Attacking Rosie: A lesson for female progressives

Rosie O’Donnell’s exit from "The View" is receiving an awful lot of attention in the news. But, the real story here is how quickly mainstream media followed right-wing commentary in trying to vilify O’Donnell. Mainstream media organizations perpetuated conservative commentary that disagreeing with the war, or speaking out against the president, or asking questions about how World Trade Center 7 fell was un-American and tantamount to treason. Her treatment showed that any woman who engages in public dissent will be subject to attacks on her appearance, intelligence, and sexual orientation.

I am an unabashed fan of Rosie O’Donnell’s, and believe that, in an industry which kowtows to right-wing commentary, she was one of the few progressive voices with a regular TV spot. I didn’t agree with everything that she said, but she engaged in critical thinking and openly challenged political norms, which is more than I can say for most of the "commentators" who appear on TV.

During her time on The View, she became firmly placed in the cross-hairs of right wing commentators such as Bill O’Reilly, Shawn Hannity, and Glenn Beck. They attempted to discredit O’Donnell by attacking her appearance, her intelligence, her sanity, her sexual orientation, and her patriotism. I can’t bring myself to reprint their vile attacks here, but you can get a flavor by reviewing the posts here, here, and here.

What is interesting is that other media outlets began reporting their attacks as if they were actual news. Joe Scarborough held a roundtable discussion on O’Donnell. ABC News reported on the story, and implicitly adopted O’Reilly’s arguments by asking “(D)id O’Donnell go too far?” The Republican National Committee put out talking points on O’Donnell’s views and campaign contributions, and linked her dislike for the term “war on terror” to Democrats’ decision not to use the term in legislation. AOL even got on the bandwagon, reprinting a portion of O’Donnell’s opinions on 9/11, and Bill O’Reilly’s response that she is “nutty” and “irresponsible.” Attacking O’Donnell became the news.

In fact, journalists were reporting the attacks on O'Donnell, and accepting most of the attacks at face value. It would have been a far more valuable exercise to have a discussion on the Gulf of Tonkin, or about the use of torture in interrogations, or about whether US service personnel are receiving adequate levels of care. Instead, attacking O'Donnell became the story. Right wing commentators tried very hard to discredit her, and their efforts were reported as news.

Watching this develop was a sobering and eye-opening experience which carried the following message: if you dissent from or challenge the status quo, we will attack you. O'Donnell's gender and sexual orientation were significant reasons why she was so viciously targeted, and data on female bloggers bears this assertion out. Apparently, women who blog are subjected to 25 times more sexually explicit threats than men who blog.

Salon's Joan Walsh wrote that female writers on her staff received "plenty of insults, and most of them had to do with us as women -- as mothers, as sexual objects, as writers, as professional women in the world." Rosie O'Donnell's critics attacked her in a similar fashion. Her attacks were on national TV and made by mostly white "accomplished" men with TV shows, not trolls on a comment board.

I wrote all of the above over the weekend and yesterday, before seeing the excellent piece by Jennifer L. Pozner making many of the above points, but, frankly, better. This passage was particularly striking:

During her eight-month tenure on The View, a Nexis search shows O'Donnell was berated 186 times by Bill O'Reilly, 91 times by Sean Hannity on Fox News, 41 times by the now-wistful Carlson, and 71 times by MSNBC's Joe Scarborough -- who once called her a "fat, ugly, bully, pimp, loser, ignorant, terrible person, animal. Did I say fat?" If that's not bad enough, a whopping 2,911 local, national network and cable news stories have quoted Donald Trump trash-talking O'Donnell, calling her "disgusting," "crude," "arrogant," "pushy," "self-destructive," "a degenerate," "a stone-cold loser" and so hideous that her wife must be grossed out "having to kiss that every night."

The nasty, vitriolic rhetoric spewed about O'Donnell was a reminder misogyny is alive and well, and will be used as a tool to quash dissent and to silence questioners. Regardless of whether you agree with O'Donnell's viewpoints, her treatment was chilling to witness.

Federal Marriage

The New York Times had a nice editorial praising Governor Spitzer for introducing a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York.

But, one portion of the editorial is misleading:

One federal study identified more than 1,100 rights or benefits that are accorded only to the legally married. That means that even in states recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships, gay couples often have to use legal contortions to protect their families in ways that married couples take for granted.

Actually, even in states recognizing gay marriage, and Massachusetts is currently the only one, gay couples who are married at the state level will not have access to the 1,100 rights or benefits accorded to married couples at the federal level. The Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) denies federal recognition of gay marriages and gives each state the right to refuse recognition of same-sex marriage licenses issued by other states. For a full discussion of the rights and benefits of marriage recognized by the federal government, check out the Government Accountability Office’s 2004 report detailing federal provisions in which rights, privileges, and benefits are contingent upon marital status, or in which marital status is a factor.

A while back I heard that a same-sex couple, married in Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit because they were not sure whether they could list their status as “married” on their federal tax returns. (Couldn’t find a record of the lawsuit to link to.) You see, when you sign your federal tax return, you swear that the information contained therein is true and correct. But, same-sex married couples in Massachusetts have to list their status as “married” on their state forms, but “single” on their federal forms. They wanted to make sure that they wouldn't be penalized for listing one status on the federal form, and another on the state form.

Leaving aside my personal sexual orientation, not allowing gays and lesbians to marry is ridiculous. Pragmatically, creating this legal limbo for gays and lesbians simply leads to more work and confusion for the courts, the individuals involved, and the employers, insurers, doctors, etc. when making decisions in which marital status is relevant. It would make so much more sense to open marriage to same-sex couples.

Grief and Sacrifice

On Monday night, PBS aired two extraordinary programs called “Warriors” and “Operation Homecoming”detailing the experiences of U.S. soldiers who are fighting in Iraq and experiences of those from past wars. During the program, one Vietnam veteran said, "That's the sign of a decadent civilization. To send young people to go and do and suffer the things that soldiers do and suffer and to not care or be aware or pay a price. That's an unforgivable decadence.”

He’s right, we are a decadent country. Most Americans go through their day with little reminder that people wearing our uniforms are fighting and dying, killing and being killed. We are irritated when the cable goes out, or the barista is slow making our latte. But, when soldiers die or Iraqi civilians are killed, the event merits little more than a brief mention on the news. We cluck and shake our heads, then settle in for "American Idol."

In every major American war before this one, American civilians were aware of the price and sacrifice of war. From the draft to war bonds to rationing, American civilians’ daily lives were touched by the war. Now, a small number of volunteers are fighting this war on money borrowed from China, and Americans are fatter than we’ve ever been before.

The killings at Virginia Tech were terrible, and anguish, anger, and grief are properly placed. However, it is notable that there is little public or shared sense of grief and anguish over the 3,334 service members killed in Iraq. That figure is more than the total people who were killed in the attacks of 9/11, and 100 times the number of those killed at Virginia Tech. The number of service members who have been wounded in Iraq is 24,645. There is no agreed-upon number for the Iraqis who have been killed in this war. Estimates range from 100,000 to 600,000. And, just this week, approximately 200 people were killed in bombings in Baghdad.

But, as a country, we don’t seem to care all that much about the carnage in Iraq. Candlelight vigils to mourn fallen soldiers or dead Iraqis are few and far between. Flags are not dropped to half-staff in their honor. And, when there is massive carnage such that Baghdad experienced this week, coverage is meager and perfunctory.

Defense Department regulations prohibit us from seeing pictures of the flag-draped soldiers’ coffins, as they are unloaded at Dover Air Force Base on their way to burial. Similar prohibitions forbid coverage of funerals for service members at Arlington National Cemetery. As far as most Americans are concerned, violence in Iraq happens in a vacuum. Most Americans have no real sense of the cruelty and sacrifice and carnage taking place in the country we have invaded. We slap a Support the Troops magnet on the SUV and think we have done our part.

We need to see the coffins being offloaded at Dover AFB. We need to see coverage of service members’ funerals, and mourn their loss. Instead of interviewing the last person voted off of “Survivor,” Matt Lauer should be interviewing the survivors of every service member killed in Iraq. Regardless of each person’s position on the war, it is vital we recognize and try to understand the cost of our war. Only in recognizing the sacrifice and grieving for those lost can we hope to prevent such wars in the future.

Culture of Life?

"We must continue to work for a culture of life where the strong protect the weak and where we recognize in every human life the image of our creator," Bush said at the national Catholic prayer breakfast on April 13th.

Okay. What to make of the following then?

• Detention of individuals without any redress in the courts
• Extraordinary renditions, in which detainees are transported by the U.S. government to the custody of countries which employ torture, in their interrogation methods
• Torture of detainees in Guantanamo and other "secret prisons”

It is easy to call Bush a hypocrite, which he is. But, his transgressions are bigger than hypocrisy. He has created and presided over an administration which demonstrates wholesale disregard and contempt for human life and basic human rights. My point is that he is immoral. He is unethical.

Through his presidency, he has created institutions which degrade the human condition and erode the legal, moral, and ethical constructs of human rights. His actions, and actions of those acting on his behalf, promote and facilitate cruelty. As the head of state, he has dragged the United States into a cesspool of torture and abuse. There are many cogs in the mechanisms which facilitate these violations – they include the President himself, the U.S. personnel who use torture and abuse as interrogation techniques, our elected officials who have authorized or enabled such actions, and every American citizen who has not cried out in protest. We are all complicit. Speculation abounds about what Bush’s “legacy” will be. His legacy will be degradation of the human condition. And, until these actions stop, this legacy will be shared by all Americans.

Free Speech

Lately, it seems that whenever a public figure makes unpopular statements, people cry out that he or she should be fired. Regardless of whether the speaker is engaging in political discourse or bigoted speech, those who disagree want the speaker to be silenced. For instance, Rosie O’Donnell is open about her opposition to the war in Iraq, her belief in the theory that WTC7 could have been felled by a controlled demolition , and mused that the Iran hostage crisis was reminiscent of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the White House lied to Congress by telling them that a U.S. warship was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. Based on that information, Congress authorized war powers to engage in the Vietnam War.

Bill O’Reilly caught wind of this discussion, and started spinning her comments to make it seem as if she is accusing the U.S. government of being directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He accused her of siding with Iran, and generally made her out to be a traitor. Moral outrage on the part of his minions ensued, and now there are websites and polls addressing whether O’Donnell should be fired.

Last Wednesday, Don Imus called the Rutgers Women’s basketball team “nappy headed hos” on the air. His sidekick later said watching them play University of Tennessee for the championship was like watching “the Jigaboos versus the Wannabes.” After making these comments last Wednesday, black leaders called for him to be fired by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Instead, he was suspended for two weeks, starting on April 16.

It doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with O'Donnell's views. The ability to engage in political discourse and to communicate differing viewpoints is a cornerstone of democracy. It is troubling that O’Reilly can whip up support for canning O’Donnell based on her political speech. And, the fact that other news channels picked up on O’Reilly’s spin and treated it as actual news is deeply disturbing. Treating O’Reilly’s purported outrage at O’Donnell’s comments as a news story is hardly journalism. If someone disagrees with O’Donnell, it would be far more useful to have a thoughtful, fact-based discussion on the issues. Instead, O’Donnell’s critics call for her to be removed from the air, and for any debate to be quashed.

George Washington addressed the issue of freedom of speech when he was a general, and an anonymous writer was stirring the Continental Army to rebel against Congress. The writer told his audience to be skeptical of anyone who took a moderate stance, in an attempt to quiet those who disagreed with him. In response, Washington said, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington, Newburg Address, March 1783. Washington recognized that chilling free and open discourse would destroy our nascent democracy. Then, he left his officers to freely and openly discuss the issue among themselves.

As for Imus, I agree with Washington Post sports reporter Michael Wilbon:

I don't care whether Don Imus apologizes, or whether he's fired. Freedom of speech allows him to say whatever he wants to say. But I've got freedom of speech, as well, and I prefer to have the right to rip his face off in print and on TV for saying, repeatedly, the racially offensive stuff he says over and over and over and over. He compares blacks and Hispanics to apes all the time. ALL THE TIME. It's not rare, it's not an exception. It's not a one-time deal. ALL THE TIME. He and the people in his studio act as if all Blacks are pimps and whores and all have gold teeth and are illiterate...I'm glad I'm guaranteed the right to come right back at a bigot of this level and say whatever I want to say...And I'm happy to go toe-to-toe. Happy to.

Imus’ comments are disgusting, and apparently not out of the norm for him. Such comments do nothing for the public discourse and are part of the schtick which has made him popular. If I were the head of CBS Radio or MSNBC, and he makes similar comments again, I would fire him.

O’Donnell and Imus both made unpopular, but very different, comments, and both commentators have heard calls for their heads on a platter. There is a distinction, though, between O’Donnell’s comments on the Iraq War and WTC7, and Imus’ comments about the basketball team. O’Donnell is engaging in political speech by questioning the actions of the government, while Imus is making racist comments for the amusement of himself and his listeners. By his own admission, he was “trying to be fun.” This is the distinction between political speech and patently offensive bigoted speech. As a nation, we should welcome and value political dissent, especially when we disagree with it. The opportunity to critically review our positions and advocate our stance is a valuable exercise in democracy. But, we should also insist on high standards of public discourse. Imus' comments brought all of us down into the mud and muck of racism, and the public outcry against him is right and good.

Meddling with the USA's at the DOJ

I find the recent U.S. Attorney (USA) scandal to be both troubling and fascinating. The Justice Department (DOJ) fired seven USA’s, citing job performance issues. Folks thought this was strange – usually, when USA’s are fired in a group, it is during a large purge at the start of the president’s term. But here, only seven were fired. Then, it was revealed that another USA had been dismissed to make room for one of Karl Rove’s former lackeys. There is nothing illegal about this dismissal – it just looks kind of ugly.

Indeed, as the White House correctly argues, the USA’s serve at the pleasure of the president. They are political appointees who are confirmed by the Senate. (Or, that is usually the case. A recently noticed provision in the massive Patriot Act allows the president to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney without confirmation for an indefinite term. Formerly, terms of interim USA’s were limited to a finite period of time.)

What makes this interesting is that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty seems to have mislead Congress when he told them that the USA’s were fired for performance-related issues. Turns out that they may have been fired for overt political reasons. Kyle Sampson, AG Gonzalez’s former chief of staff, described weeding out USA’s based on whether they were “loyal Bushies” or not. Perhaps more troubling are the allegations that Sen. Pete V. Domenici and Rep. Heather A. Wilson from New Mexico contacted the New Mexico USA, David Iglesias, to inquire about the status of a potential indictment of a Democratic politician. Although the USA's are technically political appointees, once they are in office, they are removed from the political process and political issues are not to be considered in their duties. Former USA Charles Pekor writes that during his tenure as an Assistant USA and interim USA, his office went to great lengths to ensure that there was never a hint of political interference with an ongoing criminal investigation.

The notion that USA’s are pressured to bring charges, or perhaps to drop charges, for political considerations is extremely troubling. New allegations have come to light that the Wisconsin USA brought corruption charges against a state employee. The Wisconsin USA alleged that the employee had improperly awarded a travel contract to a campaign contributor of Wisconsin's Democratic Governor. The governor was fighting off a Republican challenger. She was convicted and jailed; her conviction was material for attack ads by the Republican challenger. She appealed her conviction to the Seventh Circuit, which found the circumstances of her appeal so appalling that she was freed from prison immediately after oral arguments were heard. Although the written opinion of the Seventh Circuit is not yet available, one of the judges called the evidence "extremely thin." This situation raises the concern that other USA's have been the recipients of political pressure to pursue indictments and prosecutions based on political considerations. Our country should be better than this. If the allegations of political interference turn out to be true, it would be extremely damaging to the legal system. Our justice system is not perfect, but meddling in criminal prosecutions for political benefit is unconscionable.

Does the Press Like a War?

I know why we’re fighting a war Iraq – no, it’s not because of WMD, or links to 9/11, or "terror," or for any of the other reasons that those advocating the war suggest. We are fighting a war in Iraq because of a fundamental failure of our democratic system. As anyone who stayed awake in Civics class knows, the framers of our government believed in a system of checks and balances to ensure that the Executive Branch does not run roughshod over the Legislature, that the Legislature does not squash the Judiciary, and so forth. The press is supposed to be the “fourth estate:” an institution whose very existence is protected by the constitution from governmental interference. The media have a sacred duty to aggressively report the news as accurately as they can. Leaving out sources of important information is hardly accurate reporting. In the lead up to Iraq, the Bush Administration was hell-bent on war, the Congress was controlled by Republicans, who loved their cowboy president, and the Democrats in Congress were too afraid of being called "weak on national security" to question the administration. The judiciary is in no position to make a ruling on going to war, so it was left up to the press to carefully and accurately report information leading up to the war. Unfortunately, they ended up being a mouthpiece for the administration. There was very little evaluation or corroboration of the claims made by the administration in the mainstream media. I suppose that they sold papers, but they did the American people, and the world, a terrible disservice.

As I read in this interesting article, the mainstream press, in general, seemed intent on encouraging the American people to support a war in Iraq. Now that Iran seems to be the next target in the “axis of evil,” ABC News is using anonymous sourcing of information for its reporting on Iran’s nuclear program. Specifically, ABC News cites only "sources" for its reporting that "Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months," and "Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009." No more information about the "source" of this information is given.

By failing to reveal even the most basic information about its sources, ABC News’ viewers cannot be informed consumers of information. I assume that the anonymous sources ABC News is using are officials from the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, this administration has demonstrated that it will mislead the press and the public when it is in its political interests to do so. ABC News’ response to “just trust us” is completely inadequate; we were asked to trust the press and this administration before, and here we are entering the fifth year of a terrible war.