Blog

 
Blog

Facing Feminism: Feminists I Know


Are you sick of being told what it is that matters to you as a feminist? Do you feel moved to express your feminism and connect in a powerful way with feminists from around the world? Want to speak up and be heard?

FACING FEMINISM: FEMINISTS I KNOW is a project in which, through portrait art and words, the many different faces of feminism are visually demonstrated. The project is designed to make a statement in contradiction to the stereotype, the one-dimensional portrayal, of  feminists, that is dominant in the media. In addition to putting a more varied and representative “face” to feminism, and thus being a tool for education and advocacy, this project aims to enlarge the current dialogue about what it means to be a feminist and also to help feminists conceptualize a philosophy of feminism that works for them. It will help to de-demonize the concept of feminism.

Some feminists love wearing heels and perfume. Some don’t. Some have alternative lifestyles while some are stay-at-home mothers. Concomitant with the many things that distinguish feminists individually, there are the things that unite them: their strength and intelligence and their belief that they are entitled to equal opportunity in all spheres of life.

The project is hosted through the MNARTISTS.ORG website, distributed through the media via the magazine EMPOWERMENT4WOMEN, and curated by Annette Marie Hyder. For this series, each feminist is invited to submit a photo of her choosing and a text forum to express her feminism. Each statement is individual to each feminist, and so it shows how individual feminists interpret the freedoms that they want within their common bond.

Happy International Women’s Day!

The photoems can be viewed at EMPOWERMENT4WOMEN.ORG and at the MNARTISTS website.

—Annette Marie Hyder

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Depends on the meaning of is


You have to admire Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.  His ability to make false statements without technically lying must make Bill Clinton green with envy.  Glenn Greenwald has the rundown on the NSA testimony.

Today, Gonzalez  says that that “We are aware of no other nation in history that has afforded such protection for enemy combatants.”  Now you might scratch your head at this one.  Haven’t other countries followed the Geneva Conventions?  Could it really be true that America is setting a newly humane standard for treatment of prisoners?

Well, no.  It depends on what the meaning of enemy combatant is.  The administration defined it in court filings as:

An individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.

We could have some fun with this.

For instance, I am aware of no other group of enemy combatants of such deeply virtuous character, with so glamorous a sense of style, so attractive in mind and body, and so dedicated to working for good in the world.

If only the U.S. is using this term and it applies only to this conflict, it’s all perfectly true.

—Pete DeWan

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

The changing tide


South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds yesterday signed a document banning almost all abortions in the state, making no exception for pregnancies that are results of incest or rape. Although the measure will be an extremely restrictive one — permitting abortion only if the mother’s life is in danger — the new law will be mired in the court systems and will be unlikely to take effect unless it is upheld by the Supreme Court. Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both conservative Justices and Bush appointees, have the potential to swing the Supreme Court into conservatism and to overturn Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973. The law is, however, slated to be put into action on July 1st and carries a five-year prison sentence for any doctor who performs an illegal abortion.

For now, the 800 or so women who annually have abortions in South Dakota will be subject to the current law, itself stringent, which puts increasingly severe restrictions on abortions throughout the course of pregnancy. Abortions after the 24th week may currently only be performed to protect the mother’s health and safety.

—Mimi&; Hanaoka

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Where illusions end


issue banner

Between the Academy Awards and March Madness, the month is full of illusions and forsaken dreams. But even when the sun sets on some aspirations, we see glimmers of hope for the years ahead.

In this issue of InTheFray, we explore what it means to come to grips with and bid adieu to forsaken dreams. We begin with Courtney Traub’s poignant look at the ways France is confronting its colonial past, for better or worse, nearly a half-century after the fall of empire, in Grappling with ghosts.

Out of America and in Guatemala, Lucian Tion seeks to escape the daily grind of American life, only to find himself surrounded by dozens of other tourists also seeking “a place to relax and unwind” that looks remarkably familiar.

Meanwhile, in India Meera Subramanian observes her cousin’s marriage to a woman he scarcely knows and offers insight on her ancestors’ ritual of family-planned matches in Arrange me, arrange me not.

Back in the United States, Judith Malveaux discovers The party’s over when she returns to her native New Orleans a few months after Hurricane Katrina. There, in the place she once called home, Malveaux discovers the optimism she maintained about her city from afar has vanished.

And in A state of (dis)integration ITF Contributing Editor Michelle Caswell reviews Jonathan Kozol’s latest book, The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America, and discovers just how illusive Brown v. Board of Education’s promise of equal education has become.

On a lighter note, in Moundridge, Kansas, Katy June-Friesen shows us the magic of Old Settlers Inn, where people from across the state go to share their stories and listen to brilliant Songs from a Kansas stage.

Rounding out this month’s stories is Margo Herster’s stunning visual exploration of the way intimacy with one’s partner hinders and aids one’s sense of self in Colors of love. Offering further insight into Herster’s project, Patty Swyden Sullivan reviews The art of photographing the young and in love.

If you haven’t already done so, be sure to tell us about the activist in your life that you’d like to see ITF interview for our soon-to-be-launched Activist’s Corner. Email activists-at-inthefray-dot-org with the person’s name, a couple sentences about the person and why you think s/he’d be such an interesting interview subject, and, if possible, the person’s contact details.

Thanks for your help, and thanks for reading!

Laura Nathan
Editor
Buffalo, New York

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Political Prose

A kinder, gentler jailer

Personal information on detainees was withheld solely to protect detainee privacy and for their own security…. [Disclosure] could result in retribution or harm to the detainees or their families.…


Personal information on detainees was withheld solely to protect detainee privacy and for their own security…. [Disclosure] could result in retribution or harm to the detainees or their families.

—Lt. Cmdr. Chito Peppler, U.S. military spokesman in Guantánamo Bay, on why the Pentagon refused for four years to release the names of the prisoners held at the offshore prison, until a federal judge ordered it to do so this week.

Ever since it started shipping prisoners arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan to prison facilities at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the Bush administration has fought ferociously to keep them away from the rule of law and the skeptical eye of the international community. First, the suspects were planted upon a plot of occupied land that the U.S. government contends it leased but the Cuban government claims was taken by force. (When’s the last time you “leased” a car from your Honda dealer at gunpoint?) Then, it refused to allow the prisoners to see lawyers or family, classified them as “enemy combatants” to advance a flimsy legal argument for holding them indefinitely without charges, and prevented any outside group (except, after a while, the International Committee of the Red Cross) from gaining access to the prisoners. Even after incidents of torture came to light, the administration continued to refuse to release the identities of the prison’s occupants — until The Associated Press filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit and a federal judge ruled against the government, demanding that the relevant documents be handed over on Friday.

Following their usual practice of letting no bad deed go un-spun, the Bush administration is suddenly making itself out to be a kinder, gentler jailer. The identities of Guantánamo’s prisoners, says a Pentagon spokesman, were withheld “solely to protect detainee privacy and for their own security.”

Privacy? Security? Sir, have you no sense of irony?

It is truly awe-inspiring to watch a government spokesperson say these things with a straight face. It reminds me of how the Pentagon, when faced with a rash of attempted suicides at the Guantánamo prison, started reclassifying them as “manipulative self-injurious behaviors” — because anyone who wants to kill himself is just being “manipulative.”

Of course, it is possible that the Guantánamo prisoners, wasting away for years in their cells with no connection to the world outside, are really pining for privacy. They don’t want anyone else to know or care about what happens to them. Their detainment is, after all, a private matter to be discussed between the prisoner and his jailer. Perhaps they’re afraid of identity theft or telemarketers.

It is possible that the prisoners fear for their safety, too. Inside the Guantánamo prison, they’ve been pampered — with repeated beatings and sexual abuse, having feeding tubes shoved up their noses without sedatives, being chained in a fetal position for hours until they defecate upon themselves. Outside, who knows what may happen to them?

There are surely some very bad men holed up in Guantánamo. But after five years of this human rights (and public relations) disaster, there is still no compelling reason why the prisoners being held there can’t be charged with crimes, given fair trails, and then, if found guilty, sentenced and punished. Does the Bush administration persist in its Orwellian policies because of mere stubbornness or because it lacks any evidence that many of these men were actually al-Qaeda fighters (as a review of the Pentagon’s own data concluded)?

Or maybe the government has just grown attached to its little gulag in sunny Guantánamo. What would the 500-some prisoners do without the Bush administration to look after their privacy, security, and tendencies toward “manipulative self-injurious behavior”?

Maybe this is what George Bush meant when he talked about compassionate conservatism. At Guantánamo, Big Brother knows best.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world knows nothing.

—Victor Tan Chen

Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Judy strikes again


You’re probably all already familiar with Judith Miller, from The New York Times.  She’s the one who posted most of the bogus Iraq weapons stories and later did time for refusing to talk about her involvement in the Scooter Libby and Valerie Plame incident.

Now she’s involved in this case, backing up the Shin Bet in its claim that it didn’t torture Mohammed Salah.  What a strange career this woman has.

More later on how these things are connected…

—Pete DeWan

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Try your hand at Oscar trivia, win prize


It’s Oscar time, when carpets are red, modest stars are few, and pools are entered with pencils not diving into waters of blue.  A little further down we’ll get to the first annual Great Oscar Quiz where you could win a special ITF prize, but first let me comment on Sunday’s Academy Awards telecast.  

I am as guilty as the next critic of getting wrapped up in the Oscar race but not enough to rant about jilted films or individuals who didn’t receive a nomination or my picks vs. those of Academy members — there are plenty of others doing that around the country.  I just want to comment on the ceremony itself and its place within our culture.

For years, the Oscars were simply a blip on the radar with only those in the industry and really hard-nosed fans caring at all.  Only after Jaws brought in the era of the blockbuster and magazines, such as People, and entertainment news programs began proliferating did the awards “show” begin to gain more attention from regular Joes and Janes who began to take an interest in the nominations and watch to see who wins on the big night.  That’s when the ceremony became an institution and began to be beamed around the globe as a sort of three-hour commercial for American culture.  

The awards were started, as all awards are, as a sort of slap on the back for those making movies.  The founding fathers of the Academy, many of which were pioneers in the medium, came up with an excuse to put on a fancy dinner party, get drunk, and show off to each other.  It has now become big business for a lot of folks, least of which are the filmmakers themselves.  More money is spent just on campaigning for nominations than some countries’ total GNP. The show also reflects the American way of life on many different levels.  It propagates our image of wealth and grandioseness.  It reflects our democratic system of government but at the same time our cultural emphasis on the individual. It promotes what is our largest export — entertainment — but also how we are a people who, for the most part, come from emigrant families and continue to welcome those from other countries to reap the rewards of a free society.  And lastly, the ceremony is something that binds us as a nation, even for those who do not watch. It is a ritual, much like the Fourth of July or Thanksgiving, that is both unique to us and a comfort because it is a reminder that our way of life continues to be strong, vibrant, and envied throughout the world.

Okay, now to the quiz.  There are 15 questions — some are very difficult and others, not so. All years in the questions or answers reflect the year the films were released, not the year the actual ceremony takes place, unless otherwise stated.  For instance, if I asked what film won Best Picture in 2004, your answer would be Million Dollar Baby even though the ceremony took place in 2005.  Please email your answers to rich_burlingham@inthefray.com by Sunday, March 5, 2006, 5 p.m. PT.  The winner(s) will be notified by email and, at that point, asked for a mailing address to send your special ITF prize.  Anyone can enter, but only one entry is allowed per email address.  Unfortunately, only emailed entries will be accepted.  Please write your name and email address along with your answers within your email to make sure we know whom to contact.  In the words of Edward R. Murrow — or should I say Best Actor nominee, David Strathairn — good night and good luck.

The 2005 Great Oscar Quiz

1. What 2005 nominated actor appeared in a 1991 film that also featured an actor nominated in the same category?

2. Which 1960 winner was Debbie Reynolds referring to when she said, “Hell, I even voted for her”?

3. Two of this year’s Best Picture nominees were filmed in black and white. What was the last black and white film to win Best Picture?

4. What star of NBC’s The West Wing performed a rendition of Proud Mary with Snow White (Eileen Bowman) on an Oscar telecast that came to epitomize the over-produced musical numbers that since have been curtailed, and what was the date on which the telecast took place?

5. What 1975 winner was escorted to the ceremony by twin sons he or she had not seen since 1968?

6. What was the original category title for what is now Best Picture, used for the first three ceremonies beginning in 1927?

7. Walt Disney has the record for most nominations ever at 59, but what living individual (Oscar night categories only) has the most career nominations on his or her resume (45 and counting), including this year’s nominations?

8. What presenter revealed to Joan Rivers on the red carpet before the 1994 awards that “I just got over excited in the car”?

9. What 1946 Best Picture loser but now classic film was praised by a New York Daily News editorial saying, “It momentarily restored this reporter’s faith in human nature — quite some achievement after you’ve spent some time in the newspaper game”?

10. What was the only television film to be adapted to the big screen and win Best Picture?

11. Who is the only Oscar to win an Oscar?

12. What film holds the record for the most nominations without a single loss?

13. Who was the first Best Actor nominee to be nominated for portraying another Best Actor nominee?

14. Who are the only twins to win Oscars together and for what film?

15. Which 2005 double-nominated individual began his or her career on the TV sitcom One Day at a Time?

Tie-Breaker Questions — only used if multiple winners for above:

What Oscar-winning actor, presenting at the 1994 awards ceremony, was brought to the stage by the announcer saying he is, “Unique. Original. His nationality is Actor”?

Who will win the 2005 Oscar for Best Live Action Short Film?
a) Ausreisser (The Runaway)
b) Cashback  
c) The Last Farm  
d) Our Time is Up  
e) Six Shooter

—Rich Burlingham

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Vote for PULSE!


PULSE was recently nominated for a Koufax award (recognizing liberal/left-leaning blogs and named for famed left-handed pitcher Sandy Koufax).  Our blog has been nominated under the categories “Most Deserving of Wider Recognition,” “Best Group Blog,” “Best Post,” and “Most Humorous Post.”  InTheFray appreciates the hard work and superb writing from all of the PULSE staff as well as the support and interest from our readers.  Thanks!

To cast your vote for PULSE and check out the many other excellent blogs out there, please visit this page. Voting should open up this week.

*Note:  For “Most Deserving of Wider Recognition,” “Best Group Blog,” and “Most Humorous Post,” you will find the nominations listed under “Pulse,” and for “Best Post,” the nomination is under “In The Fray.”

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Free speech — the plot thickens


In what seems to be the first case of its kind, a man was convicted for defaming Muslims in Germany.  Surprisingly, this was not big news.  Among other things, the businessman, known as Manfred van H., printed toilet paper with KORAN written on it.  He received a one year suspended sentence and 300 hours of community service.

Also in Germany, the pressure is on to ban the big-budget Turkish thriller Valley of the Wolves — Iraq, which features a heroic Turkish intelligence officer playing vengeance against American soldiers, who are shown slaughtering civilians.  By my count, that makes the score Hollywood — 472, Istanbul — 1.

In a bizarre twist, Gary Busey plays a Jewish doctor preying on Iraqis  for organs to sell on a world market.  Billy Zane also makes an appearance as a “peacekeeper sent by God.”  Good work if you can get it, I guess.

—Pete DeWan

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also: