And this is why we tremble

Rape. What is it good for? Depends on who you ask, I guess.

I've been thinking about the topic of for awhile now, probably not surprising given that I'm a woman and others (usually women) forward me emails telling me which precautions to take in order to avoid rape. I remember one email in particular where the only conclusion one could draw was that death was the only protection against rape.

Of course, most of the information in these email forwards is hogwash, if not utter crap. I'll not do it the service of repeating it, but in case you have never received such an email, I suggest you go here and read one. Then, continue on to read how totally stupid and baseless most of the claims are.

Despite the lack of evidence to support such claims, the rumors are paralyzing enough. Generations of American women look over their shoulders, avoid making too much or not enough eye contact with men they don't know, wear their scarves in a particular way so that it can't be grabbed from behind and used to choke them, etc. etc. etc.

To some extent, I've grown somewhat immune or accustomed to most of this drivel. I get the emails and read them just to see what new absurdity has been put on the list. At some point, I figured "Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. Rape is like death and taxes. Might was well just live until it happens." Luckily though, I haven't had to pay up yet. Still, I'll admit, that sometimes I look under my car before I get in, just in case there's someone waiting underneath with a box cutter, waiting to slash my ankles [my grandmother sowed this lovely piece of paranoia].

But despite my fatalistic emotional distancing, every now and again, I get chills and feel sick. This is one of those weeks.

I happened upon a petition to South African leaders urging them to do something about "corrective rapes," i.e. rapes to cure women of being lesbians. It seemed too surreal, too absurd, too asinine, so I knew it was probably true. The 'logic' is breathtaking: problem with dykes - they haven't had a good fucking yet.

But I suppose one might expect this from South Africa, considering it has the highest instance of [reported] rape in the world. And they have a lovely practice of raping children and infants to cure HIV/AIDS, and they -- not unlike other African countries -- also rape your non-child virgins to cure or ward off HIV/AIDS.

Here are lovely facts about the flavors of rape, but keep in mind, these are by NO means particular to South Africa. The myth of the "virgin cure" is alive in well in many/most developing countries, such as India, and was once active in Europe and Christianity as a cure for other STDs.

On infant/child rape:

There were 294 patients, 254 females and 40 males. Victims ranged from 10 months to 13 years in age (mean 5.8 years). The number of cases and severity of injuries increased annually. There were 14 third-degree, 22 second-degree and 91 first-degree injuries. Seventy-nine per cent of assaults were by a perpetrator known to the victim. All but 5 perpetrators were male. Fifty-eight per cent of rapes occurred in the patient’s own home or that of a friend or relative.

On "corrective rape":

This form of rape targets lesbians or presumed lesbians, tends to be gang rape, and tends to be violent. In 2008, Eudy Simelane, a former, well-known soccer player, was gang raped and stabbed 25 times in the face and body, and died for being a lesbian in South Africa.

In 2003, 33 such rapes were reported. I don't know the exact statistics for the past years, but considering that it is now coming to international attention, we can assume that it isn't decreasing.

On martial rape (which might be ok and not technically a crime in some countries):

Around 10% of all rapes are perpetrated by husbands or ex-husbands.

[In the USA] Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives. (Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994).

And this is why we tremble. This is why we look over our shoulders. This is why we lie to ourselves and tell ourselves that it doesn't matter. This is why we push victims away. It is too horrific, too damning to deal with.

When no woman or child is safe from even her own family and where any excuse to humiliate, dominate, and destroy another's dignity and humanity through what should be a pleasurable and mutually enjoyable act, there is nothing left to do but tremble.

And the winner is...

CALIFORNIA!

That's right, beautiful California has the highest number of hate groups (84) in the United States, leading Texas (66) and third-place Florida (56). My home state, Illinois, is getting its ass kicked (23) by New Jersey (40). Come on guys, we've got nearly 1.5 times more people than them (IL: 12,852,548 NJ:8,685,920). I think we can be doing a bit better than 23, and really, can we diversify a bit more? All our hate groups are of the same ilk: white supremacy. But overall, I think we - as a nation - are doing much better at showing our xenophobic nature (our 'true colors' if you will).

According the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of "neo-Nazis, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, skinheads and others - have grown in number by 54%." With Obama in the White House, the economy in the crapper, and Mexico on the verge of spilling over into Texas, these numbers are only likely to rise.

I wish I knew the remedy for the type of stupidity that leads to racism and hate. Sadly, I'm a mere graduate student, and not a very good one. But I do have this to say: The more they scream, the less they have to say. The more the media screech the same message at the top of their lungs, the more likely they are to be wrong. The more inflammatory the rhetoric, the less substance there is to support it. The more black-and-white the presentation . . . you get the point.

A friend of mine recently said that the whole situation (meaning everything from the corporate-ization of the world, to the atrocities in Africa, to the systematic profiling of Americans by the police, to the unwarranted tracking of places of worship and homes) is simply too overwhelming. Sadly, he's right. And sadly, many people respond to this overwhelmingness by giving up and focusing on what is immediately in front of them rather than turning to address the world.

The problem with pure hate and with hate groups is that there is no logic or argument that can undermine them. They are devoid of true logic. Thus, they are immune to it. They start with a grievance, find a target, make up some excuse to attack the target (often using misinterpretations of history and/or religion), and then re-frame reality to match their explanations.

So what do can we do when even California, that basin of granola-loving-tree-hugging lefties, is being overrun by hate? In times like this, I like to think back to high school, when morality, purpose, and direction seemed so clear. During these painful, pimple-filled years, I filled my time with Orwell, Kafka, and (my love) Vonnegut Jr. And it was Vonnegut who most clearly explained what one should do.

In his book Player Piano, the main character joins an organization called The Ghost Shirts to oppose an impending technology-spawed class war. Unbeknown to him, the Ghost Shirt movement, from which the organization got its name, was pretty much a failure. The founding Native Americans were not able to stop the encroachment of the Americans and were massacred for their movement. At the end of the book, when everyone realizes their opposition was futile and that they couldn't stop the wheels of progress, they realize that their mission was not to win in the moment but to give hope to future generations.

However romantic and toothless it sounds, there is a whole lotta truth to this realization. We must get it into to the record book that we tried to stop it. We must show up as blips in the history books as those who stood against hate and confronted intolerance, even if it ended up leading to nothing. Even if all we can do is scratch at the mountain, we have to do something.

So get to work.

Just you wait and see

In the run up to the war in Iraq, my WFT sensors went haywire. And now they're blaring again. Turns out that we poor American's are on the verge of being overrun by drug cartels in Mexico, and Mexico is on the verge of becoming ((gasp)) a failed state. Whatever can we American's do to forestall this impending crisis?! Of course - send in the military and "help" the failing state before it blows up and takes us all out with it.

We're getting really good at being the world's cleaning lady. First, we'll clean up Afghanistan, and then Iraq, and now . . . Pakistan? Mexico? Oh, the messes keep piling up, and someone's got to take out the trash.

Recently, the Director of National Intelligence tried to slow down the insanity, claiming that the Pentagon report that we were on the brink of Armageddon was, perhaps, a bit over stated. Blair stated:

Mexico is in no danger of becoming a failed state. [Let me] repeat that. Mexico is in no danger of becoming a failed state. The violence we see now is the result of Mexico taking action against the drug cartels. So it is in fact the result of positive moves, which the Mexican government has taken to break the baneful influence that many of these cartels have had on many aspects of Mexican government and Mexican life.

Of course, this isn't going to amount to much, not when the media and the military industrial complex can exploit American's xenophobia and distrust of anyone darker than a marshmallow to make a profit. What I find especially troubling is the ease with which we - the American public - have swallowed this line. Granted, there are drugs there, and granted there are bad (VERY bad) people doing bad (VERY VERY bad) things, but we need to hit the pause button for a second here and think about what might be helping to fan the fear (e.g. racism, anti-immigrant sentiments, "free" trade agreements, a desire for the Mexican oil (PEMEX)).

I really hope I'm wrong about this, and I hope that we've learned from our knee-jerk response in the past, but I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong -- the reports we hear coming out of Mexico are awful. Something like 6000 people murdered in the past year, women and children (and probably a few men here and there) disappearing, a rise in drug use and drug-related crime. These things are shameful and should be addressed. But addressing a problem doesn't mean shooting bullets at it. In fact, maybe culling the number of bullets involved would solve it.

If we really want to support Mexico and help stem the growing violence and mayhem, maybe we could stop buying their drugs or selling them automatic weapons, ammunition, and other fun-filled hardware? Oh, maybe we could actually enforce laws that would limit the ability of cartels to smuggle money and weapons into Mexico? Before we go in, guns a'blazin, maybe we should use the legal and potentially more useful tools we already have.

Failed state my ass.

Stupid stupidheads & their army that shoot people in the head

I am so thoroughly annoyed right now.

In case you haven't heard (and I'm guessing you haven't), last Friday, Tristan Anderson was shot in the head by the IDF (the Israeli Defense Forces, aka the Insane Dumbass F*ckers) with a tear gas canister while attending an anti-separation wall protest with other unarmed civilians. He's now lying in a comma, with his right eye severely damage, his skull shattered open, and probable brain damage to boot.

The IDF's rationalization: "They threw rocks at us." Ok, Goliath, but note that the vicious, deadly rocking throwing incident occurred at the wall in the morning whereas the justifiable, necessary targeted shooting of a peace observer occurred in the village hours later.

Tristan was/is a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), the same movement who gave us Rachel Corrie, the young woman who was run over by an IDF bulldozer. She had the gall to stand between the IDF and the continual illegal demolition of a Palestinian home, demolations that even the UN has condemned for years.

Given Israel's track record of condoning even the most despicable of IDF actions (from supporting the slaughter of Palestinians in Lebanon to the beating of school children in the occupied territories), I doubt we'll ever know why Tristan was shot in the face with tear gas, though suspicion of US complicity has been voiced.

I'm not really surprised that the IDF and Israel shot Tristan. Not to be smug, but he's not Israeli, so why give a shit? And not to point out the obvious, but if this is how they treat peaceful protesters from their #1 fans in the international community, one wonders how they would the average Palestinian standing between them and the fulfillment of their destiny.

Same ol' same ol'

So I was actually reading this article my brother sent me about Hamas when I clicked a link to an article about David Ben-Gurion. Turns out that he was both the first prime minister of Israel a first-class jerk off.

To make the story short, he and his platoon-mates shot an Arab man, took the young girl who was with him, "washed her, cut her hair, raped her and killed her." Nice. The platoon leader denied having sex with her, saying, "Morally speaking, it was impossible to sleep with such a dirty girl." [I don't think anyone mentioned anything about 'sleeping' with her - you raped her you frickin' a-hole.] Anyway, the girl was shot dead in the dunes rather than "waste the petrol" to take her home.

Now, the article does not explicitly say that Ben-Gurion raped or killed the girl, but he did mention it in his diary and must have been (at least) involved in its cover-up. But boys will be boys. And during war, it's ok for boys to be monsters.

But perhaps I'm overreacting. Rape is supposed to be a crime -- hell even the Hauge and the UN know that. But it turns out that your normal guy (or gal) on the street isn't quite so sure. Here are some nauseating facts for you. After reading a short story about a date rape...

37% [of the men] identified with the rapist. 26% said the rapist was justified (presumably because of the perceived insult). 38% said the victim enjoyed being raped, while 47% of the women said the woman enjoyed being raped . . . 8% of the men said the victim could have stopped the rape, while 57% of the women thought she could have stopped it. 36% of the men thought *all women* would enjoy victimization, while 32% of the women thought *all women* would enjoy victimization . . .49% of the men said that the believe that other men would rape if they could get away with it . . . [and] on a scale of 1-5, 1 being most likely, when asked if *THEY* personally would rape if the could get away with it 51% fell between 1 and 2, and 21% fell on 3.

Just to make the math clear, in this study 72% of the men said they would be very likely to moderately likely to rape (3 is the 50/50 point).

Dear God. It's times like this when I'm almost happy I don't have children -- heaven forbid one of them ends up in that 72% or dating someone in that 72%.

But alas, I digress. Back to Ben-Gurion for a moment. So he was involved in some capacity in the rape, torture, and death of a young girl. Maybe that makes him a bad person. Maybe that makes him the Prime Minister. Maybe that makes him just another "human being" who doesn't see people but sees opportunities and obstacles.

You can find these types of people all the world over. We've got some in our military. Such as the lovely US army lads who raped and killed an Iraqi woman. Or the Iraqi woman who had other women raped in order to convince them to become martyrs. Or the US soldiers and colleagues of a female paramedic working for a military contractor in Iraqi who raped her orally and anally and then threatened her if she reported it. [At least she didn't get killed.] And then there's Darfur, DR Congo, South Africa, hell - all of Africa. And the list goes on.

This is likely to go on my permanent record

I'm pretty sure I already have a file with the FBI and/or some other government agency. If not, then this one is likely to get me my own, personal manila folder.

In case you haven't been paying attention, the Director of National Intelligence appointed a man named Charles "Chas" Freeman chairman on the National Intelligence Committee. The only problem (in some people’s eyes) is that he has questioned unwavering support for Israel and has ::gasp:: worked with the Saudis (as if our former administration wasn't completely in bed with the Saudis).

For an introduction to this matter, you may want to start here.

I am thoroughly annoyed with the strong-arm tactics of special interest groups (e.g. neocons, AIPAC and the Jewish lobby more generally). They appear to want nothing than the perpetuation of their own self-importance, often at the expense of a peace that would sustain not only Jews and Israelis but also the international community more broadly. Granted, I don't hold much sway, but what the heck - I'm going to write. Below is my first letter to the Department of National Intelligence. For good measure, I also wrote the White House, the Director of National Security himself, Diane Feinstein and Kit Bond (co-chairs of Senate Select Committee on National Intelligence), and I'm contemplating writing Rahm Emanuel too. Let them choose to ignore me - that's what I say.

TO: Mr. Edward Maguire, Inspector General
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
RE: Support for the appointment of Chas Freeman

Dear Honorable Inspector General Maguire,

I know that you have been called on to deepen your probe into the appointment and history of Chas Freeman. This letter is a plea for a fair, balanced investigation, one that does not pander to the personal, political interests of organizations like AIPAC and other members of the Jewish lobby. These groups do not speak for all Jews or Americans, and I am concerned that their current attacks on Freeman are motivated more by an attempt to control US policy regarding Israel than to find the best candidate for the position. Their campaign seems like nothing more than attempt to undermine the Obama Administration's attempt to build new, better relations with the Middle East and bring different ideas and views to the table.

I strongly support the rights of the administration to nominate and appoint the men and women deemed most qualified. Thus, I support the appointment of Chas Freeman and will stand behind the administration and its right to appoint those who have opinions and experiences that may challenge the status quo. Such challenges should not be feared but embraced as tools to explore all sides of an issue.

Please do not capitulate to those who clamor for his removal. Freeman is but one voice that will contribute to the conversation. If Israel has nothing to fear, then it can handle the questions and probes of one man. However, if Israel and its supporters have become so entrenched in a mentality of persecution that can justify even the most unjustifiable of actions, then even mild dissent will be cast as being unfair and anti-Semitic.

It is neither unfair nor anti-Semitic to want peace in the Middle East, and to accomplish such a task, the US government must have legitimacy and respect of all parties in the region. Israel and the Jewish lobby have been dinning at the table of American favoritism since at least the end of WWII. Men and women like Freeman bring that to the table and perhaps help us all to achieve our mutual dream: sustainable peace.

I request that you do your job as openly as possible and that you remain free of political and special interest influence.

Sincerely,
Me

Get thee to the Hague

Way back when I was in high school in the early 90s, I had an "underground" magazine called The Esoteric Address (I cannot claim the title - I had to look up esoteric when one of the co-founders suggested it). Anyway, one of my first front-page articles was about the Sudan and the atrocities there. Heaven knows why I was interested in the Sudan. The problems there were not as grievous as those in other African nations (they were, I believe, in the midst of low-level civil-war-like aggression). I don't think I even bothered looking it up on a map. Regardless, I was inflamed with teenage moral certitude and wanted to rail against what I deemed to be injustice and hypocrisy.

Now, well over a decade after my sophomoric rant, I am happy to announce that Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, President of Sudan, accused perpetrator of war crimes and crimes against humanity, is on the International Criminal Court hit list. They had early wanted to include charges of genocide but removed these charges due to lack of sufficient evidence and because they wanted to have a sure-fire case against al-Bashir.

al-Bashir, for his part, has basically told the ICC to shove it, claiming that he doesn't recognize the court's authority and dismissing the charges as yet another neo-colonialist, racist, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim tactic of the West. Were it not for the fact that an over 300,000 people were displaced, murdered, raped, tortured, or otherwise abused, I might give him the benefit of the doubt. But all roads from the hell that is Darfur lead back to Sudan, and all roads of power in Darfur lead back to al-Bashir.

So what did al-Bashir do to mark the injustice of these colonial bigots' accusations? Exactly what you'd expect a despotic, masochistic, megalomaniac ruler to do: screw the people. The Sudanese government revoked the licenses of Oxfam and other aid agencies, who were [not surprisingly] the last, best hope of the people to, oh I don't know, eat.

((sigh))

It makes me wonder about Africa. What happened? Why is it so amazingly F***ed up? Why does it seem as though all leaders there basically hate - if not despise - their own people? I'm sure I'm missing something here.

Still, I'm happy that the ICC has made it clear what anyone with eyes can see, al-Bashir is not a man to be trusted with the welfare of a used wad of toilet paper, let alone human beings. Now for the second, hard step - getting him to the Hague.