Only a few good men?

Sadly, that appears to be the case. My father served briefly in the Navy. I once had a very high opinion of men in the military, a perception that was supported by the fact that the men that I have been blessed to know, as family members and friends, are honourable and respectful of women. All women.

Thus it affronts me when thugs who have made a career in the military beat their chests and attempt to promote their own personal chauvinism and misogyny as the norm. My co-blogger Dr Dawg has recently written about such despicable specimens.

It pains me to report this, but the US military forces its female military personnel to pay the costs of forensic medical exam kits. Why? Could it be the 'exorbitant' expense?

In light of the disgusting shenanigans, comments and posts happening over at Dust My Broom, this comes as no surprise:

Women in the military are twice as likely to be raped as their civilian counterparts. In fact, "women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq," Congresswoman Jane Harman, D-Calif., told the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs in May.Harman said, "The scope of the problem was brought into acute focus for me during a visit to the West Los Angeles VA Health Center where I met female veterans and their doctors. My jaw dropped when the doctors told me that 41 percent of the female veterans seen there say they were victims of sexual assault while serving in the military, and 29 percent said they were raped during their military service." ...

Cat-and-mouse games may sound like kid stuff, but refusing to pay for a rape kit is anything but. It implies that the victim is to blame. It does not encourage victims to come forward. And it makes it far more likely that soldiers will interpret the permissive climate as institutionally sanctioned misogyny.

Is this "supporting the troops"?

What's the Difference Between Sexism and Misogyny?

It's confusing. The terms sexism and sexist received more air play in one week on Fox News when Sarah Palin was named McCain's running mate in the US presidential election than in a year's worth of media coverage about Hillary Clinton's campaign to become the Democratic candidate.

So what's the difference? Sexism is the manifestation of attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. Misogyny is hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

Thus this offer from an adult movie producer to Sarah Palin combines the worst of sexism and misogyny. Did Dan Quayle, the prettiest VP the Republicans ever elected to power receive an offer to star in a porn film when he was defeated? If anyone ever doubted that intrinsically, the first assessment that men make of a woman, any woman would be: "Is she f***able?" then this certainly confirms it.

Had the popular male response, regardless of their political allegiance, been with regard to Hillary Clinton and the above question, "Yes!", then the US might presently have a female president-in-waiting.

John McCain also can.

Last night John McCain delivered the best speech of his campaign. It wasn't about loss. For a brief moment he rose above the odious web of incitation, fabrication, innuendo, attack, smear and dirty tricks that is now the standard Republican political campaign operation mode.

What I know about John McCain could probably fit on a 3x5 index card. I don't really know that much about Barack Obama, either. I have been at times, an enthusiastic observer of US politics but I lost my taste for it around the time the Republicans used September 11 to cement their hold on government. But there are elements to this campaign that have caught my attention.

Earlier in the evening, a comment from two unidentified Republican war-room peons was posted amidst the busy patchwork of information bits and bites that CNN favours in its broadcasts:

No path to victory.

John McCain probably figured that out a few weeks ago. He certainly did not seem surprised, angry or unprepared.

What I sensed about John McCain is that he was not a bitter or defeated man as he stood in front of a well-tailored and blue-blooded Republican crowd at a glitzy Arizona resort. He seemed quite relieved and even relaxed. It was over. He spoke firmly, with grace and honour. The best of John McCain was on view. He did not provide his supporters with the catharsis they wanted, but that is no longer his duty.

There will surely be a litany of naming, blaming and shaming in private and public conversations between Republicans. The acrimony, the mendacity and the rapacity that the party has promoted within and outside its ranks may continue; John McCain has left the building.

CBC tweaks its journalistic "balance".

This morning on CBC's The Current, Richard Perle - war profiteer and some allege, war criminal - was the expert consulted by CBC guest host David Frum on the topic of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's suitability and competence in the matter of international affairs.

You can listen to that interview here. Click on 'Listen to Part One' to hear the the man Frum calls "most influential security policy expert in Washington" give his personal spin on why Obama is unsuitable for president and lacking in experience. The best thing that Perle can say about McCain is that he is a known quantity. Perle uses the word naïve over and over again in characterizing the actions that he presumes that Obama would initiate as president and ominously suggests that U.S. credibility and status would be damaged.

One does wonders if the choice of Frum and his carte-blanche selection of appropriate experts is a sop to those critics of the CBC who got their underwear in a furious knot about Heather Mallick's opinion column on Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin and the rape kit issue.

As progressives, we advance and defend ideas, perspectives and opinions. We need to be thorough when doing research, especially in cases where far-ranging information is available to us.

When I first heard about Sarah Palin and the rape kit issue, I was outraged. It turns out that I was right to be angry that sexual assault victims should have to bear the cost of gathering evidence so that criminal charges and legal proceedings can move forward against their rapist. However, Governor Palin is not the only elected official willfully indifferent to this issue.

As it turns out, this is a serious problem in many U.S. states, and not only in Alaska. Michelle Andrews is a blogger for U.S. News. In February 2008, she wrote:

"It's been a problem for a long time," says Ilse Knecht, deputy director of public policy at the National Center for Victims of Crime. "We've heard so many stories of victims paying for their exams, or not being able to and then creditors coming after them." In order to qualify for federal grants under the Violence Against Women Act, states have to assume the full out-of-pocket costs for forensic medical exams, as the rape kits are
called. But according to a 2004 bulletin published by the NCVC, "[F]eedback from the field indicates that sexual assault victims are still being billed." Knecht says she's recently heard from caseworkers in Illinois, Georgia, and Arkansas reporting that rape victims continue to be charged for their forensic exams.

The rape kit itself generally contains bags to collect clothing, test tubes for collecting blood, swabs for fluid, and a comb to collect pubic hair. Small-change stuff. But exams also involve administering tests for pregnancy, HIV, gonorrhea, and syphilis, and that's where the costs add up, says Randall Brown, medical director for the Baton Rouge Rape Crisis Center in Louisiana.

How forensic exam costs are handled varies. In some locations, hospitals bill patients' insurance and absorb whatever the insurers don't pay or bill patients for the balance. Some states have special funds to cover a portion of the costs. Others require convicted offenders to pay into a fund to reimburse the costs of the exams.

Of course, it's the health care portion that makes the cost of forensic medical exams a political hot potato in the U.S.; will that be - insurance, Medicaid, cash or credit card?

Ironically, the nature of rape may actually make it more likely that victims will be billed for the evidence-gathering exam. Unlike a break-in, where police gather forensic evidence at the victim's home and send it directly to the crime lab, in rape the victim's body is the scene of the crime. In these cases, "there's a crossover between medical care and forensic care," says Brown.

In September, Michelle Andrews blogged about this again, and reminded her readers that other elected officials in other jurisdictions have done nothing to ensure that rape victims are not financially burdened with procedures that are required as a consequence of a crime committed against them.

If on her watch Sarah Palin allowed women to be charged for rape kits, she has some serious explaining to do. But while she's undoubtedly the most visible offender, if the story is true, she's unfortunately not the only one to have permitted this reprehensible practice.

Regardless, it should prove reassuring to Republicans that Sarah Palin did not intervene in any manner to indicate that issues related to justice for women, or their physical and legal well-being, are important to her. In fact, Palin is the very embodiment of a phenomenon that was named and documented in the 70's: the Queen Bee syndrome. As long as she can enjoy the privileges of admission into a sacrosanct men's club, other women can pretty much fend for themselves.

(Merci to Dr Dawg who raised the question.)

September 18 / Update: In the comments, buckets mentions contraception. In a new development just emerging, it would seem that factor may indeed be a critical element and, this may as well be somehow connected to Troopergate. I will dedicate another blog post to this issue as soon as more facts are available.