An Assault is Not a Fondle

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel didn't publish my letter, but that was no surprise. It was highly critical of the newspaper's editorial judgment in characterizing the assault of a female jogger as "fondling" -- not just once, but three times in the first three paragraphs of the story.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/regional-news-briefs-1j7n99q-180080571.html

Here is what I wrote:

  

 “To handle tenderly, lovingly, or lingeringly, caress, to show affection or desire by caressing.” Those are the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definitions for the word “fondle,” which the Journal Sentinel used three times in the first three paragraphs in a story today (Nov. 20) with the headline “Other bike trail sex assaults reported.” I can assure Journal Sentinel editorial staff that the woman who was attacked while jogging last week on the Oak Leaf Trail did not feel like the attacker was being loving or showing affection when he assaulted her. For any newspaper, much less a major daily – and the only one for Milwaukee County residents, to use such outrageous and retrograde language regarding a crime committed against a woman is a disgraceful reflection on your news organization in particular and on journalism in general. Perhaps your reporters, copy editors and editors need a class in what you might consider the passé concept of consciousness-raising.

I don’t know if, even though the letters editor chose not to publish my letter, it at least got somebody’s attention or if (hopefully) the paper received other complaints, too, but the terms used to describe the assault in a follow-up story when a man was arrested was “groping” and “fourth-degree sexual assault.”

3 Women Have Much More to Fear from Romney

Three women who looked to be 35-40 were overheard recently ragging on President Obama and carrying on about how he's from Kenya and a Muslim and that the country is going to h.e.double hockey sticks (my euphemism, not theirs) if he's re-elected.

Not only do these women obviously rely exclusively on Fox and other right-wing media for information and "news", they are worried about the wrong thing.

I am sure that there's not a chance in the world that President Obama is likely to break into their homes and assault (euphemism for another word) them.

I can't same for Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and their Republican friends, such as Missouri Congressman and Senate candidate Todd Akin who claimed that women who are victims of what he described as "legitimate rape" have some kind of magical ability to prevent themselves from becoming pregnant as a result of that rape.

Another Republican Romney buddy, Indiana Senate candidate and Romney endorsee Richard Mourdock claimed that pregnancies that result from rape "is something that God intended to happen."

Then there's Wisconsin state assemblyman Roger Rivard, who's running for re-election and had been endorsed by Paul Ryan when he said in an interview that his father once told him, " 'Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.'"

So, while Messers Romney, Ryan, Akin, Mourdock, Rivard or any of their ideological brethren won't be personally breaking into the homes of the three overheard anti-Obama ladies or personally assaulting them, they are in far greater danger should those men attain/retain positions of leadership in this country of being revictimized many times over should they or anyone they know be unfortunate enough to be raped by anybody. 

I'm a Socialist? Thank you!

The theme of Public Radio's "This American Life "this week was "Red State, Blue State" and included stories of friends (or former friends), relatives, elected official and co-workers who had differing political views. It included sisters who could hardly speak to each other, one man married to the sister of another man's wife who said if his sister-in-law's husband votes for President Obama, he wasn't going to let him eat any of his astoundingly good barbeque, tri-tip steak, pulled pork and prime rib sandwiches for the four years of Obama's second term.

In most of the interviews, the biggest insult the conservatives could unload on liberals was "socialist." Oddly enough, none of those who were so labeled thanked their antagonists for putting them in such august company since Jesus could be considered an uber socialist.

Matthew 25:35-40 – ³⁵“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ³⁶I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” ³⁷Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? ³⁸And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? ³⁹And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ ⁴⁰And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”

Mark 12:13-17 – ¹³And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. ¹⁴And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” ¹⁵But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” ¹⁶And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” ¹⁷Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

Charity -- "Socialism" by Any Other Name

In a story on NPR's "Market Place Money" this weekend, a Hoover Institution economist, Paul Gregory, and a man named Scott Wilderman who was described as a conservative, agreed that government programs and "handouts" make people dependent on those programs and less resourceful and self reliant. 

Wilderman was interviewed by "Market Place Money" when he was at a regional food bank where he was picking up food for his church pantry. 

"Every week we give food out at our church," said Wilderman. "Food stamps is socialism and we're not a socialist country."

But wait! The regional food bank where Wilderman was picking up food for his church to give to the poor and hungry is funded in part by the federal government. 

So what's the difference between people who rely on government for handouts and charities/churches that rely on government for hand outs?  

Why Democrats Can't Win

The 2012 election for the Democratic Party and democracy itself is in grave peril.

Despite strong indications that Democratic candidates from President Barack Obama down the ticket should win in a majority of jurisdictions across the country, they have an almost impossibly steep uphill slog. The reason has little to do with policies, plans, campaign rally turnout or gaffs and everything to do with a long-term annihilation strategy that has been in development for the past several decades and got two huge gooses two years ago.

One was the U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, which completed the groundwork of transforming elections into sales that was laid by the 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo Supreme Court ruling. That ruling, in essence decreed that money is speech. Citizens United, in essence, says that corporations are persons and thus have the same speech rights as individuals.

The second was the emergence of the Tea Party, which, despite the protestations of some of the ostensible TP founders, became the tool of and ground troops for plutocratic interests, redirected the Republican Party toward a right-wing cliff, and turned political discourse and elected officials' town halls into uncivil, hate-filled, vitriolic screeds.

Those two factors have capped decades of right-wing think tanks perfecting effective messaging, infiltration of academia, use of wedge issues, and the disingenuous and exploitative partnering with religion -- particularly fundamentalist and evangelically leaning sects.

That has set the stage for finishing the competition off.

Here are the winning tactics that will lead to Republican victories in this election:

• Employer intimidation -- Pressuring their employees to vote for candidates they support, or their jobs could be at stake.Can you imagine workers, who already have the jitters about their jobs, running the risk of losing them if they don't vote like the boss says?
• Church indoctrination -- Pastors using their pulpits to influence how congregants should vote, and at least one Catholic bishop instructing priests in his domain to preach anti-Obama sermons at Mass.
• Voting machines -- The Romney family owns substantial stock in the company that makes a large number of electronic voting machines that are being used in this election. And it has been demonstrated again and again how easy it is to manipulate and hack these machines.
• Conservative media -- Pervasive right-wing take-over of the mass media, from Fox TV, to Limbaugh and other right-wing radio programming, to corporate ownership of newspapers including the Wall Street Journal, to growing and increasingly influential Internet sites, such as The Drudge Report, Breitbart.com news syndicate and Journal Communications' new right-wing multi-platform group headed by a Milwaukee WI conservative radio personality, to billboards owned by right-wing advertising and communications conglomerate Clear Channel.
• Contracting voter access -- Whether repressed by newly enacted over-reaching photo ID requirements, reducing early voting days, issuing erroneous voting information or intimidating prospective voters via advertising and poll watchers -- all tactics target likely Democratic voters. 
• Decimation of unions -- Republican-controlled legislatures and state houses have worked tirelessly to kill off unions, in both the private and the public sectors, which historically have supported Democratic candidates. The amount of campaign contributions from unions has shrunk to a fraction of previous elections while corporate and special moneyed interests contributions to Republicans have burgeoned, plus super-PAC, which are overwhelmingly Republicans, such as Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, have flooded the airwaves with political ads.

So polls, not withstanding, which even veteran pollsters say are not only all over the place, but increasingly unreliable, I think the Republicans' strategy of intimidation, indoctrination and election fraud is just very likely to overcome

Captives Grateful to Captors Rationale

When I hear people wonder why women vote for Republicans these days, the only rationale I have been able to come up with is Stockholm Syndrome. I was about to post something to that effect on Facebook, then my son showed me this.



Affirmation.

Treatment Needed, Whatever The Cause

Refusing to acknowledge climate change or do anything about it because you don't think it's caused or exacerbated by human activity is like refusing to do anything about the cancer you've been diagnosed with because you don't know what caused it.

Romney Should Put Own Money Where His Mouth Is

Instead of having aides spend a measly $5,000 of Romney campaign money on canned goods at Wal-Mart to hand out to acolytes when they arrived at his "relief event” in Ohio for the purpose of a photo opp of Romney accepting said acolytes' "donations" then forming a link in the bucket brigade to load said donations onto a truck, then said truck rushing said canned goods to New Jersey (hopefully with a manual can opener) and then Romney urging his acolytes and TV viewers to contribute generously to the Red Cross for even more storm relief -- why didn't Romney tap his own vast fortune and give generously of that to the Red Cross or telling his audience that he would match their donations dollar for dollar? Wouldn't that have been akin to the kind of "privatization" of emergency relief Romney touts as being so much better than a federal agency like FEMA to manage natural and national disasters?