Bess’s house. You can see her name at the top.

You have to click on it to get the real effect of course.

Credit GoogleEarth

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Al-Shabab is busy making Somalia a better place by stuffing women into heavy black bags in a hot climate.

Somalia’s al-Shabab militants have rounded up around 100 women and ordered them to comply with a strict Islamic dress code or risk being whipped.

The women were arrested in Buale, about 300km (185 miles) south-west of the capital, Mogadishu.

“Arrested” is a funny word for it. The women didn’t do anything wrong, and Al-Shabab are criminals. Al-Shabab didn’t arrest the women, it unlawfully grabbed them.

The women were arrested in the market, taken away and warned before being released.

Because it was their first offence, they were not punished but they could be whipped in public if caught again.

It wasn’t an offence at all. The offence was grabbing these women and threatening them with violence. It’s strange how easily the BBC falls into language that normalizes the outrageous criminal violence of Al-Shabab and denormalizes the perfectly ordinary act of not wearing “Islamic” clothes.

Our analyst says the temperature can reach 35C (95F) at this time of year and so many women preferred to wear lighter, traditional clothes than those approved by al-Shabab.

The women were told to wear a niqab, which covers all of their body and face, leaving just a small slit for their eyes.

Imagine how suffocating that must be. I wear a lightweight cloth hat on sunny days but I yank it off whenever I’m in the shade even for a few seconds, because it’s hot – in Seattle in the 70s, not in the Somali desert in the 90s. I shudder to think what a niqab would feel like.

A UN-backed government, aided by African Union forces, has pushed al-Shabab out of the country’s main cities but it continues to stage deadly attacks there.

And to persecute people, especially women.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

An imaginary walk, via GoogleEarth.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Guardian reports on two schools in Bradford “under suspicion for practices similar to those seen in Birmingham during the Trojan horse investigation.”

The BBC reported that the previous headteacher of Carlton Bolling college, a state secondary resigned in 2012 after disagreements with the school’s governors, while minutes of governors’ meetings suggest that efforts were made to segregate boys and girls in sex and relationship education classes and in after-school activities.

The head, Chris Robinson, resigned because she felt her integrity and leadership were being questioned by governors, according to documents seen by the BBC.

Faisal Khan, the chair of governors at Carlton Bolling, denied the allegations and said the governors’ aim was to improve academic standards and meet the needs of the local community.

“At the end of the day we have a school that has 90 to 95% Muslim children, we meet their needs – whether it is halal food, whether it is prayer within school [or] wearing the hijab,” he told the BBC.

Wearing the hijab? What would a school need to do to “meet the needs” of girls wearing the hijab? I wonder if that’s really what he means, or if he means the needs of parents who want to enforce wearing the hijab on daughters who don’t want to. The two are quite different.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Richard Ackland explains about canon law in the Sydney Morning Herald. Why is the story always the same, always a matter of “protection of clergy against whom allegations of paedophilia have been made and giving victims the most incredible run-around”?

Why has the church taken that course of action instead of expelling these creepy “groomers and touchers” and sending them off to the police with a file note listing all the complaints against them?

It is puzzling, until you read Kieran Tapsell’s just published book, Potiphar’s Wife.

Tapsell is a retired Sydney lawyer who also studied for the priesthood, with canon law as his special interest – and it is here that he locates the problem.

You have to go back to the book of Genesis to work out who Potiphar and his wife were. Mrs Potiphar must have been the first recorded person to have accused her victim of rape, after unsuccessfully trying to seduce him.

Or perhaps she is in one of the first stories – told by men – of women who accuse their victims of rape after trying to seduce them. It’s a popular story. Gee I wonder why that might be.

Anyway. The church used to kick rapey priests out and hand them over to the state for punishment.

It was not until 1904 that Pope Pius X created a commission with the job of unifying the canon law code and tossing out unwanted bits. One of the discarded decrees was the one requiring priests who abused children to be sacked and prosecuted.

In 1922, Pope Pius XI issued Crimen Sollicitationis, which imposed the secret of the holy office. Priests who were meddlesome in the worst ways imaginable were to be kept under wraps.

This was subsequently confirmed in 1962. In 1974 the “secret of the holy office” was rebadged as the “pontifical secret”.

It was confirmed again in 2001 by Pope John Paul II. Later Benedict XVI (the German pope) conveniently declared the secrecy provisions extended to allegations of priests having sex with intellectually disabled people.

It must be so convenient to be able to pass your own laws that are the opposite of the real laws, and be able to follow your special laws instead of the real laws, and get away with it.

The response of the Vatican to the report of the Irish commission of investigation into priestly abuse of children, headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy, was instructive.

Benedict XVI had given the Dublin report “careful study” and was “deeply disturbed” by its contents.

Three months later, the Pope released a pastoral letter in which he laid the blame at the feet of the Irish bishops for not applying “the long established norms of canon law”.

Yet it was those very norms of secrecy that the bishops had sworn to uphold to protect abusing priests.

Certainly, there was no mention in the pastoral letter that the canon law was largely responsible for protecting these abusers. Nor was there any suggestion that this particular part of the code would be abolished, including the bit that makes it almost impossible to dismiss a priest without the priest’s consent.

The church does what it likes.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Wow. Jane Hamsher’s comments on that awful “The New Republic publishes a hit piece on Chris Hedges” post are so flippant and irresponsible they need a post of their own. Ethics, people! Journalistic ethics! This isn’t rocket surgery (to plagiarize a phrase I saw a few days ago and don’t remember the source of). Writers and journalists should tell the truth, and they shouldn’t put their names on other people’s work except in the standard way with proper attribution.

Hamsher comments on a suggestion of litigation.

Hedges is a public figure, and they’re pretty careful about what they say so I doubt a suit would get very far. But it’s a piece that they should be ashamed to have published. At 5,700 words it’s like the War and Peace of online journalism.

Do you see the full stupidity of that? First she admits the article probably tells the truth, then she says TNR should be ashamed of publishing it because it’s so long! Godalmighty.

For the record, TNR does sometimes publish long pieces. That just is something it does. Paul Berman has had very long articles published there, like the one on Tariq Ramadan.

Then someone else complains about the length, and Hamsher responds again.

It just kept going on. And on. And on. I finally just put it in a word counter. It’s clearly an attempt at “where there’s smoke there’s fire” insinuation, but I can’t imagine anyone who didn’t hate Hedges righteously would have the patience to read through.

Not clearly at all, because it’s not smoke. Also there’s that bit about doubting a lawsuit would get very far? Because it’s probably true?

And yet more of the “it was too looooooong and too hard to reeeeeeead” commentary from the person announcing it was a hit piece. (Maybe this explains her sympathy for Hedges; she’s a lazy reader so she has sympathy for his laziness as a writer.)

I confess to giving up about 2/3 of the way through when it was apparent it was never going to end, so if anyone takes the trouble to read through that and finds some actual proof, let us know. Then we can all sit and scratch our heads at why they buried their lede 4000 words down.

It would be kind of funny if Ketcham decided to sue Hamsher for accusing him of lying when she doesn’t even believe he did lie.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Another refugee from the 9th century is running for office.

Scott Esk is running for House District 91 state representative.

On his website, he says he is a conservative who wants to apply biblical principles to Oklahoma law.

But some are saying his views are extreme.

But? What do you mean but? Anybody who wants to apply biblical principles to any kind of law is extreme by definition.

Morris said, “This guy posted on Facebook that homosexuals should be stoned to death. My first response was you’re nuts, nobody would be stupid enough to do that.”

Morris says he found those postings from last summer on Facebook.

At the time, Esk had commented on a story about the pope saying “Who am I to judge?” on homosexuality.

Esk posted some old testament scripture that referred to homosexuality being punished.

Someone asked – “So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?”

Esk responds – “I think we would be totally in the right to do it. That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”

Worthy of death. That’s biblical principles for you.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Jacques Rousseau pointed out a jaw-dropping item from South Africa.

Traditional Venda chiefs have given SABC acting chief operations officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng a wife, a cow, and a calf.

That should be a woman, a cow, and a calf. Traditional Venda chiefs gave some guy a woman along with a cow and a calf.

The Sowetan reported on Friday that women were lined up in Thohoyandou, Limpopo, on Wednesday for Motsoeneng to choose one. He and other SABC executives were in the area for a meeting with Mudzi wa Vhurereli ha Vhavenda, a lobby group of traditional leaders and healers.

“The girls were around 10 and they paraded for him to choose. He chose the one he liked,” Mudzi executive secretary Humbelani Nemakonde was quoted as saying.

