Rape-isn’t-a-big-deal culture

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail, and another early contender for Fail of the Year – I don’t think we’ve ever had two contenders so close together – was brought to you by Forest Hills Central High School in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In a case only slightly less heinous than the Steubenville High School rape case, only because of the absence of video of the perpetrator(s) bragging about it, we have another instance of a school (students and administration) prioritizing athletic prowess over student safety. I don’t want to repeat the details myself, because they make me want to punch things, but you can read up on it here. (Also, special thanks to David Frum for putting a national spotlight on it.)

I should emphasize that this is an alleged sexual assault, although the Kent County Prosecutor’s office charged the unnamed perpetrator with two counts of criminal sexual conduct against the two victims, also unnamed. If you attend the school or know someone who does, you may know their names. Just like the victim in the Steubenville case and so many others involving the sexual assault of teenage girls, their classmates have used social media to accuse her of lying and/or being a whore, not to mention verbal and physical abuse. Why? Because they all want some worthless little prick to get a Division I recruitment.

Young women often complain that they are taught to avoid getting raped, while young men are not taught not to rape. I didn’t always take this complaint seriously, because I assumed anyone with half a brain is fully aware that rape is wrong. Apparently I was wrong. So, for anyone at Forest Hills Central who has helped make these girls’ lives miserable, here are a few things to note:

1. Rape is never funny or cool.
2. Anyone who commits rape is a worthless subhuman whose life should be ruined.
3. Anyone who defends a rapist, or attacks/blames a rape victim, should be publicly shamed and charged with harassment if necessary.
4. Any member of a school administration who helps protect a student who commits rape should be fired and publicly shamed.
5. The victim’s drunkenness, wardrobe or sexual history does not matter.
6. In the worldwide hierarchy of important stuff, rape > sports. Every damn time. Athletes who rape have disgraced themselves out of deserving any praise, along with the schools who shield them.
7. Anyone who laughs at the above points is at the top of my punch list.

Got it, you little brats? Now go to your rooms. Better yet, go to hell.

Disposal Day #165: The choice of your dad’s generation

STORY #1: Is “fusionist” a word?

It is. Anyway, this week is the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), where America’s most prominent and ideologically intractable right-wingers gather to pick bugs out of each other’s hair. Unlike the Republican Party, which just learned a few months ago that they need many people to support them in order to get anything done, CPAC – run by the American Conservative Union (ACU) – has no trouble alienating people who don’t line up with them completely. Well, they think so.

It’s gotten so bad that Govs. Chris Christie (R-NJ) and Bob McDonnell (R-VA) missed out on invitations for supporting some non-conservative ideas on the job, while former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) and – good Lord – Donald Trump are both featured speakers. At this rate, the former two will represent modern American conservatism while the latter two will represent political insanity. CPAC can either adapt to that reality, or wither away to nothing. Personally, I vote for the withering. Which is why I will never be invited to CPAC.

STORY #2: Bottled up

The theme of this year’s CPAC is “The Next Generation of Conservatives.” You might think Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) hero’s welcome would be a sign of that, especially given his burgeoning leadership role on immigration reform. But listen to the actual speech. (One Direction for his theme music? Really?) He referenced the water bottle thing! Delightful. One thing he didn’t reference: immigration reform.

The speech, much like his “response” to President Obama’s State of the Union, was essentially a catalog of Stuff Conservatives Like – exceptionalism, “hard-working taxpayers,” ending “the breakdown of the family,” not “retreating from the world” – with assurances that it was perfectly natural to have these feelings. Except when it comes to younger voters who are already stock Republicans, none of what he said was designed to appeal to said “next generation.” That task was taken up by a senator with a lot less love behind him.

STORY #3: Feel the lurve

I am, of course, talking about Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who provided the libertarian relief. But don’t expect him to get too far with that, what with the likes of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) accusing him of filibustering over drones for the sake of “impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms.” Hey now, John, those impressionable libertarian kids are your party’s safest bet, aside from pro-Keystone XL unionists. And they don’t like even the slightest possibility of the government using drones on their soil. If Paul is the only guy in the Senate to speak for them, Republicans will have more reason to fear a different kind of insurgency.

Rated M for Matheson

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who until today has been mentioned in this column three times: once positively (for calling for more triangulation among House Democrats), once negatively (for a budget amendment that would block funds for a rural broadband program) and once in passing (his Republican opponent in 2012 was more interesting). This mention is about as negative as it gets, and for good reason: His newest bill is a waste of time.

The bill is called the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act. (You know where this is going, right?) Presently, it’s up to video game retailers to decide whether or not to sell M-rated (mature) games to E-rated (everyone) children, so to speak. Matheson’s bill would bar them from selling M-rated games to anyone under 17, and AO-rated (adults only) games to anyone under 18. It would also require the Entertainment Software Ratings Board’s (ESRB) ratings system to be displayed in a “clear and conspicuous location,” and all games would require an ESRB rating to be sold.

If, for example, we were talking about content ratings designed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), I would be less concerned that Matheson was overreaching by trying to make them mandatory. But the ESRB was created by video game makers and is completely voluntary. They’re not under federal jurisdiction – they’re under industry jurisdiction, and therefore the industry is responsible for enforcing their ratings. How would Matheson find a way around that?

Remember that California already tried such a law, and the Supreme Court struck it down in 2011. Back then, proponents argued that ESRB ratings were ineffective in getting children to stop accessing violent games, and parents needed “help” from the government in order to make it stick, just as they do when kids try to buy alcohol or cigarettes. Except alcohol and cigarettes are not legally protected as free expression, and video games are. Whether you agree with the 2011 ruling or not, Matheson’s bill will fall to it.

I suppose we should give him some credit for doing his part to beat back accusations from Republicans that Democrats aren’t trying hard enough to punish Hollywood for America’s culture of violence. But that’s no excuse for bothering with a bill whose contents have already been ruled unconstitutional, and would lead to a completely unnecessary and played-out battle in the courts if it passed Congress. He should stick to making sure video games really do make players more violent if this is the hill he wants to die on.

How centrists can plug the apathy drain

A few months before I started this blog – I believe it was mid-November 2008 – and was still doing campus radio at the University of Winnipeg, I warned my listeners that if President Obama failed to live up to his own hype, we could hold him responsible for an entire generation of young and new voters becoming and staying apathetic. If this article is to be believed, that’s already happening. Obviously you can’t expect any incumbent president to duplicate the enthusiasm of their base for a second term. But this could run much deeper than simply getting used to the guy.

The article notes that, according to a recent Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans in the 18-29 age bracket who plan to vote this cycle has dropped by 16 points since this time in 2008. The other evidence in the article is anecdotal: campus organizers who have far fewer people to organize, an absence of election posters, a general tone of disenchantment. I want to point to a particular quote from Ethan Weber from Miami University:

Lots of people thought President Obama could go in and break gridlock and that didn’t happen. That’s the scariest thing to a lot of young people — that nothing is going to happen.

Sure, that’s what Obama promised to do. But when you think about it, how effective can most presidents be at breaking gridlock when they have a misbehaving Congress to deal with? If any president has been able to rise above this, what did they have that Obama doesn’t, and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) hasn’t proven himself to have?

The need to answer that question highlights a ripe opportunity for the voices of nonpartisanship and pragmatism in American politics. Young voters, especially disaffected ex-Obamans, are among the first to ask why these idiots aren’t buckling down to serious business. If No Labels and similar state-based groups can capture their attention before they say “Eff this ess” to politics, we can create a truly worthwhile student movement. These voters are perhaps the most fearful of high debt and a weak job market; thousands of them have their own experience with both and don’t know when it will end, or when politicians will start speeding up the ending process.

The good that can come out of the end to Obama-mania is the chance to get apathetic students to stop looking for celebrity candidates and start looking for statesmen. As for the party hacks, most of them give up on hackery after graduation; the sooner they’re introduced to a healthy next step in political thinking, the better. The worst centrists can do is focus exclusively on middle-aged voters. If we can’t make old politicians want to be centrists, we can make young people want to be centrist politicians.

The convention kids’ club

Nobody, even those who know nothing else of party conventions, would expect them to be child-friendly affairs – unless we’re talking about the children of the candidates, in which case it’s just a night when your mom or dad gives a big speech and a bunch of strangers applaud for you for no reason. Apparently both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions are so unfriendly to children that Gloria Steinem decided to get involved:

Women are the key to a Democratic victory, and sometimes, children are the key to women. It’s both right and smart for the Democratic Convention to behave as if children exist.

Damn, Gloria. Didn’t you use to be one of the leading voices against the “children are the key to women” mentality?

Anyway, convention organizers are now blind to the existence of children because they won’t allow them on the convention floor, which is only open to credentialed delegates. Susie Shannon, a California delegate, has started a pushback against the DNC’s version of this rule. Of course, she phrased it more sensibly than Steinem: “It’s either allow children on the floor or provide child care.” The closest the DNC has come to the latter is offering a list of nearby day cares to delegates, while an RNC spokesman said that the child of a delegate could “in theory” obtain floor credentials.

If I were the type of person who would ever be caught dead at a national party convention, I would never want to bring a child of day care age (i.e. too young to hang out in a hotel alone) with me on the floor, especially not an infant. The DNC cites “security and capacity reasons” as being behind their policy. Even leaving those aside, it would distract the delegates, bore the piss out of the kids and annoy all the childless people. The only advantage is that they’re right next to you.

The absurdity of that idea now established, let’s consider Shannon’s suggestion of convention-provided child care. Now this I can get behind. Consider that, at least on the Democratic side, delegates must pay for their own travel and accommodation. If they can afford to do this with children, they can afford to pay a few bucks a day for the children to stay in a room with toys, books, computers, videos and a few minders. It doesn’t need to be extravagant.

And on-site day care isn’t an unreasonable demand. Unlike candidates and party elites, many of these people don’t have anyone at home with whom to trust their children. Providing them with this much extra help would be an acknowledgement that their circumstances exist, as well as their kids.

The kid WAS all right

The last time I wrote about author/Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) speaker Jonathan Krohn, I asserted, though not in so many words, that his debating and critical thinking skills left something to be desired – which was largely attributable to his age – and that a little more experience and study would get him to move away from doctrinaire conservatism. He was 14 years old at the time. Now he’s 17, and my prediction has come true (results!). How do I know? He says so himself. And it’s awesome.

In an interview with POLITICO, Krohn revealed that he was no longer a conservative, but not a liberal either, as any ideological label is now distasteful to him. The article’s writer, Patrick Gavin, took great pains to point out that Krohn is now pro-gay marriage and even pro-Obamacare. He would likely vote for President Obama in November, if he were going to be 18 by then. He’s even planning to attend New York University, of all places. It’s a pretty big shift for a guy who once named Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) as a political hero of his.

Why the change? Krohn chalks it up to his personal studies in classical, non-political philosophy, which helped him realize this:

. . . a lot of what I said was ideological blather that really wasn’t meaningful. It wasn’t me thinking. It was just me saying things I had heard so long from people I thought were interesting and just came to believe for some reason, without really understanding it. I understood it enough to talk about it but not really enough to have a conversation about it.

There is so much right with this passage that I might not have room for it all. First: Exposing yourself to little but one ideology renders you nigh incapable of critical thought. Second: When you translate that non-critical thought into speech, it will come out sounding like copy for political bumper stickers. Third: Chances are, you know not of what you speak.

So why am I filing this column in the Centrist Studies category without calling Krohn a centrist? It’s not just the fact that I respect his desire to avoid being labeled (though I do think he meets the criteria for centrism). It’s the fact that this is a process a hell of a lot of us centrists went through, though not as early as Krohn. I stopped calling myself a left-winger when I realized I wasn’t thinking about anything I discussed and just copied what other lefties said. That, evidently, happened to Krohn.

It’s a shame that, according to him, people aren’t interested in hearing about his political evolution. This is no surprise, since we’re talking about the right-wing establishment. I’m interested, kid! Call me, maybe!

Gangsta Gail and the Anti-Apathy Crew

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Understanding the Manitoba Election. Not the act of understanding the Manitoba election, which is taking place in October, but the campaign devised by the University of Manitoba to encourage young people to do exactly that, culminating in their casting a ballot. A worthy objective, to be sure, but the execution is . . . well, see for yourself.

Most of my readers won’t recognize that poor, sad woman as Gail Asper, who runs Winnipeg’s largest philanthropic organization. When I was younger and, bizarrely enough, more cynical about politics than I am today, I tortured myself with visions of politicians attempting to engage young voters by going gangsta. Never did I dream that it would actually happen. Yet it did. And it’s just as patronizing and desperate as I always imagined it would be.

This campaign, “VoteAnyWay,” is designed to combat youth apathy. How exactly can they accomplish that by, essentially, naming the campaign after it? The logic of voting is perfectly sound, but it’s been proven time and time again that no amount of shoving it in young voters’ faces can be effective. Also, having a fabulously wealthy woman in her early 50s, along with other celebrities (by Winnipeg standards) of age, sell students on voting is just a bit trite.

What’s even more hilarious is the link on the program’s home page, which complains that the machinery of politics is too boring for young people to engage with it. They’re better off paying attention to stories of MPs who spend the entire campaign period in Vegas and still win. (Uh-huh.) Isn’t this entire program centered around educating students about the machinery of politics? Do they even know what their objective is?

There’s a good reason young voters came out in droves for President Obama in 2008. Not only did he invest time in making a true connection with them, but he tapped into the source of their cynicism and connected it back to his own policy proposals. That’s the way to get young people interested: Give them a candidate they can give a shit about, long enough to delve into the issues. And since that never happens in Canada, least of all Manitoba, expect an even more historically low turnout come October.

Disposal Day #71: Teach your children well

STORY #1: Young guns

This was a bit disturbing: “. . . this highlights the need for political parties to win the allegiances of voters at a young age.” That quote refers to a British study showing that the Republican Party has experienced considerable growth in their support from young voters due to 9/11, many of whom were not of voting age when the attacks happened. Those who celebrated birthdays that month or afterward were more likely to register as Republicans than those who had birthdays in August 2001.

If anyone can make heads or tails of that methodology, please clear it up for me. But the article is only making this point in the interests of the parties. It’s natural for younger politicos to be drawn to one party or ideology at the start; I certainly wasn’t immune to this. But should either party have a hand in perpetuating this, as opposed to encouraging general political education? I’d like to see a goal for all kids to pass a U.S. citizenship test by graduation.

STORY #2: A sickly Constitution

Apparently there’s a 2004 federal law requiring schools to teach the Constitution during a certain week in September. I’m not sure that law is constitutional itself, but the more kids learn about civics, the better. Unfortunately, the Tea Party Patriots have gotten involved, demanding increased enforcement of the law and the use of teaching material by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which sounds innocent enough but “promotes the Constitution as a divinely-inspired document.”

Understanding American Politics by R.V. Denenberg has the entire document up until the 25th Amendment – it was first published in 1984 – in the back. The kids can use that. The law doesn’t establish religion, but the Center does, and they ought to act in the Constitution’s spirit. I mean, think about it. What would Jefferson do?

STORY #3: Update on Amy Myers

And so it seems that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) will not be engaging in a debate with New Jersey high schooler Amy Myers on, yep, the Constitution. No word if Bachmann has responded to her supporters who have called Myers a “whore” and a “Communist” and threatened to publish her home address – and worse. You know, if you don’t have the backbone to talk to someone who can’t yet vote about the Constitution, how can you preserve, protect and defend it?

An open letter to Amy Myers

Dear Amy: I had my own political awakening when I was around your age, so of course I was impressed to see you going public with your thoughts on the Constitution; there don’t seem to be many teenagers who have any opinion of it at all. But challenging Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on her opinion of it? That takes a lot of guts. And your description of yourself as an Independent and “split-ticket” voter-in-waiting takes an equal amount of brains.

It’s especially reassuring to see that your challenge to Bachmann was enough to shut up those boys at your school who gave you a hard time for running for class president. Not that they were much of a bother. Any guy who makes jokes about women getting sandwiches isn’t worth your attention; it’s Yahoo! Answers-grade humor, if you can call it humor. Next time that happens, please let the guy know there have been better jokes written on the windows of bus stops.

More disheartening was the word that slightly more advanced idiots have dubbed you a “Communist” for daring to criticize Tea Party patroness Bachmann. I’m sure you understand this already, but a reminder to other people never hurts: Ignore them. Your criticism is perfectly valid, and it’s their fault if they can’t see the value in it. It should have made them ask what they’re paying for. Perhaps it is, in secret.

You asked a very simple question of a high-profile figure, but that question brought something more complex to the surface: What degree of expertise in basic civics should we expect of our elected officials? You inspired several people to recommend that candidates take some sort of related test before taking their seat. Speaking for myself, considering that you’ve become famous for even thinking about civics, I’d rather see it on a standardized college admissions exam.

I would love to hear your insights on how we can make a basic understanding of American politics and government an integral part of school curriculums. If you plan to pursue a career in some aspect of politics – and I hope you do – this would be an excellent start for you. Anyone can yammer on about the importance of voting, but it takes a certain person to convey the importance of tuning in before and after the ballots are cast.

If Bachmann responds to you, please be sure your conversation goes on YouTube. It would make a lot of people’s days. And regardless of whether you win or lose, playing the game is something we all should admire. Meanwhile, don’t let ignorance get you down. Sincerely yours, Jess.

The Michelle Obama Anti-Fatass Act

On the heels of the individual health insurance mandate’s unconstitutionality ruling comes President Obama’s child nutrition bill, half of which may also be ruled a federal overreach within a much shorter amount of time. Inspired by First Lady Michelle Obama, the bill gives the government power to determine the kinds of foods sold in school cafeterias, vending machines and fundraisers. Of course, this power is not enumerated anywhere else.

There is no question that school cafeterias could use drastic improvements across the board. When I was in high school, it was commonplace for kids to order fries and ketchup and not much else for lunch. Oftentimes, they’d go all out and order poutine. (For non-Canadians, that’s fries with gravy and cheese curds.) Combine this with a limited amount of physical education and a lack of consideration for nutrition, and you have a recipe for a school full of fatasses.

The new standards would likely keep popular foods like hamburgers and pizza in school cafeterias but make them healthier, using leaner meat or whole wheat crust, for example. Vending machines could be stocked with less candy and fewer high-calorie drinks. Bake sales and other school-sponsored fundraisers that sell unhealthy foods could be limited.

That’s a good middle ground for the most part (but don’t you be touchin’ mah bake sales!). Leaner meat and whole wheat crust seem like obvious improvements that sound minor but do make a difference when it comes to healthier food. The trouble is that fattening crap is cheaper for overstretched schools, which is why the federal government sees fit to pony up the cash and the rules at the same time.

If I wanted to improve the food served in schools, here’s how I’d do it: I would create a funding contest for schools and school boards across the country who demonstrated their own ideas for better nutrition. Some have already done this on their own accord in a variety of ways, ranging from vegetarian options to on-site gardens and greenhouses to expanded cooking classes (which really should be compulsory; why wouldn’t you learn how to cook?). This is the level on which these policies should be made.

The bill has already been signed into law, so it’s too late to bring this up – at least until someone gently reminds Obama that the federal government does not have nutrition within its purview, to this extent. For someone who once so fervently insisted that “Yes we can,” he seems to have forgotten which “we” he was talking about.