a thought, Rummy: you're driving around downtown D.C. when you hit the brakes, fail to stop and slide right into the back end of a van full of special-needs children on their way to the Washington Zoo. When you hit the OnStar button to chew out Keith on the other end, he's unsympathetic. "Listen, Mr. Rumsfeld," he says, "you drive that Cadillac with the brakes you have, not the brakes you might want to have."

On liberals in academia

Okay, so Steven Lubet responds to conservatives who cry discrimination in higher education:

Beyond the ivy walls, there are many professions that are dominated by Republicans. You will find very few Democrats (and still fewer outright liberals) among the ranks of corporate CEOs, military officers or professional football coaches. Yet no one complains about these imbalances, and conservatives will explain that the seeming disparities are the result of market forces.

And they are probably right.

It is entirely rational for conservatives to flock to jobs that reward competition, aggression, self-interest and victory. So it should not be surprising that liberals gravitate to professions - such as academics, journalism, social work and the arts - that emphasize inquiry, objectivity and the free exchange of ideas.

Uh, I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

On catching up, and on morals

Okay, so in the hustle and bustle of all the hustling and bustling I've had to do lately, I've gotten a little behind in my slinging of snark and airing of the world's dirty laundry. I've got some time to catch up now, and I'll start at the top with the A's: from Atrios comes some interesting news about morals and voters, and who really cares about what. Says Frank Rich of the New York Times:

It's beginning to look a lot like "Groundhog Day." Ever since 22 percent of the country's voters said on Nov. 2 that they cared most about "moral values," opportunistic ayatollahs on the right have been working overtime to inflate this nonmandate into a landslide by ginning up cultural controversies that might induce censorship by a compliant F.C.C. and, failing that, self-censorship by TV networks. Seizing on a single overhyped poll result, they exaggerate their clout, hoping to grab power over the culture.

Snip.

It took a British publication, The Economist, to point out that the percentage of American voters citing moral and ethical values as their prime concern is actually down from 2000 (35 percent) and 1996 (40 percent).

So let me take a beat to get this entirely straight: in 1996, when 40% of Americans had morals on the brain, they chose to re-elect lyin', cheatin', Big-Mac-eatin', b.j.-in-the-Oval-Office-gettin' President Bill Clinton. Eight years later, Bush gets re-elected with just over half of that "morality vote," just over half of the popular vote, and suddenly he has a mandate. Not to mention the fact that every Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson is now demanding that Bush kowtow to the supposedly ubermoral conservative majority by appointing conservative Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and pushing for a federal gay marriage amendment.

Now, I actually have conservative friends (as a matter of fact, two out of three conservatives declare me "too cool to be a liberal," which may or may not be a good thing), and none of them are the hyperreligious wingnut types that are currently pushing for the Jesusland concept of America. And they - even the religious ones - all view morals completely differently from the extremist Evangelical Jesus-pimps who are currently taking credit for Bush's slim victory and who won't rest until every school teaches creationist science, every sex education program is abstinence-only, and every single American citizen is as judgmental as they are.

I want to make something clear: I have nothing against Christians. I am one. I like it a lot; it's a good train. I have Evangelical friends and family members who are lovely and loving and generally peachy. But I, as well as the aforementioned religious friends/family, have nothing in common with the Religious Right nutcases who give Christianity a bad name. We're reading the same book and getting two completely different stories. And if that's what it takes to be "moral" in America today, I guess I don't want to be right. But it's sure looking like the numbers are in my favor.


Slightly off-topic: New Practically Harmless hanger-on and conservative bass fisherman Ryan points out that the blog seems to view all Bush voters as naive little toddler types who have been tragically misled by the President of the United States. As a person who watches the news and researches issues thoroughly before taking a political position, he objects to this. Reasonable and open-minded as I am, I agree to make the following concession: While many Bush voters are, in fact, tragically misinformed and led astray by the administration, a good many take a great interest in the issues and voted for Bush with all of the facts firmly in place, which makes them merely stupid.*

Note: This statement was made completely tongue-in-cheek, in a sense of fun and joking. Recent family conflicts and a particular post on GWBWYPGN?! have called attention to the fact that since the election, Democrats have consistently stereotyped Bush voters as stupid for voting as they did. While in some ways, this is only fair, as Republicans consistently stereotype Kerry voters as immoral, it's also a huge and inaccurate generalization. The management of Practically Harmless recognizes that both parties are resplendent with brilliant minds, and that in light of that, those brilliant minds need to get a sense of humor. I kid because I love. So choke on it.

On good deeds

Okay, so many of you have wondered why I haven't been updating in the past couple of weeks. Or, rather, I'm sure you've been wondering, and it's only the fact that you're paralyzed with worry over my wellbeing that has prevented you from at least checking up on me or something.

Anyway. The answer is basically that I've been hella busy with work and whatnot, the majority of the "whatnot" being preparations for the holidays (shopping, decorating, selling my kidneys on E-bay to afford the whole thing). And actually, that's something that you, my darling reader(s), can help me with - I'm looking for charitable swag. Check out Doug's post on the subject at GWBWYPGN?! for the full poop, but basically, we're not doing the usual Christmastime Parade of Useless and Unwanted Crap in the Practically Harmless household this year. Instead, we're taking the money that would have been spent on presents that would, in all likelihood, go unused and/or unappreciated and just take up space in an already cluttered world, and donate that money to a worthy charity.

I'm breaking the rules a litle this year - darling brother pointed out that "don't buy me anything for Christmas" is kind of this family's "please oh please don't throw me in that briar patch," and besides, everyone likes opening up stuff at Christmas, even if it's not a lot of stuff. So here's your assignment: coe up with worthy charities that offer swag. I'm compiling a list of those that I've already found, but as you come across spiffy items whose proceeds go to a charity, throw me a note under Comments, and I'll give you appropriate props. And of course we can't ignore those good causes that don't offer swag - there are multitudes of folks out there who are, in whatever way and for whatever reason, less fortunate than I/you/we are.

Peace. Merry Christmas. Happy Hannukah, joyous Ramadan, perky Kwanzaa.

Charities with merchandise:
Until There's a Cure - $25 gets you a silver-plated cuff bracelet with raised AIDS ribbon; feel free to go crazy and drop $400 on the same in 14k gold. Both fashionable and socially conscious, the bracelets have raised over $6,000,000 for HIV/AIDS charities
America's Second Harvest - $25 buys you a pack of five holiday cards that are, in fact, kind of cute - even to me, and I abhor cuteness. And the money goes to feed the homeless.
Miracle Ties from Jos. A. Bank - $49.50 gets you a silk necktie designed by pediatric oncology patients at Johns Hopkins Children's Center. 100% of the profits go to benefit the Children's Center.

Charities that are way worthy anyway:
Wounded Warrior Project (from Ryan) - $99 will buy a backpack filled with clothes, toiletries and "comfort items" for a soldier wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan. If that's a bit pricey for you, smaller donations are happily accepted.
American Red Cross - Accepts donations of not only money but also stock, spare change, "in-kind" products, and even airline miles.
Books for Soldiers (from B) - Accepts donations of new and used books and DVDs to hand out to bored soldiers - those deployed and those in VA hospitals. B points out that shipping has actually stopped until after the holidays, but I see that as the perfect opportunity to make a rather important point - chartiy doesn't have to stop just because the dried-out carcass of the Christmas tree is sitting on the curb. Poor people are still hungry, homeless people are still cold, shut-ins are still lonely, troops are still bored, and injured people still need blood, even when it's not a holiday. Bookmark this one for future reference.

On Christmas wishes

Okay, so I'm busy-busy today and all you're getting from me is a quickie. From comments on this post at World O'Crap:

Dear Santa,

All I want for Christmas is incontrvertable proof that George is banging Condi. You can forget the pony and Donald Rumsfeld's fingerprints on the Plame case. Thanks.

Keith

On the coming of the apocalypse

Okay, so posting might be slow the next couple of days as I recover from the alcohol poisoning from which I plan to suffer tonight. Why, you ask? Lemme see:

Packers over Redskins, 28-14
Bush over Kerry, 286-252
Miami over Virginia, 30-21
Auburn over Georgia, 24-6

and we earned every point scored against us.

Dammit.

Update: Bengals over Redskins, 17-10. Why do I bother? Why do I freaking bother?

On becoming randomly and spontaneously safe

Okay, so Attorney General John Ashcroft resigned on Tuesday.

In other news, a wolf at Zoo Atlanta was observed lying down with a lamb; leopards were seen lying down with kids at the National Zoo in Washington, DC, as well as a calf, young lion, and fatling together; and several witnesses reported that a little child was leading them.

"In a five-page handwritten letter of resignation, Ashcroft, who made headlines by periodically placing the country on high alert for terrorism, asserted that the task of safeguarding the country against terrorist strikes 'has been achieved.'" [Emphasis mine]

Well, it looks like the Bushies were right after all. They said that the only way to protect the country from the threat of terror was to re-elect Dubya. And look! It worked! I can't believe I didn't have faith in them before. I'm even on the record as saying that you can't win a war against an abstract concept like terror or poverty, and that we can't give up our liberties in the interest of security - and here it looks like all of our objectives have "been achieved" and we're safe now. Now if someone could hand me a washcloth to get this egg off of my face.

But really, John, this is just great. Just great. So our guys are coming home, then? 'Cause I can put together a welcome-home party like that. You just let me know when. I can get munchies, a band, everything. And I guess we're going to drop the terror warning level to green, since we're safe from terrorists now, right? Right? John?

John?