Categotry Archives: politicians have penises

by

Hiram Monserrate Watch: Then Fall Caesar Edition

Categories: hiram monserrate watch, kyriarchy, politicians have penises

In our ongoing quest to track the downfall of New York State’s douchiest public servant,* this story brings a smile to us:

The State Senate on Tuesday expelled a senator convicted of domestic assault, the first time in nearly a century that the Legislature has forced a member from office.

The Senate voted 53-to-8 to immediately oust the senator, Hiram Monserrate, a Queens Democrat convicted last fall of a misdemeanor for dragging his companion down the hallway of his apartment building.

Monserrate has vowed to fight the expulsion, and his lawyers are expected to file a restraining order today, if they can make it through the snow. Sadly, one of them is Norman Siegel, past head of the New York Civil Liberties Union and candidate for Public Advocate; a guy, in fact, that I voted for. Not so happy to see his name there.

Still, the Senate voting to expel somebody for a misdemeanor–normally in Albany, you get a mulligan on your first five or six of those–is a welcome change, and the fact that it was mainly because of the specific crime he was convicted for–battering a woman–is an even more welcome change. This being Albany, however, who knows how this will end. Probably with the Monster Rat as majority leader.

*At the state level. There’s a lot of competition above and below him.

by

Hobbyhorses

Categories: jay smooth tells it like it T-I-S, media tool kit, politicians have penises

Here’s a quick duck-in to discuss some hobbyhorses of mine–the Polanski debacle, and the Senate filibuster rules! (What, you didn’t know I have an obsession with that? Good thing most of you haven’t met me in person, I natter on about them a lot.)

First, Jay Smooth does an amazing take down of all the arguments people have been throwing around about why Rapin’ Roman should go free or something:

Like a lot of people, I always like Jay Smooth, but that was teh awesome.

(h/t to the fabulous Lena D.)

Next, here’s a nifty piece from Gail Collins and everyone’s favorite muddle-headed voice of conservative received wisdom, David Brooks, where they talk about the House’s recent health care bill. Gail voices one of my particular frustrations with the Senate’s arcane rules:

We used to think of the filibuster as a dramatic, once-in-a-blue-moon vehicle that was used only in extreme circumstances, like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” (What I like about that movie, in retrospect, is that Stewart was not standing there, holding the floor all by himself for hour after hour until he collapsed from exhaustion, in order to save puppies or fight unemployment. It was because the evil Claude Rains was trying to destroy his career, and Jimmy had to prove that he was as saintly as ever. It was all about him. So very Senate like.) Or, of course, when the Southerners wanted to stop civil rights legislation.

But now, a minority of senators don’t have to bother to actually keep talking, or take turns talking, or even hang around the chambers to bring progress to a screeching halt. They just declare their intention (it’s the thought that counts) and nothing can go forward without 60 votes.

That’s crazy. If we’re going to have this system, the filibuster should be reserved for matters that can’t be undone later, like important judicial nominations. Or wars. Not normal domestic policy, no matter how large.

 I so 100% agree with that. It would be a will of the people moment–if you’ve judged opinion correctly, then people will support your principled stand against oppressive legislation; otherwise, they’ll think you’re a bunch of obstructionist clowns.

Honestly, I can’t see why the Democrats wouldn’t go for this–can you imagine the glee in Chuck Shumer’s face as he goes on talk show after talk show to run the same damn clip of Orrin Hatch reading the AMA membership lists into the Congressional Record? It would be great.

Gail then goes on to attack Joe Lieberman, which is always good fun. She doesn’t, however, mention the single largest problem with the health care bills: the evil Stupak-Pitts amendment, the greatest rollback in women’s health and reproductive rights in over a quarter of a century, and something Ms. Collins might presumably be interested in.

Unless, of course, she thinks it’s just “politics” instead of “fundamental rights.”

Or maybe she was afraid of offending Bobo’s delicate sensibilities. WEV.

by

Monday Media Watch, Edizione Internazionale

Categories: douchebaggery, media tool kit, politicians have penises

O HAI AGAIN, DUCKS! And yes, this really is a Monday Media Watch–I get in just under the wire by virtue of being in California.And being in California, I decided to put aside my usual Monday Media Watch sparring opponent–the New York Times–and try one of the local papers for a change.

So today’s target: The San Francisco Comical, er, Chronicle, and specifically this article on Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi! Take it away, Joel Brinkley:

So Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is shaming his nation. That’s what pundits and commentators are saying as the Italian courts pursue charges of bribery, corruption and tax evasion. But by far the most visible allegations revolve around his sexual escapades.

