Framed

You Will Pay Pam Stenzel

Pam Stenzel is coming to town tonight to give one her patented "you will pay" talks designed to scare kids out of having sex.  Stenzel and her message are described thus in Michelle Goldberg's book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism:

Reclaiming America for Christ is a place where the Christian nationalist movement drops its democratic pretenses and indulges its theocratic dreams.  So at the 2003 conference, when the abstinence educator Pam Stenzel spoke, she knew she didn't have to justify her objection to sex education with prosaic arguments about health and public policy.  She could be frank about the real reason society must not condone premarital sex--because it is, as she shouted during one particularly impassioned moment, "stinking, filthy, dirty, rotten sin!"

A pretty, zaftig brunette from Minnesota with a degree in psychology from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Stenzel makes a living telling kids not to have sex.  Rather, she makes a living trying to scare kids out of having sex--as she says in her video No Screwin' Around, if you have sex outside of marriage "to a partner who has only been with you . . . then you will pay."  A big part of her mission is puncturing students' beliefs that condoms can protect them.  She says she addresses half a million kids each year, and millions more have received her message via video.

Yikes.  Sex is dirty, stinking, rotten and dirty.  You will pay if you have sex outside of marriage, even if you're in a committed, long-term, monogamous relationship.  These are not the values I want my kids internalizing.

I could at least muster some grudging admiration for her if her approach actually worked, but it doesn't--and Stenzel apparently doesn't care as long as the checks roll in:

At Reclaiming America for Christ, Stenzel told her audience about a conversation she'd had with a skeptical businessman on an airplane.  The man had asked about abstinence education's success rate--a question she regarded as risible.  "What he's asking," she said, "is does it work.  You know what?  Doesn't matter. Cause guess what.  My job is not to keep teenagers from having sex.  The public schools' job should not be to keep teens from having sex."

Then her voice rose and turned angry as she shouted, "Our job should be to tell kids the truth!"

"People of God," she cried, "can I beg you, to commit yourself to truth, not what works!  To truth!  I don't care if it works, because at the end of the day I'm not answering to you.  I'm answering to God!"

I wonder if all the communities that pony up the thousands of dollars Stenzel's presentations command are as blase about their effectiveness at reducing teen pregnancy and STDs as she is.

Later in the same talk, she explained further why what "works" isn't what's important--and gave some insight into what she means by "truth."  "Let me tell you something, people of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here," she said.  "AIDS is not the enemy.  HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy.  An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy.  My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy.  I will not teach my child that they can sin safely."

The crowd applauded.

Of course, Stenzel isn't just teaching her child.

I think I'd prefer if wasn't teaching my child either.  And I sure hope she doesn't take my school district's money to present a program that doesn't actually help to reduce teen pregnancy or STDs.  But maybe that's what she means by "you will pay."

Grrr.....

Just in case you wondered who organized the press conference by Obama's somewhat unhinged former minister--you know, the conference where the Rev claimed that the government invented AIDS to wipe out black people--the word on the street is that it was an "enthusiastic Clinton supporter" by name of Barbara Reynolds.

This guilt-by-association jag we as a country are on--the idea that candidates are somehow responsible for the views of their ministers, their supporters or their endorsers--is puerile at best and a scary return to McCarthyism at worst.

Which, come to think of it, pretty much describes what I now think about Clinton.

Fantasy

Shorter John McCain: big publically-run nonprofit healthcare is bad; big privately-run for-profit healthcare is good:

"I've made it very clear that what I want is for families to make decisions about their health care, not government, and that's the fundamental difference between myself and Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton," McCain told reporters in Miami, Florida, referring to the two remaining Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

"They want the government to make the decisions, I want the families to make decisions," he said.

Well, bullshit.  Under our current system--and under McCain's tepid plan for health care reform--"families" do NOT get to make health care decisions.  Decisions are made for them by health insurance companies financially self-interested in minimizing payouts and maximizing premiums.  Decisions are not being made by "families," they're being made by health care industry bureaucrats who are rewarded with bonuses and promotions not on the basis of how healthy their policyholders are but on the basis of how little money they authorize their employers to pay out.

Of course, McCain gets Tricare, the excellent government-run health plan for military retirees.  Tricare doesn't make any decisions about healthcare; it trusts people to make those decisions, and Tricare pays the bills without fuss, paperwork or delay.

McCain's fantasy of "families" sitting around the kitchen table and rationally choosing which doctors, which procedures, which tests, and which specialists they will avail themselves of is part and parcel of the laissez-faire delusion that individual consumers and giant health insurance companies are bargainers of equal power in a vast marketplace.  In fact, most people take whatever health insurance their employer offers and grit their teeth.

Charles Stimson Hates Being Counterproductive

One of the blogosphere's better contributions to the body politic was drawing attention to the outrageous comments of Charles "Cully" Stimson, the Pentagon official in charge of "detainee" affairs, about the law firms who were representing Guantanamo prisoners pro bono.  Stimson said:

I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.”

The reaction in the blogosophere and the legal community was immediate: Stimson was roundly condemned not merely for attempting to deny due process to the Guantanamo prisoners, but for attempting to destroy the very ideas of zealous representation of one's client, of the ethical obligation to perform pro bono work, and of the vital distinction between a lawyer and his client.  Framed published more posts about this particular issue than any other subject in its history; those entries are some of Framed's most-searched for essays.  Stimson ultimately resigned to spend more time with his family.

It was therefore with great interest that I noted this interview by The Talking Dog with Attorney Wesley Powell, one of the lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees pro bono:

The Talking Dog: We're a little more than a year or so after the unfortunate remarks made by former Defense Dept. official Cully Stimson. Can you tell me if the Government's periodic ostracism of pro bono habeas counsel has effected your legal practice in any way, and how your Guantanamo representations have effected your overall legal practice?

Wesley Powell: Cully Stimson, if anything, proved ultimately beneficial to habeas counsel. My firm was among those listed in the Wall Street Journal editorial and then on the radio show on which Stimson spoke. The management of my own firm went out of their way to commend me for my representations, and were very offended that this guy would try to intimidate firms into dropping these clients. There are a number of prominent Republicans in my firm and the team I work in, and they have all been very supportive and offended by this as well. So, Stimson's remarks, if anything, caused a rallying around of the habeas counsel, at least as far as I am aware. No one has had a negative word to me; my corporate clients have been very supportive and think it is cool that I am doing this work. Other than taking time that might otherwise be spent for more business development and more billable hours, this has not effected the remainder of my practice. It's one of those things-- we all make personal sacrifices to be in this profession to begin with-- taking on this kind of representation just means more of them.

Much as people love to hate lawyers, when they see their choice of counsel under assault, they tend to get very protective of those folks who bill them through the nose and by the hour.  As Digby notes, the fact that Stimson's call for a boycott of the Guantanamo firms has actually increased support for them is some powerful cause for optimism.

More on Charles Stimson:

Charles Stimson Hates America
Charles Stimson Hates Apologizing
Charles Stimson Hates Korematsu
Charles Stimson Hates General Electric
Charles Stimson Hates His Profession
Charles Stimson Hates Resigning
Charles Stimson Hates Democracy
Charles Stimson Hates Being Alone

$10

This prediction better not come true:

Get ready for another economic shock of major proportions — a virtual doubling of prices at the gas pump to as much as $10 a gallon.

That's the message from a couple of analytical energy industry trackers, both of whom, based on the surging oil prices, see considerably more pain at the pump than most drivers realize.

Because if it does, the social order in this country will all but collapse.  I'm serious.  We built an entire nation on the idea that we would be able to drive from place to place.  Yes, there are places where one can live fairly will without a car, but not many.  Our leaders have been dithering since the mid-70's about energy policy and doing essentially squat.  People who warned of energy shortages and price spikes were written off as Cassandras, tree-huggers or windmill kooks.

And now the bill for our national profligacy is coming due.  If payment is demanded all at once--$10 a gallon!--there will be riots in the streets.  As well there should be.

Whitey

The Politico's Elizabeth Drew suggests that Hillary Clinton is unlikely to provoke a stampede of superdelegates in her favor because "[t]o take the nomination away from Obama when he is leading in the elected delegate count would deeply alienate the black base of the Democratic Party" and therefore, "because the black vote can make the decisive difference in numerous congressional districts, discarding Obama could cost the Democrats numerous seats."

OK, for the record, I am a white guy.  Can't dance, can't jump, likes Wonderbread and The Beatles.  Real white.  See, that's me to the right here.

Despite my pale pigmentation, I declare the following:

If the Democratic establishment takes the nomination away from the candidate who wins the most elected delegates (absent a revelation that said candidate is a pedophile or a closet Republican) I will join with thousands of other Obama supporters of all creeds and colors and sit on my ass come November 4.  And in that eventuality, tell the DSCC and the DCCC not to bother asking me for campaign contributions too.

I'm actually the moderate one on this in my family.  If the nomination is stolen, my wife (also a white person, BTW) plans to riot in the streets.

It's Friday . . .

. . . and the streets are ours.  And since we're in the midst of campaign season, what could be more appropriate than the Presidents of the United States of America?

Meltdown

Former AG John Ashcroft's meltdown last  night during a speech at Knox College is all over the progressive blogosphere (Kos; Fire Dog Lake;  Hullabaloo) today.  While I try to refrain from cut-and-paste posting, the scene is so illustrative of the Bush administration's mindset that I'm going to reprint the whole exchange.

From Kos diarist Elsinora (a 20-year-old college student who wound up playing the key role in yesterday's events) comes this:

But the most common questions, as expected, related to his position on "enhanced interrogation techniques," a subject which he completely avoided in his speech and a subject which provoked him into flashes of anger and irritation whenever a student brought it up.  One student, Tom, asked about the ABC news story from a few weeks ago, detailing how Ashcroft had discussed specific methods of torture with Rice, Powell, Tenet, and Rumsfeld in the White House:

TOM: This story was made public by ABC a few weeks ago.  It claims that you, Rice, Tenet and others met in the White House to discuss different methods of "enhanced interrogation," is that correct?

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Correct?  Is what correct?  Is it correct that this story ran on ABC?  I don't know that.  I don't know anything about it!  Is it a real story?  When was this story, huh? Huh?

TOM: Um, early April, April 9th, I think...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) You think?  You think?  You don't even know!  Next question!

TOM: The article says that you discussed "whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning"...

ASHCROFT: I said, next question!

Another student asked if Ashcroft's position on torture violated the Geneva Conventions or other international laws:

ASHCROFT: No.  No it doesn't violate the Geneva Conventions.  As for other laws, well, the U.S. is a party to the United Nations Convention against Torture.  And that convention, well, when we join a treaty like that we send it to the Senate to be ratified, and when the Senate ratifies they often add qualifiers, reservations, to the treaty which affect what exactly we follow.  Now, I don't have a copy of the convention in front of me...

ME: (holding up my copy) I do! (boisterous applause and whistling from the audience)  Would you like to borrow it?

ASHCROFT: (after a pause) Uh, you keep a hold of it.  Now, as I was saying, I don't have it with me but I'm pretty sure it defines torture as something that leaves lasting scars or physical damage...

A STUDENT FROM THE AUDIENCE: Liar!  You liar! (the student is shushed by the audience)

ASHCROFT: So no, waterboarding does not violate international law.

Now as dday points out over at Hullabaloo:

Well, that's just not true.  The UN human rights chief has said waterboarding should be prosecuted as torture.  The definition of the UN Convention Against Torture is right here.

"severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession...."

And members of the UN Committee Against Torture have agreed that waterboarding falls under it.

But now, back to Ashcroft.  Elsinora asks a question:

ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I'd like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students.  It was uncalled for--we can disagree civilly, we don't need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents.  One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about "lasting physical damage"...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) Do you have the Senate reservations to it?

ME: No, I don't.  Do you happen to know what they are?

ASHCROFT: (angrily) I don't have them memorized, no.  I don't have time to go around memorizing random legal facts.  I just don't want these people in the audience to go away saying, "He was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!"  Because that's not true. It's a lie.  If you don't have the reservations, you don't have anything.  Now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but...

ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause)  This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal.  After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan.  Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture.  And among the tortures listed was the "water treatment," which we nowadays call waterboarding...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question.  I don't mind, but it's not a question.

ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment.  The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, "the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach."  One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information.  Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country--exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do--do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of "Good question!")

ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here.  You're comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges.  We don't do anything like what you described.

ME: I'm sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water down their throat...

ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring! Pouring! Did you hear what she said?  "Putting a cloth over someone's face and pouring water on them."  That's not what you said before! Read that again, what you said before!

ME: Sir, other reports of the time say...

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of "Answer her fucking question!" from the audience)  Read it!

ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.

ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!

ME: "The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach."

ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that?  You hear it? "Forced!"  If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...does this college have an anatomy class?  If you can't tell the difference between forcing and pouring...

ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano's sentence was unjust?  Answer the question. (pause)

ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It's not a fair question; there's no comparison.  Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)

More than any of the other members of Bush's Torture Cabinet--more than Rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet Powell or Cheney--Ashcroft appears to have had some sense that the government's approval of waterboarding and other torture techniques was clearly illegal.  ABC News' story about the torture discussions contains this:

Then-Attorney General Ashcroft was troubled by the discussions. He agreed with the general policy decision to allow aggressive tactics and had repeatedly advised that they were legal. But he argued that senior White House advisers should not be involved in the grim details of interrogations, sources said.

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: "Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly."

History probably will not judge Ascroft et als. kindly.  Perhaps, though, that the judgment that may now be more immediately on Ashcroft's mind is the judgment of a court rendering a verdict on a charge of war crimes.  If a Spanish court could try indict Pinochet, why couldn't courts in another country indict Ashcroft & Co.?  Clearly, the man is scared--and perhaps even morally aware of his own guilt--and hiding his fear behind a wall of bluster.

Free Range Kids

A few weeks back, I posted some commentary about Lenore Skenazy, the New York City mom who let her nine year old son ride the subway alone.  I was not the only parent motivated to write in support of her and what seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable act on her part.  So many have written to her that Skenazy has started a blog on the subject called Free Range Kids. 

I expect some people will be outraged by what they incorrectly perceive to be an insouciant attitude on her part toward children's safety.  I suppose some will be aghast that she *gasp!* put a picture of her son on her blog.  And I'm sure that some, like me, will be amused by the implicit comparison of our children to cattle and poultry. 

But as recent events in Texas have so painfully shown, children are often far more at risk when they are under the care of their parents and their parents' friends and living in small towns than they are when riding the subways of New York.  Ironically, the alleged rape and abuse of  the kids in that "church" compound in Texas was actually facilitated by their parents' refusal to let their kids interact with the outside world.    

Best Headline Ever

Leave it to John Cole to uncover this story:

Lynchings in Congo as penis

  theft panic hits capital

Is that just about the most awesomest headline, or what?