We have a Culture Problem

Part of the problem with sexual harassment in this country comes from the fact that we have a culture problem.  Our culture tends to glorify, or at least condone, the sexual mistreatment of women.  In the case of Al Franken, grabbing and kissing a woman without her permission, we have very iconic examples.  Take for instance, the famous picture of the sailor kissing the nurse in Times Square at the end of WWII. This was not his girlfriend or even someone he knew.  He was half drunk and happy that the war was over and celebrated by kissing "the first nurse he saw" even though he was on a date with a completely different woman. 

So on this joyous and unbelievable afternoon, George ran from Rita — the most beautiful girl he’d ever seen — grabbed the first nurse he saw, spun her around, dipped her and kissed her. Rita was just steps behind them, and in the photo she’s beaming.

This picture is celebrated as culturally significant and romantic, but the woman being kissed was not too happy about it at the time.

The kiss did kind of bother someone else, though: the woman in the nurse’s uniform, Greta Zimmer, who wasn’t even a nurse. She was a 21-year-old dental assistant from Queens, who, having heard rumors about the end of the war, walked over to Times Square from her office on Lexington Avenue. George says he was so drunk, he doesn’t even remember the kiss. Greta says she’ll never forget it. [...] She isn’t sure how long she was standing there; maybe minutes. “And then I was grabbed,” she says. “That man was very strong. I wasn’t kissing him. He was kissing me.”

And, of course, the movies are filled with scenes where a man grabs a woman and kisses her, she slaps him, then she kisses him back, which gives the impression that it was really okay all along and that being forcibly kissed without permission is what all woman secretly want.  This is a problem and sends a bad message.

Now Senator Franken has said that his actions, including the photo of him groping the accusers breasts while she sleeps, was done in the name of comedy, but that is no excuse.  Whether done for celebratory, comedic, or sexual reasons, it is wrong to kiss or touch a woman sexually without her permission. Period.

And, of course, there is the man who will probably soon be the newest Senator from my home state, the great state of Alabama, Roy Moore.  Now I can't think of any good examples of Hollywood glorifying a sexual relationship between a man in his 30s and a girl of 14, but there is probably one out there somewhere.  But there are examples of people defending his behavior as not really a problem. Oh wrong, maybe, but not really a problem. 

A reporter defending Roy Moore appeared to compare the sexual misconduct allegations against the GOP Senate candidate to stealing a lawnmower.

During a CNN interview on Monday, Brandon Moseley, a reporter at the Alabama Political Reporter, argued that allegations such as the ones being leveled at Moore shouldn't disqualify the candidate. He noted that the accusation detailed in a recent The Washington Post report, in which a woman claimed Moore made sexual advances on her in 1979 when she was 14 and he was 32, would count as a misdemeanor in Alabama at the time.
"Does that make it OK?" anchor Brooke Baldwin asked.
“No. But again, if, you know, Roy Moore had stolen a lawn mower when he was 21, that’s bad, but that’s not a reason, 50 years later, to all of a sudden, you know, throw him off the ballot or let Mitch McConnell pick the next senator of Alabama," Moseley said.

Now I grew up in Alabama, so I was once a 14 year old girl in Alabama. It was the 80s not the 70s, but I doubt attitudes were much different between the two time frames.  The legal age of consent was 16, but 14 year-olds were sexually active.  There were older guys that hung out at high school football games and high school dances trolling for younger girls, and many didn't care if they were underage or not (just as people have said Moore did).  And the problem is, many of the girls parents didn't seem to mind either.  In fact, when my older sister was 15 she met a guy who was 21 at a high school dance and started dating him.  My parents allowed it.  When I was 14 years old I dated a guy who was 19 years old and my parents allowed it.  In both cases, I know for a fact that they were looking for someone that was young and malleable so that they could make them into what they wanted as a wife or girlfriend.  In the case of my older boyfriend, his girlfriend before me was 14 and his girlfriend after me was 14.  It is that age where the girls have all the look of an adult woman, but often lack the maturity or strength of mind that comes with adulthood.  That makes it perfect for the unscrupulous male predator, and don't get me wrong, that is exactly what they are - predators.  Just like Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame.

A video on YouTube shows Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson, in 2009, urging adult men to marry 15 and 16 year old girls who will “pick their ducks” and not their pockets.