But before we all clamber aboard that bandwagon, is it possible we misunderstand?

 Hey, that is one promising start, Mr. Brinkley–because certainly lady people have noticed a disturbing trend to judge us by our sexual escapades rather than the substance of our scandals! In fact, we often get judged on our “sexual escapades” in the absence of any other “scandal”! Let’s take a look at Mr. Berlusconi’s issues:

After all, as the prime minister explained at a recent news conference, “to my male colleagues present here I say: Raise your hand and tell me you don’t think it’s nice to rest your eyes on pleasant and enjoyable feminine presences – rather than sitting at a table with people lacking aesthetic qualities.”

Oh. I see. I think I can diagnose these difficulties. He’s a douche.

Now, “pleasant and enjoyable feminine presences” by its very nature is enough to make me do a Radfem Stomp. But for the sake of my blood pressure, and the possible edification of a dudebro who stumbles upon this site, let’s unpack that: first, only feminine presences are pleasant and enjoyable–this comes as a surprise not only to big ol’ bisexual me, who has been known to find masculine presences both pleasant and mm-hmm-hmm enjoyable, but it also pretends that there are no men who might agree with Your Duckmistress about said pleasant and enjoyable masculinities.

But let’s dig, Starbuck, to the little lower layer: you can’t just utter a sentence like that without it seeping context. And the context for it is that for men in power, women have far too long been seen only as, well, pleasant decoration and the occasional useful sex object. One would presume, just from his saying such an asinine thing, that a room with Chancellor Merkel, Baroness Thatcher, Secretary Clinton, and Secretary Albright would not be one of “pleasant and enjoyable” presences, despite all the named presences being female. So to sum up, on the Berlusconi scorecard of douchiness:

Female Heterosexual Desire…………………………………………….Inconsequential
Male Homosexual Desire………………………………………………..Invisible
“Plesant and Enjoyable” Males…………………………………………Ignorable
Women Who Aren’t “Pleasant and Enjoyable”
by virtue of Silvio’s Lust………………………………………………….Inconceivable

Okay, I know what you’re saying: I’m making some leaps of logic here. Maybe his (very debatable) Excellency isn’t a douchebag–maybe he’s just a man of his time, well-meaning but saying douchey stuff. Allowances should be made, etc. And maybe you’re right; maybe I haven’t given him a fair shake…

Certainly that must be why he showed up at 18-year-old Noemi Letizia’s birthday party last spring. It’s probably a coincidence that Letizia, a model, poses for provocative photos in her underwear. That couldn’t have been why he gave her a nice birthday present, a gold necklace worth about $10,000.

Berlusconi’s wife was angry. She left him, saying his visit to the birthday party “really surprised me because he has never come to the 18th birthday parties of any of our three children, despite being invited.”

Come, now. Berlusconi is the prime minister of Italy. He has a busy schedule. Even a young Noemi Letizia understands that. “I am in awe of him,” she told an interviewer. “He calls me, and I go to him.” But only “if he has time.”

 Right. Well-meaning guy who can make time for underwear models but not his own children…como si dice “douchebag” in italiano?

But let’s not stop at Italian heads of state–there’s plenty of members of the doucheoisie right here at home!

For example, two newspapers, Corriere della Sera and La Stampa, recently reported that [businessman Giampaolo] Tarantini told police he lined up 30 women for Berlusconi and his friends, “if the need arose,” and brought them to 18 parties in Berlusconi’s homes in Rome and Sardinia in 2008 and 2009.

“I wanted to meet Premier Berlusconi, and to that end I spent a lot to get into contact with him, knowing his taste for women,” Tarantini told the papers. “I merely accompanied to his house young women who I introduced as my friends while keeping quiet about the fact that I sometimes paid them.”

You’d assume that all of the press coverage, all of that back-room business, would spell Berlusconi’s political demise. Think of Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, both of whom are accused of covering up extramarital affairs. The South Carolina legislature is considering impeachment, and Ensign’s re-election prospects in 2012 appear to be slim.

What about Berlusconi? Do we misunderstand? If the public opinion polls are an indicator, we do. His popularity among Italians, in recent polls, stands at 63 percent – a figure any chief of state would envy.

What do Italians know that we don’t?

Well, Joel, first off, maybe Americans do know something about this–President Clinton had approval ratings at or near the 60% range all during l’affaire Lewinsky. And you conveniently ignore the fact that in the case of Urbin and Sanford, a huge part of the scandal is the hypocrisy of a candidate who deliberately cultivates an image of being squeaky clean and virginal (outside the God-sanctioned marriage bed) being caught metaphorically with their trousers down. Neither Berlusconi nor Clinton built their image around their presumed superior morals, and more importantly neither routinely made political hay out of condemning other people for their presumed moral failings.

