Part I: Susan McDougal Interview

McDougal had visited Austin, TX to promote her new book, The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk: Why I Refused To Testify Against the Clintons & What I Learned In Jail, which she wrote with Pat Harris (introduction by Helen �scorned by Ari� Thomas). The paper of my employ couldn�t use this interview because Susan�s not local, so I�m posting it here in its edited and abridged entirety. She was very generous with her time, and I don�t want her gesture to be for naught. (This was not done with a tape recorder, but with the old p & p. Next interview I'll remember my appliances so that my transcription will better provide you with that "it's like I was there" feeling.)

LA: How did you make it through your ordeal?

SM: Unbeknownst to me, a lot of people were watching the story. I had no idea people were really caught up in Whitewater. I was on Larry King Live the night before I went to jail. 50,000 letters poured in.

My presence in jail really brought all the women in the unit together. They all started reading my letters, and writing back to people. It was part of what they considered the righteous, noble thing to do.

LA: What kind of writing utensils did you have?

In jail, pencils are very short. They become dull quickly. There�s no pencil sharpeners; you have to sharpen the point the same way you sharpen your nails, on the concrete. There�s no clippers �

Not even a once-a-week clip?

SM: No. In federal prison, yes. But I really speak only to county jails. I was in a federal holding facility for a while, where you could get a haircut once a month. In jail, someone would come with scissors tied to a log. That�s what inmates used to cut their hair with. Their own hair. My hair got really long in there.

What did you notice about fellow inmates when you first got to jail?

SM: People can be held in jails for years. That�s where you first meet your new offender. The person is either going to be a repeat offender, or you can get them some help. When I first went to jail, there were people you could bail out for $20. But people would be bailed out and end up back in. Most women were in there for drug and alcohol abuse, with no treatment programs. They�d just sit there, passing time. It seems like an excellent opportunity to get into Alcoholics Anonymous.

People in jails are young. The older women are in prison.

LA: In general, how are women offenders different from male offenders?

Women are unique because 97% are nonviolent offenders. Eight out of 10 have been horribly abused before committing their first crime. Yet in the system we have in place, there�s very little difference in treatment of men vs. women. Most guards are male. If you�re a woman, you have to ask male guards for feminine products.

Once the guards refused to give me a pad after a hearing, though they did give me a body cavity search. I filed a complaint to highlight these conditions, but the judge, Susan Webber Wright, said it wasn�t ladylike to put the part about the pad in my complaint. We always thought that when women became judges, it would all be different. But there�s a woman listening to a woman�s issue and saying, �she�s no lady.��

What about differences between male and female guards?

SM: The worst guards in jail are women. They�re so hard on women. They�re cruel, I guess because then they think they�re working in a man�s world. They�re still a minority, so they think they have to be as tough or tougher. I was at a conference in Pennsylvania and the group agreed with me on this.

Until women can accept power and use it wisely, we aren�t going to benefit.

LA: Can you offer an example?

I was in with a 17-year-old who had been in jail for two years. She had been under the influence and was caught in a stolen vehicle. Her boyfriend had hit a cop, so both were arrested for attempted vehicular murder of a police officer. Although the males were like, �you�re a bad dude,� the women guards would say, �you can be hurt in here.� They�d threaten her, tell her that they�d pull her out of her cell at night and put her in a cell with a crazy person.

LA: Were you ever a victim of such abuse?

SM: I had a lot of media attention, so nothing overt could happen. But in Los Angeles, a woman guard took my reading glasses and stomped them on the floor. I don�t know what her point was. She was very, very pretty, and younger. I thought it was such a shame she had to be so angry. But overall, I was kind of fortunate in that nothing overt could happen. Still, it�s their choice to do a cavity search � and one woman guard just always used to say to me, �you must really think you�re a hot shot, always in the press.� She�d verbally abuse me, and always do cavity searches.

I think that because women have had to fight to get where we are, some claw their way up to stand toe-to-toe with the men. But it�s not all about fighting. It takes thought and support, and growing, and most women haven�t had that.

What about mentally ill inmates?

SM: What happens to mentally ill inmates concerns me very much. It�s a terrible thing in the U.S. that we criminalize the mentally ill and put them in cells for the most vicious criminals, where they get sicker and sicker.

LA: What�s the alternative to the current prison culture?

SM: Alternative sentencing is our only hope. First, let�s find a place for the mentally ill. Then, take nonviolent offenders out. Put an ankle bracelet on them, anything so they can raise their children. We aren�t working on those alterative sentencing programs. Often advocates for them don�t get re-elected, so nobody wants to be the first one to be soft on crime.

LA: So, no champions on Capitol Hill?

SM: No. Capitol Hill will be the hardest part. I think the judicial system will be easier, because they will see the problems first. At the rate we�re going, we�ll never have enough judges to prosecute everyone. Elected officials will be the last hope we have.

One more: How�s Bill?

SM: He called two weeks ago to say he read the book.

Part II: What Rick Really Said

I hope Susan McDougal won't be offended that I've posted her name and the name of U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylfamilia, on the same page. This is an excerpt of the recent interview from Associated Press Beobachter that started all the resignation calls for Pricky Ricky. The interviewing journalist had experienced technical difficulties with her or his tape recorder, causing some of Santorum's words to be inaudible. Using my powerful aural capabilities, I have decoded Santorum's messages and have supplied the missing words here.

"I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual � for instance, making out with lions and tigers. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual, except that I believe they should die on the cross like the good Lord Jesus, who was not a dirty gay man but glorious indeed. But I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that, as long as they accept crucifixion in exchange. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations � I just put them in the same sorry boat as liberals, feminists, Ralph Nader, Saddam, Thom Yorke, Vaclav Havel, the novels of Chinua Achebe, and yerba mate tea. That boat, you know, rides the River Styx.

But I digress.The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions. That's why gay people who supress their homosexuality should not die on the cross like their fornicating compatriots. They simply require psychological therapy. To straighten them out, hah hah."

Okay, okay. Now, this is actually true stuff. I did not play with this text at all:

Santorum: "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality �

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. [We're in "man on dog"? Who the hell does he hang out with? Oh yeah, I remember ...] The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions [for dogs?]. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire [including dogs]. And we're seeing it in our society [our, I suppose, meaning Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, etc.].

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you.

Survey II: Who's Reading?

Today's results, based on 61 visitors to this site: