The final three paragraphs:

And here, to me, is the strangest thing: for all the trillions of words devoted to campaign 2012, no one even bothers to discuss its size. Americans may be willing to argue copiously about whether New York’s Mayor Bloomberg should control the supersizing of soft drinks in his city, but not a peep is heard when it comes to the supersizing of the run for the presidency.

Under the circumstances, the slogan of ABC News seems either touchingly or mockingly silly: “Your Voice, Your Vote.” Whatever this thing may be, it certainly has ever less to do with your individual voice or your individual vote. As Big Election becomes a way of life, democracy — small “d” — increasingly seems like a term from a lost time. If this is democracy, it’s on steroids and on the Comedy Channel. It’s our own Democratic Mockpocalypse.

I’d be the last person to claim I understand it. Still, I do know one thing: whatever it is, we’re evidently going to pass right through this endless political season without stopping to take stock of our supersized political world.

The real war on women

The article linked to below addresses the most fundamental, widespread, and accepted type of violence out there: male violence against women. Through a long list of statistics and examples, the author tries to hammer home what it means when people talk about the “rape culture” or “war on women” and how, across all societies, this basic violent misogyny from men is one of the cornerstones of human life.

I believe she is trying to make the point that this is specifically male violence against women for the crime of being women, and exists independent of other forces in play that always get far more press than misogyny, such as racism, anti-semitism and the like.

We ignore it. We sweep it under the rug. We tell ourselves some version of the rapist’s defense: “the bitch had it coming.” For wearing a short skirt. For talking back to her man. For not giggling and flirting back to the creep at the bar. For existing.

And beyond the violence itself, we have the fear and distrust that it begets. Women must fear walking down the street at night alone in a way men don’t because of the violence directed towards women by men. Sure, some streets in the rough parts of town will be dangerous for men… but those same streets will be even more dangerous for women.

Same goes for the parking garage. Or the office, late at night. Or the business-trip hotel room when a man and a woman have adjoining rooms. If you later found out that one member of the man and woman duo from your company had been raped or murdered by the other, would you really have to guess long and hard about which was the aggressor and which was the victim?

And let’s not forget the unequal response to misogyny vs. other social crimes in the celebrity-o-sphere. Michael “Kramer” Richards’ career was ended after one racist rant, and Mel Gibson basically became untouchable after his anti-Semitic tirade. On the other hand Chris Brown’s was barely fazed from beating his girlfriend’s face in. Charlie Sheen’s domestic violence is considered his least-important flaw. Kobe gets a free pass for raping a fan because, gee, just look at his points-per-game average. And Gibson himself had few repercussions from his own history of domestic violence — it remains his anti-semitism as his biggest career-killer.

Admitted racists and anti-semites are banished from society. Admitted misogynists (the MRAs, the gender equivalent of the KKK or the Nazi Party) are merely seen as misguided or socially awkward.

It obviously does not mean that every man is a wife-beater. But it does mean that every man must initially be seen with suspicion by every woman, because it’s never clear which exterior hides the beast underneath. It is our own fault.

I don’t agree with everything the author says and am not a doctrinaire Democrat unlike her because, well, the Dems don’t treat women much better now do they? Women and feminists are always at the bottom of the totem pole of Dem special interests, who are always pushed aside should their interests ever clash with those of unions, minorities, trial lawyers or environmentalists. Bill Maher is a card-carrying leftist on all those issues and more, but he hates women just as much as Rick Santorum. And let’s not forget the long litany of male Democratic politicians guilty of sexual assault.

But this climate of fear, this “rape culture” will never end as long as it isn’t addressed directly, and the woman-haters aren’t shamed into social exile the way the racists are. And this will never be the case while our leadership is dominated by men. In my opinion, the only solution is having our leadership roles default to women. If only it were that easy…

This evidence of failure in the earliest stages of the U.S. military’s hearts-and-minds campaign should have an eerie resonance for anyone who has followed its previous efforts to use humanitarian aid and infrastructure projects to sway local populations in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.  In each case, the operations failed in spectacular ways, but were only fully acknowledged after years of futility and billions of dollars in waste.  In Africa, a war zone about which most Americans are completely unaware, the writing is already on the wall.  Or at least it should be.  While Pentagon investigators identified a plethora of problems, their report has, in fact, been kept under wraps for almost a year, while the command responsible for the failures has ignored all questions about it from TomDispatch.

Tomgram: Engelhardt, The Escalation Follies | @TomDispatch #America #Empire #ISIS #ISIL #Caliphate

How America Made ISIS
Their Videos and Ours, Their “Caliphate” and Ours 
By Tom Engelhardt

Whatever your politics, you’re not likely to feel great about America right now.  After all, there’s Ferguson (the whole world was watching!), an increasingly unpopular president, a Congress whose approval ratings make the president look like a rock star, rising poverty, weakening wages, and a growing inequality gap just to start what could be a long list.  Abroad, from Libya and Ukraine to Iraq and the South China Sea, nothing has been coming up roses for the U.S.  Polls reflect a general American gloom, with 71% of the public claiming the country is “on the wrong track.”  We have the look of a superpower down on our luck.

What Americans have needed is a little pick-me-up to make us feel better, to make us, in fact, feel distinctly good.  Certainly, what official Washington has needed in tough times is a bona fide enemy so darn evil, so brutal, so barbaric, so inhuman that, by contrast, we might know just how exceptional, how truly necessary to this planet we really are.

In the nick of time, riding to the rescue comes something new under the sun: the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), recently renamed Islamic State (IS).  It’s a group so extreme that even al-Qaeda rejected it, so brutal that it’s brought back crucifixionbeheading,waterboarding, and amputation, so fanatical that it’s ready to persecute any religious group within range of its weapons, so grimly beyond morality that it’s made the beheading of an innocent American a global propaganda phenomenon.  If you’ve got a label that’s really, really bad like genocide or ethnic cleansing, you can probably apply it to ISIS’s actions.

It has also proven so effective that its relatively modest band of warrior jihadis has routed the Syrian and Iraqi armies, as well as the Kurdish pesh merga militia, taking control of a territory larger than Great Britain in the heart of the Middle East.  Today, it rules over at leastfour million people, controls its own functioning oil fields and refineries (and so theirrevenues as well as infusions of money from looted banks, kidnapping ransoms, and Gulf state patrons).  Despite opposition, it still seems to be expanding and claims it has established a caliphate.  

A Force So Evil You’ve Got to Do Something

Facing such pure evil, you may feel a chill of fear, even if you’re a top military or national security official, but in a way you’ve gotta feel good, too.  It’s not everyday that you have an enemy your president can term a “cancer”; that your secretary of state can call the “face” of “ugly, savage, inexplicable, nihilistic, and valueless evil” which “must be destroyed”;that your secretary of defense can denounce as “barbaric” and lacking a “standard of decency, of responsible human behavior… an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else”; that your chairman of the joint chiefs of staff can describe as “an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated”; and that a retired general and former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan can brand a “scourge… beyond the pale of humanity [that]… must be eradicated.”

Talk about a feel-good feel-bad situation for the leadership of a superpower that’s seen better days!  Such threatening evil calls for only one thing, of course: for the United States to step in.  It calls for the Obama administration to dispatch the bombers and drones in a slowly expanding air war in Iraq and, sooner or later, possibly Syria.  It falls on Washington’s shoulders to organize a new “coalition of the willing” from among various backers and opponents of the Assad regime in Syria, from among those who have armed and funded the extremist rebels in that country, from the ethnic/religious factions in the former Iraq, and from various NATO countries.  It calls for Washington to transform Iraq’s leadership (a process no longer termed “regime change”) and elevate a new man capable of reuniting the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds, now at each other’s throats, into one nation capable of turning back the extremist tide.  If not American “boots on the ground,” it calls for proxy ones of various sorts that the U.S. military will naturally have a hand in training, arming, funding, and advising.  Facing such evil, what other options could there be?

If all of this sounds strangely familiar, it should.  Minus a couple of invasions, the steps being considered or already in effect to deal with “the threat of ISIS” are a reasonable summary of the last 13 years of what was once called the Global War on Terror and now has no name at all.  New as ISIS may be, a little history is in order, since that group is, at least in part, America’s legacy in the Middle East.

Give Osama bin Laden some credit.  After all, he helped set us on the path to ISIS.  He and his ragged band had no way of creating the caliphate they dreamed of or much of anything else.  But he did grasp that goading Washington into something that looked like a crusader’s war with the Muslim world might be an effective way of heading in that direction.

In other words, before Washington brings its military power fully to bear on the new “caliphate,” a modest review of the post-9/11 years might be appropriate.  Let’s start at the moment when those towers in New York had just come down, thanks to a small group of mostly Saudi hijackers, and almost 3,000 people were dead in the rubble.  At that time, it wasn’t hard to convince Americans that there could be nothing worse, in terms of pure evil, than Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Establishing an American Caliphate

Facing such unmatchable evil, the United States officially went to war as it might have against an enemy military power.  Under the rubric of the Global War on Terror, the Bush administration launched the unmatchable power of the U.S. military and its paramilitarized intelligence agencies against… well, what?  Despite those dramatic videos of al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, that organization had no military force worth the name, and despite what you’ve seen on “Homeland,” no sleeper cells in the U.S. either; nor did it have the ability to mount follow-up operations any time soon.

In other words, while the Bush administration talked about “draining the swamp” of terror groups in up to 60 countries, the U.S. military was dispatched against what were essentially will-o’-the-wisps, largely representing Washington’s own conjured fears and fantasies.  It was, that is, initially sent against bands of largely inconsequential Islamic extremists, scattered in tiny numbers in the tribal backlands of Afghanistan or Pakistan and, of course, the rudimentary armies of the Taliban.

It was, to use a word that George W. Bush let slip only once, something like a “crusade,” something close to a religious war, if not against Islam itself — American officials piously and repeatedly made that clear — then against the idea of a Muslim enemy, as well as against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and later Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.  In each case, Washington mustered a coalition of the willing, ranging from Arab and South or Central Asian states to European ones, sent in air power followed twice by full-scale invasions and occupations, mustered local politicians of our choice in major “nation-building” operations amid much self-promotional talk about democracy, and built up vast new military and security apparatuses, supplying them with billions of dollars in training and arms.

Looking back, it’s hard not to think of all of this as a kind of American jihadism, as well as an attempt to establish what might have been considered an American caliphate in the region (though Washington had far kinder descriptive terms for it).  In the process, the U.S. effectively dismantled and destroyed state power in each of the three main countries in which it intervened, while ensuring the destabilization of neighboring countries and finally the region itself….