Palin Says Small Towns Grow Good People. Serial Killers Beg to Differ

In her acceptance speech for the Republican VP nomination, Sarah Palin agreed that "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity," continuing that she knew "just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman." So let's put that supposed truism to the test. I've divided up American cities into 3 categories Big City (500,000+) Mid-Sized (20,000-500,000), and Small Town (<20,000). American Serial Killers page on Wikipedia. I'm not done, but the preliminary results show that no matter where you were raised, you have a relatively equal chance of being a serial killer. Moral of the story: if you're manky in the head, small towns ain't gonna save you.
*Special prize if you can guess which city below is my father's hometown!

Big City:

• Benjamin Atkins (Detroit, MI): killed 11
• David Carpenter (San Francisco, CA): raped and killed 5 women
  
• John Wayne Gacy (Chicago, IL): raped and murdered 33 young men
• Gary Ridgway (Salt Lake City, UT): killed 48
• Richard Angelo (Long Island, NY): 25 killed
• Robert Diaz (Phoenix, AZ): 12 killed
  
• Richard Cottingham (Bronx, NY): killed 5
• Harvey Glatman (Bronx, NY): killed 3
  
• Andrew Cunanan (San Diego, CA): killed 5
• Scott Erskine (San Diego, CA): killed 3
  
• Lawrence Bittaker (Philadelphia, PA): raped, tortured, and killed 5 women
  
• Albert Fish (Washington DC): killed 3-5+
  
• David Berkowitz (Brooklyn, NY): killed 6
  
• Howard Allen (Indianapolis, IN): killed 3
• Ronald Gray (Miami, FL): raped and killed 4 women
  

Mid-Sized City:

• Robert Berdella (Cuyahoga Falls, OH): raped, tortured, and killed 6 men
• Henry Lee Lucas (Blacksburg, VA): killed 11-300
• Alton Coleman (Waukegan, IL): killed 8
• Joseph Duncan III (Tacoma, WA): killed 7
  
• Albert DeSalvo (Chelsea, MA): the Boston Strangler, killed 13
• Dean Corll (Fort Wayne, IN): killed at least 27 boys
  
• Angelo Buono, Jr. (Rochester, NY): one of the Hillside Stranglers, killed 10
  
• Kenneth Bianchi (Rochester, NY): one of the Hillside Stranglers, killed 10
  
• Ed Gein (La Crosse, WI): 2+ killings, used body part to create whimsical home decor items
• Ted Bundy (Burlington, VT): killed 26-57 people
• Westley Allan Dodd (Richmond, WA): killed 3
  
• Richard Biegenwald (Trenton, NJ): killed 9
• Kristen Gilbert (Fall River, MA): killed 4
• William Heirens (Evanston, IL): killed 3
  
• Richard Evonitz (Columbia, SC): killed 3
• Jon Joubert (Lawrence, MA): killed 3
  
• Charles Cullen (West Orange, NJ): killed 35-45
• Wayne Adam Ford (Petaluma, CA): killed 4
  
• Carroll Cole (Sioux City, IA): 16
• Kendall Francois (Poughkeepsie, NY): killed 8-10
• Joseph Paul Franklin (Mobile, AL): killed 7-20
  
• Gary Evans (Troy, NY): killed 13
• Hadden Clark (Troy, NY): killed 2-3
  

Small Town:

• Kenneth McDuff (Rosebud, TX): 14+ killed
• Ronald Dominique (Thibidoux, LA): 23 men killed
  
• Charles Ray Hatcher (Mound City, MO):
  
• Carlton Gary (Columbus, GA): killed 7
• Gary Heidnik (Eastlake, OH): killed 2
• H.H. Holmes (Gilmanton, NH): killed 9-27
  
• Jerry Brudos (Webster, SD): killed 4, necrophilia
  
• Arthur Bishop (Hinckley, UT): killed 5
• Christine Falling (Perry, FL): killed 3
• Janie Lou Gibbs (Cordele, GA): killed 5
• Robert Hansen (Esterville, IA): killed 15
  
• Nannie Doss (Blue Mountain, AL): killed 11
  
• Robert Charles Browne (Coushatta, LA): killed 48
  
• Jeffrey Dahmer (West Allis, WI): raped and killed 17 men, possible necrophilia
• Thor Christiansen (Slovang, CA): killed 4
  
• Dallen Bounds (Ashland, OR): killed 4
  
• Joe Ball (Elmendorf, TX): killed 5-20
• Faye Copeland (Harrison, AK): killed 5
• Robert Garrow (Dannemora, NY): killed 8
• Donald Gaskins (Manning, SC): killed 9-100?
  

Palin and Clinton, or A Celebration of Binaries

I was just reading Adreinne Rich's "When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-Vision" and came across this gem of a sentence: "But even in reading these women I was looking in them for the same things I had found in the poetry of men, because I wanted women poets to be the equals of men, and to be equal was still confused with sounding the same."

Of course it got me to thinking about Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and the view of women in/and politics. My wife and I were talking about this and she said the thought there were 2 routes to a top executive position in the US: you can either be tougher (read: "manly") than anyone else, or you can be so feminine that no opponents put the smack down on you--or they wait until too late to do so. This second approach is in some ways the more suave, nuanced, elegant (read: "feminine") route; it recognizes (implicitly or explicitly) the idea of femininity and motherhood in the US and exploits that. Clinton and Palin are distinct examples of this (...maybe. I bet women who were heavily involved or invested in Clinton's campaign would disagree with some of the generalizations I'm going to make, but they're not average Americans, at least in this sense).

Clinton was treated like a man for most of the campaign; there was some talk of her gender, but when it did come up, it had usually been raised by a conservative pundit to take a swipe and one of their favorite targets.

There are two things this picture tells me: 1) Photoshop was invented by the Devil, and 2) Clinton scares the hell out of some men and has been slapping the shit out of their notions of manhood. Throughout the campaign, "toughness" was either explicitly conflated with "manly" or it was implied when the word was used. My wife is tough, and I don't mean that in a gendered way. Ma Joad was tough in any gendered way. It's pretty obvious that Clinton is tough, but there wasn't enough "femininity" presented to appease some Americans. Her daughter began to introduce her, and she started talking about her mom more, but only at the end. At the end of the day, I think a lot of Americans (even some whom I love very dearly) don't like her because she's too "manly." She does the things that are still sometimes considered the arena of men.

So, then, you may wonder why the conservative folk love their Palin. By the rationale I just presented, one would expect conservatives to reject Palin for overreaching. Of course not, and to see that as a pat conservative response would be to miscast many, many conservatives. It's not that they want to keep women in the home and keep them tied down by the apron strings. Instead, it's all about how women venture into male-dominated arenas. Clinton fought her way in. She got perhaps a better education than did her husband (and definitely a better one than Palin, no offense U of Idaho...and Hawaii Pacific U...and North Idaho College...and Matanuska-Sustina College), she jumped right into a man's world and really made her own way. Then she got elected on her own merits (and, probably, last name) to the Senate. Then she declared her presidential campaign. Palin, on the other hand, was invited to the party. To my mind, that's a big difference in the minds of many conservative voters.

Palin started, of all places, in the PTA. (Psssst, that means she's a great mom, and every mom should feel empowered to be a VP nominee or at least mayor. If gender's not such a big deal, why doesn't every kid raised by single-parents get to be President? Why don't all war-heroes get automatic seats in the legislative branch?) She followed the "acceptable" avenues to power for women whereas Clinton seems to have travelled the other one...the one most men use. Mostly, it comes down to the pant-suits. Clinton didn't look or act like many conservatives thought a woman should--no matter what her politics or ideas. Palin is disarming, helping the Republicans accept her with that spoonful of sugar of skirts and hockey-mom-hood. She acts like a mom and a woman first and a politician second. Clinton acted like a politician first and a woman second.

So there's your gendered binaries for women in positions of power in the US. It works along the same lines as the binaries appended to male candidates. President Bush, Sr. was unfairly called a "wimp," Dukakis looked like an effite fool in that tank, and it's probably only a matter of time before the charges of elitism and intellectualism on Obama morph into the same sort of thing. That's one side: the not-tough-enough side (which is usually code for "not-manly"). The other side is McCain war-hero, T.R. rugged individualism toughness. Reagan touched on it with the big talk during the Cold War, and Bush, Jr. often projects it with brush-clearing and sabre-rattling. The sides are rarely gendered because there was no need for them to be. It was (and mostly still is) a boy's club, so there was no reason to explicitly equate the "wimps" with feminine traits and tough guys with masculine ones. Now that women have entered the upper echelons of government in a big way, things will start being more and more gender-oriented.

The real question, I guess, remains: which of the two women--Palin or Clinton--are confusing being equal with men to sounding and acting like men (or as men want them to)? That one I do not have an answer to.

UPDATE: I am a genius, I tells ya. The LA Times started talking about this very thing on 09.11.08.

UPDATE2: I really am a genius. The SNL opening from 09.13.08:

Great Christianity Joke

From Ship of Fools:

Jesus came upon a crowd that had surrounded a young woman believed to be an adulteress. They were preparing to stone her to death.

To calm the situation, Jesus said: "Whoever is without sin among you, let them cast the first stone."

Suddenly, an old woman at the back of the crowd picked up a rock and lobbed it at the young woman, scoring a direct hit. The unfortunate young lady collapsed dead on the spot.

Jesus looked over towards the old woman and said: "You know, Mom, sometimes you really piss me off."

I Think it Looks Worse than it is

Oof. The Republicans used actors instead of soldiers in their stirring video.



To be fair, though, there's surely a law against using federal employees in a political campaign video. Isn't there?

And This is Why I'm a Misanthrope

After watching the Republican National Convention, I'm not longer worried about him. I agree with Jon Stewart: "SHIT on him!" Whether or not McCain is directly responsible for the nasty, nasty tone of the RNC doesn't matter. He's sold out in a big way, and he's begun to bring in the same bastards who smeared him in 2000. That's total bullshit. I hope he can live with himself after selling his soul to get elected--but since he married Cruella DeVille (admit it, you know she'd feel more comfortable with a martini and long cigarette in her hands than a mic)



and spent time in the Hanoi Hilton (which every speaker at the RNC is contractually bound to relate in stirring terms), I guess he can live with pretty much anything.

But, again, I say fuck that guy. I feel betrayed by him because of this convention. It was ugly Rove smear politics as usual, and I hope (but doubt) the Democrats are ready for what's coming at Obama and Biden.

I think what is at the root of my anger is the insubstantial theater that both of the conventions really are and the total lack of care about the truth and facts. I read Politicfact (and really, really missed Spinsanity) for the whole DNC and was disappointed at the falsehoods and half-truths spewed by most speakers--including Obama. But what bothered me most about the DNC was really the rah-rah Obama-will-give-every-kid-a-pony, there-will-be-more-rainbows, and unicorns-will-again-roam-the-Earth promises I heard. It was stupid, blind optimism (and that's not just because I'm reading Candide right now).

But that's nothing compared to the mean-spirited, misinform-people-who-won't-question-what-you-say, cast-everyone-else-as-"the angry Left", bullshit politics of Rove & Co. I thought things would be different with McCain. I thought that even if I disagreed with him I could still respect him in the morning, but that's not the case. Thompson's speech was mean, Guliani's speech was meaner (expected from that ill-tempered little garden gnome), Romney's was only snarky, but Palin's was the worst I'd seen so far. Not only didn't she tell me why I should vote for her, but she didn't tell me anything I didn't already know (McCain was a POW...see, told you...contractually obligated) or couldn't hear from Rush Limbaugh (Obama is a terrible, liberal, tax-raising, inexperienced, politician.) OK, that's not totally fair. I did learn that she loves her union-member husband, thinks the PTA is some sort of job qualification, has some screwy ideas on naming conventions for children, didn't need advisors or polls to know the voters when she ran for city council in a town of 9800 people (significantly smaller than Vidor, TX if that tells you anything), and successfully sold a jet on eBay as governor of Alaska. Congra-tu-fucking-lations.