And of course the article ignores, or minimizes, the fact that Berlusconi is the richest man in Italy, someone who routinely throws bushels of money into his various political campaigns (he owns his own political party) and has been mired in controversy, legal actions, and charges of criminality pretty much from the inception of his political career. With Berlusconi, his sexist actions are just the tip of the iceberg. Which could have been an interesting jumping off point for an article that might look at how hidebound belief in personal superiority (such as sexism) might also be revealed in other aspects of someone’s personal dealings (such as rampant corruption from within the government.) But that wouldn’t be as fun to write as a “Europe good sexy fun, America evil Puritanical morals police” article, which continues to get written whenever any scandal remotely sniffing of sex heaves into view–witness how often people have taken this precise tack over the Polansky arrest, even when European opinion is hardly neither uniform nor even close to the perception of the writer.
And besides–writing about how a European leader who is both sexist and corrupt, and whose sexism reveals things about his corruption, might force you to consider the same things about American leaders–and then who would invite you to the cool parties, or give you op-eds in local papers?

by

Monster Rat: A Gallery of the Rape Culture

Categories: douchebaggery, hiram monserrate watch, media tool kit, politicians have penises, your rda of misogyny, Your RDA of Outrage

Hiram Monserrate is a douchebag.

Need proof? Consider the lovely legislative record of the freshman NYS senator: he not once, but twice threatened to caucus against his own party–which for the first time in over 40 years was in control of the upper house of the New York State legislature and had an ambitious progressive and reform agenda, including legalizing gay marriage–making good on his threat the second time and throwing the entire state government into chaos (and costing the taxpayers billions of dollars.) And both times, he couldn’t even stand steadfast to his own dirtbag principles (well, except the most important: look out for Hiram first)–he turned coat on his turncoat companions and slunk back to the Democrats.

And that’s not even what earned him his nickname: Monster Rat.

That comes as a result of the “incident” of December 19th, 2009. Monserrate brought his girlfriend, Karla Giraldo, to an emergency room over a half hour from his apartment. She had been slashed down to the bone by a broken glass. Monserrate claimed he had tripped in a darkened room and accidentally smashed the glass into her face. Giraldo disagreed, although she would later recant and say that his version was correct. But that night she called him “crazy” and said, “I can’t believe he did this to me!”

It seems that he had been driven into a jealous rage by finding another man’s business card in her purse. A security camera would later show images of him beating her in the hallway, dragging her by her hair. She tried to get away from him but nobody opened their door.

He was indicted, but once Giraldo changed her story, it proved impossible to convict him of anything but misdemeanor assault.

Now, I can leave it there: yet another case of a powerful man using his privilege to abuse a woman and get away with it–as Joanna Molloy did in the New York Daily News:

In the hallway after the verdict, women in jeans and lawyers’ suits clustered in groups and shook their heads. “This sets women’s rights back a long time,” said one female court officer.

Forgive us if we find the couple’s story the most incredible coincidence since Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on the same Fourth of July.

Erlbaum did find Monserrate – who courthouse wags have been calling Monster Rat – guilty of reckless assault, for forcibly dragging Giraldo out of the apartment in a scene caught on videotape.

It’s a misdemeanor, so Monserrate gets to keep his job in Albany.

So for your enjoyment (read: rage), here is a gallery of Bramhall’s cartoons, which are disturbing and triggering enough that (in a Second Awakening first) I present them after the jump.


A Gallery of the Damned

Politics
Most often, Bramhall used Monserrate’s image as a commentary on politics, albeit one divorced completely from anything having to do with women’s politics:

Don’t you just love the terrified woman in that last cartoon? Way to exhibit sensitivity as well as your usual perspicacity, Bill!

The Cartoonist’s Chore

A few times, Bramhall includes an image of Monserrate in cartoons commenting about how hard/easy it is for him to do his job, i.e. come up with cartoons:

Almost, But Not Quite

Once or twice, Bramhall almost shows some sensitivity to the underlying issue of violence towards women–but then as usual completely smothers that in a smug blanket of privileged fuckery that uses images of that violence to make a crude joke:

The Big Finish

This last cartoon ran during the height of the Senate leadership crisis. It is so full of douchebaggery and misogynistic imagery that it practically makes up its own genre: douchedy, maybe, or WTF-tire.

For those uninitiated into New York State politics: in addition to Senator Douche, you can see former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer (presumably with a prostitute) at upper center, and in a nice homophobic touch former Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith dressed in the little Lord Faunteleroy outfit. The horse’s ass at lower right is Assembly leader Shel Silver (and an assessment of his character I tend to agree with.)

by

Elizabeth Edwards and the Faux Double-Bind

Categories: double bound, media tool kit, politicians have penises

Elizabeth Edwards, wife of John Edwards (ex-senator from NC, ex-Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, ex-Presidential candidate), has a new book out. Edwards, in case you’ve forgotten, suffered a terminal relapse of breast and bone cancer during her husband’s campaign.

Also, it turns out, during the time he was cheating on her with a “videographer” that he paid over $100,000 to. And had a kid with.

In her book, Resilience, she says that her husband should not have run, and that she tried to talk him into dropping out after he admitted to the affair. It also turns out that he was less than honest with her: he told her it had been a one-time dalliance, even while he had his mistress stashed away, and his staff scrambling desperately to cover up evidence of the affair.

So, for those of you playing at home, here’s the scorecard: second bout of cancer turns out to be terminal; husband cheating on her; husband lying about cheating on her; husband still delusional enough to think he can be President.

All in all, that’s pretty terrible, and I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Edwards, who seems to have gotten the shortest of short ends of the stick. But what makes this story of interest to this blog is the backlash I saw today.

First, Michael Goodwin weighs in for the New York Daily News:

…the temptation is to shout, “Leave the poor woman alone.”

That’s easier said than done. After all, Elizabeth Edwards helped to perpetrate a fraud on voters, namely, that her husband was fit to be President.

She knew better and now says she told him to drop out because of the affair. He didn’t and she tried to get him elected, raising money and stumping with and for him. She excoriated the media for giving “the Cliffs Notes” of the truth about candidates.

If only we had known the truth she was hiding.

Ah. Way to empathize. Let me ponder, what, exactly her choices were once John refused to drop out. Leaving the campaign trail would have been–no doubt about it–a major distraction. The question would have been why, after not stopping campaigning despite being diagnosed with breast cancer, had she suddenly vanished. It would have been a staggering blow to an already staggering campaign. And, if as seems to be the case, she didn’t realize the extent of the affair, then maybe–maybe–she really did think he was qualified to be President. After all, many Democrats still think fondly of Bill Clinton, and he was a serial womanizer as well. (In fact, weren’t many of us wringing our hands about how a person’s personal life didn’t have to reflect on his ability to do the job at the time?)

Goodwin winds up with:

“Her illness has put a halo over her head and it doesn’t belong there,” another reader posted. “If she were not sick, there would be far more criticism of her for hiding this kind of news . . . By participating in his charade, Elizabeth is mighty guilty herself.”

Me? I second both emotions.

Which leads nicely into Maureen Dowd’s column in the Grey Lady:

But now Saint Elizabeth has dragged him back into the public square for a flogging on “Oprah” and in Time and at bookstores near you. The book is billed as helping people “facing life’s adversities” and offering an “inspirational meditation on the gifts we can find among life’s biggest challenges.”

But it’s just a gratuitous peek into their lives, and one that exposes her kids, by peddling more dregs about their personal family life in a book, and exposes the ex-girlfriend who’s now trying to raise the baby girl, a dead ringer for John Edwards, in South Orange, N.J.

So, to update your scorecard:

Bill Clinton, serial adulterer, perjurer, and not as liberal as you think–the greatest President since World War II, at least according to Al Franken.

John Edwards, serial adulterer, class hypocrite, not as liberal as you think but unable to even be Vice President: lying cad.

Elizabeth Edwards, cancer survivor, adultery survivor, cancer victim, way smarter than her husband: whiner who is needlessly exposing her family to ridicule for unknown reasons.

What I’m getting at is that this is a completely fake double-bind, and I call sexism. Bill Clinton wrote an enormous autobiography, which talks about his affair, but because he’s a Serious Politician (and Has A Penis), that’s statemanlike. Elizabeth Edwards, who, as Dowd says, “would have made a wonderful candidate herself. But she poured everything into John[…]” writes a book about the most wrenching time of her life, and she’s accused of dragging herself shamelessly back into the spotlight, not to mention her family, and O Won’t Somebody Think Of The Children, and after all, she doesn’t have a penis.

If she did, maybe she’d get more respect. Though if she did, her husband couldn’t have run for President.

Hell, he’d not even be her husband.

Except in Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, and (yay!) Maine, that is.