Or perhaps she’s more of a Pussycat Doll, what with her sexxxay black knee-highs?

No matter. CNN’s prepubescent headline writers are at it again:

That’s U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, meeting with The Women Leaders’ Working Group in NYC last Thursday.

The headline CNN chose for its coverage?

“GIRL POWER!” With, like, an exclamation point and everything. POW!

As described on the U.S. Department of State’s website,

The Women Leaders’ Working Group was created in 2006 to ensure issues such as women’s political and economic empowerment, education and access to justice are international priorities. The group’s strategic objective is to institutionalize high-level dialogue and action on women’s empowerment activities, highlight U.S. progress on the Working Group’s priorities, and showcase precise ways in which women leaders have actually made a difference. [...]

Participants in the meeting include: President of the Republic of Chile, Michelle Bachelet; President of the Republic of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo; President of the Republic of Liberia, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf; President of the Republic of Finland, Tarja Halonen; United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Senior Advisor for Women’s Empowerment, Shrin Tahir-Kheli. Many other women Foreign Ministers will participate, including representatives from: Afghanistan; Iraq; Gabon; Greece; Yemen; and Pakistan.

Bravo, CNN. Way to infantalize and dismiss some the world’s most powerful women, who were in NY to discuss such “trivial” matters as combating the epidemic of violence against women. Nice. Fucking. Job.

And I have to say, anchor Kyra Phillips and correspondent Zain Verjee didn’t do much better than Prepubescent Headline Writer, what with all their chatter about fashion, clothing and cutesy empowerful nicknames such as “diplo-babe.” I doubt that they would have been trading designers had they been covering an all-male or mixed-gender conference. Yeesh.

Transcript after the jump.

(More below the fold…)

Ahem.

The Denver police union is selling T-shirts that poke fun at protesters at last month’s Democratic National Convention, but the main target isn’t laughing.

The back of the shirts reads, “We get up early to beat the crowds” and “2008 DNC,” and has a caricature of a police officer holding a baton.

The front has the number 68 with a slash through it, a reference to the Recreate 68 Coalition, which organized several demonstrations during the convention.

Recreate 68 organizer Glenn Spagnuolo called the shirt appalling and tasteless.

Spagnuolo released a written statement Thursday saying members of the police union “clearly have no respect for the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.”

Detective Nick Rogers, a member of the Police Protective Association board, said police often issue T-shirts to commemorate big events.

Like, ya know, beating on protesters and arresting journalists. Hardee-har-har.

Via thedenverchannel.com, by way of those dirty hippie communists at Democracy Now!

————————

Tagged: 2008 elections civil liberties police brutality censorship first amendment protest activism dnc rnc democrats republicans st. paul minnesota democratic national convention republican national convention democracy amy goodman democracy now theuptake i-witness video indymedia msm video youtube politics repression journalism

I’m not sure whether you remember us, but two years ago this September 30th, my husband and I adopted two dogs from Friends of the Friendless. Gracie and Penelope were found abandoned with a third dog, Paige, in a home that was about to be sold. While you were able to place Paige with a new family, Gracie and Penelope were still with you six months later, when we came to visit after seeing them on Petfinder. (I included their adoption listings to jog your memory. Last I checked, they were still available on Petfinder, in the “happy tales” section!)

Since their two-year anniversary is fast approaching, we thought you might like to know what your girls are up to!

Back then, we already had three dogs – Ralphie the dachshund and Peedee and O-Ren the rat terriers – and lived south of the city, in a rental home in Stilwell. We’ve since bought our own place up north of the city, in Plattsburg, with concrete floors (impermeable to dog pee!) and a huge fenced backyard for the dogs. The dogs are all doing well together; while they’ve formed their own little cliques, they all seem to enjoy one another’s company.

(More below the fold…)

Via the Arizona chapter of the Sierra Club, by way of Deb at Invisible Voices, an eloquent illustration of intersecting “isms.” In this case, racism/xenophobia (”ZOMG! ILLEGAL ALIENZ!!!1!!1!”) and speciesism (”ZUH? THERE ARE ANIMALS ON TEH BORDER?”):

(More below the fold…)

Another piece of mass-forwarded spam from the godbag wing of my family, for levity’s sake.

Am I a douchebag for laughing at this, or a total douchebag for laughing at this? Or maybe I’m The World’s Biggest Douche?

Wevs. Can my miracle be a Kucinich win, please?

—–Original Message—–
Subject: FW: Fw: The Brick

I know some of you may have read this before, but it is worth the read again.

The Brick!!! Read It. Read this today and don’t delete it if you are too busy!! You’ll see.

THE BRICK

A young and successful executive was traveling down a neighborhood street, going a bit too fast in his new Jaguar. He was watching for kids darting out from between parked cars and slowed down

when he thought he saw something. As his car passed, no children appeared. Instead, a brick smashed into the Jag’s side door! He slammed on the brakes and backed the Jag back to the spot where the brick had been thrown. The angry driver

then jumped out of the car, grabbed the nearest kid and pushed him up against

(More below the fold…)

Oh, Tina Fey, you are a fooking genius! (And Amy Poehler, you’re no dubya, either.)

Seriously, Hitch, suck on this shit:

(More below the fold…)

Sarah Palin showing off her kill.

(More below the fold…)

This video has been making the rounds, but I thought I might post it here anyhow, as an example of a PETA ad campaign that I quite like. It’s brutal, truthful, powerful and moving. It addresses the animal, human and environmental casualties of leather and fur “production.” It does so without pornifying women or men, without relying on ageist or sizeist slurs, and does not single out a particular culture for their use of animal skins. It calls out speciesism without engaging in another “ism” while doing so. It’s evidence that PETA, with all its faults, is a varied organization that can (sometimes!) produce engaging campaigns. After all, a little props when they do get it right would be nice, no? Positive reinforcement, yes?

And yet…I have yet to see “Whose Skin Are You In?” featured on a non-veg*n blog as of this writing. Just, you know, making a note. *shrug*

You can sign the fur-free pledge and order “Fake for the Animals’ Sake” stickers here.

(Crossposted to.)

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare action alerts peta people for the ethical treatment of animals fur leather video whose skin are you in

Update, 10/17/07: OK, I lied. What can I say, I don’t enjoy being misrepresented.

By way of an FYI to Feministing readers, I don’t plan on following the comment thread over there, not because I’m a rude asshole, but because I don’t need the grief.

———————

Update, 10/16/08: First, greetings and salutations to everyone coming here from Feministing. I hope you’ll have a look around and perhaps visit again.

Secondly, I want to briefly address the way in which Ann linked to this post on her recent piece on Ingrid Newkirk. At first I intended on posting this in the comments at Ann’s post, but they require a MoveableType account, and I just don’t have the energy - to register *or* follow comments on a website I’ve longed stopped reading due (some of) the bloggers’ blatant speciesism.

This is the paragraph in which I was quoted:

Well, duh. The lowest-common-denominator advertising tactic is to put a big ol’ pair of disembodied boobs front and center. We get that. (Of course, this argument has been made in defense of PETA’s tactics before.) But to make it sound like, “well, it’s either boobs or a slaughterhouse video, and which do you think traffics better?” is so simplistic. There are a million ways to draw attention to a cause that are neither in-your-face political nor objectifying women. This is not either/or.

I don’t know if Ann misinterpreted my post, or if I’m reading too much into the way in which I was referenced, but I want to clarify that I *don’t* believe that it’s ok for PETA to objectify women just so long as it helps their traffic. And that’s not at all what I said: in the post below, I argue that the “Breast is Best” campaign is not sexist, not because the ends justify the means - but because the means, in this case, simply are not misogynistic. My main intention in pointing out the Google search results is to scold those feminists (like, ahem, the ladies at Feministing) who only give a flying fuck about animal welfare issues when it’s to rip into PETA for their sexism (or other “ism”), whether real or perceived. (That discrepancy in search results? Feministing & co. is partially to blame.)

If you keep reading, you’ll see that I DO have a problem with PETA’s celebrity print campaigns, in which women’s naked bodies are pornified, while those of men are not. No doubt, all those pseudo-porn shots do wonders for PETA’s publicity, but because I believe that PETA has a responsibility to fight oppression in all its forms (if not actively, then at the very least by refusing to engage in it themselves), I don’t really give a shit how many people PETA manages to convert to veg*nism by displaying Jenna Jameson like a porno prop - it’s wrong, and it’s sexist. And I say as much in the post below.

So for Ann to suggest that I defended the “lowest-common-denominator advertising tactic…to put a big ol’ pair of disembodied boobs front and center,” is really quite unfair. The “Breast is Best” campaign - at least to the best of my knowledge - never actually displayed anyone’s boobs. If PETA has since sent out scantily clad models to greet Wal-Mart customers with a nice fresh glass of breast milk and copious amounts of cleavage, then that’s where I’d stop defending this particular campaign.

I know it’s shocking, but I can repudiate some of PETA’s campaigns while admiring others. I’m nuanced like that, yo.

Update, 10/16/08, later in the PM: I’d also like to point out that you can “use sex” to sell your message in a way that isn’t sexist. Sometimes doing so can even prove both sexy and subversive:

Question: Do you think Ms. Hanna is objectifying herself, selling out other women by selling her own body, by appearing in a bikini top with the word “SLUT” scrawled across her stomach?

Would you think the same if she’d written “GO VEG” on her bare belly instead?

If so, you need to check your speciesism at the door.

And, you know, this is why I rarely write about PETA; it’s just too emotionally draining. I self-identify as a vegan feminist atheist. Sure, I’m many other things; but these are the three descriptors that I’ll always turn to first. So it really pains me when either of the two feel at odds with one another, such as when feminists all but ignore animal issues until PETA releases their newest campaign, which may or may not be “ist.” That was really the impetus for the post below - not defending PETA per se, but defending animal rights as a feminist issue.

———————

Update, 9/27/08: Mary Martin @ Animal Person discusses Ben & Jerry’s obtuse response to the campaign, as well as The Today Show’s take on the kerfluffle. Hint: you may want to write them about their weak attempts at “journalism.” Because, like it or not, many Americans’ sole provider of mainstream media news may very well consist of inane newstainment programs such as The Today Show.

———————

Hey! Feminists! You want to know why PETA continues to engage in (possibly) sexist, racist, classist, sizeist and otherwise “offensive” and “controversial” campaigns?

I’ll give you a hint:

In the top screenshot, a Google search for the terms PETA + “breast milk,” which returned 51,900 hits.

In the bottom screenshot, a Google search for the terms PETA + Hormel + pigs, which returned 11,500 hits.

(More below the fold…)

A 26-year ban on offshore oil drilling will be dropped as part of a year-end spending bill, said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey.

Eliminating the ban will allow the measure, which funds government operations through March 6, to get through Congress and be signed into law by President George W. Bush, Obey said.

“At least temporarily, the moratorium is lifted,” Obey told reporters. “This next election will decide what our drilling policy is going to be.”

Ah, right. “Just elect Obama, and then we’ll reinstate the ban. Trust us.”

Because the Dems have been all about wish fulfillment and promises kept. I mean, look at how well y’all have served the base since your 2006 mandate!

Not to mention, Obama’s a big flip flippity flip flopper on the issue:

The bill would end a months-long fight over the drilling moratorium. The push to end the ban picked up in July as the price of oil hit a record $147.27 per barrel and the average pump price of gasoline topped out at $4.11 per gallon. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain both altered their positions on the matter, saying they would support new offshore drilling.

Heh, yeah, right. I’ll trust Obama. About as much as I’ll trust the guy to defend my civil liberties or maintain that pesky wall separating church and state. Which is to say, not at all.

The announcement was hailed by Republicans. “House Republicans have fought for months to lift these outdated bans on American energy production, and the capitulation by Democrats today is a big victory for working families, seniors, and small businesses struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House Republican Leader John Boehner, of Ohio.

Capitulation? Totally. Victory for working families? Eh, not so much.

And now that the goal post’s been moved, I guess it’s onward to ANWR for the asses and their Republican overlords.

———————–

Tagged: offshore oil drilling oil drilling republicans democrats environment wtf 2008 elections