 And the problem is, even though Alabama law technically recognizes this as a crime, our culture tells us that it is really okay, that there is really no harm done.  That is wrong.  There is harm done.  And in fact, back in the 80s (I don't know about now) it was legal for a 14 year old to get married with parental consent.  So it wasn't okay for a 14 year old to consent to sex, but it was okay for her parents to consent to it for her.  I'm sorry (okay I'm not really sorry), but that is WRONG! In fact, apparently in Louisiana, marrying the underage girl was a way to get out of statutory rape charges. Again, see Phil Robertson as an example:

Robertson has a history of messing around with underage girls.  At age 20, he was having sex with a 14-year-old girl who got pregnant and was forced to marry her at 16 to avoid going to prison for statutory rape in Louisiana.

 So, if we are going to do something about sexual harassment in our country, we need to address our cultural issues with the topic, not just our laws.  We need to socialize our young males to realize that forced affection is not true affection and a woman's (or girl's) body is her own to make her own decisions about.  And if she is not of legal age to make those decisions, then they shouldn't ask her to make them, they should keep their hands to themselves!  And, in fact, it goes both ways.  Women should not be forcing themselves on men or boys either.  Remember, your body is your own, and your rights end where someone else's nose (or lips, or breast, or vagina, or penis, etc) begins.  It's not funny, it's not romantic, and it's not okay.

My how time flies!

Via LA Daily News - Paris leaves jail in style

Paris Hilton was released from jail shortly after midnight Tuesday amid a throng of television camera lights and hovering helicopters capturing the end of her 23-day imprisonment.

I guess it is obvious that I wasn't paying much attention to the news yesterday or else I certainly would have heard about this sooner. Oh well, it's not like I really care.

Was it really just an act?

Via CNN - Hilton to Walters: I'll no longer 'act dumb'

Paris Hilton says she will no longer "act dumb."

The reality TV star and relentless publicity-seeker spoke with Barbara Walters by phone Sunday, a day after releasing a statement saying she hoped the media would focus on "more important things" than her 45-day jail sentence, according to ABC News' Web site.

"I used to act dumb. ... That act is no longer cute," ABC quoted Hilton as saying.

She is certainly right, there are much more important things going on in the world than her being in jail, and her dumb act certainly isn't cute anymore, if it ever was. Now whether anything will change or not, only time will tell.

Back in the Slammer Again

CNN - Paris Hilton ordered back to jail

Screaming and crying, Paris Hilton was escorted from a courtroom and ordered back to jail Friday after a judge, overruling the county sheriff, said she must serve out her entire 45-day sentence behind bars rather than in her Hollywood Hills home.

It is good to know that for once in her life she won't get to do exactly what she wants.

Back before Sauer on Friday, Hilton's entire body trembled as the final pitch was made for her further incarceration. She clutched a ball of tissue, and tears ran down her face.

Seconds later, the judge announced his decision: "The defendant is remanded to county jail to serve the remainder of her 45-day sentence. This order is forthwith."

Hilton screamed.

Eight deputies immediately ordered all spectators out of the courtroom. Hilton's mother, Kathy, threw her arms around her husband, Rick, and sobbed uncontrollably.

Deputies escorted Hilton out of the room, holding each of her arms as she looked back.

If you've seen video of her before going to jail the first time, it is quite obvious that the few days she spent there had an extreme effect on her. Maybe knowing what it is like and knowing that her parents and high priced lawyers can't always get her out of the messes she gets herself into will straighten her out a little bit. It seems obvious that she is desperate to not go back.

Paris is not out of the woods yet

Via the BBC - Paris Hilton must return to court

A Los Angeles judge has ordered Paris Hilton to appear in court on Friday morning to determine whether she should be returned to jail.

The celebrity heiress was allowed to leave jail on Thursday, only three days into a 45-day sentence for violating probation on a drink-driving ban.

She was given an electronic tag and ordered to remain under house arrest for the remainder of her sentence.

Her release on unspecified medical grounds sparked widespread criticism.

She is due in court at 0900 (1600GMT) on Friday, where Judge Michael Sauer, who sentenced her to jail at her trial in early May, will hear the case.

[. . .]

When Hilton was originally sentenced to 45 days for violating probation on a drink-driving conviction, she was told there was no prospect of early release.

Judge Sauer had also specifically ruled that she could not serve her sentence at home under electronic monitoring.

Even if she was suffering from some medical condition (most likely claustrophobia), I'm not sure why it should be a get out of jail free card. If so, is it a get out of jail free card for any poor schmuck who comes along? I have to agree with Al Sharpton on this one:

Civil rights leader Rev Al Sharpton condemned the release as showing the "double standards" of the US legal system.

"This early release gives all of the appearances of economic and racial favouritism that is constantly cited by poor people and people of colour," he said. "There are any number of cases of people who handle being incarcerated badly and even have health conditions that are not released."

I certainly hope the judge makes her do her full time in jail.

More from Moore

Via CNN.com - Healthy praise for Moore's 'Sicko'

"Sicko," Michael Moore's ferocious and funny attack on the U.S. health care system, got a warm welcome at the Cannes Film festival Saturday. At home, it has started a firestorm.

The movie doesn't open until late June, but it has already been criticized by conservative politicians and sparked a U.S. government investigation that could land Moore a fine or jail time.

[. . .]

Moore's previous films were praised and reviled in equal measure. Americans will likely be just as divided by "Sicko" -- especially scenes in which Moore takes the sick 9/11 rescuers to Cuba for treatment.

The trip led the U.S. Treasury Department to investigate Moore for possibly breaking the U.S. trade and travel embargo on Cuba.

[. . .]

Moore says the criticism of the Cuba trip is misplaced. He said he intended to take the workers to Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. naval base on the island where terror suspects are held -- and, the film claims, receive top-notch medical care.

"The point was not to go to Cuba but to go to America, to go to American soil ... being in Cuba was just an accident in a sense," he said.

I've only ever watched one Michael Moore documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, and I found it interesting. However, one must always consider the source when receiving any information. I think that Moore has some good points to make, but I don't think that he always makes them in the best possible ways. And any incendiary material in the film is doubtfully there by chance.

This country does need health care reform. Too often it seems like insurance is nothing more than a racket. People pay and pay believing that they will be covered if they have medical problems, but when a problem actually arises, the insurers want to do as little as they can get away with. It is true of all types of insurance, not just health insurance. I'm not really sure how Michael Moore's film is going to change that any though. The people who already agree with him will watch it and agree with him. Those who do not agree with him will likely not watch it and dismiss it out of hand because of the source from which it originates.

It ultimately boils down to entertainment. For those who agree with Moore, it can serve as a cathartic device or a voice for what they already believe. For those who hate Moore already, it just gives them further justification for the hatred. Ultimately it affects nothing and changes nothing.

Sanjaya goes home

Via FOXNews.com - Reality Check: Sanjaya Down and Out on 'American Idol'

I've never even watched American Idol and I know this a big deal.

Fire destroys Johnny Cash house

Via BBC News - Fire destroys Johnny Cash house

The lakeside Tennessee home of late country music superstar Johnny Cash has been destroyed in a fire.

It burned down on Tuesday while renovations were being carried out for its new owner, Bee Gee Barry Gibb.

[. . .]

The agency said the fire spread quickly because construction workers had recently applied a flammable wood preservative to the exterior of the house during renovations.

After a few hours, little remained of the house except its stone chimneys.

It seems odd to me that a wood preservative would be so highly flammable, that seems counter-productive somehow.

Was Houdini Murdered?

No, it's not an upcoming episode of CSI, it's a read life conspiracy theory running its course. MSNBC has the story (from the AP) - One final trick for Houdini: Exhumation

For all of his death-defying stunts, Harry Houdini could not escape the Grim Reaper: the unparalleled performer, age 52, died on Halloween 1926, taking with him many of his trade secrets. The rumors that he was murdered, however, soon took on a life of their own.

Eighty-one years later, Houdini's great-nephew wants to exhume the escape artist's body to determine if he was poisoned by enemies for debunking their bogus claims of contact with the dead. A team of top-level forensic investigators would conduct new tests once Houdini's body was disinterred, the legendary star's relative told The Associated Press.

All of the new focus appears to stem from a new biography of Houdini's life that suggests he was murdered. I've always heard the story of how he was sucker-punched in the gut, but I've actually never heard of the murder conspiracy theory before.

I can see that an exhumation could possibly show evidence of poisoning, but I feel like any examination of the appendix would be impossible at this point. Eighty-plus years is a long time to spend in the ground. I can't imagine there is much left in way of internal organs. But then again what do I know.

Can you imagine?

NYT - DreamWorks Posts Loss

DreamWorks Animation SKG, the studio behind animated movies like “Shrek” and “Madagascar,” said Tuesday that it swung to a fourth-quarter loss on costs to write off “Flushed Away,” which performed poorly at the box office.

Can you imagine that? Flushed Away did poorly at the box office? Every time I see one of the those commercial I just cringe. Just the concept of the movie is gross. Okay, maybe little boys won't be deterred by that fact, but little girls will and so will moms.