I expected what I got from the DNC (cheerleading, "healing," and some feeble swipes at Republicans), and I knew I'd be disappointed and annoyed by their convention. But I expected more from the RNC--at least a modicum of civility. I can't decide if the Republicans are getting vicious because the campaign is inept and panicked, or if they planned to run this kind of campaign all along.

I told my wife that if McCain won based on a campaign like the convention (as opposed to beating Obama on issues or on some sort of unforeseen mistake or revelation on the Democratic ticket) I'd really consider looking for a job outside the country. I was serious when I said it, and I would do it if it weren't for the family farm. I want to go back there so badly, that it may single-handedly keep me in this country. (I won't leave if Obama wins, of course, but I also won't expect much.) Either way, I'm close to washing my hands of the whole bloody mess again.

Correction

In an earlier (Sept. 1) posting, I mistakenly referred to the Center for Reproductive Rights as "CCR." I just want to clarify that while the CRR may not have a problem with a "Fortunate Son" being born, they think that a "Proud Mary" should have a choice as to whether or not to have him. They see the election of McCain-Palin as a "Bad Moon Rising" but hope that particular "Someday Never Comes." So "Run Through the Jungle" to tell everyone of my error unless they've already "Heard it Through the Grapevine."

Apologies to CRR, CCR, and fans of humor everywhere.

I'm Starting to Worry About McCain

I've made no secret that I used to like McCain. In fact, early during the primary season some of my friends on Myspace began to question me about why I had Obama, Paul, and McCain as friends. Well, I hadn't made up my mind yet. I mean, I might have voted for him in 2000 if he'd run against Gore in the general election (really).

But this isn't the McCain that I saw back then; this is the McCain that I saw in primary whose campaign spiraled out of control and who didn't seem to have a handle on anything that was going on. He pulled it together then based in part on the idiocy of Guliani, the weirdness of Paul, and the...Romney-ness...of Romney. He won't have that luxury against Obama who's slooooooowly regaining some momentum.

It's starting to leak out that maybe the McCain campaign didn't vet their VP very thoroughly (how long, by the way, until "V-PILF" becomes an accepted term if McCain-Palin win the election?). I don't understand how this can happen. It's not like McCain is in the same situation Bush was in when he trotted out the vastly unqualified Hariet Myers for the SCOTUS position. Bush really had as many chances as he wanted to get someone in there; it's not like after 3 someone else gets to choose. McCain got one choice. One. And he chose Palin. There are some reasons for his choice, but haven't heard a lot of compelling ones from the McCain camp yet. They've had a long weekend to introduce her to America, and all most of us know is that she has a pregnant, unwed daughter; that she is Pro-Life and favors abstinence-only sex-ed (and we know this because her daughter--with whom I would never want to trade places and for whom I genuinely feel sympathy for her peculiar situation--is pregnant); that she was governor of Alaska for 1.5 years, was mayor of Wasilla, AK, and was involved in the PTA; that she's being investigated for alleged ethic violations; and that she's kinda purty.

There's more to know. There's much more positive to know. Where is it? Even the McCain spokespeople haven't given the media anything with which to work, and we know from the 2000 election with Al Gore that if you don't give the media something, they will make something: as James Carville once said, "if you want reporters to write about hamburger, you give them hamburger. You don't give them French fries and ice cream."

It just worries me that the McCain camp is letting news cycle after news cycle of negative stories about Palin go without providing anything positive about her. Combine that with the lack of vetting (or poor, poor decision--whichever, it doesn't matter), and it seems that maybe McCain's the only one who really cares whether he wins or not. Obviously these dickheads don't.

UPDATE: It seems McCain-Palin is getting a bit of a bump (maybe not the best word choice there) out of this pregnancy thing with the evangelical crowd, which is good for them but could not have been planned by the campaign. But there's also this: it's been alleged that Palin and her husband once belonged to the Alaskan Independence Party, which seeks a vote for the secession of Alaska from the US. That, if true, would be more important than her pregnant daughter and the seemingly-silly Troopergate. It would call into question her patriotism, which ain't good (as Obama can attest to).