“All the girls were there with their parents. Their parents knew what was going to happen and they all agreed.”

The woman Motsoeneng chose was pictured in the newspaper bare-breasted next to him. She is a 23-year-old human resources management student.

And a cow available for purchase or donation.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Speaking of gender segregation…have an incident in New York from last fall.

Republican mayoral candidate Joe Lhota did not object Wednesday when three women in his group — a Daily News reporter, a campaign aide and a member of his NYPD security detail — were asked to leave a Brooklyn synagogue during a campaign stop.

The Republican mayoral hopeful entered the ultra Orthodox Shomer Shabbos synagogue, in Borough Park, trailed by a gaggle of aides, reporters and security officers, as part of a walking tour of the neighborhood.

A synagogue official hurried over to the three women in the group — a Daily News reporter, a Lhota campaign aide, and a member of his security team — and asked them to leave while the men were allowed to stay.

Lhota emerged from the synagogue less than a minute later.

Asked about the incident afterward, he defended the synagogue.

“Throughout the Orthodox world, the Orthodox Jewish world as well as the Orthodox Muslim world, there are certain places that women are not involved in,” he said. “I will not as mayor violate their First Amendment constitutional rights for their religious practices.”

Imagine if it had been three black people or three Asians instead of three women. Would Lhota have been so compliant and so glib? I doubt it.

Why are there “certain places that women are not involved in”? Because women are viewed as secondary at best, that’s why. It’s because women are viewed as NotMen and thus Not As Good, i.e., inferior. By accepting the demand, Lhota is accepting that view. It’s not just some random arbitrary inexplicable religious quirk, it’s official god-ordained literal male supremacy.

H/t AnotherAnonymouse for prompting me to find this story.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The NSS reports that Ofsted has given the thumbs-up to gender segregation in schools.

The National Secular Society has accused Ofsted of “capitulating to oppressive religious demands” after the schools regulator told inspectors that gender segregation in faith schools should not be taken as a sign of inequality.

In recently updated guidance on inspecting publicly funded “faith schools”, inspectors are advised that in Muslim faith schools: “boys and girls may well be taught or seated separately according to the specific context, particularly during collective acts of worship. This should not be taken as a sign of inequality between different genders.”

That’s exactly what it should be taken as a sign of, not least because that’s what it is.

The guidance also cautions inspectors to be mindful to not misinterpret the wearing of the ‘hijab’ or headscarf as a sign of repression but instead to “understand that Muslim females see this as a part of their identity and a commitment to their beliefs within Islam”.

Except of course for the ones who don’t. But that’s fine, Ofsted, just pretend them out of existence. Let them grow up thinking of themselves as pollutants. What could possibly go wrong?

The guidance says most schools have a uniform for boys and girls which represents the “Islamic principle of modesty”.

Inspectors are advised that art and music lessons in Muslim schools can be “restricted”, that health and sex education will be taught within Islamic studies and that daily prayers will often “dictate the shape of the school day”.

In a section on “etiquette”, female inspectors are advised to “wear a trouser suit or longer skirt and jacket to cover their arms”. Female inspectors are also recommended to “carry a scarf in case they enter the prayer room”.

According to the guidance “Muslim men do not usually shake hands with women, and Muslim women do not shake hands with men”. Ofsted advise the “best policy is not to offer to shake hands unless someone offers their hand to you”.

It says inspectors also need to be aware that they may find themselves providing feedback from a lesson to a teacher that may be wearing a full ‘niqaab’ (face and head cover). In some schools male inspectors are told they will need another female present in order to give feedback to a female teacher.

In short, it will be like a little corner of Saudi Arabia. Just play along; it’s all good.

In mixed sex Jewish schools, inspectors are told that boys and girls are “in reality” taught separately – sometimes on two different sites some distance from one another.

When inspecting Jewish schools female inspectors are advised to wear a skirt rather than trousers and a blouse, but that any blouse worn should cover the collar bone. When inspecting strictly ultra-orthodox schools, inspectors are warned to “avoid wearing bright colours, and red in particular”.

The guidance appears to be at odds with Department for Education policy. A spokesperson for the DfE, said: “We are clear that segregation in the classroom is wrong. The Equalities Act applies to all types of school and it is unlawful for schools to discriminate against a pupil by treating them less favourably because of their sex.”

The National Secular Society called on Ofsted to reconsider its guidance.

I should think so.

To be continued.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Firedoglake is helping circle the wagons around Chris Hedges by posting a sneerily dismissive post about the New Republic article. (Don’t get me wrong, TNR can be full of shit and often is, but that doesn’t mean Ketcham’s article was.)

The New Republic has published a hit piece on Chris Hedges that accuses him of plagiarism — without ever really documenting any direct plagiarism as far as I can tell. I’ll admit that my eyes started to glaze over as I read the 5700 word piece, so it may have crept in there and I had simply gone catatonic.

Documentation? What kind of documentation would you expect other than what he provided? Photographs of the original copy? (Granted, he did ask for that in the case of the Harper’s piece, and was refused, so maybe that is the kind you’d expect.)

In mainstream journalism, with editors and fact-checkers, you assume that they’re not going to publish something of this kind unless they know it’s solid. That’s in fact part of why the Harper’s fact-checker kept on checking those facts: the reputation of Harper’s depends on not blithely publishing mistakes or lies or plagiarism. I really doubt the editors of TNR just read Ketcham’s article and said “cool story” and published it.

The piece was passed on by the American Prospect and Salon before TNR decided to pick it up. I started reading it thinking “okay, plagiarism, Chris Hedges, I’ll read this,” expecting to find some legitimate examples. But the best they could do was one section of a Harper’s Magazine article Hedges said he used with permission, and the original author wouldn’t comment. Then the article goes on to document times where Hedges’ writing was “close” to other pieces.

This story was maybe worth 500 words. Maybe. Apparently the Prospect and Salon didn’t think the Harper’s story wasn’t worth of publication without some sort of confirmation, and I have to say I’d make the same call. The only reason you’d publish a 5700 word long screed like this is if you really, really hated the guy and wanted to defame him and tarnish his image. (The next step will be to consistently refer to the fact that Hedges has been “accused of plagiarism in the past” — typical Neocon circle-jerk disinformation hatchet job).

Ah, no. That’s bullshit. Those places where Hedges’s writing was close to other pieces? They count. You cite people when you quote them, at least in non-fiction. (Allusions are part of the conventions of literature, including sticking them in without identifying them.) It can be just three words – “to paraphrase Hemingway.” But you’re supposed to say at least those three words rather than pass off an idea as your own if you’re imitating it as closely as Hedges did.

Maybe Prospect and Salon did think the story was worth publication but just didn’t feel like publishing it themselves. Maybe they said oh damn, Hedges plagiarizes, but we love him so…we’re not going to be the ones to go with this.

Regardless of whether the section was lifted or not, it does not take away from the fact that Hedges is a remarkable writer and a very original thinker. If you’re going to take the time and energy to read something, I’d highly recommend his “Rules of Revolt” published earlier this week, where he ruminates on the lessons of Tiananmen Square. I tweeted it out when I first read it, and I’ve been thinking about it ever since.

I’m sorry I wasted my time reading the TNR piece. It’s just juvenile neener-neener link bait.

Well he’s clearly not “a very original thinker” and from what I know of his writing he’s a terrible writer. Maybe I Don’t Believe in Atheists was unusual in its badness, maybe all his other stuff is well-written, but I found his ragey dishonesty in that book way too repellent to want to read anything else he wrote.

And at the end there it is, just as I said – “neener-neener link bait.” Uh huh. Jane Hamsher knows that how? Maybe the same way Chris Hedges knew all the untrue things he said in I Don’t Believe in Atheists.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Edinburgh Evening News has more on the abuse of J K Rowling and in particular that contributed by “The Dignity Project.”

CHARITY regulators are investigating after a voluntary group appeared to post a Twitter message abusing JK Rowling over her £1 million donation to the No side in the independence referendum.

The tweet, from the account of The Dignity Project, read: “What a #bitch after we gave her shelter in our city when she was a single mum.”

It was one of many strongly worded posts attacking the Capital-based writer for supporting the Better Together campaign.

A later statement posted on the charity’s website claimed its account had been hacked. It said: “We are not responsible for any tweets that have been sent. As a charity we do not take any political stance and our opinion is people are free to donate to whoever they choose.”

But other Twitter users said the message had been auto-posted from the personal Facebook account of the charity’s founder, William Wood.

Oh dear, naughty, it turns out The Dignity Project was telling an untruth about that tweet. Not much dignity there, is there – call J K Rowling a bitch and an ungrateful scrounger for having an opinion you don’t like, then pretend it wasn’t you what said it. Booo.