The Anna Nicole Circus continues

CNN.com - Lawyer hints at 'fraud' in baby's birth certificate
The title is somewhat misleading, as the story is mostly about custody of Anna Nicole's body. The thing that actually struck me in the article was this:

Arthur's attorneys asked Seidlin to stay his original order, but he denied the request Monday morning. The judge said he is concerned about the deterioration of Smith's body. She died February 8.

If he's so worried, I guess he needs to talk to James Brown's family.

May he rest in peace, soon

Via CNN News - James Brown's burial expected in next few days

The six adult children of singer James Brown have agreed with his partner, Tomi Rae Hynie, on where the entertainer will be buried, an attorney for the woman said Tuesday.

Robert Rosen said the resting place is being kept confidential at the request of Brown's children. He said the burial may take place in the "next few days."

Brown died Christmas Day at age 73.

That was almost exactly 2 months ago! That just seems so odd. I guess one can't be buried until the burial site is chosen, but to take two whole months to decide seems excessive.

And this struck me as odd too:

He said he checked on Brown on Tuesday, opening the gold casket to view the body.

"I do that constantly," Reid said. "That's the only way I can actually check him ... go in, open the casket and close it. And he's fine."

Okay, one, a gold casket? But then again it is James Brown. And two, what does he mean "he's fine"? Yep, he's still dead. What does he expect other than that? Now that I think about it, I'm not sure I want to know. . .

Anna Nicole Smith's Will

BBC News - Smith left her estate to dead son

Deceased former Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith left her entire estate to her dead son, excluding any other heir from inheritance, it has emerged.

[. . .]

"I have intentionally omitted to provide for my spouse and other heirs, including future spouses and children and other descendants now living and those hereafter born or adopted," Smith said in the will, under her real name of Vickie Lynn Marshall.

[. . .]

The lawyer for Smith's estranged mother, Virgie Arthur, said the will was not filed in any court, so it is not valid.

It seems odd that she would explicitly exclude all future children. I know that Dannielynn was not born yet when the will was written (2001) but still. I would think that most people would include a provision in their will to include future children, not exclude them. I know that's what my father did. (I'm actually still just "any subsequent children" in my father's will and I'm 35 years old.) It actually makes me wonder a bit about her relationship with Daniel.

I wonder how this fact will affect the paternity claims. I'm sure it will be in court for years.

I'm kinda surprised

BBC News - Libel damages for US actress Diaz

Actress Cameron Diaz has accepted "substantial" libel damages from a US tabloid over a false claim that she was having an affair with a married man.

[. . .]

The magazine has apologised to Ms Diaz and accepted the story was untrue.

I'm kinda surprised that she got any money out of them. I thought tabloids lived by made up stories and misrepresentations of photos. If they had to pay damages for every lie they told you would think they all would be out of business by now. I'm glad to see someone fight back and win, though.

The Power of Greed?

CNN - Father of Smith's baby may get less than hoped

Men are lining up to claim they are the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby. But they could be mistaken if they think paternity will automatically mean a pot of gold.

Instead, they could be stepping into a monumentally complex, multinational legal fight over the child. Moreover, it is not at all clear whether the little girl is a million-dollar baby, as some seem to think.

I feel sorry for this baby girl. She will never know her mother and now men are lining up to claim her just to get money. It is quite sad. I hope she will end up with someone who really will care about her and not just her money.

If anyone out there is thinking it's not about the money, this statement really sums it up:

"The other motive is money. You wonder if so many fathers would be coming forward if this was a child born in a tenement on the south side of Chicago."

Speaking from experience, they wouldn't.

Who's the Daddy?

And the plot thickens over the identity of the late Anna Nicole Smith's baby daughter.

MSNBC - Zsa Zsa’s husband says he could be baby’s dad

The husband of actress Zsa Zsa Gabor said Friday that he had a decade-long affair with Anna Nicole Smith and may be her infant daughter’s father.

The claim by Prince Frederick von Anhalt comes amid a paternity suit over Smith’s 5-month-old daughter, Dannielynn. The birth certificate lists Dannielynn’s father as attorney Howard K. Stern, but former Smith boyfriend Larry Birkhead is waging a legal challenge, saying he is the father.

“If you go back from September, she wasn’t with one of those guys, she was with me,” von Anhalt told The Associated Press in an interview Friday.

And he waits until now to mention this? I wonder if it is for real or just a publicity stunt.