Month: November 2014

Huckleberry to the rescue

by digby

It was kind of a surprise that the House Benghazi! ™ inquisition failed to turn up anything scandalous  You could tell they were a little bit embarrassed by it since they dropped on late on a Friday before Thanksgiving. It’s kind of a no-no to ever let a Clinton scandal go —

But leave it to Huckleberry Graham to keep the flame alive:

“I think the report is full of crap,” Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The House Intelligence Committee released a report on Friday evening, which took two years to compile, that found there was no outright intelligence failure during the attack, there was no delay in the rescue of U.S. personnel and there was no political cover-up by Obama administration officials.

After Graham was asked whether the report exonerates the administration, he initially ignored the question, and then eventually said “no.”

The House Intelligence panel, Graham said, is “doing a lousy job policing their own.”

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning …

Cesspits of bad behavior

by Tom Sullivan

In business today, too often integrity is an afterthought.

The San Francisco Chronicle quotes from the blog, Both Sides of the Table, by investor Mark Suster, “I believe that integrity and honesty are very important to most venture capital investors. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that they are required to make a lot of money.”

In a piece that might be titled, “The Real Jerks of Silicon Valley,” Alyson Shontell examines how many rising stars in Silicon Valley tend to be “–holes”. (The construction pops up frequently in the piece.) The rogues gallery is expansive, including Uber’s Travis Kalanick. He’s had a particularly bad week. Still,

“Sometimes,” one acquaintance said of Kalanick, “–holes create great businesses.”

What’s remarkable is how acceptable this has become, even expected. Shontell quotes Atlantic’s Tom McNichol:

The ease with which people can possess astonishingly contradictory qualities is one of the mysteries of human nature; indeed, it’s one of the things that separates humans from, say, an Apple computer. Every one of the components that makes up an iPad is essential to the work it produces. Remove one part and the machine no longer performs its job, and not even the Genius Bar can fix it. But humans are full of qualities that are in no way integral to their functioning in the world. Some aspects of personality have little or no bearing on whether a person performs well, and not a few people succeed in spite of their darker qualities.

Andre Spicer at the Washington Post observes the same on Wall Street:

There is something in the culture of banking that lends itself toward making otherwise fairly good people do bad things. That’s the finding of a new study published in the journal, Nature. And it may simply confirm the suspicions of many following endless news of bankers being outed for bad behaviour.

Economists at the University of Zurich, Michel Maréchal, Alain Cohn and Ernst Fehr found that bankers are more likely to lie and cheat when primed to think of themselves as bankers than as “everyday people”. Members of other professions did not exhibit the same bad behavior. There’s something wrapped up in the banker identity that makes them “such cesspits of bad behavior.”

Cheating was also not simply the result of people thinking that everyone else was doing it and so it was OK. What seemed to prompt bankers to cheat on this test was when they thought of themselves as bankers.

What is more, it is not just that people who identify as bankers tend to lie and cheat more than the general population. In fact, the study showed that this behavior was expected of them by others. This can be seen when participants were asked how often they thought bankers would cheat on this test (when compared to other interest groups). Respondents tended to think that bankers would cheat more than prison inmates on the test. This says something for what expect of the people we trust with our money.

In the end, says Spicer, changing the perception of what it means to be a banker might be required:

… Things like “Greed is good” and associations with winning at any cost might be downplayed. Other characteristics, such as being trustworthy and having integrity could be played up. Over time this would hopefully lead to bankers thinking about their collective identity in a different way. And the result would, hopefully, be that when they are faced with a situation where no one is looking, they do the right thing — like the rest of the population usually does.

Pie in the sky. Hopefully, right (twice). When the financial incentives are so high — in Silicon Valley, on Wall Street, and in corporate boardrooms elsewhere — enforcement lax to nonexistent, and punishments limited to slap-on-the-wrist fines for the company and not individuals, who is going to play up trustworthiness and integrity?

When the country can be suckered into chasing phantom felons at the ballot box (a high risk, low reward crime) while firms and CEOs who took the world to the brink of collapse defraud homeowners, investors, and courts get bailouts and walk, and with Congress controlled by “a weird amalgam of straight up feudalists and insane libertarians,” don’t hold your breath for a cultural Road to Damascus experience anytime soon.