According to its website, The Dignity Project, based in Belgrave Terrace, Corstorphine, was set up by William and Barbara McDonald-Wood and is linked to projects in East Africa, including a nursery school, a primary school and a computer training centre.

The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator said it was aware that a number of concerns had been raised about the tweet. It added: “We are making urgent inquiries into the matter and will be seeking further information from the charity trustees.”

That’s interesting really, because here in the US it’s become normalized to call women bitches in anger or contempt or both. The reaction to this charity seems to indicate that it’s not altogether normalized in the UK. I’m a little surprised by that.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The Independent reports on the verbal abuse flung at J K Rowling for daring to oppose Scottish independence, but it does so without ever mentioning sexism or misogyny. Hi, sorry to bother you, but calling a woman a bitch or a cunt or both because you disagree with her is sexist and misogynist, both.

Senior figures on both sides of the Scottish Independence debate have called for an end to online vitriol in the wake of the torrent of abuse directed at the Harry Potter author JK Rowling.
…
…nationalists who Rowling described as “Death Eaterish” for “judging [her] ‘insufficiently Scottish’” scrambled online to tell her to “get to f***”, calling her “politically corrupt”, a “b****” and a “c***”.

Very informative; thank you.

But they get the clergy involved, which always helps.

The Right Rev John Chalmers, leader of the Church of Scotland, called for people debating the referendum to “stick to facts” in the weeks ahead.

He told the Herald Scotland: “Personal insults have no part in the discussion about Scotland’s future. Some of what I am hearing from both sides in the campaign represents my worst fear as decision day draws closer.

“I urge both sides of this debate to turn the volume down, stick to facts and principles and remember that on 19 September there will be no ‘us and them’, only us.”

No I think it’s “us and bitches” isn’t it?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Jaclyn Glenn has another video. In this one she’s replying to someone else’s video which is replying to her video berating people who said Elliot Rodger’s adventure in murder was motivated by misogyny. (Video to video to video. It’s so cumbersome. Why can’t they just type it all, as humans were meant to do?) She starts off with a sarcastic apology for saying Rodger’s adventure was caused solely by mental illness, then drops the sarcasm to say that’s not at all what she said. Huh. She certainly did say it was definitely not misogyny, it was mental illness. She said that with great emphasis and certitude. The bit where she says “there were also other factors” didn’t take up nearly as much time or get as much emphasis. She explains that.

I never said that mental illness was solely to blame, I said several times that there were other things that played a role, and the point of the video was simply to let people know that mental illness played a role, that it wasn’t just misogyny, because I was sick and tired of seeing all these special interest groups jumping in on a tragedy and trying to capitalize on it and trying to use it to further their specific agendas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnHpLmsimxo

“Special interest groups” – that’s one of the dopiest (yet effective) catchphrases ever invented. It means “groups with interests that are opposed to my interests.” Glenn of course is here bashing feminism as a “special interest group” while attempting to exonerate noisy angry misogyny. It’s odd that she sees feminism as a “special interest group” but organized misogynists as just…I don’t know, part of nature, I guess. The Richard Dawkins Foundation, toe-curlingly, has a thing it calls Secular Stars. (Ew. Ew ew ew.) Jaclyn Glenn is at the top of the page, with a gushing blurb.

With her sharp wit and smashing sense of humor, Jaclyn Glenn has quickly become the new “it” girl in the atheist community. Her hit Youtube channel, she has rocketed passed [sic] 100,000 subscriptions in no time flat and millions have been entertained by her quirky view of the world.

Oh, gawd.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Wow.

I’ve thought Chris Hedges is a terrible writer and human being ever since I read his terrible book I Don’t Believe in Atheists which came out in 2008. I found it to be both sloppy and vulgarly abusive; both lazily written and dishonest about the people he was abusing.

Well color me prophetic then, in light of a long piece in The New Republic reporting several instances of fairly shameless plagiarism. And then for good measure there’s Hedges’s belligerence when the plagiarism is pointed out to him, and then there’s also the circling of the wagons by his friends and colleagues, who swear up and down that he’s just a great guy so please shut up and go away. Yeah that sounds familiar.

Christopher Ketcham writes that Hedges submitted a long piece to Harper’s in 2010 about poverty in Camden, New Jersey.

The trouble began when Ross passed the piece along to the fact-checker assigned to the story. As Ross and the fact-checker began working through the material, they discovered that sections of Hedges’s draft appeared to have been lifted directly from the work of a PhiladelphiaInquirer reporter named Matt Katz, who in 2009 had published a four-part series on social and political dysfunction in Camden.

Given Hedges’s institutional pedigree, this discovery shocked the editors at Harper’s. Hedges had been a star foreign correspondent at the Times,where he reported from war zones and was part of the team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for covering global terrorism. In 2002, he had received the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism. He is a fellow at the Nation Institute. He has taught at Princeton University and Columbia University. He writes a weekly column published in two widely read progressive websites, TruthOut andTruthdig. He is the author of twelve books, including the best-sellingAmerican Fascists. Since leaving the Times in 2005, he has evolved into a polemicist of the American left. For his fierce denunciations of the corporate state, his attacks on the political elite, and his enthusiasm for grassroots revolt, he has secured a place as a firebrand revered among progressive readers.

Some progressive readers. Not among me. That atheism book of his just reeks of badness – moral badness, characterological badness, not just literary or journalistic badness.

So, there was a lot of back and forth over the Harper’s article, with Hedges denying and excusing every step of the way.

“The Katz stuff was flat out plagiarism,” says the Harper’s fact-checker. “At least twenty instances of sentences that were exactly the same. Three grafs where a ‘that’ was changed to a ‘which.’” The fact-checker reiterated to me that first-person accounts in Hedges’s draft had him quoting the same sources as in Katz’s pieces, with the sources using exactly the same wording as in Katz’s pieces. “Hedges not only used another journalist’s quotes,” says the fact-checker, “but he used them in first-person scenes, claiming he himself gathered the quotes. It was one of the worst things I’d ever seen as a fact-checker at the magazine. And it was endemic throughout the piece.”

The fact-checker spoke on the phone with Hedges at least three times and exchanged about a dozen e-mails with him. “He was very unhelpful from the beginning, and very aggressive,” said the fact-checker. Hedges repeatedly claimed he had done original reporting. “Hedges reassured me there were no problems,” said Ross. “He then went to the fact-checker and tried to intimidate him and give him a hard time. Hedges told him, ‘Why are you going to the editor?’”

That fits exactly the impression I already had of him – he’s a very aggressive guy. He did a Point of Inquiry once, I think with Chris Mooney, in which he lost his temper and got very shouty. He’s a bully.

There’s a mass of detail in the article, all of it interesting.

In a query to Truthdig, I stated that this article would reveal at least two instances of plagiarism in Hedges’s Truthdig articles and asked for a response. Truthdig managing editor Peter Scheer replied: “Truthdig has always found Chris Hedges to be a journalist of high ethical standards. Years ago we received one request and one complaint from a Harper’s editor representing Christopher Ketcham and his wife. We resolved those issues with notes, links and clarifications to the satisfaction of everyone involved.” He made no reference to the Postman column. (It should be noted that the Harper’s editor was representing the magazine.)

Truthdig founder and editor-in-chief Robert Scheer (Peter’s father) later wrote: “I remain enormously impressed with the body of Chris Hedges’s work and would match it quite favorably for integrity and wisdom against any comparable offerings elsewhere on the Internet.”

When asked about the change in the text in order to credit Postman, the elder Scheer did not address the particulars of the change but wrote only that “Truthdig corrects errors when they are brought to our attention as we did in this instance.”

See what I mean about the wagon-circling? He’s our guy. He’s a hero. You must be wrong.

When I was researching this article for Salon, the editors there pressedTruthdig, given that the Postman correction appeared to be downplaying the plagiarism. In an e-mail to the Scheers and Truthdig publisher Zuade Kaufman, a Salon editor noted that, “due to the changes to Hedges’s piece that referenced Bartosiewicz’s article, Truthdig was clearly aware of potential misattributions in Hedges’s articles. When another attribution problem appeared in a Hedges article, Truthdig corrected it with an editor’s note that was both less specific and less prominently placed than the first one.”

Salon’s numerous attempts to get clarification of Truthdig’s correction policy finally resulted in a letter from Truthdig publisher Kaufman, who presented a series of accusations against both Salon and myself. “We are surprised that a publication as prominent as Salon would take this matter seriously,” wrote Kaufman. “In all honesty, we feel it raises serious questions regarding the true motives of Salon and Mr. Ketcham.”

Kaufman went on to note the “relative positions in the journalistic community between Salon and Truthdig and between Mr. Ketcham (and his spouse) and Mr. Hedges.” Because of these “relative positions” in the hierarchy of journalism, Kaufman stressed that “the issue of commercial motives cannot be disregarded,” and cited without elaboration “possible personal, economic and commercial gain that would be derived by Salon and Mr. Ketcham from damaging the reputation of Truthdig, Mr. Hedges, the Nation and other competitive publications and authors.”1 Nowhere in her letter did she address the Postman correction and its implications.

Sound familiar? Kill the messenger? “Drama.” “Blog hits.” “Rage-blogging.” “Attention-whore.”

I asked two journalism ethicists to look at the instances of plagiarism described throughout this piece. “These examples suggest not inadvertent plagiarism,” said Kelly McBride, who runs the Ethics Department at the journalism school the Poynter Institute, “but carefully thought out plagiarism meant to skirt the most liberal definition of plagiarism.” Robert Drechsel, the director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, noted that the use of material from Klein, Postman, and Hemingway “could be characterized as something that has come to be called ‘patchwriting.’ English and writing professors Sandra Jamieson and Rebecca Moore Howard have defined it as ‘restating a phrase, clause, or one or more sentences while staying close to the language or syntax of the source.’ Whether it happens intentionally, carelessly, or as an oversight, it’s a very serious matter.”

“Whatever the explanation for Hedges’s reporting,” Drechsel told me, “harm will have occurred. Trust is a journalist’s and journalism’s most precious commodity. Difficult to gain and virtually impossible to regain once lost. If there is even a hint of the possibility that misconduct was covered up, it’s even worse. Journalism will take another hit.”

But, you know, they’re just journalism ethicists, they’re not part of the Truthdig in-crowd, they’re not in the wagons that are being circled.

Ketcham includes a mournful little endnote.

As an authorial aside from the perspective of over 15 years of freelance journalism, and in the context of Kaufman’s letter, I should note that a possible result of this piece will be the burning of my bridges at the Nation, where I know the editors and have been published; the Nation Institute, from which I have received funding for investigative journalism published in Harper’s and elsewhere; Truthdig, where I have published half-a-dozen columns and have been proud of my work; and Nation Books, Hedges’s current publisher, a house I have always respected and admired.

Yup. Those bridges could be ashes now.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

There’s another one, and there was one more yesterday.

A teenager has been found hanging from a tree in a village in northern India, the fourth woman to die in such a way in recent weeks in Uttar Pradesh state.

The family of the 19-year-old say she was raped. A post mortem is under way.

It comes just one day after a woman’s body was found hanging from a tree in a remote village elsewhere in the state.

The gang rape and murder of two girls found in similar circumstances last month sparked outrage. Correspondents say more cases are now being reported.

Such attacks have long taken place in Uttar Pradesh, reports the BBC’s Geeta Pandey in Delhi, but recent outrage over sexual violence has meant that every case is being reported to police and getting media coverage.

So…before that they were just one of those things?

Uttar Pradesh, India’s most populous state with more than 200 million people, is also home to a staggering number of poor and it is the poor and the disadvantaged low-caste women who are most at risk of such crimes, our correspondent adds.

Well of course it is. It would be foolish to attack the rich and powerful.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

J K Rowling is opposed to Scotland’s going independent, and has said so. Open the misogynist floodgates.

What’s The Dignity Project?

The Dignity Project

@DignityProject

Scottish charity working in Africa with a CBCC programme Community Based Childcare Programme for orphans and vulnerable children.

But a woman has The Wrong Opinion? Good-bye dignity.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Reading the tweets at #womenaretoohardtoanimate is very funny.

Why it’s almost worth being the despised superfluous tiresome hard to draw alien sex, just to be able to read such hilarious tweets!

One of Soraya’s -

#womenaretoohardtoanimate because, really, in our idealized worlds, isn’t it just better if they don’t exist? They’re SO COMPLICATED.

A few others -

#womenaretoohardtoanimate i can never get the hundred flailing tendrils right

#womenaretoohardtoanimate with all the crying, menstruating, and nagging. How can we draw it ALL?!

#womenaretoohardtoanimate cos you have to start from scratch, unlike with male forms that spring whole from the designers cloven forehead.

#womenaretoohardtoanimate and it’s not historically accurate b/c everyone knows during the french rev. women and POC weren’t invented yet

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Why aren’t there any female characters in this new video game? Well because it would be too much trouble, that’s why. It would take too long. It would be too difficult.

So says Ubisoft about the new Assassin’s Creed.

The next game in the Assassin’s Creed series will not allow you to play as a female character because it would have “doubled the work” for the game’s developer Ubisoft. Speaking to VideoGamer, Ubisoft technical director James Therien said female assassins were on the company’s feature list until “not too long ago,” but were cut as a matter of “focus and production.”

“A female character means that you have to redo a lot of animation,” Therien said, defending the exclusion by saying it was “not a question of philosophy or choice.” Ubisoft’s Bruno St. Andre estimated that a female assassin would’ve necessitated more than 8,000 new animations recreated on a new skeletal structure, but said that playable female characters were “dear to the production team.”

No that’s a good point. It’s the same with work places – you have to add all these new toilets, so it’s much better just to not hire women at all. Simpler. Easier. Cheaper. Just better in every way.

Assassin’s Creed: Unity is set during the French Revolution, and allows players to take part in four-player co-operative missions in which they always see themselves as the game’s star, Arno Dorian, and their companions as alternate male assassins. Speaking toPolygon, creative director Alex Amancio, said this was the reason Ubisoft decided not include women as playable characters. “The common denominator was Arno,” Amancio said. “It’s not like we could cut our main character, so the only logical option, the only option we had, was to cut the female avatar.”

Absolutely. It’s not like you can ever cut a male character, and it’s not like you can ever have a female main character – so you see how it is. There’s just no room left for a female character, much as everyone would love to have one.

Some of the world’s most successful studios have come under fire in recent years for their gender representations. Rockstar Games’ Dan Houser justified the fact that none of Grand Theft Auto V‘s three protagonists were women last year by saying “the concept of being masculine was so key to this story,” while Chris Perna, art director for Gears of War developer Epic Games, suggested at a similar time that games with female lead characters would be “tough to justify” on the basis of sales figures.

Well exactly. This is what I’m saying. Male is normal, female is weird. Which are you gonna go with? Well all right then.

The concept of being masculine is so key to every story, and the concept of not being feminine is obviously so equally key to every story, that there’s no way to justify having female characters because let’s face it, everybody hates women.

Many have queried how the vast production, with hundreds of workers split between nine studios across the world, can’t spare the resources to make female characters.

Because that would take time away from making male characters, and nobody wants female characters anyway. Get real!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Oh, Andrew Brown. Wrong in the very first sentence.

He’s writing about the Tuam babies.

Why is it that we are more shocked by what happens to dead babies than to live ones?

We’re not.

There, that’s done; no need to write the rest of that piece.

But of course he did write it.

The story that almost 800 dead babies were buried in a disused sewage tank outside Tuamin rural Ireland turns out to be problematic. It is certain that 796 babies did die under the care of nuns in a home for unmarried mothers there between 1925 and 1961 and that is in itself a shocking statistic. But what gave the story wings was the claim that their bodies had been dumped in a septic tank…

No it wasn’t. That was a squalid, mean, brutal detail, to be sure, but the terrible death rate was the real story.

Twenty babies dropped in a cesspit as corpses is a horrifying figure. Even one would be dreadful. And of course the whole story fits wonderfully into the larger stories of Irish nuns as heartless and cruel, which many undoubtedly were. But what’s interesting to a student of religion is why the desecration of dead bodies should be so very much more shocking than the deaths of living babies.

It’s not. It’s not, Andrew. Get a grip. It may be a poignant detail that startles people into paying more attention, but that doesn’t make it actually soberly more shocking than the terrible death rate. Don’t be so damn silly.

Then he says the same thing all over again – the death rate in the home was very high, way too high, surprisingly high -

But it still doesn’t horrify us in the same way as the thought of dead babies tossed into a cesspit does.

In the same way, possibly not, but that’s not to say it horrifies us less.

But Andrew gets himself to his own desired conclusion anyway.

This story will undoubtedly be used to attack religion. But what it actually shows is how very deeply religious instincts operate within us.

That’s what it shows, is it?! I say what it actually shows is that religion doesn’t stop people from being the most awful shits.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)