Sunday, June 12, 2011

TV moments that make no sense

Whoopi Goldberg is an Academy Award winning supporting actress who made many, many movies. She now embarrasses herself as a co-host of The View where she attempts to excuse rape as not "rape-rape" and attacks non-friends while defending friends (such as a racist who made racist statements) and, most infamously, storms off stage in the middle of a live broadcast.

May 18, 2009, Whoopi was "Amen"ing guest Jesse Ventura's comments against torture.

While we happen to agree that water boarding and other forms of torture are abuse, illegal and should never be utilized, we didn't make Fatal Beauty.

Though a strong argument can be made that watching that film is, all by itself, torture.

torture

In the film, there's a character she calls "Richard Gere." As a police woman, Whoopi decides to 'question' him and initiates the questioning by shooting him in the ass, having two men string him up for her taking a knife to his crotch and threatening him.

It is these moments that have softened the American people to torture and the next time Whoopi wants to speak out against torture, she needs to take accountability for her part in promoting torture. Until she does, she's just talking crazy on The View.

TV Themes Roundtable

Jim: This edition is shaping up to a TV, or at least video, edition. And this roundtable is about TV themes. Our e-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. Participating in this roundtable are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty and myself, Jim, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man;
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz); Ruth of Ruth's Report; Trina of Trina's Kitchen; Wally of The Daily Jot; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ; Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends; Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub. Betty's kids did the illustration. You are reading a rush transcript.



Roundtable


Jim (Con't): "It's a story, of a man named Brady . . ." Sing those words and chances are, at least in the US, most people will instantly know what you're singing. The theme song to The Brady Bunch. It's one of the best and most well known themes. Let's start by tossing out some other well known ones.

Betty: "You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both, and there you have, The Facts of Life, The Facts of Life, There's a time you gotta go and show, you're growing now you know about . . ." The Facts of Life theme.

Stan: That's a good one. I'd go further back with, "Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale," Gilligan's Island.

Kat: For me, I'd say the theme to Welcome Back, Kotter. With the "welcome back, welcome back, welcome back." After that, "Moving On Up," the theme to The Jeffersons.

Rebecca: And, of course, Charlie's Angels was one of the classic themes and openings. It sets up the show perfectly, which is what the theme is supposed to do.

Jim: Correct. And these days we rarely get that. In part because there are even more commercials than there were a decade earlier. The FCC obviously approves since they're the ones allowing it. So what you have is shorter themes and more commercials. Is there any show on the air now that really has an opening theme that sets up the show?

Mike: Well the theme is instrumental but, as with Charlie's Angeles, there's a voice over that explains the show, Chuck. It sets up the whole show in the opening.

Elaine: The way Mission Impossible, another famous theme and opening, used to.

Mike: Yeah, maybe spy shows require that.

Isaiah: What I dislike is when they chop up The Simpsons in syndication. Sometimes they lose the opening theme or the full opening theme but most of the time it's the lead in to the credits when they reduce the screen to a tiny box and talk over it so you miss the last scene.

Wally: Yeah, if you want to enjoy The Simpsons or any other animated show, you've pretty much got to get it on DVD because they really slice and dice those episodes in syndication.

Jim: Okay, let's move from music themes to themes or devices. What turns you off quicker than anything else?

Cedric: Voice overs. I want to watch a show, I don't want it to be narrated. I can't stand Grey's Anatomy or How I Met Your Mother for the same reason, they have to layer words over words over words. They don't trust me, the viewer, to grasp what I just saw, they have to yack about it.

Ruth: I would agree with Cedric on that and also add that I am so tired of the comedy device of 'reality show.' I enjoy Parks and Recreations so much . . . until the episode is broken up with someone speaking into a camera and I am reminded that, like The Office and Modern Family, this is a show about a reality show.

Marcia: That was my least favorite part of Arrested Development and, I agree, it's just irritating as hell.

Jess: Right and, as Cedric was pointing out, you've just seen what happens. Instead of allowing you to react to that, they bring on a speech that really drives you out of the moment. I can't stand that sort of thing. It's like watching an Aaron Sorkin show and wondering if the characters will ever shut up.

Dona: On themes, one thing I wanted to toss out was Katie Couric. She has now left the desk and is no longer the anchor of the CBS Evening News. Any thoughts?

Ann: Absolutely. Katie Couric was never going to succeed. It didn't matter what she did. Read "Katie was a Cheerleader" by Ava and C.I. That documents the war on Couric and it's months before she ever anchors. As Ava and C.I. document, people were out to get her, they were out to destroy her. That includes sexists of both genders. Some women just couldn't stand the idea that Couric would succeed. She got great ratings when she debuted. But the attacks on her had only increased and that was really it. She wasn't able to overcome those attacks. No matter what she did. No matter what news the program broke and whether or not she had a hand in it. She did a great job, in my opinion, but she was never going to overcome that wave of hatred.

Dona: So should she have even tried? My opinion's yes, but what's your opinion, Ann?

Ann: I agree with you. Katie Couric could have stepped down at any moment. Instead, she honored her contract and took the lumps and took it for all women -- even those who tried to get ahead by tearing Couric down. Katie Couric is a trailblazer who made history and I thank her for that. And, this is something I'm rushing to weigh in on because I did watch her evening news and I have discussed this a lot with Ava and C.I., if you look at it, Katie blazed the trail and changed the world. If you doubt that, look at Diane Sawyer. Katie was trashed for coming from daytime. Diane becomes the evening news anchor over at ABC shortly after Katie Couric and she gets a pass. It's not fair to Couric but it's a sign of how much Katie Couric accomplished that even the sexists knew they couldn't use the same attacks so soon after deploying them on Couric. So they did, instead, what sexists always do, ignore Sawyer -- who I do not think has done a good job, by the way.

Dona: I agree with you. I haven't talked to Ava and C.I. about it, but -- by the way, they're doing two TV pieces this edition so they're not participating in this roundtable -- Diane Sawyer had it very easy because of all the attacks Katie Couric stood up and took. I don't think anyone's ever been so little criticized when they moved to the evening news as Diane Sawyer was.

Betty: And, of course, last week, Diane and her program didn't even have time to note the 5 US soldiers had died that day in Iraq. Her interviews with officials are always fawning. Katie Couric wasn't afraid to get tough with officials. There was her interview with a VA official that I'm thinking of, in particular.

Jim: If you had to pick a theme for broadcast news in 2011, what would it be?

Ty: "Watch us ignore the Iraq War."

Trina: I was thinking that as well.

Ty: Right because it's the disappeared war. Can you imagine 5 US soldiers dying in one day in any country around the world and a network newscast ignoring that?

Trina: And let's point out that not only was C.I. writing about those deaths Monday morning, NBC's Today Show was reporting on the deaths Monday morning. So for the Monday broadcast of World News Tonight, that evening, to ignore it? There's no excuse. They had more than enough time to prepare something.

Ty: But it's just not important to them so they ignored it. And let's also note that all The NewsHour could do was toss out three measly sentences on the issue.

Trina: But, as Stan pointed out in "PBS is becoming a cesspool," they had time to do a whole segment on a non-sex 'scandal.' As a woman still in my first marriage and the mother of eight children, let me state that if sex isn't involved, it's not a sex scandal. Texting isn't sex. But The NewsHour had time for that but not time to do a segment on the attack on the 5 US soldiers. And they didn't even note it on Wednesday when another US soldier was killed in Iraq. And those five deaths Monday? As Ruth pointed out in "Free Speech Radio News ignores Iraq," Free Speech Radio News didn't cover it in headlines or in a report. 30 minutes of commercial free broadcast and they couldn't even note the death of 5 US soldiers on one day in Iraq.

Jess: With regards to PBS and Pacifica, when I see things like that, when I see them actively ignore the real news, I don't feel any need to contribute to them via a pledge or via my taxes.

Jim: Agreed. And we're going to wind down now. This is a rush transcript, enjoy typos.

5 'lefties' we wish would stop speaking for us on TV

1) Alter-Punky Brewster, Eric Alterman. No one's favorite lisping fool sounds like he got beat up by the chess club. Surely, there's a stronger voice out there.

2) Alter-Punky's boss, Katrina vanden Heuvel (pictured below in one of her typical beach ware outfits in Isaiah's "Grim Peace Resister"). Her insistence upon speaking in that absurd breathy voice makes the cultivated manner of Arianna Huffington's seem home grown. Katty-van-van operates under the rule of: Why speak for myself when I can claim to speak for everyone.

the grim peace resister



3) Melissa Harris-Lacewell-Perry-LieFace. In fairness to LieFace, her appearances on MSNBC are always amusing. When she's announced at the top of the show, you never know what racial panic the bi-racial LieFace will be in. Full-on racial panic? She'll have in the dreads and toss around "my blackness" frequently. As a cultural oddity, a pundit more famous for lying and failing to disclose than for any actual opinion shared, LieFace is probably prime material for a sociological study but in terms of viewing pleasure -- let alone basic information -- she forever fails to deliver.

4) Ed Schultz -- MSNBC's biggest woman hater (a fierce competition even with Keith Olbermann having left the network) is no lefty. The Republican demonstrates that repeatedly to any who pay attention. Our personal favorite? When Little Dicked Ed decided to sing the praises of the CIA-backed contras as "freedom fighters." Drug runners, yes. Freedom fighters, no.

5) Mark Shields. It's past time The NewsHour retired Mark Shields. Not that we think they'd find an actually lefty to fill his shoes but after 23 years, it is past time to find some new blood. Shields is a partisan hack. He exists solely for that reason. When PBS does fill his shoes, it would be truly revolutionary if they could find an actual leftist who didn't carry water for any political party. But there's nothing revolutionary, radical or even living about PBS so don't hold your breath.

Some people don't belong on TV

Just another over-sixty, lying, Red Diaper Baby, Jew from Brooklyn. Oh, how that group did disgrace themselves in 2008 and they've never recovered. If they accomplished anything, it was to humanize Norman Podhoretz move to the right -- and who would have thought that was possible?

But if the alternative is Eric Mann, Podhoretz's transformation becomes a lot more understandable if not forgiveable.

Like Podhoretz, Mann hails from Brooklyn, was a Red Diaper baby, is well over-sixty and Jewish. Mann has decided that no one can better speak for Black America than a White Jew and he made that decision many, many years ago.

In October of 1993, when race riots were feared in Los Angeles, Robert Siegel and All Things Considered (NPR) just knew the best voice to represent Black America was . . . White Eric Mann. And attention hog Mann didn't have the grace or good sense to say, "Hey, maybe you should book a Black person for this segment?" If you're confused as to who Eric Mann is, substitute another nobody for him: He's Danny Schechter 100 pounds lighter.

Family Guy
(Eric Mann pictured above? No, it's his soul-twin Peter from Family Guy.)


It is White people like Mann, still living in the 50s, who keep Black people down within the media by repeatedly attempting to speak for them. It's a form of a racism to think you, a non-Black, can speak better to the needs of Black people than a person who actually is Black.

Eric Mann isn't a face you'll see on TV -- thankfully. (But we're sure Amy Goodman's speed dialing him right now and extolling the virtues of her public access cable show.) There are people who don't have anything to contribute.

Mann likes to list The Boston Globe in his credits but doesn't note that the paper fired him. They tired of his observations as well. (He and Howard Zinn were both columnists for the paper for one year.) When talking about some of the horrors we on the left have to endure via the media and, specifically, the 'voices' that represent us, we wondered if there were any voices we were glad didn't represent us on TV? Immediately, we all thought of Mann.

Dislike for Mann is quickly becoming near universal judging by the month of May when KPFK did so much better in the Tuesday 4:00 pm time slot with "special programming" instead of Mann's program which mainly exists to demonstrate that he can't say "stay" ("say tuned," he slurs) and that he can't stop smacking his lips into the microphone.

Along with his own vanity, there are other reasons the program exists. Since 2009, it exists largely to excuse away Barack Obama. When Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, how Mann could rage, how he could thunder.

Instead, even on a topic like blasting the tops off mountains, Mann speaks softly and with regret, sprinkling words like "unfortunately" to describe Barack's policies.

That's surprising only if you didn't know that Eric Mann was part of the Cult of St. Barack.

Eric Mann provided "10 Reasons For Obama Vote" (different titles appeared at different websites) which continued his insistence that all opposed to Barack Obama were racists. Interestingly, in an end note, he noted that he refused to work for Cynthia McKinney's campaign. For the record, Cynthia was the only Black candidate for president. Barack is bi-racial. But the over-60, Red Diaper Baby, Brooklyn Jew is notorious for sexism. A vote for Bambi was a vote against racism. Apparently, in Mann's book, the better "Black" is the one who is half-White.

Mann saw racism everywhere, a bit like McCarthy spotting Communism in earlier times.

Mann attended an indoctrination camp on Long Beach, he confessed, and the reasons for voting for Barack cited there include? "He is the most qualified Black man." Huh? He's not Black but was there a Black man in the race? No, just a Black woman and, again, these types don't like women. Other reasons included that Barack "is so intelligent" and "Because I want my children to see we can elect a Black president." On the latter, then you should have supported Cynthia McKinney in 2008 if that was your main reasoning.

In his bad writing, he comes off like Peter (Family Guy) speaking to a large group of Black men about 'the struggle' and telling them he was there when various TV moments took place ("I was there when Tootie got those painful braces."). Excerpt of Mann:

I was also there when John F. Kennedy moved to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and tried to assassinate Castro. I was there when Lyndon B. Johnson initiated and then tried to disband the poverty programs, when Johnson escalated a genocidal war in Vietnam. These actions by Kennedy and Johnson led to more protests, not less. They led to the emergence of some very principled left liberal Democrats, and the radicalization of many formerly Democratic liberal students who came to see that more radical, structural, revolutionary change was needed.

[. . .]

There are some who worry that Obama will co-opt the Black community. They think that Black people who are against the growing police state or the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan will look the other way if those policies are carried out by Obama. Some have expressed a fear that Black people will protect and defend Obama in a way that brooks no criticism, giving him a free pass at a time of crisis. But while that is possible, it would contradict everything I have seen in 40 years of organizing. My experience says that it all depends on how you organize and how well you grasp and assert your own independence and initiative in the united front.


Ask Glen Ford if he sees a wave of people of color standing up to the police state or, for that matter, calling out the illegal Libyan War Barack just started. It hasn't happened. He's gotten one pass after another while expanding the empire. Among those making excuses and handing out passes? Eric Mann.

" When the election is over," hypocrite Eric Mann wrote, "whether Obama is elected or McCain, we all have to work together in a broad united front against the war in Iraq and racism at home."

That may have been the last time Eric Mann noted the Iraq War. Since Barack was sworn in, he's led no protest, he's written no demands for the war to end. He's done nothing. He's the perfect accessory for the faux left, showy, leathered and dysfunctional.

Eric Mann likes to speak out against White skin privilege . . . but he's yet to realize his tired ass (does no one on the faux left ever retire?) yammering away about second-hand observations of racism prevent someone who actually knows about racism from being heard. He should surrender the mike and, if he won't go willingly, KPFK should have the courage to replace him. For now, just be glad he's not on TV.

The Garbage, The Stink, The Network News

As part of our TV edition, we're reposting this piece by C.I.

The Garbage, The Stink, The Network News

As most Americans were starting their mornings or just waking up yesterday, the Associated Press was reporting that 5 US troops were killed in Iraq. By the time evening rolled around and the networks were starting their broadcasts, they had more than enough time to find the story. If they gave a damn. One network did. Two kind of did. One didn't care that you knew that they didn't give a damn. That's four, yes. We're counting PBS' NewsHour.

We'll start with the worst if only to make everyone else look better.

ABC World News with Diane Sawyer might strike some as having a strong opening. Most in the know however are probably remembering when Diane was on the morning shift (long before Good Morning America and ABC) and she was one of three who had an interview with British royalty. It was a fluff interview. (And long before Princess Diana entered the picture in case anyone thinks Diane was on to a big story but just missed it!) All three were told the ground rules and agreed to them. Diane broke the ground rules. And was quite proud of herself after.

For what?

She accomplished nothing. It was a piece of fluff interview -- all three. But Diane, to prove her 'independence' if not her skills, broke the ground rules and . . . produced nothing of value or interest. Not even a curiosity was captured.

That describes the Nixon White House worker's work probably better than anything else, all these years later.

Yesterday, World News opened with an overly long segment of Diane in Afghanistan. There were a few moments that some idiots may applaud. Especially at the start.

"Are we winning?" Diane asked Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Gen David Petraeus. That's a "yes" or a "no." But Diane let Gates prattle on and Petraeus follow up by wheezing, "We're making progress."

Diane then wanted to know (in her strongest moment -- for her), "If we can't talk about winning, if we don't talk about military victory, is it too much to ask of American military men and women to put their lives on the line for the hope of a negotiated settlement with the people they're fighting?"

It's the sort of moment they'll clip and pretend is amazing. (It's nearly identical -- especially in delivery -- to Barbara Walters with Colin Powell when he was still Secretary of State.)

Gates, Secretary of Defense in two consecutive administrations, thought the following was 'information' when it's actually rather telling on his 'leadership,' "Diane, we have not had a declared victory in a war with the possible exception of the first Gulf War since WWII. It is the phenomenon of modern conflict."

Petreaues and Gates both wanted to point to Iraq with Gates applauding the "strategy" in Iraq.

Asked about ten billion a month being spent on the war, Gates insisted, "The cost is already coming down, we will be spending 40 billion dollars less on these wars in 2012 than we did in 2011. I think you also have to ask the question what's the cost of failure? We've invested a huge amount of money here. We've invested 1254 lives up to this point so what's the cost of getting it wrong. Congress-Congress is almost always impatient I remember in the spring of 2007 people saying the war is lost in Iraq."

First off, ICCC lists US troop fatalities in Iraq to be 1610, not "1254." (DoD's count is 1594.) (He says "twelve-hundred and 54 lives.") I have no idea where Gates got that number but that is the one he gave. (Iraq is at 4462 according to the Pentagon figures plus the 5 killed yesterday, so he wasn't referring to Iraq -- though, yes, he did mingle the two in his answers.) If $120 billion -- by Diane's remarks and not rejected by Gates or Petreaus -- is being spent yearly on the Afghanistan War, I'm not really sure how Gates' assertion (true or false) that next years costs for both wars will be $40 billion less means much at all. $40 billion is a third of just the cost of the Afghnistant War. $170 million is the estimated cost for both wars this year. Gates is talking about a 'reduction' that maintains 3/4s of the obscene budget. It's a point Diane failed to grasp or at least follow up on. It's interesting that Gates went to money before the human costs. It's also telling that he wants Americans to now ask, "What's the cost of getting it wrong?" When that question should have been asked before either war started and since Gates admitted that no war -- except possibly the first Gulf War -- has been won by the US since WWII, maybe they should have been a lot more hestitant when they started the wars and maybe that point should be brought up by the government every time they start a new war: "We'd like to start a new war, we know we really haven't won one since WWII, but we'd like to start a new one!"


After 12 minutes of this nonsense, it was time to toss to George Steph in the US who quickly launched into the story of Anthony Weiner having 'textual relations' with some women. Over 2 minutes and 40 seconds were spent on that nonsense. Then it was time for 'headlines' which was a long cancer segment and then George offering "Welcome back, Katie!" to Katie Couric who just signed with ABC today to do her own talk show. I like Katie, I know Katie, I'm happy for her and wish only the best for her talk show, but, no, it wasn't broadcast evening news. (Nor do I think she'd see it as such.)