Saturday Night at the Movies




Let’s get lost again: Low Down and Mike Nichols

By Dennis Hartley

I will admit being unfamiliar with jazz pianist Joe Albany prior to watching Jeff Preiss’ fact-based drama Low Down, yet the late musician’s career trajectory seems depressingly familiar. Credited as a be-bop pioneer, he made his bones in the 1940s, accompanying the likes of Charlie Parker and Miles Davis. Unfortunately, he suffered an early “lost period” due to a heroin addiction, and spent most of the 50s and 60s chasing the dragon and collecting ex-wives. He came out of seclusion in the 70s, recording a number of albums through the decade (still battling smack). He died alone, in 1988. Oddly enough, that was the same year trumpeter Chet Baker died. Baker, whose career was beset by similar woes, was profiled in Bruce Weber’s outstanding 1988 documentary Let’s Get Lost. One of its most compelling elements was the moody, noirish cinematography…by a Mr. Jeff Preiss.

Preiss’ film (which marks his feature-length directing debut) covers a 3-year period of Albany’s life in the mid-70s, when he was living in a seedy Hollywood flophouse with his teenage daughter Amy (Elle Fanning). Albany (John Hawkes) is struggling to stay focused on the work, jamming with his trumpet-playing buddy Hobbs (Red Hot Chili Peppers bassist Flea, giving us a taste of his first instrument). Amy is cheerleading for her Dad, doing her best to keep him on track. Speaking of tracks, a surprise visit from his parole officer reveals Dad isn’t quite holding things together, and he’s whisked off to stir. Amy goes to stay with her grandmother (Glenn Close) until Joe is released. Dad still has issues. Amy tries to keep sunny, but it’s tough to be Pollyanna when your social circle is surging with hookers, junkies, drug dealers and, er, porno star dwarves (Peter Dinklage!).

The screenplay (by Amy Albany and Topper Lilien) is based on Albany’s memoir recounting life with her father. Albany’s recollections about the extended family of eccentrics she encountered during this period inject the film with a Tales Of The City vibe at times. The naturalistic performances and Preiss’ cinema verite approach also recalls Jerry Schatzberg’s 1971 drama, Panic in Needle Park, a gritty, episodic character study about a community of junkies. Some may find the deliberate pacing stupefying, waiting for something to “happen”, but as John Lennon once sang, “life is just what happens to you, while you’re busy making other plans.” Taken as a slice of life, Low Down just lets it happen…improvising on grace notes while keeping it all in perfect time.

…and one more thing

Mike Nichols 1931-2014

Mike Nichols passed away earlier this week. Perhaps more than any other film director I can think of, his catalog (stretching from 1966 to 2007) encapsulates the crucial paradigm shifts in America’s social mores (and to some extent, changes in the political landscape) over the past 50 years. I would also consider him one of the progenitors of the modern film “dramedy”, which stemmed from his background in improvisational comedy (he was one of the key players in an early 60s troupe that would later morph into Second City) and in later years, his experience as a theater director. He was, in all senses of the term, an “actor’s director”, clearly evident from the iconic performances that he coaxed from the likes of Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson. I don’t think he ever made what I would consider a “bad” film, which makes it difficult to narrow down favorites…but I’ll highlight my top three:

Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  – If words were needles, university history professor George (Richard Burton) and his wife Martha (Elizabeth Taylor) would look like a pair of porcupines, because after years of shrill, shrieking matrimony, these two have become maestros of the barbed insult, and the poster children for the old axiom, “you only hurt the one you love”. Nichols’ 1966 directing debut (adapted by scripter Ernest Lehman from Edward Albee’s Tony-winning stage play) gives us a peek into one night in the life of this battle-scarred middle-aged couple (which is more than enough, thank you very much). After a faculty party, George and Martha invite a young newlywed couple (George Segal and Sandy Dennis) over for a nightcap. It turns out to be quite an eye-opener for the young ‘uns; as the ever-flowing alcohol kicks in, the evening becomes a veritable primer in bad human behavior. It’s basically a four-person play, but these are all fine actors, and the writing is the real star of this piece. Everyone in the cast is fabulous, but Taylor is the particular standout; this was a breakthrough performance for her in the sense that she proved beyond a doubt that she was more than just a pretty face. It’s easy to forget that the actress behind this blowsy, 50-ish character was only 34 (and, of course, a genuine stunner). When “Martha” says “Look, sweetheart. I can drink you under any goddam table you want…so don’t worry about me,” you don’t doubt that she really can.

The Graduate  – “Aw gee, Mrs. Robinson.” It could be argued that those were the four words in this 1967 Nichols classic that made Dustin Hoffman a star. With hindsight being 20/20, it’s impossible to imagine any other actor in the role of hapless college grad Benjamin Braddock…even if Hoffman (30 at the time) was a bit long in the tooth to be playing a 21 year-old character. Poor Benjamin just wants to take a nice summer breather before facing adult responsibilities, but his pushy parents would rather he focus on career advancement immediately, if not sooner. Little do his parents realize that in their enthusiasm, they’ve inadvertently pushed their son right into the sack with randy Mrs. Robinson (Anne Bancroft), wife of his Dad’s business partner (and the original cougar!). Things get more complicated after Benjamin meets his lover’s daughter (Katharine Ross). This is one of those “perfect storm” artistic collaborations: Nichols’ skilled direction, Calder Willingham and Buck Henry’s droll screenplay, fantastic performances from the entire cast, and one of the best soundtracks ever (by Simon and Garfunkel). Some of the 60s trappings haven’t dated well, but the incisive social satire has retained its sharp teeth.

Silkwood– The tagline for this 1983 film was intriguing: “On November 13th, 1974, Karen Silkwood, an employee of a nuclear facility, left to meet with a reporter from the New York Times. She never got there.” One might expect a riveting conspiracy thriller to ensue; however what director Nichols and screenwriters Nora Ephron and Alice Arden do deliver is an absorbing character study of an ordinary working-class woman who performed an act of extraordinary courage which may (or may not) have led to her untimely demise. Meryl Streep gives a typically immersive portrayal of Silkwood, who worked as a chemical tech at an Oklahoma facility that manufactured plutonium pellets for nuclear reactor fuel rods. On behalf of her union (and based on her own observations) Silkwood testified before the AEC in 1974 about ongoing health and safety concerns at her plant. Shortly afterwards, she tested positive for an unusually high level of plutonium contamination. Silkwood alleged malicious payback from her employers, while they countered that she had engineered the scenario herself. Later that year, on the last night of her life, she was in fact on her way to meeting with a Times reporter, armed with documentation to back her claims, when she was killed after her car ran off the road. Nichols stays neutral on the conspiratorial whisperings; but still delivers the goods here, thanks in no small part to his exemplary cast, including Kurt Russell (as Silkwood’s husband), and Cher (who garnered critical raves and a Golden Globe) as their housemate.

Also recommended: Catch-22, Carnal Knowledge, The Day of the Dolphin, Working Girl, Primary Colors, Angels in America, Charlie Wilson’s War (my original review).

Previous posts with related themes:

Angel-headed hipsters on celluloid: Top 5 Jazz Movies

Saturday Night at the Movies review archives

Feeling safer?

by digby

It seems to me that this sort of thing should be far more terrifying than the prospect of immigrants coming over the border and making us all eat beans and tortillas against out will:

The admiral fired last year as No. 2 commander of U.S. nuclear forces may have made his own counterfeit $500 poker chips with paint and stickers to feed a gambling habit that eventually saw him banned from an entire network of casinos, according to a criminal investigative report obtained by The Associated Press.

Although Rear Adm. Timothy M. Giardina’s removal as deputy head of U.S. Strategic Command was announced last year, evidence of his possible role in manufacturing the counterfeit chips has not previously been revealed. Investigators said they found his DNA on the underside of an adhesive sticker used to alter genuine $1 poker chips to make them look like $500 chips.

Nor had the Navy disclosed how extensively he gambled.

The second in command of America’s nuclear arsenal was a gambling addict. What could go wrong?

BTW:

The case is among numerous embarrassing setbacks for the nuclear force. Disciplinary problems, security flaws, weak morale and leadership lapses documented by The Associated Press over the past two years prompted Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Nov. 14 to announce top-to-bottom changes in how the nuclear force is managed that will cost up to $10 billion.

It’s just nukes. Nothing to worry about. Let’s freak out about Obamacare instead.

.

Where at least we know we’re free

by digby

This review of Laura Poitras’ Citizen Four  by David Bromwich in the New York Review of Books is well worth reading. In fact, it’s essential if you care to understand Poitras’ work and the meaning of it. He discusses this film in detail but also puts it in the context of her earlier work which is something I haven’t seen anyone else do.

The whole thing is very thought provoking but I think this is a very keen observation:

The president handed the work to an inside legal team and eventually a commission or two and did not sack the heads of intelligence who took us far on a questionable path and lied about it. Meanwhile, the attorney general indicted Snowden on a charge of treason. In their self-protective understanding of the duties of high office in the national security state—in their refusal to face up to and reform the ungoverned exercise of power that Snowden revealed—Obama and Holder acted in a way that showed them to be profoundly unfree. So, too, did the generals, Keith Alexander and James Clapper, when they spoke under oath to Congress with so little regard for the importance of truth in a system that depends on informed consent.

The strangest revelation of Citizenfour may therefore be this: Snowden, in his hotel room with his journalistic confidants Greenwald and Poitras and MacAskill, affords a picture of a free man. It shows in his posture, and in a sense of humor touched by self-irony. He is not haunted by any fretful concern with what comes next. He is sure he has done something he chose, and sure that someone had to do it. He acted in obedience to a principle; and it was right that the actor should disappear in the action. Citizenfour, by simply using the real-life actor as a way to consider the nature of freedom, honors the premise that moved Snowden to take his unique and drastic step. “The final value of action,” wrote Emerson, “is, that it is a resource.” It is up to other Americans now, the uncertain end of Citizenfour says, to rouse ourselves and find the value of Snowden’s action as a resource.

This tracks with what I see as the fundamental problem of the National Security State and America’s military empire: it has a life of its own and operates on its own logic. It goes all the way back to the immediate post-WWII period and has built itself up over time to the point at which it lives beyond our ostensibly democratic system. Politicians, bureaucrats and Generals are doing its bidding as much as the other way around. And it’s no more obviously illustrated than in this cynical piece by Michael Hirsch in the Politico. Basically he jadedly declares that nobody cares so whatever. But it isn’t that people don’t care. They care profoundly. But they quite logically understand that they are powerless — unfree — to do anything about it. Like this comment from back in 2008 which I referenced in my Salon piece about rethinking our approach to reforming the surveillance state.

“The FISA bill is obviously imperfect, but I do not believe that a serious Presidential candidate can afford to vote ‘no’ on legislation that is intended to help prevent terrorist attacks. If Obama were to oppose the bill as a whole, he would be handing McCain — who didn’t even bother to show up and vote today — a huge opening to scare voters and paint Obama as weak on terrorism.”

Waddaya gonna do? People hear the fearmongering, they see the cynicism among the elites, they watch their world grow ever less private and they feel impotent. You can’t really blame them. So they just … accept it. Then they can be proud to be Americans where at least they know they’re free.

.

The passion of St Reagan

by digby

I guess he wanted to destroy the American way of life too:

“The low information voter syndrome”

by digby

Fox News continues to be shocked, shocked I tell you, that someone would characterize voters as stupid. Why it’s an assault on the American people and democracy itself! And yet:

O’Reilly: “Low Information Voters” “Don’t Know Anything.”

On the October 24, 2013 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly said, “The President was not elected on performance. He was elected on personality and apathy. Low information voters don’t — who don’t know anything and really couldn’t care less about their country broke heavily for the President.” [Fox News Channel,The O’Reilly Factor, 10/24/13, via Nexis]

O’Reilly: “Low Information Voters” Are “Not Interested In The Outside World,” Unable “To Make Intelligent Decisions In Life.”

On the August 15, 2013, edition of The O’Reilly Factor, O’Reilly described “an American citizen” who “is not interested in the outside world that person will not be able to make intelligent decisions in life. Those are the so-called low information voters.” [Fox News Channel, The O’Reilly Factor, 8/15/13, via Nexis]

Hannity: People With “Low Information Voter Syndrome” “May Cancel Out Your Well-Informed Vote.” 

On October 29, 2013, Hannity complained about “low information voter syndrome” among people who didn’t know that the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare were the same.

HANNITY: Oh, boy, low information voter syndrome. Our very own Ainsley Earhardt hit the streets of New York to see if people understand that the Affordable Care Act and “Obamacare” are actually one and the same. And as you just heard, the answers by people are downright scary. And by the way, they may cancel out your well-informed vote — as we continue tonight here on “Hannity.” [Fox News Channel, Hannity, 10/29/13, via Nexis]

Hannity: “Low Information Voters” Believe “Lying Campaign[s].” On the April 24, 2013, edition of Hannity, Hannity argued that “lying campaigns” that “demonize conservatives” work because of “low information” voters. From Hannity:

TUCKER CARLSON: The idea that any cuts to government will strand people with illnesses without a cure and if we pass this or that bill we will cure Parkinson’s or AIDS. It is an insult to people with Parkinson’s and AIDS because the truth is, it is not that simple.

You don’t flip a switch and these really complex diseases are cured. This is ludicrous and you have to wonder who sat down and wrote this and what the majority leader thought when he read it off the card. Does really he believe this? Is there a single person that buys this?

HANNITY: You know what, Tucker? I think this lying campaign they use it because they think it works. They demonize conservatives all the time.

CARLSON: Anybody who takes what he says value and is moved to vote on that basis should not be voting.

HANNITY: But they are in big numbers.

CARLSON: You are too dumb to vote if you buy that.

HANNITY: Rush calls them low information voters. There are a lot of them. [Fox News Channel, Hannity, 4/24/13, via Nexis]

Now it must be acknowledged that the Foxmen are really dogwhistling their elderly white male audience here. Let’s just say that in their minds the “low information voter” is generally thought to be black, brown or somewhat slutty.  And we know how they feel about those folks having the right to vote …

.

The other dispossessed
by Tom Sullivan

This week the president presented his new immigration plan for undocumented immigrants. The right will hate it as much as the left will insist it is the decent and humane thing to do.

But Democrats might consider that, unless they widen their focus, doing the right thing for undocumented immigrants and other left-leaning voting groups will further alienate a neglected bloc of voters they very much need to pay more attention to: the white working class. Democrats lost them in 2014 by 30 points.

At PoliticsNC, Thomas Mills explains:

For workers, wages have been stagnant for more than a decade and for most of the past 30 years. For a while, easy credit gave a sense of improving lifestyles, but that illusion came crashing down in the recession. Working class families got hit the hardest and have yet to recover. They’ve also not seen much offered in assistance.

However, their neighbors, some who don’t work and some who are in the country illegally, keep getting help. They want something for themselves. Instead, they see affirmative action programs give minority families and businesses a hand up, or as they see it, an unfair advantage. They see the president offering residency and the benefits of this country to undocumented workers, while they’ve been hard-working, law-abiding citizens who aren’t sure they can offer their own children a better quality of life.

Republicans understand these reactions and have exploited them. Democrats, in contrast, make the case for why the policies are the right thing to do. In short, Republicans appeal to emotions while Democrats appeal to morality and reason. In politics, emotion wins almost every time.

Democrats are losing working-class whites faster than demographics and a younger base of voters can shift the balance in their favor, writes Mills. Plus, they hate welfare, as Kevin Drum says. So while the left’s focus on helping disadvantaged classes feels like (and is) a good and moral thing to do, the struggling white, middle-class worker — feeling pretty dispossessed himself — looks on and feels ignored.
The GOP will at least give him a lip-service tax cut and somebody to blame: the undeserving poor and their benefactors, the Democrats.

Kevin Drum writes:

It’s pointless to argue that this perception is wrong. Maybe it is, maybe it’s not. But it’s there. And although it’s bound up with plenty of other grievances—many of them frankly racial, but also cultural, religious, and geographic—at its core you have a group of people who are struggling and need help, but instead feel like they simply get taxed and taxed for the benefit of someone else. Always someone else. If this were you, you wouldn’t vote for Democrats either.

Complaining that polls show progressive policies are widely popular doesn’t win elections. Especially when a frustrated populace complains that there’s no difference between parties and Democrats in leadership go out of their way to reinforce it. The buzzword solution seems to be populism, but it’s one thing to say and another to communicate effectively when it’s virtually a dead language, and Democrats’ leading 2016 contender doesn’t speak it.

An old anecdote about George H.W. Bush comes to mind:

“Colleagues say that while Bush understands thoroughly the complexities of issues, he does not easily fit them into larger themes,” Ajemian wrote. “This has led to the charge that he lacks vision. It rankles him. Recently he asked a friend to help him identify some cutting issues for next year’s campaign. Instead, the friend suggested that Bush go alone to Camp David for a few days to figure out where he wanted to take the country. ‘Oh,’ said Bush in clear exasperation, ‘the vision thing.’ The friend’s advice did not impress him.”

Promising a laundry list of policies, however popular, will not impress a dispossessed white, working class failed by a rigged system unless they fit into a vision of a fairer economy and a more secure quality of life.

Power and process

by digby

Rand Paul doesn’t want the president to have too much power.

I care that too much power gets in one place. Why? Because there are instances in our history where we allow power to gravitate toward one person and that one person then makes decisions that really are egregious,” Paul said. “Think of what happened in World War II where they made the decision. The president issued an executive order. He said to Japanese people ‘we’re going to put you in a camp. We’re going to take away all your rights and liberties and we’re going to intern you in a camp.'”

He was, of course, comparing that to President Obama’s immigration order. The fact that he chose that case as an example can’t be a coincidence. It involves a minority group and a controversial executive order about their status, after all. Of course, it couldn’t be more different. Roosevelt’s order to intern Japanese Americans was a terrible, discriminatory decision which nobody (but Michelle Malkin) can defend. Who do you suppose are the minority being oppressed by Obama’s tyrannical power grab are? Tea partiers? Why not?

I’m sure he didn’t bring that issue up out of the blue but he was actually making a different point about the process and power. A lot of people on both sides of the aisle opportunistically approve of presidential power depending on who the president is and what he’s trying to do. Shocker. But there are people who believe on principle that the president should defer to congress because they are closer to the people who elected them. Paul, however, doesn’t believe that government should do much of anything so he’s also being opportunistic. He prefers congress to be the decider mostly because they are very slow to do anything and right now are completely gridlocked. Win-win for him.

I confess that I used to care about these principles more than I do now. I thought it was terribly important that the congress take the lead because it is a deliberative body answerable to the people, the constitution blah,blah, blah. But the truth is that congress is bullshit. It’s a fine idea but in practice they pretty much always rubber stamp the worst things a president wants to do in foreign policy and the only domestic initiatives they ever wholeheartedly support are tax cuts, jails and money for cops. They don’t even do pork barrel spending anymore which used to at least benefit a few people in their individual states. Everything else is just working around the edges. Not that those things don’t matter.Every decent policy can make a difference. It’s just that I no longer fetishize the legislative process because it’s mostly just kabuki anyway. At this point, I’ll take decent outcomes wherever I can get them and be thankful for it since they happen so rarely.

Again, for Paul gridlock is a feature not a bug. And frankly, for all his caterwauling about presidential misdeeds on the foreign policy and national security front, most of the time he’s just arguing for process for process sake — for instance, he wants a vote on the ISIS operation but fully admits that it will pass and that he will vote for it. So, that will be a nice pageant for us all to watch, but it won’t make a bit of difference.

It doesn’t have to be this way, of course. We could elect a congress that takes its prerogatives seriously, challenges the massive national security apparatus and agrees to work on behalf of the people instead of their big money benefactors. That would help. Let’s do that, shall we?

In the meantime Rand Paul can keep his lugubrious paeans to the primacy of the legislative process over executive power. He simply wants the government to do nothing at all and there’s no faster or clearer route to that end than throwing an initiative into the black hole known as the US Congress.

.

125 million women in the world today have been mutilated

by digby

So Egypt just let a doctor who performs female genital mutilation off scott free without explanation. It has been “illegal” for a while and it was hoped that this first prosecution would send a message to doctors and others that they could no longer mutilate women. It is not to be. Read the whole story. You’ll especially like the way he refers to women as dogs.

In case you are not fully aware of the details, here is a fact sheet from the World Health Organization about this atrocity:

Key facts

Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.

Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, infertility as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.

More than 125 million girls and women alive today have been cut in the 29 countries in Africa and Middle East where FGM is concentrated (1).

FGM is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15.

FGM is a violation of the human rights of girls and women.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.

The practice is mostly carried out by traditional circumcisers, who often play other central roles in communities, such as attending childbirths. However, more than 18% of all FGM is performed by health care providers, and the trend towards medicalization is increasing.

FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

Procedures
Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types.

Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).

Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina).

Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.

Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
No health benefits, only harm

FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls’ and women’s bodies.

Immediate complications can include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage (bleeding), tetanus or sepsis (bacterial infection), urine retention, open sores in the genital region and injury to nearby genital tissue.

Needless to say, the whole point of removing the clitoris and labia is to ensure that women do not feel sexual pleasure. In fact, many of them feel nothing but pain from sex their whole lives. (And yes, in the villages it’s midwives who do this procedure and other women who help. Mother to daughter to granddaughter.)

I’m sure you know how to search to see what this look like. It’s a horrifying disfigurement.

It’s not a Muslim requirement but rather a pre-modern custom in the part of the world where Islam is revalent. There are Christians and others who also follow the practice. Societies which place a high value on female chastity are most likely to do it. Of course.