Hugh Hefner declares war on bedroom politics

By Jeff Stacklin | The Lookout

Hugh Hefner is ready for war—not against his former wives or girlfriends, but against conservative politicians who he says are thrusting their viewpoints into other people's bedrooms.

In a rare move, the founder of Playboy magazine picks up his pen and writes an editorial in the May issue of the men's magazine. The politics website Politico.com notes that Hefner, in his editorial headlined "The War Against Sex," blasts "repressed conservatives ... [for] pounding on America's bedroom door."

"For months I have watched the rhetoric building," writes Hefner. "Last October, in an interview with an evangelical blogger, Rick Santorum promised to defund birth control on the grounds that contraception is 'a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.'

"Ron Paul was no better, believing that the birth control pill did not cause immorality but that immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pill. Mitt Romney vowed to see a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and to overturn Roe v. Wade."

He also references Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, who was lambasted by conservative talk-show show Rush Limbaugh as "a slut" and "a prostitute" after testifying to Congress about employers paying for birth control.

The Hef  promises not to let down his guard on America's sexual freedom: "We won't let that happen. … Welcome to the new sexual revolution."

But not everyone is eager to have Hefner waving a flag for women's rights. The women's business news site, TheJaneDough.com, noted that while it appreciated Hefner's defense of Fluke and his defense against GOP values, he's a "notorious girlfriend collector" and "hardly one to preach about women's rights."

" Though many argue he had a role in the sexual revolution and provided lots of opportunities for women, he also sends the message that it's acceptable to juggle multiple significant others at once, all the while objectifying them publicly."

The real war on women is in the Middle East.

BY MONA ELTAHAWY | 

The real war on women is in the Middle East.

In "Distant View of a Minaret," the late and much-neglected Egyptian writer Alifa Rifaat begins her short story with a woman so unmoved by sex with her husband that as he focuses solely on his pleasure, she notices a spider web she must sweep off the ceiling and has time to ruminate on her husband's repeated refusal to prolong intercourse until she too climaxes, "as though purposely to deprive her." Just as her husband denies her an orgasm, the call to prayer interrupts his, and the man leaves. After washing up, she loses herself in prayer -- so much more satisfying that she can't wait until the next prayer -- and looks out onto the street from her balcony. She interrupts her reverie to make coffee dutifully for her husband to drink after his nap. Taking it to their bedroom to pour it in front of him as he prefers, she notices he is dead. She instructs their son to go and get a doctor. "She returned to the living room and poured out the coffee for herself. She was surprised at how calm she was," Rifaat writes.

COMMENTS (555)SHARE:

Share on twitterTwitter

Share on redditReddit

More...

In a crisp three-and-a-half pages, Rifaat lays out a trifecta of sex, death, and religion, a bulldozer that crushes denial and defensiveness to get at the pulsating heart of misogyny in the Middle East. There is no sugarcoating it. They don't hate us because of our freedoms, as the tired, post-9/11 American cliché had it. We have no freedoms because they hate us, as this Arab woman so powerfully says.

Yes: They hate us. It must be said. 

Some may ask why I'm bringing this up now, at a time when the region has risen up, fueled not by the usual hatred of America and Israel but by a common demand for freedom. After all, shouldn't everyone get basic rights first, before women demand special treatment? And what does gender, or for that matter, sex, have to do with the Arab Spring? But I'm not talking about sex hidden away in dark corners and closed bedrooms. An entire political and economic system -- one that treats half of humanity like animals -- must be destroyed along with the other more obvious tyrannies choking off the region from its future. Until the rage shifts from the oppressors in our presidential palaces to the oppressors on our streets and in our homes, our revolution has not even begun.

So: Yes, women all over the world have problems; yes, the United States has yet to elect a female president; and yes, women continue to be objectified in many "Western" countries (I live in one of them). That's where the conversation usually ends when you try to discuss why Arab societies hate women.

But let's put aside what the United States does or doesn't do to women. Name me an Arab country, and I'll recite a litany of abuses fueled by a toxic mix of culture and religion that few seem willing or able to disentangle lest they blaspheme or offend. When more than 90 percent of ever-married women in Egypt -- including my mother and all but one of her six sisters -- have had their genitals cut in the name of modesty, then surely we must all blaspheme. When Egyptian women are subjected to humiliating "virginity tests" merely for speaking out, it's no time for silence. When an article in the Egyptian criminal code says that if a woman has been beaten by her husband "with good intentions" no punitive damages can be obtained, then to hell with political correctness. And what, pray tell, are "good intentions"? They are legally deemed to include any beating that is "not severe" or "directed at the face." What all this means is that when it comes to the status of women in the Middle East, it's not better than you think. It's much, much worse. Even after these "revolutions," all is more or less considered well with the world as long as women are covered up, anchored to the home, denied the simple mobility of getting into their own cars, forced to get permission from men to travel, and unable to marry without a male guardian's blessing -- or divorce either.

Not a single Arab country ranks in the top 100 in the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report, putting the region as a whole solidly at the planet's rock bottom. Poor or rich, we all hate our women. Neighbors Saudi Arabia and Yemen, for instance, might be eons apart when it comes to GDP, but only four places separate them on the index, with the kingdom at 131 and Yemen coming in at 135 out of 135 countries. Morocco, often touted for its "progressive" family law (a 2005 report by Western "experts" called it "an example for Muslim countries aiming to integrate into modern society"), ranks 129; according to Morocco's Ministry of Justice, 41,098 girls under age 18 were married there in 2010.

It's easy to see why the lowest-ranked country is Yemen, where 55 percent of women are illiterate, 79 percent do not participate in the labor force, and just one woman serves in the 301-person parliament. Horrific news reports about 12-year-old girls dying in childbirth do little to stem the tide of child marriage there. Instead, demonstrations in support of child marriage outstrip those against it, fueled by clerical declarations that opponents of state-sanctioned pedophilia are apostates because the Prophet Mohammed, according to them, married his second wife, Aisha, when she was a child.

With trial, Edwards enters next chapter of political soap opera

By Raelyn Johnson, CNN
 (CNN) -- On any given day in the fall of 2007, John Edwards could be heard preaching his populist prose to Iowa voters who eagerly packed into lumber barns, VFW halls and Culver restaurants across the state.

His message was less about the two Americas of his 2004 campaign -- the haves and the have-nots -- and more about fighting for the middle class and ending poverty in America.

The Democratic candidate had spent nearly all of 2007 logging days in Iowa traveling across the state's 99 counties. He had every reason to believe he could be president. He felt the country would let then-Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama destroy each other and he would rise as the more experienced and safe nominee.

To many voters, Edwards could have been president of the United States. Five years later, the possibilities for Edwards are completely different.

Edwards' criminal trial begins Monday in Greensboro, North Carolina.

He is charged with six felony and misdemeanor counts related to the money dealings of his failed presidential campaign.

Among other things, the government alleges that Edwards "knowingly and willfully" received nearly $1 million in illegal campaign contributions to hide his pregnant mistress from the public so he could continue his presidential bid. Edwards acknowledges that while his actions were wrong, they were not illegal. He could face up to 30 years in prison.

Edwards met Rielle Hunter in early 2006 at bar at The Regency Hotel in New York City. Hunter approached Edwards, not believing it was him. Later that evening, Edwards and Hunter met again, privately. The man who consistently spoke about two Americas began living two lives.

More Secret Service Firings Likely, Former Director Denies Cultural Issue

By Matthew Larotonda

Amy Bingham
@Amy_Bingham
Follow on Twitter

A former director of the Secret Service says events of the caliber of the Colombian prostitution incident didn’t occur during his tenure at the agency.
 

“I don’t believe in the past these types of things have happened,” said W. Ralph Basham. “They certainly didn’t happen on my watch.”

Basham, who headed the service from 2003 to 2006, denied allegations of wider misconduct within the body charged with protecting the president and other governmental officials. On CBS’ “Face the Nation” this morning he said that while it was not unheard of for disciplinary action to be taken against agents, he could not remember ever removing one from duty.

“This is not the character of the men and women who serve every day in the Secret Service,” he said.

Six agents have been fired or resigned since news broke that members of the agency and a military advance team had hired prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia, ahead of a trip by President Obama to the country. Some lawmakers now question how such a blatant break of professional decorum could occur without the support of a larger culture.

“To me it defies belief that this is just an aberration,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “There were too many people involved.”

Collins, the ranking member of Senate’s Homeland Security committee, said she was “shocked and appalled” to learn two agents were supervisors.

Today the chairman of a House committee charged with investigating the incident confirmed that more firings were likely as the full scope of the event becomes clear. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said he expected more firings in the “near future.”

“I would say anyone we have found to be guilty will [lose their job,]” he said. “What they were thinking is beyond me.”

King emphasized that the investigative focus should not be on the moral conduct of the accused, but rather the national security vulnerabilities presented by the incident.

While expressing his support for the current head of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, this morning the congressman sent a 50-question letter to the director requesting answers for specifics of the investigation.

Meanwhile on CNN Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., suggested the House Oversight committee would send a similar letter to the Pentagon this week regarding the military’s involvement.

Investing in Women Pays Off

Stacie Nevadomski Berdan and Liesl Riddle

Ah, the "mommy wars." The kerfuffle between Hilary Rosen and Ann Romney this past week has once again side-tracked national attention into the ongoing debate over women's choices. Does working for pay hurt or help us as moms, hurt or help our kids? Really? We're still debating this as a nation? This in the same week that President Obama's White House Forum on Women and the Economy heralded the crucial impact women make on family, economics, growth and competitiveness in America via full participation in the economy and society.

President Obama's comments apply to women around the world -- not just in the United States. This topic was addressed at "Why Organizations Need to Invest in Women," a panel discussion with international women recently held at George Washington University and sponsored by the university's Center for International Business Education and Research (GW-CIBER), an event we organized and moderated. We discussed that while investing in women certainly yields positive outcomes in terms of human rights, education, and family planning, there is an even more compelling reason to invest in women. It makes good business sense.

For example, 40 percent of the world's workforce is female. Women in the boardroom have proven to provide a competitive advantage for businesses' bottom lines. The input of diverse decision-makers is a boon for organizations in all sectors of the economy: public, private, and NGO.

Women also manage money well. A recent study by Barclays Wealth and Ledbury Research found that the conservative approach that most women take in investing generates greater long-run financial payoff. That is because women are more likely to buy and hold, rather than make higher-risk investment choices and frequently trade. In recognition of both the financial and social benefits of lending to women, most micro-lending institutions aim the vast majority, if not all, of their lending portfolio toward the female borrower.

The International Finance Corporation has noted that the financial power of women is expanding at a more rapid rate than ever before in human history. They estimate that global consumer spending by women will increase to $28 trillion in 2014, up from $20 trillion in 2009. This is particularly noteworthy given the fact that women already control 65% of global spending today.

Women have a multiplier effect as consumers, building markets as they make the majority of purchase decisions in households. Women tend to focus on purchases that increase family welfare, strengthening the consumer base. Yet surveys consistently find women feel underserved and patronized by many of the companies trying to sell to them. Women's power as global producers and consumers has been compared to that of China and India because, over the next decade, the impact of women the world over will be at least as significant as that of those two growing global powerhouses.

Who better to understand and meet the needs of these 1 billion women around the world than women? Women understand women.

It is time organizations began recognizing the immense payoff that women offer not only in the United States and in the industrialized nations around the world but also in emerging and developing economies.

In the next 50 years, the majority of worldwide economic growth will take place outside the industrialized nations. Organizations that are able to understand and navigate the dramatic and rapid changes taking place in these economies will be best positioned to recognize and seize opportunities.

Women employed in these markets can help their organizations keep up with the rapidly changing and expanding role of women in these societies, identifying new opportunities to market to female consumers and to mentor and nurture women leaders in these contexts. In other words, investing in women leads to greater global returns as women tend to invest in other women.

It is time more organizations invested in women internationalists so that more women can fully participate in next-generation global leadership. It is time more internationalist women started leading the teams trying to understand what women around the world want so that they can better serve the women who continue to be their most important sales market.

President Obama's focus on women is right on target and has implications for the world economy. Investing in women has a multiplier effect for economic growth. Since we know investing in women pays off, now it is time to put our money where our knowledge shows it will be most effective -- in women.

Secret Service Escort PICTURES? Photos Of 'Dania' Surface

Huffington Post.

The Daily News has obtained a set of photographs (viewable below) that it claims are of 'Dania,' the 24-year-old Colombian escort whose run-in with a Secret Service agent triggered the biggest scandal in the agency's history last week.

The same woman told her version of events to the New York Times earlier this week: that a secret service agent propositioned her in Cartagena, Colombia, agreeing to pay a "gift" of $800. When he only ultimately offered $30, she reportedly alerted police.

The subsequent investigation revealed that at least 20 women stayed with as many as 11 agents and 10 military personnel shortly before Barack Obama's arrival in Cartagena for an international summit, though it's unclear how many women were escorts.

Three agents have thus far been forced out of the agency, and there have been some signs that other heads have yet to roll, but will. 

http://amansworldbook.com/

CNN Poll: Republicans divided on VP choice

Washington (CNN) - Who should Mitt Romney choose as his running mate?

According to a new national poll, there's no consensus among Republicans. But a CNN/ORC International survey released Wednesday does indicate there's an ideological split that could put pressure on Romney, the all but certain GOP presidential nominee, as he tries to make his decision.

Full results (PDF)

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

The poll asked Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP to choose from eight names who could be among the two dozen or so potential running mates that the Romney campaign may be considering as the vice presidential nominee.

According to the survey, Condoleezza Rice is on top of the list. Twenty-six percent questioned said they would like to see Rice, who served as national security adviser and later as secretary of state under President George W. Bush, as the Republican vice presidential nominee. In second place in the survey, at 21%, was Rick Santorum, who was Romney's chief rival for the nomination until early last week, when the former senator from Pennsylvania suspended his campaign for the White House.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie were each at 14%, with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin at 8%, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal at 5%, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell at 1% and Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio at less than one half of one percent.

"Name recognition is the key," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Rice and Santorum are best known and they top the overall wish list."

But split out self-described supporters of the tea party movement and a different picture emerges.

The poll indicates that Rubio, at 22%, and Christie, at 18%, top the list of tea party supporters, with Rice and Santorum dropping into a tie for third place.

According to the survey, among Republicans who say they aren't supporters of the tea party, 36% say Rice is their choice to be Romney's running mate, with one in four saying they'd like Santorum as the GOP vice presidential nominee. Christie barely cracks double digits and Rubio is in single digits among non tea party supporters.

Why don't Rubio and Christie do better among non tea party supporters?

"Once again, it's all a matter of name recognition," says Holland. "Two-thirds of tea party Republicans are familiar with Rubio and virtually all of them have a favorable view of him; six in ten Republicans who do not support the tea party have little or no idea who Rubio is. Christie's numbers among tea party supporters are even higher - three-quarters of them have a favorable view of the New Jersey governor and only one in five are unfamiliar with him; nearly six in ten Republicans who don't support the tea party don't have an opinion of Christie."

The poll indicates that the other names on the list, such as Jindal, McDonnell, and Portman, are unknown quantities to tea party supporters and other Republicans alike. It goes without saying, however, that the presidential nominee is unlikely to put his running-mate choice to a vote, so Romney's opinion is probably the only one that will count in the end.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International from April 13-15, with 473 Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
http://amansworldbook.com/