Pandagon
All The Fixins
Ezra has a new column (again!) at the Washington Post called "Gut Check", on the politics of food. I'm pretty sure that by Thanksgiving, Ezra will be the ombudsman, advertising director, editor-in-chief and yet still not able to fire Charles Krauthammer. This week's article focuses on the desire for transparency in food production, using Food, Inc. as a touch point.
How evangelical fantasists lead the way into turning politics into a circus sideshow
After reading all the posts about it at Double X, and also Jesse's post from this morning, I went ahead and read all 16 pages of Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair profile of Sarah Palin. Jesse's right about the thick layer of bullshit piled onto the piece, and I'm glad he alerted me to the fact that Palin isn't the first politician that Purdum has diagnosed from afar as a narcissist. (I thought having a giant ego was a mandated part of being a politician, and let's face it, McCain's huge ego is also what drove him to pick Palin in the first place.) This is too bad, because in focusing all his energies into showing us how fucked-up Palin is, Purdum misses the larger story, which is that politicians like her are inevitable as long as the Republicans continue to rely on the growing fundamentalist community to cough up the votes required to keep them in office. Because it's not just Palin. The Mark Sanford situation (and Larry Craig and David Vitter) shows that when you lay down with the Christian nutters, you wake up in a swirl of fantastical bullshit, corruption, and sordid sexual drama.
Burger King ad shoves seven-incher in her face so she can have it their way
Let me a wild guess -- this ad was approved by a boardroom full of guys who thought this was a great, subtle play on frat boy humor. The details of the ad:
Bill Kristol Is A Prince Among Kings
Todd Purdum, whom you've probably never heard of, wrote a piece about Sarah Palin declaring her a moose-devouring narcissistic beast of the id. Saying anything bad about a Republican woman, of course, makes the person who says it a mean, nasty sexist and probably a giant gay, because liberal gay men hate women.
Common ground and the dangers of assuming good faith on the part of those who don't have it
I can imagine that people like Will Saletan, who sincerely want to believe that there's a possibility of separating "pro-life" opposition to abortion from "pro-life" opposition to contraception and sex education, might actually be shocked at this news that should shock no one who admits that anti-choicers are and have always been more interested in punishing women for having sex than preserving fetal life.
As the White House readies its plan for finding "common ground" on reproductive health issues and reducing the need for abortion, a major debate has emerged over how to package the plan's two major components: preventing unwanted pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion.
Many abortion rights advocates and some Democrats who want to dial down the culture wars want the White House to package the two parts of the plan together, as a single piece of legislation. The plan would seek to reduce unwanted pregnancies by funding comprehensive sex education and contraception and to reduce the need for abortion by bolstering federal support for pregnant women. Supporters of the approach say it would force senators and members of Congress on both sides of the abortion battle to compromise their traditional positions, creating true common ground that mirrors what President Obama has called for.
From the get-go, the selling point of "common ground" has been that it's not a compromise of core beliefs, but an attempt to find what both sides have in common and work with that. A plan to offer more social support to women who continue pregnancies, to offer more contraception and sex education to prevent unplanned pregnancies, and to make adoption easier (whatever that means) only works if you assume good faith all around, and believe that anti-choicers are actually in this because they are disturbed by the killing of fetuses. In that case, there is a lot of common ground, and no one should have a problem with this bill.
In reality, anti-choicers are experiencing this as a compromise, even if you remove the contraception and sex education parts. If you correctly assume that the anti-choice movement is motivated primarily by a misogynist need to punish women who have unapproved sex, then you can see how offering social support to mothers is already, from their point of view, a compromise of their basic beliefs, from two angles:
1) The sex is bad angle. Anti-choicers see sex as fundamentally sinful, especially out of the bonds of marriage, and unplanned pregnancy as both a punishment for those who transgress and a danger to keep others from transgressing. From that point of view then, there's something distasteful about making it easier on women who have babies out of wedlock. If you're trying to use punishment as a deterrent, especially from the right wing point of view, then it's not especially effective to reduce the amount of punishment. But wingnuts are willing to compromise on this issue, because they compromise on the punishment thing a lot. For instance, from their point of view, they're letting go of anti-sodomy laws, but they're not going to just roll over for gay marriage.
2) The patriarchal angle. Opposition to abortion and birth control are about more than making women pay for fucking. It's about channeling women into their proper patriarchal gender roles. Ideally, for anti-choicers, all unplanned pregnancies would result in giving a baby up to be adopted by proper married parents, or the pregnant mother would get married. (That unplanned pregnancies happen and are aborted within marriage doesn't compute, even though 1/3 of abortions are obtained by women who are or have been married before.) From this point of view, the social support for pregnant women is a huge compromise of values on their part, because it makes it easier for women to be single mothers, which they definitely oppose, even though it's hard enough to satisfy angle #1. But since abortion is legal, there's not much they can do about it. That they understand that a lot of women simply will don't have adoption or marriage on the radar for this pregnancy is a huge concession to reality for them.
What wouldn't be concessions from them if they were arguing in good faith are felt like concessions. If you add something that really burns their britches---increased support for contraception and sex education, which allow women to have sex without even the minimal punishment of sweating unplanned pregnancies---then they're going to feel like they're doing all the compromising and pro-choicers are giving up nothing. That's why people like Will Saletan are fudging around and pretending that pro-choicers are being asked to concede a bunch of stuff that we're not, such as "admitting" that abortion is morally complicated (of course it is---that's why it's a private matter) or that people should be responsible (we're the only ones pushing contraception, you know). So of course they feel justified in thinking that they get to demand a concession from pro-choicers, and what's the one thing that we really want that they really don't? Contraception.
This could go one of two ways. Matt thinks that this is going to be a win, and I agree with him, as long as the White House plays it strategically:
I think we’re arguably seeing here the real fruits of seeking common ground in good faith—their real views are smoked out.
This will only work if the Democrats working on this flog the hell out of contraception instead of pulling the roll over maneuver. This is one of the simplest plays they can make to advance the pro-choice cause, since most Americans, even many who identify as "pro-life", use contraception. If they're "pro-life", they probably think other women who use contraception are slutty, but still, this sort of blanket condemnation isn't going to sit well. This is particularly true when a lot of people have convinced themselves that anti-choicers are just generally good people who are just a tad too enthusiastic about fetal life, an illusion that's really hard to maintain if you know that they're against contraception, as well.
What I fear is that the "let's all make friends" tendencies that rule over Democrats will kick in, and they'll let the anti-choicers kill the contraception angle in order to get something passed that they can call "common ground". They should resist this urge at all costs. I'm beginning to suspect that pro-choicers seeking common ground are being set up by anti-choicers. Since the right wing made abortion such a big deal after Roe was decided, there have been two competing narratives about why women get abortions. Pro-choicers believe that abortion is usually a responsible decision made by ordinary women with ordinary sex lives who are trying to do the best that they can. Anti-choicers believe that women who get abortions are dumb sluts who are trying to escape punishment for fucking. They use words like "convenience" and imply that places like Planned Parenthood are in cahoots with dirty bird men who want to fuck dumb bunnies without having to marry them.
On its surface, the common ground discourse about giving more support to mothers makes it seem like anti-choicers are coming around to the view of women that's more sympathetic. They're all big eyes and pity for women who abort because they can't afford to have another child. But since they're big fans of deceptive tactics, we should assume that this stance is also likely to be a lie. I suspect what's going on is that they hope that they can offer women a little more support, and when this doesn't result in the abortion rate going down, they're going to say, "See? We told you they're dumb sluts who only abort because a baby would interfere with their mani-pedi schedule."
And if all the bill has in it are economic incentives, then I seriously doubt it's going to do much to reduce the abortion rate. The Guttmacher tracks reasons that women have abortions, and as you will see, most of their reasons fall out of the range of anything that financial assistance could address:
The irony here is that this particular study is being used to tout the economic incentives, because 73% of women state that they can't afford a baby right now. But women are allowed to check off multiple boxes, and if you look at the breakdown, you'll find that "can't afford" often means that you don't want to quit school, you're not married, you don't see a future with the father, or you have enough kids. Once you start looking into the percentages that policy can address---health care, child care, etc.---we're looking at percentages in the low 20s. That's not nothing, but women who are in that position usually need a lot more help than any of the "common ground" bills I've seen will give them, since they need jobs and housing and affordable day care, all of which would require massive government programs. I predict that financial support for mothers under the Obama proposal will only have a minor effect on the abortion rate.
Unless there's a huge contraception push. It's certainly true that the lower women are on the income ladder, the more likely they are to need an abortion, but a huge reason for this is that poverty interferes dramatically with regular contraception use. What seems cheap to middle class people---$50 a month on pills or condoms---can be daunting for people that are barely getting by. Addressing their needs as well as the needs of teenagers who are new to sex and might be a little wary of going out of their way to acquire and learn about contraception, and you do a lot for reducing unplanned pregnancy. But if anti-choicers are on board with "common ground" because they want to sabotage the pro-choice/pro-woman arguments, then actually reducing the abortion rate would screw up their plans. So one more reason for them to try to chip contraception and sex education off the bill.
OMFG. The jokes are just writing themselves. Will Gov. Mark Sanford's Professional right-wing, ex-gay extremist groups band together to form the 'Freedom Federation'
The Freedom Federation is a new and unique federation of some of the largest multi-ethnic and transgenerational faith-based organizations in the country committed to plan, strategize, and work together on common interests within the Judeo-Christian tradition to mobilize their grassroots constituencies and to communicate faith and values to the religious, social, cultural, and policymaking institutions.WHO:
-- American Association of Christian Counselors - its mission is to "equip clinical, pastoral, and lay care-givers with Biblical truth and psycho-social insights"
-- American Family Association - we already know about Don and Tim Wildmon's Tupelo, MS-based hate brigade and "news" organ One News Now.
-- Americans for Prosperity -- free market, small tax crowd
-- Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND) - headed up by Faux News favorite anti-gay, anti-black token negro Jesse Lee Peterson.
-- Campaign for Working Families - failed presidential candidate Gary Bauer's hangout
-- Catholic Online - mission is "to accurately represent the Catholic religion: its “past” and present."
-- Concerned Women for America - Another favorite fringe group that always seems to be run by men.
-- Conservative Action Project - Arkansas-based free market, low tax org
-- Eagle Forum - Mother Schlafly's birdnest
-- Exodus International - ruining LGBTQI lives daily.
-- Faith and Action - Rob Schenck, who anoints Senate Judicial hearing rooms with oil, says his org is "America’s only Christian outreach across the street from the United States Supreme Court"
-- Family Research Council - Tony Perkins den of bigotry in the name of "family."
-- High Impact Leadership Coalition - Bishop Harry Jackson, late of trying to stop marriage equality recognition in DC
-- Liberty Alliance Action - the successor org to Falwell's Moral Majority. Very LGBT-obsessed.
-- Liberty Counsel - Bam Bam Barber's and Mat Staver's lair
But wait, there's more...below the fold.
-- Liberty University - more Falwell-based "education"-- Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN) - a group of Indiana homeschooling families from Bloomington and Monroe County
-- Marc Nuttle - author of a tome called Moment of Truth, "a clarion call for conservative America to take a stand today for the future the country."
-- Morning Star Ministries - Rick and Julie Joyner's ministry's goal is to "provide the household of faith with the highest quality spiritual food that is timely, or “meat in due season.”
-- National Clergy Council - Rob Schenck, AGAIN
-- National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference - will lead the Hispanic born-again community in America for the purpose of transforming our culture, preserving our Judeo Christian Value System and building the spiritual, intellectual and social/political capital within the Hispanic American Community.
-- Renewing American Leadership -
I have no idea what this is, butit has a dormant web site. Right Wing Watch says this is Newt Gingrich's new parking space.-- Strang Communications - it's "a multi-media communications company focused on spreading the name and fame of Jesus throughout the world through the mass media."
-- Teen Mania - Ron Luce's organization; his call to action is to retake America from the "virtue terrorists" (gays, pro-choice supporters, etc.) is "Battle Cry."
-- The Call to Action -
not sure about this oneKyle at RWW says this is Lou Engle's new hole-in-the-wall.-- Traditional Values Coalition - possibly the most hateful anti-LGBT organization out there, Lou Sheldon sets a new standard for peddling fear-based ignorance.
Ex Gay Watch's David Roberts managed to get a quote from Alan Chambers of Exodus on the project.
Keyboard protection ON:
I am attending a meeting today for the formation of a new conservative coalition made up of a wide variety of groups on a wide variety of topics. Because there will be focus on gay and lesbian issues I was invited to join the coalition and to speak. My stated purpose for being there is not to rejoin the policy debates or to engage Exodus in them. We have made great efforts over the last two years to be a ministry focused on spiritual renewal and not political renewal. We know that nations change when the hearts of people change. Today when I address this group, some of whom are friends that I deeply respect, I will do so, ironically, on behalf of the gay community. My overwhelming message will be that God is deeply in love with the most adversarial of gay activists and that as these groups do battle over policy they must never forget that fact.
I was asked to speak at the follow up press event, which is the notice you received, and decided instead to serve only as a testimony to my conservative colleagues in a meeting prior, which I believe will serve as a reminder that it is God’s kindness that leads to repentance. I imagine there will those who shout amen when I speak today and those who will write me off because I am no longer activist material. Either way, I hope at the end of the day what I share encourages my fellow Christians to treat others as they would like to be treated and when they find someone who is struggling with unwanted homosexuality that they will think of Exodus.
I wonder if they will rent a nice office in DC and bunk out together?