Stay up-to-date via RSS!

How Democrats prepare for a convention:

Individuals arrested at the Democratic National Convention will be processed at an industrial warehouse with chain-link cells topped by razor wire, a facility some have compared to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Groups planning marches, concerts and other events during the Aug. 25-28 convention dub the center “Gitmo on the Platte,” for the nearby South Platte River.

…Video footage of the north Denver warehouse on Denver’s KCNC-TV showed coils of razor wire topping chain-link cells. A sign read: “Electric stun devices used here.”

Gale said each cell will be about 20-by-20 feet. He refused to say how many people could be processed there.

“It’s just ridiculous, the thing looks like a dog pound,” said Mark Cohen of the protest group Recreate-68 Alliance. “Even if you only put dogs in there, people will be complaining about it. I think you ought to have the Red Cross and Amnesty International come take a look at this thing.”

and

“The infamous “free speech zone,” set to make a comeback at Denver’s upcoming Democratic National Convention, needs to be within earshot of delegates, a coalition of civil liberties advocates backed by the ACLU said [last month]. Chain link fencing or chicken wire at the end of the parade route, about 700 feet away from the Pepsi Center under the current plan, would separate demonstrators and protesters from other convention attendees, the Rocky Mountain News reported.

“No human voice, or any other sound,” ACLU counsel said in Monday’s amended complaint, “can ever hope to reach a person at the entrance.”

The ACLU lost their case, and the “free speech zone” went ahead as planned.

How Republicans prepare for a convention:

Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets. Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff’s department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than “fire code violations,” and early this morning, the Sheriff’s department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.

…

The officers refused to state why they were there and, until the very end, refused to show whether they had a search warrant.

Greenwald also states that ” both journalists and lawyers — in addition to protesters — have been detained and arrested even though not a single violent or criminal act has occurred.”

All in all, a nice microcosm of the difference in approach between Dems and Repubs. Only one puts a jackboot to your neck in their opening manuever… but both will keep you on your knees. And you can bet the boots come down in either case if you get uppity.

If we were in Hell, and Satan made us choose between an eternity behind Door #1, where we had to eat our own shit all the time, or Door #2, where we were continuously eviscerated and then, out of our still pulsing intestines, forced to eat our own shit… well, the choice would be obvious. But the question would remain: how did we end up in Hell in the first place?

I’d say right now most Americans are still just in the pure shit eating phase. I guess we’re just lucky that way.

The things you miss by living in another country. And not watching the news. I had no idea about this til now. I’m presuming that in America, Gustav is getting wall-to-wall coverage, and everyone is collectively biting their nails.

Global warming. Things are getting real.

I just got done reading Lisa Kansas’s post on prostitution and how it relates to the Edwards case.* I was just going to put a comment, but I realized it was starting to turn into my own manifesto, so i thought a separate post might be more appropriate.

As far as her questions one and two and subsequent answers go, I have no particular complaints. It seems a reasonable to have two separate levels for reality and theoretical levels when it comes to the hurting/ harming question in regards to prostitution, and a lot of sexist things.

But it is the third level that I have a disagreement with, and it’s the third part that relates to the Edward’s case the most.

Lisa KS’s contention is that:

3. Back to the perfect world/our world dichotomy–in a perfect world, the answer would be “neither”–it would be JOB. It’d help out the individual in question by being one and therefore providing cash to live off of, but other than that it’d have no impact on that woman in particular or women in general at all. However, unfortunately, we live in this world.

In this world, women’s bodies and the idea of spending money to induce one to have sex with you (you=men) are used to sell everything from coffee to cars. The last five movies I’ve watched, for instance, all have at least one scene where the main female character goes in the bathroom, takes her clothes off on-camera, and showers, and in only one of those movies was there any point to this in terms of plot at all. Women, in short, are presented all the time as a bombardment of something you want to buy and fuck–something you can buy and fuck–all you need is enough money. By validating this outright, female prostitutes help hold up the structure of the patriarchy that assigns women to be objects rather than fully human autonomous people like men.

From an interpersonal relationship standpoint (finally!! she gets around to actually relating it to the original Edwards post–lol) when a man and a woman choose to vow to be monogamous to one another, the woman is really the only one who is actually EXPECTED to do so. A big part of the reason that it is statistically much more epidemic in men than women to break this vow is because there is a plethora of women’s bodies offered to him for cash, quite discreetly–women who make it clear that they are perfectly fine with him treating his vow to another woman like so much bullshit, who have an active interest in encouraging men who have vowed monogamy to break that vow as that is the big majority of their customers. By enthusiastically endorsing that societal double standard, women who practice prostitution are enabling it to a degree that would be impossible without their active cooperation.

So my answer to this last question is, in a perfect world, consensual adult prostitution would neither hurt nor help women in general. However, in the world we live it, it hurts all women, including the ones engaging in prostitution, a lot.

Now, I disagree with this for two reasons: the first is where it assigns blame, and the second is a more general philosphoical question about the nature of promises.

If I’m reading this correctly, (and Lisa, please feel to correct me if I’m misrepresenting something), prostitution would not be bad if we did not have a society that saw women as consumable objects. But since we do have a society where women are seen as consumable objects, prostitutes cash in on this, thus since they are selling themselves as “products” and reinforcing this mindset.

But, as it was already admitted, that prostitution would be fine if we didn’t have this mindset, I can’t see how it can be at all a cause of, or even a reinforcement of, this mindset. The problem is the mindset, not the prostitution.

I also disagree that “statistically much more epidemic in men than women to break this vow [marriage] is because there is a plethora of women’s bodies offered to him for cash”. For one, the differences in infidelity is not that sharp: the rates change from study to study, but according to this http://www.springerlink.com/content/j21080r5q5551u41/ The Hite Report says that about 54% of women and 72% of men have cheated at least once on their long-term relationship. Others say that 25% of women have and 42% of men. Since we’re dealing with self-reporting, I’m going to assume that the female number is problably lower than it really is. So, the whole “cheating” thing seems to be pretty common.

I also feel that to claim that men cheating can’t be blamed on women for the same reason that I don’t think women wearing “slutty” clothes entitles men to treat them poorly, or that men would be ready to “settle down” if it wasn’t for all of those loose women who are willing to have sex without a ring. As an individual, you are expected to be responsible for your OWN actions, regardless of the actions of others. To say that if women were just “better” men would be better is a conservative line, not a feminist one.

And the second disagreement has to do with the nature of promises. If I promise someone something, it is on me to deliver the promise, not the people around me. If I promise to be home at 7, and I’m late because a friend starts talking to me and I lose track of the time, it is not that friend’s fault that I am late, it is mine. My friend has no moral obligation to make sure my promises are enforced.

The same is the true with a marriage. Someone who has made no promise has no moral culpability if the others do break that promise. Marriage is a promise: nothing more, nothing less, and it does not deserve any other special treatment. Like any other promise, the responsibility is between those who make the contract, not the parties outside of it. I, personally, would not sleep with someone who was married, because if he breaks a promise to others, he’ll break it to me. But that is a matter of personal taste, not an admission of moral culpability.

There are enough people in the world that blame women for everything, I think feminism should err on the side of giving women a break. I’m not saying that we should give a “pussy pass” to women, for women, like humans, can do evil things and should be called on it. I’m not even saying that we shouldn’t examine how are everyday actions contribute to the patriarchy (show of hands, who’s wearing makeup, a push-up bra, or high heels right now?). I’m saying that we should leave the criticisms of women and their actions for things they directly do and contribute to, not to promises they didn’t make and systems they didn’t set up.

*I wanted to avoid the whole Edward’s affair entirely because, frankly, I hate how much effort it takes to maintain idealism. Every time a politician can’t get his morals straight, it bothers me.

Chris Floyd cuts to the heart of the matter:

Sometimes after I write critically of Obama and the Democrats, people ask me: “Well, what are we supposed to do? He’s not perfect, they’re not perfect, but don’t you think McCain would be worse?”

(more…)