It was then time for the woman whose fortune Tricky Dick once kissed to return to her roots of fluff with an overly long profile on Robert Gates that was as 'penetrating' as this, "He's the kind of man you can count on."

It was truly the gutter. And you could have watched the entire half-hour and never leaned that 5 US soldiers died in Iraq. They never had time for it. But they had time for puff, for sex or 'sex' scandals and for inside baseball. ABC World News Tonight -- the show no one should waste time on.

PBS is probably real proud of their NewsHour right now -- as happy as they are that the stations are taking the blame currently for the decision to air commercials during some programs next fall (that's not a local decision and further proof that PBS games the system and then wants to play like, "We just provide content!"). They didn't forget Iraq last night.

Hari Sreenivasan: In Iraq, U.S. troops suffered their worst loss in more than two years. Five Americans were killed near Sadr City in Eastern Baghdad when rockets hit their compound at a joint U.S.-Iraqi base. They had worked as advisers to Iraqi security police. The remaining 46,000 American troops in Iraq are scheduled to leave by year's end.


And that was it. A headline. Not even the first headline. Whatever happened to the days when American broadcast news knew how you order your headlines? In other words, turmoil in a country that no US troops are stationed in? It's not your opener. You open with US deaths when you have them.

Equally true, Diane Sawyer's program is about 21 minutes (minus commercials) while The NewsHour, minus advertising, is probably close to 46 minutes. With over twice the time, PBS couldn't offer more than 3 sentences on 5 deaths. The show opened with a segment on Yemen. Then on to headlines (which opened with Syria). Then it was time for, yes, a segment on Anthony Weiner. As Stan pointed out last night, "PBS is becoming a cesspool."

It was an awful broadcast that had damn little to do wth news nad made very clear that no one knew what they were doing. It didn't work as hard news, it didn't work as a program geared to an American news consumer, it was part TMZ, it was garbage. I honestly think ABC World News -- even ignoring Iraq -- offered a higher quality than The NewsHour did yesterday but we'll rank it ahead of Diane's show solely for the Iraq headline.

Onto NBC Nightly News. Brian Williams opened with the story of "oversharing" -- he could have been talking about the networks on the Weiner gossip but he was talking about Weiner.

Then? "We turn to overseas in Iraq today. We haven't had news like this for awhile, 5 Americans were killed in a rocket attack in Baghdad. It's the deadliest day for the US there since '09 and today, of course, 5 American families got the worst possible news."

With just that brief headline, Williams showed greater comprehension than did The NewsHour. He and Richard Engel then engaged in conversations about Afghanistan and Iraq. We'll note Engel's comments in the snapshot today.

So if Nightly News came in second, who did the best job? CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley.The deaths were noted in the teaser over the theme music and Pelley opened with, "Good evening. We start tonight with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This has been a day of US casualties in Iraq and it is also a day [. . .]" Like Williams and Engel, CBS mixed discussions of the two wars together. There were reports from Afghanistan and Lara Logan providing an analysis of Afghanistan.

Scott Pelley: In the war in Iraq, this was the worst day for US troops in two years. 5 American soldiers were killed when their base in Baghdad was hit by rocket fire. This year, 29 Americans have been killed in Iraq. In Afghanistan, at least 159 US service members have been killed. What's next for both countries? Now to David Martin at the Pentagon, David, the five US soldiers that were killed in Iraq today, what happened there.

David Martin: Scott, this was a rocket attack on a compound in Baghdad where US forces were training Iraqi police. The insurgents got lucky and scored a direct hit on the area where the Americans lived but this is part of a trend of increasing attacks against US forces which Pentagon officials believe is the work of Shi'ite militias who want to see all US troops out of Iraq by the end of this year.

Scott Pelley: Remind us how many US forces remain in Iraq and what's the plan for them?

David Martin: Well there are currently 48,000 US troops in Iraq. Under an agreement signed at the end of the Bush administration, they all have to be out by December 31st unless the Iraqi government asks them to stay. Defense Secretary Gates have offered to keep some troops there to help with things lik intelligence and logistics but so far the Iraqi government has not accepted the offer and time is running out because the drawdown will begin in earnest at the end of July.

I know and like Anthony Weiner and you can insist -- as one ABC friend has this morning on the phone -- that I'm not recognizing the 'implications' of the Weiner story as a result. I disagree. If he has physically cheated, I still don't see how it trumps the deaths of 5 US soldiers. The reality is that it's a local issue for the voters in his district. The only national headline in the story is the call by Pelosi and others for an ethics investigation. It's a trashy little story that doesn't rise to the level of national news. And for those who insist, "You're a Democrat!" or "You know him!," I haven't covered the Republican scandals either. I'm really not interested in any of that garbage. Or faux 'moralizing.'

5 US soldiers died in Iraq, they were sent there by the government, they died in a war that the nation falsely considers to be 'over.' Their deaths were news. It's a damn shame only Pelley and Williams saw that reality. It's a damn shame that PBS and ABC had time for what Bob Somerby calls 'panty sniffing' but not to cover real news.

What Causes Rape? (Sadie Robinson)

This is a repost from Great Britian's Socialist Worker:

What causes rape?

comment on article | email | print
Share on: Delicious | Digg | reddit | Facebook | StumbleUpon


Women’s oppression and violence against women are features of our society. But can we get rid of them? Sadie Robinson looks at the roots of sexism and offers some answers

The world can be a bad place to be a woman. Women make up a staggering 70 percent of the world’s poor. Being female shapes every aspect of women’s lives—from things like work, housing, health and education to our most intimate relationships.

In Britain, the most obvious evidence of women’s oppression is the 17 percent pay gap between men and women. But the most sickening signs are acts of rape and violence—and the widespread tendency to blame the victims.

The shocking nature of sexual violence can make many people think that humans are inherently brutal. They despair of ever creating a world without sexual violence and systematic oppression.

The level of violence against women is appalling. It’s estimated that at least 47,000 women are raped in Britain every year—while the conviction rate for reported rapes is just 6.5 percent.

But the vast majority of men do not rape women. And most men are not violent towards women.

Rape doesn’t happen because of men’s “natural” instincts. It results from the way that class society distorts sexuality and alienates people from each other and themselves.

Women’s oppression benefits capitalism—it plays an ideological and an economic function.

People create the environments and the societies we live in—but because we feel we have no control over it, the world appears as an alien entity.

Extreme

We become alienated from ourselves and from each other. Rape and sexual violence are some of the most extreme forms that this alienation takes.

This combines with a view of sexuality that sees sex as a commodity like any other, which can be bought and sold—or taken.

Nearly a third of people in Britain think that a woman was at least partly to blame if she was raped while she was drunk.

Dominant ideas about sexuality blame women for “encouraging” rape and treat men as little more than animals unable to control themselves.

So justice secretary Kenneth Clarke’s recent comments, which seemed to dismiss some rapes, such as date rape, as barely rapes at all, unfortunately came as no surprise.

Clarke’s comments did cause an enormous outcry, and his views are heavily contested.

But those at the top of society—politicians, judges, those who own the media, and so on—promote sexist ideas. Those who own newspapers and TV stations fill them with images depicting women as sex objects, not people in their own right.

And it’s normal for rape trials to raise what a victim was wearing, if she was out late, if she had been drinking and if she’d had sex with the rapist before.

Of course, lots of women, and men, do challenge sexist ideas and fight for reforms to improve women’s lives.

But sexist ideas are widespread because of women’s position in society and how our society distorts sexuality.

The revolutionary Karl Marx described how the dominant ideas in any society are the ideas of the ruling class. This doesn’t mean they are the only ideas—but it means they are the strongest.

But why would the ruling class want to encourage this view of women? What do they get out of it?

Women’s oppression hasn’t always existed. It emerged when human societies began to form into classes.

Marx and his collaborator Frederick Engels identified the family under class society as the key to women’s oppression. Engels described the emergence of the family as “the world historical defeat of the female sex”.

They saw that how people secure their basic existence shapes human behaviour and ideas.

The family emerged alongside private property and the state. Before that, women and men lived in hunter-gatherer societies where they did different but equal work and had an equal say in decision-making. Marx and Engels called this “primitive communism”.

As societies developed, they began to produce a surplus in excess of what they needed to meet their basic needs—something that could be stored and controlled.

And the production techniques that created it tended to prioritise men’s labour over women’s for the first time.

Once a ruling class developed the men who came to dominate wanted “legitimate” heirs to pass the surplus on to. Control of women and sexual relationships became key to owning it.

The family unit developed with an ideology that treats women as second-class citizens and as a form of property to be controlled by men.

These ideas help legitimate and encourage violence against women.

That doesn’t mean that nothing ever changes in class societies. A woman’s position in a family under capitalism is very different from how it was under feudalism.

And even under capitalism women have fought to transform their lives over the past century.

Most women in Britain today work outside the home. People have more sexual freedom than they did in the past.

And changes in women’s lives and ideas have had an impact on men too. So it’s much more common for men to do jobs that would have previously been seen as women’s work such as nursing.

Housework

Men spend more time caring for their children today than they did in the past. Housework is no longer the sole responsibility of women in many homes.

Huge changes have occurred within capitalism, partly due to the changing needs of the system and partly because of mass pressure and struggle from ordinary people.

These changes show that the idea that men and women have fixed, unchanging roles is wrong.

But important as the changes are, women’s oppression remains. And our rulers are constantly trying to roll back the gains we have made.

So being a wife and mother is still seen as key to a women’s identity.

Society overemphasises sexual relationships—and tells women that unless they nab themselves a man they’re a failure.

And women who don’t want children are still often seen as inexplicably strange.

Women’s oppression, like other oppressions, serves to divide the working class. Instead of ordinary people seeing themselves as having a common interest against the rich, women and men can be sucked into seeing each other as the main enemy. This is highly useful for our rulers—and they know it.

The family also plays a key economic function for capitalism. Women are expected to maintain the current workforce and nurture the future one—while often being part of that workforce at the same time.

Free

They raise children, care for sick or elderly relatives, and maintain a household. They save capitalism a fortune by providing all of these services for free.

This isn’t to say that every home and every relationship is simply a weight around women’s necks.

Often people value their personal relationships and home life above all else, because they seem to offer a haven from the stresses of the outside world.

But that doesn’t change the role the family plays under capitalism. And for a lot of the time, people looking for comfort and sanctuary in the family are disappointed.

The haven they hoped to find ends up being a pressure cooker where built-up tensions are unleashed—and women often bear the brunt of them.

The key role that the family plays explains why our rulers hate criticism of it and attack anyone who falls outside it. That’s why there is homophobia, panic over single parents and pressure on single people to get married.

This also shapes the way people think about rape. Most women who are raped know their attacker, and violence is more likely to happen within families—yet the most common view of rape is of a shadowy stranger leaping out of a bush late at night.

Sexist ideas are so ingrained because women’s oppression has existed for thousands of years, since the rise of class societies. This is why it seems so natural and permanent.

But some of those who argue that we can’t challenge oppression do so because they have an interest in maintaining it. And it helps them to focus on individual acts of violence, because that distracts from the systemic oppression at the heart of capitalism.

We can end women’s oppression—but to do it we need to get rid of the system that props it up.

Oppression affects all women, but the impact is vastly different depending on class.

It is key to a system that ruling class women do very well out of—which is why we can’t rely on alliances with rich women to win change.

Ordinary people have a common interest in getting rid of capitalism. It wrecks the lives of working class women and men.

It relies on oppression to divide and weaken the working class. And it atomises us and distorts even our most intimate relationships.

In the process of creating a new world, people transform themselves. They throw off what Marx called the “muck of ages” and ideas that have survived for centuries start to fall away.

And in every revolutionary movement, women come to the forefront to lead the struggle.

Revolution isn’t a fairytale. Already this year we’ve seen revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia that have thrown out dictators and raised the prospect of workers’ control of society.

Collectively, we have the power to smash the system and create real equality and freedom for everybody.


© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.

The Pentagon & slave labor (Workers World)

This is a report from Workers World.

The Pentagon & slave labor in U.S. prisons

Published Jun 11, 2011 9:21 AM

Part 1 of this article examined the use of U.S. prisoners, who are paid slave wages for their labor, to produce weapons parts for the military industrial complex. It is available at workers.org.

It is not only federal prisons that contract out prison labor to top corporations. State prisons that used forced prison labor in plantations, laundries and highway chain gangs increasingly seek to sell prison labor to corporations trolling the globe in search of the cheapest possible labor.

One agency asks: “Are you experiencing high employee turnover? Worried about the costs of employee benefits? Unhappy with out-of-state or offshore suppliers? Getting hit by overseas competition? Having trouble motivating your workforce? Thinking about expansion space? Then Washington State Department of Corrections Private Sector Partnerships is for you.” (educate-yourself.org, July 25, 2005)

Major corporations profiting from the slave labor of prisoners include Motorola, Compaq, Honeywell, Microsoft, Boeing, Revlon, Chevron, TWA, Victoria’s Secret and Eddie Bauer.

IBM, Texas Instruments and Dell get circuit boards made by Texas prisoners. Tennessee inmates sew jeans for Kmart and JCPenney. Tens of thousands of youth flipping hamburgers for minimum wages at McDonald’s wear uniforms sewn by prison workers, who are forced to work for much less.

In California, as in many states, prisoners who refuse to work are moved to disciplinary housing and lose canteen privileges as well as “good time” credit, which slices hard time off their sentences.

Systematic abuse, beatings, prolonged isolation and sensory deprivation, and lack of medical care make U.S. prison conditions among the worst in the world. Ironically, working under grueling conditions for pennies an hour is treated as a “perk” for good behavior.

In December, Georgia inmates went on strike and refused to leave their cells at six prisons for more than a week. In one of the largest prison protests in U.S. history, prisoners spoke of being forced to work seven days a week for no pay. Prisoners were beaten if they refused to work.

Private prisons for profit

In the ruthless search to maximize profits and grab hold of every possible source of income, almost every public agency and social service is being outsourced to private for-profit contractors.

In the U.S. military this means there are now more private contractors and mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan than there are U.S. or NATO soldiers.

In cities and states across the U.S., hospitals, medical care facilities, schools, cafeterias, road maintenance, water supply services, sewage departments, sanitation, airports and tens of thousands of social programs that receive public funding are being contracted out to for-profit corporations. Anything publicly owned and paid for by generations of past workers’ taxes — from libraries to concert halls and parks — is being sold or leased at fire sale prices.

All this is motivated and lobbied for by right-wing think tanks like that set up by Koch Industries and their owners, Charles and David Koch, as a way to cut costs, lower wages and pensions, and undercut public service unions.

The most gruesome privatizations are the hundreds of for-profit prisons being established.

The inmate population in private for-profit prisons tripled between 1987 and 2007. By 2007 there were 264 such prison facilities, housing almost 99,000 adult prisoners. (house.leg.state.mn.us, Feb. 24, 2009) Companies operating such facilities include the Corrections Corporation of America, the GEO Group Inc. and Community Education Centers.

Prison bonds provide a lucrative return for capitalist investors such as Merrill-Lynch, Shearson Lehman, American Express and Allstate. Prisoners are traded from one state to another based on the most profitable arrangements.

Militarism and prisons

Hand in hand with the military-industrial complex, U.S. imperialism has created a massive prison-industrial complex that generates billions of dollars annually for businesses and industries profiting from mass incarceration.

For decades workers in the U.S. have been assured that they also benefit from imperialist looting by the giant multinational corporations. But today more than half the federal budget is absorbed by the costs of maintaining the military machine and the corporations who are guaranteed profits for equipping the Pentagon. That is the only budget category in federal spending that is guaranteed to increase by at least 5 percent a year — at a time when every social program is being cut to the bone.

The sheer economic weight of militarism seeps into the fabric of society at every level. It fuels racism and reaction. The political influence of the Pentagon and the giant military and oil corporations — with their thousands of high-paid lobbyists, media pundits and network of links into every police force in the country — fuels growing repression and an expanding prison population.

The military, oil and banking conglomerates, interlinked with the police and prisons, have a stranglehold on the U.S. capitalist economy and reins of political power, regardless of who is president or what political party is in office. The very survival of these global corporations is based on immediate maximization of profits. They are driven to seize every resource and source of potential profits.

Thoroughly rational solutions are proposed whenever the human and economic cost of militarism and repression is discussed. The billions spent for war and fantastically destructive weapons systems could provide five to seven times more jobs if spent on desperately needed social services, education and rebuilding essential infrastructure. Or it could provide free university education, considering the fact that it costs far more to imprison people than to educate them.

Why aren’t such reasonable solutions ever chosen? Military contracts generate far larger guaranteed profits to the military and the oil industries, which have a decisive influence on the U.S. economy.

The prison-industrial complex — including the prison system, prison labor, private prisons, police and repressive apparatus, and their continuing expansion — are a greater source of profit and are reinforced by the climate of racism and reaction. Most rational and socially useful solutions are not considered viable options.


Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.



"I Hate The War" -- The most requested highlight by readers of this site.


Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Plan For Day 101" -- Isaiah explains what Nouri has in mind.


"Iraq snapshot," "Brown and Collins ask Panetta," "Claire McCaskill" and "Senate Armed Service Committee Boneheads" -- C.I., Ava, Wally and Kat report on the confirmation hearing for Leon Panetta.

"Iraq snapshot," "Sexual assaults at the VA (Ava)," "Army pays $1 billion annually in unemployment" and "Senator Burr" -- C.I., Ava, Wally and Kat report on a Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.

"Iraq snapshot" -- C.I. reports on the Commission for Wartime Contracting hearing last week.



"Enemy of the State," "A movie that makes me cry," "X-Men," "TASAT" and "look who they're going after now" -- Stan goes to the movies as do Kat, Mike, Elaine and Rebecca while Ann monitors the radio:




"The sick Chicago Tribune" -- Elaine calls out the War Hawks.


"Eggplants and roma tomatoes in the Kitchen" -- Trina offers an easy, fresh vegetable recipe.


"Tracy Morgan is disgusting," "the disgusting tracy morgan," "Morgan, Fey and Baldwin treat homophobia as a joke," and "Idiot of the week: Ron Nyswaner" -- Betty, Rebecca, Marcia and Mike call out Tracy Morgan.

"And how 'bout those fingers?" and "THIS JUST IN! HANDS OFF!" -- Cedric and Wally explain Barack's 'magic' touch.


"Lunch panhandlers" -- Betty goes out to eat and has panhandlers stop by the table -- but the panhandlers are the wait staff.

"Trashy John Edwards" and "The trashy john Edwards" -- Ruth covers the cesspool that is John Edwards.

"Way more than just Spock" -- Marcia responds to a reduction of Leonard Nimoy.


"When Front Runners Attack" -- Isaiah dips into the archives.

"The Garbage, The Stink, The Network News" and "PBS is becoming a cesspool" -- C.I. and Stan provide two instant classics.


"233 soldiers have died in Iraq under CIC Barack" -- Betty notes the War Hawk in Chief.

"Carney and Helene" -- Kat reports on the White House press briefing.

"The economy" -- Trina on the economy.


"Free Speech Radio News ignores Iraq" -- Ruth's important post.

"THIS JUST IN! BEAT BY BASEBALL EQUIPMENT!" and "A slump in his pants" -- Wally and Cedric on polling.

"Is it still The Progressive?" -- Elaine asks the important question.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }