Sunday, March 25, 2007
Fundamnmentalism
Fundamentalisms will especially thrive wherever there is violent conflict, and wherever there is stark poverty, simply because these religiously absolute movements promise meaning where there is no meaning. For all these reasons, fundamentalisms are everywhere. See article here
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Assent to Dominance
I am struck this week by the volume of "news" crap this week. And a good deal of it centers around the age-old premise that women are weak, women are frightening and anything of woman is just oh so very wrong.
Case in point: Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a faggot. He is also referred to as the Breck Girl and Limbaugh asked who would design Edwards' inaugural gown. It is touted already, if elected, he will be the first woman president. The latter was seen as a good thing, based on his stance for women's issues. But doncha know that'll be spun to south in criticism of him?
Oh yeah and the other media message is Hillary is not woman enough. Oy!
The students in Cross River New York, (girl students) said the word "vagina" during a reading of Eve Ensler's "My Short Skirt" from Vagina Monologues." “My short skirt is a liberation flag in the women’s army. I declare these streets, any streets, my vagina’s country.”
Now the students were told or asked not to say the word vagina. But they did, and now they are in trouble. But here is my question: If anyone reads Eve Ensler's work, who the hell thinks the word "vagina" is not going to come up? I mean its like asking someone to read The Raven, but not utter "nevermore"!
Either the administration was stupid, and I mean dumb as a Sam's Warehouse size box of rocks, to think they could ask precocious teen-age girls to skip the one crucial word and basis of AN ENTIRE SHOW AND INDUSTRY, or the students were set up to be cogs in someone's agenda. Maybe it was their own agenda! If so, and by the report that it is right, then hail the young women for scissoring through the emperor's linguistic clothes to reveal this foolishness!
As to John Edwards, he has been called a faggot this week. Of course this is meant to cast him as a weak, passive, feminine, penis-less being. He has been called "too pretty". He was referred to as the "breck girl" by women journalists. Not a man but heaven forfend, a woman-like-man.
And all of this in light of it being Women's History Month.
I could go on about wage disparity, though California is seeing progress in a shrinking gap between wages of men and women. There are more women in leadership of countries, too. But rape is the highest conveyor of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. 3 out of 4 women in parts of Liberia have been raped. 75%, folks.
Equality is still a goal. Peace is but a dream.
But from where does perception this come? Where do men and women get that women are weaker: women are lessor?
You know, it doesn't really matter where it comes from. I could cite reams of data, historical evidence and theory to get to the origins of this nonsense, but it almost doesn't matter.
What does matter is that women have a responsibility for carrying it forward. For whatever religious, societal, or legal reasons this conditioning and consequence is perpetuated, without fullout resistance, we convey assent.
We get all happy and burn bras, stop shaving, bend genders and say we hold up half the sky. But we act as though we are not doing it together. Where is the consolidation among women to stop the violence and the disavowal that women are less than? We can say we are powerless, that society and religion has made us such, but if we do not resist enmasse we might as well give up.
But this goes beyond just women. When we talk of a dominant class or structure, all but the dominant are assenting. Case in point: When the construct deigned the african american community votes for an existing powerbase which does not speak to their concerns, but does so BECAUSE they have not assumed their own power and must hold the coattails of someone else's, this is what assent to dominance means. When women vote for men who do not speak to equality, they assent to dominance. When black students who make a 3.4 and above GPA are shunned and have on average only 2 friends, the community assents to dominance. When urban public school students do not assert their needs and insist on a good education, this is assent to dominance. When women do not even ask for fair wages, this is assent to dominance. When we say someone talks black or talks white, we assent to dominance.
We buy into the idea that we are powerless, therefore all that is left is assent. For if we have no power we can't even give consent.
Right now, the dominate structure has us so convinced of our lessthanness, our power isn't even in the same zip code!
We have bought into the idea that we are less than, we are weak, we are evil, we must not tempt, we must not resist. We are our own worst enemy.
Case in point: Ann Coulter calls John Edwards a faggot. He is also referred to as the Breck Girl and Limbaugh asked who would design Edwards' inaugural gown. It is touted already, if elected, he will be the first woman president. The latter was seen as a good thing, based on his stance for women's issues. But doncha know that'll be spun to south in criticism of him?
Oh yeah and the other media message is Hillary is not woman enough. Oy!
The students in Cross River New York, (girl students) said the word "vagina" during a reading of Eve Ensler's "My Short Skirt" from Vagina Monologues." “My short skirt is a liberation flag in the women’s army. I declare these streets, any streets, my vagina’s country.”
Now the students were told or asked not to say the word vagina. But they did, and now they are in trouble. But here is my question: If anyone reads Eve Ensler's work, who the hell thinks the word "vagina" is not going to come up? I mean its like asking someone to read The Raven, but not utter "nevermore"!
Either the administration was stupid, and I mean dumb as a Sam's Warehouse size box of rocks, to think they could ask precocious teen-age girls to skip the one crucial word and basis of AN ENTIRE SHOW AND INDUSTRY, or the students were set up to be cogs in someone's agenda. Maybe it was their own agenda! If so, and by the report that it is right, then hail the young women for scissoring through the emperor's linguistic clothes to reveal this foolishness!
As to John Edwards, he has been called a faggot this week. Of course this is meant to cast him as a weak, passive, feminine, penis-less being. He has been called "too pretty". He was referred to as the "breck girl" by women journalists. Not a man but heaven forfend, a woman-like-man.
And all of this in light of it being Women's History Month.
I could go on about wage disparity, though California is seeing progress in a shrinking gap between wages of men and women. There are more women in leadership of countries, too. But rape is the highest conveyor of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. 3 out of 4 women in parts of Liberia have been raped. 75%, folks.
Equality is still a goal. Peace is but a dream.
But from where does perception this come? Where do men and women get that women are weaker: women are lessor?
You know, it doesn't really matter where it comes from. I could cite reams of data, historical evidence and theory to get to the origins of this nonsense, but it almost doesn't matter.
What does matter is that women have a responsibility for carrying it forward. For whatever religious, societal, or legal reasons this conditioning and consequence is perpetuated, without fullout resistance, we convey assent.
We get all happy and burn bras, stop shaving, bend genders and say we hold up half the sky. But we act as though we are not doing it together. Where is the consolidation among women to stop the violence and the disavowal that women are less than? We can say we are powerless, that society and religion has made us such, but if we do not resist enmasse we might as well give up.
But this goes beyond just women. When we talk of a dominant class or structure, all but the dominant are assenting. Case in point: When the construct deigned the african american community votes for an existing powerbase which does not speak to their concerns, but does so BECAUSE they have not assumed their own power and must hold the coattails of someone else's, this is what assent to dominance means. When women vote for men who do not speak to equality, they assent to dominance. When black students who make a 3.4 and above GPA are shunned and have on average only 2 friends, the community assents to dominance. When urban public school students do not assert their needs and insist on a good education, this is assent to dominance. When women do not even ask for fair wages, this is assent to dominance. When we say someone talks black or talks white, we assent to dominance.
We buy into the idea that we are powerless, therefore all that is left is assent. For if we have no power we can't even give consent.
Right now, the dominate structure has us so convinced of our lessthanness, our power isn't even in the same zip code!
We have bought into the idea that we are less than, we are weak, we are evil, we must not tempt, we must not resist. We are our own worst enemy.
Monday, February 19, 2007
It's All About THE GAY
Quite a while back I was talking with a few people about what the Telebangelists were after with regards to THE GAY. See Michigan and Kentucky domestic partnership rulings and legislation.
What I said then and what I see more evidence of today is this:
First they will define us and our relationships (DOMA etc)
Next they will attack where we can work (this is being subtlely done by limiting where we want to work thru passage of bills to prevent partnership benies and all that)
Next they will attack where we live (again by making rules against our existence they will limit where we live, too) But look for neighborhood exclusion laws, mortage restrictions, property ownership and draconian code enforcements (limits on unmarried people co-habitating in a single family dwelling)
With this momentum they will actually limit types of places where we can work. What is left?
But what if we are still here?
EX-Gay movements rooted in Telebangelists dogma, psycho babble to effect our affect, they count on most folks not being curious enough to question the misquoted or contrived stats or too bleary-eyed to battle ideas slimed in circular logic.
But why, you may ask?
Well here it is in a wingnut's shell:
Its all about salvation. If all your eggs of faith are in one basket (society), then not one of the tenets (eggs) can be removed without the whole basket coming into question. They all rest on one another. And remember its about salvation. If your belief is that salvation is achievable only one way and that salvation is possible, given a belief that there is something one must be saved from- dust or devil, then everything you do must be hinged on that belief. Or else it is dust or devilment for you.
We count heavily on bad being punished and good being rewarded. In this way of thinking it is the only way of making sense. Since some bad folks do not get punished here, they are to be punished somewhere. This keeps our current society in check, or so it is thought. There is this notion that if a punishment is not looming for bad deeds then nothing will keep one from committing said bad deeds. Society goes headlong into the abyss, Fidel comes sailing over the Rio Grande, we are on the way to absolute rack and ruin and we never are saved from ourselves.
So anyone cited in the texts (which are translated, altered and edited for whosever purpose it served at the time) as wrong doers, any acts cited as damnable, those must be held as true as nothing can be in question. If they are, in the end, it is all questionable and then salvation is not the end result for good folks and afterlife punishment does not capture those who slipped through the legal cracks on Earth. And if you're not Christian, you are far more likely to comiit evil because you do hold fast to the tenets. We are told a previous push to save folks from being evil and doing evil was the Crusade to the Middle East. Hmm might be again, but this time around, the Crusade here is all about THE GAY.
There are the passages in the Bible known as the Clobber Passages. Verses and chapters detailed against behaviors now viewed as GAY, but oddly enough not stated as being gay in original transcripts. Those pesky translators...No word existed in ancient times for what we now call GAY. Must not have been very important if it wasn't named, right? But I digress. These verses now cited, are the means by which Telebangelists legislate to limit and ultimately eliminate us.
So let's recap: Gay= Bad. Straight and Christian=Good. Bad= damnation Good=salvation
The Telebangelists have to be victorious. A loss means utter damnation experienced now and for eternity. For the faithful are the victors. If they do not win now they most certainly lose everything forever.
There is no swaying them from their death grip on the basket, folks. There is no intellectual victory to be won here. We are either here and they lose forever or we are not here and they win forever. Imagine what Telebangelists would do if they were ever proven wrong, or asked to change. Remember EVERYTHING is resting on their salvation. There is no room for any other thought or belief. There cannot be. Its absolute.
As for me, anyone else hot in here?
(hattip: Pam's House Blend )
What I said then and what I see more evidence of today is this:
First they will define us and our relationships (DOMA etc)
Next they will attack where we can work (this is being subtlely done by limiting where we want to work thru passage of bills to prevent partnership benies and all that)
Next they will attack where we live (again by making rules against our existence they will limit where we live, too) But look for neighborhood exclusion laws, mortage restrictions, property ownership and draconian code enforcements (limits on unmarried people co-habitating in a single family dwelling)
With this momentum they will actually limit types of places where we can work. What is left?
But what if we are still here?
EX-Gay movements rooted in Telebangelists dogma, psycho babble to effect our affect, they count on most folks not being curious enough to question the misquoted or contrived stats or too bleary-eyed to battle ideas slimed in circular logic.
But why, you may ask?
Well here it is in a wingnut's shell:
Its all about salvation. If all your eggs of faith are in one basket (society), then not one of the tenets (eggs) can be removed without the whole basket coming into question. They all rest on one another. And remember its about salvation. If your belief is that salvation is achievable only one way and that salvation is possible, given a belief that there is something one must be saved from- dust or devil, then everything you do must be hinged on that belief. Or else it is dust or devilment for you.
We count heavily on bad being punished and good being rewarded. In this way of thinking it is the only way of making sense. Since some bad folks do not get punished here, they are to be punished somewhere. This keeps our current society in check, or so it is thought. There is this notion that if a punishment is not looming for bad deeds then nothing will keep one from committing said bad deeds. Society goes headlong into the abyss, Fidel comes sailing over the Rio Grande, we are on the way to absolute rack and ruin and we never are saved from ourselves.
So anyone cited in the texts (which are translated, altered and edited for whosever purpose it served at the time) as wrong doers, any acts cited as damnable, those must be held as true as nothing can be in question. If they are, in the end, it is all questionable and then salvation is not the end result for good folks and afterlife punishment does not capture those who slipped through the legal cracks on Earth. And if you're not Christian, you are far more likely to comiit evil because you do hold fast to the tenets. We are told a previous push to save folks from being evil and doing evil was the Crusade to the Middle East. Hmm might be again, but this time around, the Crusade here is all about THE GAY.
There are the passages in the Bible known as the Clobber Passages. Verses and chapters detailed against behaviors now viewed as GAY, but oddly enough not stated as being gay in original transcripts. Those pesky translators...No word existed in ancient times for what we now call GAY. Must not have been very important if it wasn't named, right? But I digress. These verses now cited, are the means by which Telebangelists legislate to limit and ultimately eliminate us.
So let's recap: Gay= Bad. Straight and Christian=Good. Bad= damnation Good=salvation
The Telebangelists have to be victorious. A loss means utter damnation experienced now and for eternity. For the faithful are the victors. If they do not win now they most certainly lose everything forever.
There is no swaying them from their death grip on the basket, folks. There is no intellectual victory to be won here. We are either here and they lose forever or we are not here and they win forever. Imagine what Telebangelists would do if they were ever proven wrong, or asked to change. Remember EVERYTHING is resting on their salvation. There is no room for any other thought or belief. There cannot be. Its absolute.
As for me, anyone else hot in here?
(hattip: Pam's House Blend )
Forward! To The Past!
I cannot help but feel a serious case of whiplash as I read the news this morning. Here I thought we were moving toward another age of enlightenment where advanced science gains acceptance, where women are FINALLY respected and in leadership positions in the US and where we were pretty much done with flat earth drivel.
But then, I read:
Faith trumps intelligence as a leadership quality
McCain is preaching abstinence and a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade
The Anglican Church is pondering a unification with the Catholic Church from whence they came. If this happens, what will the UK do in support of a state church and should there not be a HUGE apology to Ireland?
Some folks are STILL catapulting propaganda about EARTH BEING STATIONARY and THE CENTER OF ALL THINGS
Oh yeah and the jews are behind Evolution and it's evil
90 minutes of CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Anna Nicole Smith's unremarkable death and circumstances ( really was anyone surprised?)
Britney shaves her head (unremarkable) but her locks garner over $1 million on Ebay! Unbelievably shallow of us, no?
Quick, Marty, Back to the Future!
But then, I read:
Faith trumps intelligence as a leadership quality
McCain is preaching abstinence and a complete reversal of Roe v. Wade
The Anglican Church is pondering a unification with the Catholic Church from whence they came. If this happens, what will the UK do in support of a state church and should there not be a HUGE apology to Ireland?
Some folks are STILL catapulting propaganda about EARTH BEING STATIONARY and THE CENTER OF ALL THINGS
Oh yeah and the jews are behind Evolution and it's evil
90 minutes of CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Anna Nicole Smith's unremarkable death and circumstances ( really was anyone surprised?)
Britney shaves her head (unremarkable) but her locks garner over $1 million on Ebay! Unbelievably shallow of us, no?
Quick, Marty, Back to the Future!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Raping for Jesus
Haters without a new target loitering in a inbox near you...
These poor hatin' wayward souls believe they possess the genetic beauty and perfection that deserves to be passed on. The conduit for passing this perfection is also gifted. They seem to possess superhuman-magical- cure-everything-that-ails-you penises. And while invoking God they spew on and on. Raping for Jesus 's sake.
Below are samples of emails sent to the great people who were working for John Edwards' Campaign. For those who missed it, Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwen of Shakespeare's Sister (both excellent bloggers) were working for the campaign to manage the netroots and technology. Well, Donohue of Catholic League spewed a bit o'hate saying they were anti-catholic and bigoted (he should know) based on their statements in their own respective blogs. There was talk about the Edwards campaign letting them go. That did not happen. But they did resign this week, but only after this evil came their way in waves:
From Pandagon 's email
YOU RACIST WHORE. FAT UGLY BITCH. SUCK MY LONG COCK ASSHOLE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU ASSHOLE BITCH!
I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO HELL YOU BITCH
Andy Driggers from Dallas, TX was also so moved by my criticisms of religious anti-choicers, that he wrote:
From Melissa: There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.
This is a win for no one.
Indeed it was not.
These poor hatin' wayward souls believe they possess the genetic beauty and perfection that deserves to be passed on. The conduit for passing this perfection is also gifted. They seem to possess superhuman-magical- cure-everything-that-ails-you penises. And while invoking God they spew on and on. Raping for Jesus 's sake.
Below are samples of emails sent to the great people who were working for John Edwards' Campaign. For those who missed it, Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Melissa McEwen of Shakespeare's Sister (both excellent bloggers) were working for the campaign to manage the netroots and technology. Well, Donohue of Catholic League spewed a bit o'hate saying they were anti-catholic and bigoted (he should know) based on their statements in their own respective blogs. There was talk about the Edwards campaign letting them go. That did not happen. But they did resign this week, but only after this evil came their way in waves:
From Pandagon 's email
YOU RACIST WHORE. FAT UGLY BITCH. SUCK MY LONG COCK ASSHOLE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU ASSHOLE BITCH!
I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO HELL YOU BITCH
Andy Driggers from Dallas, TX was also so moved by my criticisms of religious anti-choicers, that he wrote:
- Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven't found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn't want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.
From Melissa: There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.
This is a win for no one.
Indeed it was not.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
We Can't Keep Up With Our Stuff
So the wife brought up an interesting point. How is it we can "conclusively" identify that bombs and weapons are from Iraq when we can't find the TONS of weapons we lost over there? How is it we know more about other people's stuff than we do our own?
And by the way, has anyone else wondered if any of the bombings and such our troops and the citizens of Iraq endure were aided by those TONS of weapons we lost a while back?
And another thing....where are the stories of Iraqi refugees???
Sunday, February 04, 2007
You've Been Surged!
A new reality talent competition for all neo-cons and media cons who have urged for a surge!
No immunity, no passes for difficulty!
Come One Come All to Iraq and watch the hawkish darlings get picked off one by one as we say to them,
This week's Competitors will be:
William "I never met a fascist policy I didn't like" Kristol -the man who sees no wrong in Neo-conservative thought
Dick "He ain't got what they call da social skills"Cheney-Water boy for Neo-Conservatives.
Ann "I wasn't lying when I was lying about where I live" Coulter- the cheerleader for every Bill, Dick and Rummy
Rush "Cigars remind me of little island boys" Limbaugh-the smoke to neo-con mirrors
and last but not least....
Heather "Maybe I shoulda worked for equal marriage" Poe
No immunity, no passes for difficulty!
Come One Come All to Iraq and watch the hawkish darlings get picked off one by one as we say to them,
"You've Been Surged!"
This week's Competitors will be:
William "I never met a fascist policy I didn't like" Kristol -the man who sees no wrong in Neo-conservative thought
Dick "He ain't got what they call da social skills"Cheney-Water boy for Neo-Conservatives.
Ann "I wasn't lying when I was lying about where I live" Coulter- the cheerleader for every Bill, Dick and Rummy
Rush "Cigars remind me of little island boys" Limbaugh-the smoke to neo-con mirrorsand last but not least....
Heather "Maybe I shoulda worked for equal marriage" Poe
Not Another Iraq
From the LA Times:
WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release — most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.
"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday.
The acknowledgment comes amid shifting administration messages on Iran. After several weeks of saber rattling that included a stiff warning by President Bush and the dispatch of two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Persian Gulf, near Iran, the administration has insisted in recent days that it does not want to escalate tensions or to invade Iran.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seemed to concede Friday that U.S. officials can't say for sure whether the Iranian government is involved in assisting the attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.
"I don't know that we know the answer to that question," Gates said.
More here
WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.
Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release — most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.
"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday.
The acknowledgment comes amid shifting administration messages on Iran. After several weeks of saber rattling that included a stiff warning by President Bush and the dispatch of two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Persian Gulf, near Iran, the administration has insisted in recent days that it does not want to escalate tensions or to invade Iran.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seemed to concede Friday that U.S. officials can't say for sure whether the Iranian government is involved in assisting the attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.
"I don't know that we know the answer to that question," Gates said.
More here
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Lost and Far From Found
Lost recently- Molly Ivins. A fave quote: "The reason religion and policy make such a bad mix is that religion brings the dread element of certitude into what needs to be a constant process of questioning." Molly Ivins Dec 06I choose to be in a bad mood over this loss. Very few people have written well enough to make me laugh, wince and tisk all in the same article. The din of complacency is louder without her.
Molly is why I ask questions. Which has led me this week to what I think has got to be an obvious question among about 100 others: what privacy of Mary Cheney and her gestating spawn?
Should she have privacy? Yes, absolutely. But she has created or at least help ALOT to keep her pregnancy a matter of civil discourse. In fact I am sure that her pregnancy, juxtaposed with her efforts prior, will charge the batteries of some-dead legislation to ban single women from having children: single is spelled L-E-S-B-I-A-N. Cuz it jus tain't natchrul.
I hope she pays attention to all the states rights loving states out there who supported her daddy and his puppet. Because in some of those states if she were to get sick and Heather "herlesbianpartner" Poe were left to make decisions- even so much as decide to put the child in a car and take it home- she might not be able to. Infact, by law in some of those fine states, their extrastepswetaketoprotectourlovedonescuzwedon'thavetherights legal parenting documents would be null AND void.
Meaning, ol'Heather "herlesbianpartner" Poe would just be another Joe with no say and no way. But then if Darth Daddy comes to the rescue or folks choose not to follow the law then is it not simply a case of some Poe's are more equal than others?As for Mary's child and act of childbearing not being political- Mary, you have only aided and abetted gay pregnancy to be political. You cannot have rights and not work for them...let alone against them.
How much kool-aid does one have to drink to not see the personal and greater damage fighting against your own rights has? Does it come in flavors, pill form, or in a patch? It certainly has caused inflammation and poor judgement.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
It's Not the Water, But The Tofu!
OHMIGOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is just far too much for one person to enjoy! Soy is making kids gay. Not soy sauce though, because of fermentation, but look out for milk and tofu! OHMIGOD!!!!!!!!!This tops the story of the US trading mangos for nuke tech. Well, no, it doesn't. The fruit for nukes trade has statements in reality and compounding implications. But thanks to the poor credibility of World Net Daily, they can actually float this kind of nonsense and have Bubba with his WebTV actually believe this!
Like Bubba even eats tofu!
But really is this not just a hidden slam against all those who eat tofu? The idea that someone might not eat something that at one time bled really puts the teeth of middle America on edge. It ain't Amurican, I'll tell you. It hurts the economy, it puts folks outta work and makes folks soft. And then make a small step to the right and you can hear the idea that those who eat tofu are just linin' up with all those we fought in dubya dubya two...AHA! They lost, we'll be reminded. Lost to those who eat meat even raw..oh wait...they eat raw meat too...sushi...but red meat...not fish...fish doesn't count. Can't count it as meat if those papists can eat it on meatless Fridays.
There, middle Amurican values saved once again.
If it bleeds it leads! Tofu make you a loser ergo it makes you gay! Ah the logic is sublime...
In truth, there are some studies out there, studies in the early stages that do link tofu to low sperm counts- maybe due to genistein found in soya and tofu. But it is not the presence of sperm (read testosterone) that makes one gay or not. Its more than that. Just as it is more than that which determines all sexual orientations and genders.
I really wish folks would just give up on this chase of causality for gayness.
In the meantime, meateaters who are gay, wave your hands about madly and ask for seconds.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Mangos and Mary
So in the midst of being totally frustrated at the news reporting last night two bits did seep through the mire of opinion and bloviation last night.
1. We have deemed it wise, optimal even to trade Nuclear Technologies with India in exchange for Mangos. Mangos people. Anyone just hanckering for a mango? I mean is this a commodity we should be aware of and stashing away? Can we do more with a mango than say, plutonium? Is it a renewable resource for energy that we have overlooked?
2. Mary Cheney, who did nothing apparent, save contribute a whole $1000 to the Virginia's marriage ban fight, did nothing to stop the R's from villifying us during the last Prez election, reports that she is now preggers.
I suppose her comfort is all the money she has to stave off any legal challenge to her right to parenting.
I wish her well, but hope she was also inseminated with a sense of involvement, too.
I'm off to eat a mango and dream of equality...
1. We have deemed it wise, optimal even to trade Nuclear Technologies with India in exchange for Mangos. Mangos people. Anyone just hanckering for a mango? I mean is this a commodity we should be aware of and stashing away? Can we do more with a mango than say, plutonium? Is it a renewable resource for energy that we have overlooked?
2. Mary Cheney, who did nothing apparent, save contribute a whole $1000 to the Virginia's marriage ban fight, did nothing to stop the R's from villifying us during the last Prez election, reports that she is now preggers.
I suppose her comfort is all the money she has to stave off any legal challenge to her right to parenting.
I wish her well, but hope she was also inseminated with a sense of involvement, too.
I'm off to eat a mango and dream of equality...
Monday, December 04, 2006
Where Do We Go From Here
It has been almost a month since my last post. Excuses range from election exhaustion to too much real world stuff to manage.But since last post, I have had the privilege of speaking to a number of college classes regarding race and gender discrimination. Normally I talk on lgbt issues, so I found it a bit odd to be addressing race and gender in a broader sense. Odd, because I am a white female of middle class origins from a metropolitan southern suburb and really, what do I know of race issues and from my experience what do I really know of gender bias?
But on the other hand it is not odd. Race and gender discrimination are rampant in the lgbt community just as they are in the at-large communities. And as a white woman I can speak to other whites and say we are not done, though I also can speak to the fact that it is not our burden alone. I can also speak to the gender bias which is thick in our community. But not only in a way one would expect. There is a minority, but strong ideal of separitism in the lesbian community- very anti-male or XY chromosome. I frankly find it limiting, counterproductive, and highly discriminatory. Indeed women hold up half the sky...but only half.
There, I said it.
I have experienced far more racism for being white now living in the north than I ever experienced living in the southwest and that was a good bit as well. Is this a complaint, no. Do I stretch my experience and say that I can relate to others who feel persistent race bias? No, absolutely not. What I experienced is mine and cannot be weighed against anyone else's. That would be arrogance maxed out. I am white and living in a white dominant society. The advantages of that to date can not be erased or negated.
As to gender bias, I have expereinced it once, overtly. Other incidences may have also occured, but they were so subtle, they passed beyond my recognition.
Nevertheless, I have given the isms thought and enter the fray for discussion.
My best friend happens to be a woman of color and soon after our friendship began I remember her commenting on "entitlement": that I moved about as though entitled. She attributed that to race and privilege. I hadn't given it any thought but once pointed out, I determined that it wasn't out of race or even gender, but personal entitlement that I did these things. I still believe that. I believe that if anyone else can have, or get, or access, then I should be able too, as well. Though on occasion I have used white and/or gender entitlement when advocating or helping someone and recognized I was doing it for that purpose. It was my own anecdotal social experiment.
I, one day, suggested that there was no reason she should not also use entitlement. If I believed it was not borne of race or gender, then she should be able to, right?
I think the idea that someone else is entitled directly places one in the position of have-not. The idea that some country-club system allows for this to happen and that only members can exercise the right is an acceptance of being a have not and seeing others as the have's. This is a stance from limits and lack. For this to continue, those on either side, the have's and the have not's must remain where they are and maintain this belief.
But it just may be only that- a belief.
If we look at entitlement as a self-accessible advantage then we stand in abundance. That anyone can be entitled. That entitlement to having needs met, getting service, having access can be expected to occur.
My friend, a few months ago stated that she got it. But what it took was someone thought to be of the entitlement country club to give her permission or rather enlightenment.
A pretty, white, slim, accomplished straight woman who she greatly admires, told her she just needed get over it and act entitled or she was not going to get where she needed to be in her career. In essence she was given "permission" to act on what she wanted all along. This woman said the light is better out here and my friend walked out from Plato's cave.
It was as though the light burst forth from the clouds for my friend. Someone viewed as part of an upper echeolon of those entitled gave her the key. This freed her up to access what she wanted from beyond a barrier of gender and race as never before.
Now, I have used the words "permission" and "gave" which continue to reinforce that entitlement is a club and that a secret handshake or knowing the right person is how to rank-in. But its not. Those words were used to convey how this story came about, but not how it has to be or is, really.
The "get it" part of this is that one can. One can access what one wants. Will it change everything immediately, no, of course not. But will it begin to shift what we all experience and expect, yes, most definitely.
Holding an expectation of having needs met, having access and getting service is all about intention. And intention is action. It is seen and palpable. It is not awarded or bestowed nor is it limited.
For much of a woman's historical memory-conditioning and subsequent brain adaptation has shackled us from thinking and acting this way. Women often do not start at salaries as high as men because men ask, women do not. Men risk being told no and move on. Women, broadly stated, fear rejection and do not risk as often. Particularly for themselves. Ask a woman to risk for her child and she will be indomitable. Ask a woman to risk solely for herself and hesitation is the first answer. Men act on entitlement, women do not. Men assume they have power and stand in it. Women assume they do not have power and leave it for someone else to use. Whose paradigm is most beneficial to us all?
Intention says we will push to stand in discomfort, to admit when we hold to and operate from old beliefs and stereotypes, to stretch ourselves into risks, charting new territory getting beyond the already always way of being we have created for ourselves.
As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Do one thing every day that scares you."
Where do we go from here?
Monday, November 06, 2006
Amendment E Update and A Rebuttal
I received an interesting comment to my previous post on South Dakota's Amendment E. Apparently the sponsor of the bill was not in agreement with me. As I am against this amendment, I am not surprised, yet as Bubba of the Plains makes it clear, my arguments were supported.
Here is Bill Stegmeier's post:
Here is Bill Stegmeier's post:
There's Just Not Enough Windex
Glass houses must need alot of Windex, yet this week proved there's just not enough in this world to keep the neocons' and evangelicals' side-by-side clean.The Foley investigation will yield far more mud than we'll have paper towels to clean it up with.
The war in Iraq will be the worst military decision in the history of mankind and this includes trumping Hannibal's elephant brigade dying in the Italian Alps.
The Repubs will lose the House, possibly the Senate and alot of states races, too.
And another Evangelical TopDog has been found lighting his wick at both ends.
Oh and in case you missed this-No longer fish out of water but water out of fish in 42 years.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Suing The Toga Off Justice
On Tuesday, we will all be waiting with baited breath for the outcome of the mid-term election. But what most have missed in all the flurry of blue candidates, cantankerous pundits, erroneous negative ads, bad state amendments and many regressive tax increases is Amendment E in South Dakota.In short, Amendment E will give South Dakotans the right to sue judges for misconduct.
While many questions over this might arise allow me to point out one reason the advocates for this Amendment feel it is necessary. They say it is because the current rules and regulations and oversight of judges is not working.
This is where I get rabidly libertarian.
An amendment is not what is needed nor advisble to correct bad actions. Legislation, yes. Correction of authority of boards of oversight, yes. But not a sweeping amendment voted on by Bubba of the Plains. This requires thought, experience and expertise most of which Bubba does not have the inclination to acquire.
We are beyond slippery slopes here. We are in a basket and no idea we are headed south. This trend of amending the constitution to enforce pedestrian views is wrong. Its fraught with majority bias and threatens the basis of the Constitution. And though we purportedly live in a democracy (its really a republic) what happens when Bubba develops and votes on constitutional issues is that anyone with a minority opinion gets trampled by might is right and there is no thought that EVERYONE at some point is in a minority and will need protection. But on to this crap amendment.
At the website for this amendment, they have an FAQ. And though there are questions posed there that ask things such as "will this amendment allow people to sue school boards and banks et al" the amendment supporters say no, that the language is clearly intended for judges only. However, it opens to the door for this to happen. Beyond that what happens here is that judges are now no longer able to deliberate with immunity. That immunity is allowed at all may stick in your craw a bit, but the reason for it is that in order for a judge to apply the law and the constitution to a particular case, often they do have to step outside of what Bubba wants. But it is the judicial process and its procedure that allows Bubba fairness when he needs it not just when he agrees with it.
Stephanie Simon of the LA times writes, "Under the amendment judges in the state could lose their jobs or assets if citizens disliked how they sentenced a criminal, resolved a business dispute or settled a divorce. 'We want to give power back to the people,' said Jake Hanes, a spokesman for the measure.
"A special grand jury would evaluate citizen complaints against judges — and judges would not be presumed innocent. Amendment E explicitly instructs jurors to 'liberally' tilt in favor of any citizen with a grievance, and 'not to be swayed by artful presentation by the judge.'"
I wonder if Jake Hanes ever read the Lottery? The people have no business having power over the courts. We are not as a mob fair and just.
Putting aside the obvious derailing of what the founding fathers envisioned for our judicial process and why, the far-reaching sticky thing about this amendment is that once amendments are established there are cases to try it for interpretation and precedent.
Also of concern with radical actions like this are the questions that they pose and yet there are no answers to. For example: How much malfeasance occurs in the courts of SD? What evidence is there that there is need for this amendment? What other actions could take place to correct what is seen as wrong? What do the current oversight mechanisms need to do a better job? Is a better job actually needed? What laws could be put in place to help avoid or correct judicial wrongs? (I thought appeals were in order) Are any needed? What are the stories, the numbers? In light of the number of cases heard what is the percentage of misconduct? Are they being committed by some of the same judges? Cannot those judges be removed?
Another point to be made here is that its really hard to get legislators to agree on anything, let alone unanimously, but by golly this Amendment has. All the SD leges are against it! All of them! That must say something!
Lady Justice has a sword for a reason.
Oh and as a closing note, this amendment is named the J.A.I.L. Amendment for the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law. My cockles are just cozy over it.
Another good link for info: Point of Law
Here is the amendment
Monday, October 23, 2006
Sailor Moon Live Action
Hattip to my buddy Tim at timtimmytimothy
Sailor Moon has a live-action 2 season version. Its so bad its good, says Tim. Watch at youtube. Double click on the above screen and rate it at youtube..or er...GooTube., as it could be known:)
Sailor Moon has a live-action 2 season version. Its so bad its good, says Tim. Watch at youtube. Double click on the above screen and rate it at youtube..or er...GooTube., as it could be known:)
RRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIICCCCCCCHHHHH
You knew it was bound to happen. Never doubt the creativity and dark humor of our dear Amuricans. Now available and at the latest bid of $228 your very own Mark Foley Action Figure. I thought the palm pilot was a nice touch...as it were.
Fantasy Congress?
NO not that type of fantasy but a real honest to goodness fantasy where you pick candidates and members of Congress. FANTASTIC STUFF for the geeks we are!
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Harcourt/Brace and Kevlar
From Oklahoma City, Oklahoma:
It's the new hit country duo, Books and Shields!
This hillbilly, Republican Bill Crozier, a candidate for state superintendent of Oklahoma schools, has suggested that students use textbooks to block gunshots. He seems to have done a bit o' testing of his theory himself. Dubious am I that he tried all caliber of weapon on English Composition for Juniors, he did have possession of an AK47 and those shots fired did blast through the textbooks. Not satisfied that his theory was disproved, no, he then proceeds to get a Glock...then...
oh for god's sake
WHAT THE HELL AM I GOING ON ABOUT HERE? AMURICAH and the NRA, YOU GOTTA BE PROUD! WE'VE GOT A GUY RUNNING FOR A STATEWIDE OFFICE SAYING THAT THE BEST IDEA HE'S EVER HAD WAS THIS!? THAT THIS IS THE SOLUTION TO THE VIOLENCE IN OUR SCHOOLS!
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE IDIOCY AFOOT! HE THOUGHT IT WAS SUCH A GOOD IDEA HE PUT THE WHOLE TEST ON VIDEO. IT'S ON TEE VEE NOW and THIS BOOB IS ON YOUTUBE, TOO! THERE ARE MOVING PICTURES OF THIS YAYHOO HOLDING AN AK47 AND SHOOTING TEXTBOOKS. YOU MIGHT ASK ABOUT THE WITNESSES, AND I LAUGH INSANELY, BUT OF COURSE, THERE WERE LITTLE KIDS AROUND! WE'RE TALKING THE WEST, HERE. MEN, GUNS AND THE BOYS WHO TAKE THEM TO SCHOOL. MANLY MEN WITH A MANLY SMELL.
ONE GUY WITH BILLY WAS LOADING THE AK47 AND DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS ALREADY A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER, AT LEAST NOT UNTIL IT SHOT OFF! THIS, TOO, IS ON THE TAPE! HELLO? EDITING?
HAVE WE LOST OUR COLLECTIVE MINDS? IS THIS THE BEST CANDIDATE THE R's CAN FIELD TO RUN FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE OVER SCHOOLS? IS THIS THE REPUBLICAN WHO CARES FOR KIDS?
OH NEVER MIND THE R's IN THIS! IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN OFFER FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN? OHMIGOD!
LIFT OFF AND NUKE IT FOR MORBID, FOLKS!
But lucky for those students in Oklahoma Sandy Garrett is running for RE-ELECTION. She is apparently the only woman in Oklahoma history to hold state wide office and the only woman to be re-elected 4 times. Oklahoma needs help if this is the case, but at least she understands that before bullets fly and books are used as shields, students need to be safe to learn. Education is prevention.
I'm just wondering what politically savvy Einstein sat with this yokel, heard his idea, scratched himself and said "Yup, Billy, that there idear is an E-lection winner." Read here for Your tax dollars at work!
and of course, go watch it here
It's the new hit country duo, Books and Shields!
This hillbilly, Republican Bill Crozier, a candidate for state superintendent of Oklahoma schools, has suggested that students use textbooks to block gunshots. He seems to have done a bit o' testing of his theory himself. Dubious am I that he tried all caliber of weapon on English Composition for Juniors, he did have possession of an AK47 and those shots fired did blast through the textbooks. Not satisfied that his theory was disproved, no, he then proceeds to get a Glock...then...
oh for god's sake
WHAT THE HELL AM I GOING ON ABOUT HERE? AMURICAH and the NRA, YOU GOTTA BE PROUD! WE'VE GOT A GUY RUNNING FOR A STATEWIDE OFFICE SAYING THAT THE BEST IDEA HE'S EVER HAD WAS THIS!? THAT THIS IS THE SOLUTION TO THE VIOLENCE IN OUR SCHOOLS!
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE IDIOCY AFOOT! HE THOUGHT IT WAS SUCH A GOOD IDEA HE PUT THE WHOLE TEST ON VIDEO. IT'S ON TEE VEE NOW and THIS BOOB IS ON YOUTUBE, TOO! THERE ARE MOVING PICTURES OF THIS YAYHOO HOLDING AN AK47 AND SHOOTING TEXTBOOKS. YOU MIGHT ASK ABOUT THE WITNESSES, AND I LAUGH INSANELY, BUT OF COURSE, THERE WERE LITTLE KIDS AROUND! WE'RE TALKING THE WEST, HERE. MEN, GUNS AND THE BOYS WHO TAKE THEM TO SCHOOL. MANLY MEN WITH A MANLY SMELL.
ONE GUY WITH BILLY WAS LOADING THE AK47 AND DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS ALREADY A ROUND IN THE CHAMBER, AT LEAST NOT UNTIL IT SHOT OFF! THIS, TOO, IS ON THE TAPE! HELLO? EDITING?
HAVE WE LOST OUR COLLECTIVE MINDS? IS THIS THE BEST CANDIDATE THE R's CAN FIELD TO RUN FOR STATEWIDE OFFICE OVER SCHOOLS? IS THIS THE REPUBLICAN WHO CARES FOR KIDS?
OH NEVER MIND THE R's IN THIS! IS THIS THE BEST WE CAN OFFER FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN? OHMIGOD!
LIFT OFF AND NUKE IT FOR MORBID, FOLKS!
But lucky for those students in Oklahoma Sandy Garrett is running for RE-ELECTION. She is apparently the only woman in Oklahoma history to hold state wide office and the only woman to be re-elected 4 times. Oklahoma needs help if this is the case, but at least she understands that before bullets fly and books are used as shields, students need to be safe to learn. Education is prevention.
I'm just wondering what politically savvy Einstein sat with this yokel, heard his idea, scratched himself and said "Yup, Billy, that there idear is an E-lection winner." Read here for Your tax dollars at work!
and of course, go watch it here
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Out Of Africa- adopting the future away
One has to wonder if this latest adoption of a child of Africa is signaling a trend and if so, what is it? Is it the trend to recognize the need to put money where mouth is?
Does it portend that babies can be for sale?
Like Edie to Saffie's mixed race baby, is it a fashion accessory?
And why do the children beome absorbed into the parent's culture and not a reversal? Why not adopt a child of another nationality, but move to his or her homeland instead?
Comments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
So your cockles are cozy. How 'bout your "brass ovaries"?
You say "An amendment is not what is needed nor advisable to correct bad actions. Legislation, yes."
The purpose of Amendment E is the to hold judges accountable for misconduct in the course of their proceedings. If we had put this forth as legislation it could easily be re-legislated "from the bench" by a single judge! Yes, if was deemed unconstitutional. Judges do not pass legislation or even re-legislate. They measure laws and actions versus the constitution. What does not match up gets judged as such. It is up to the legisltors and law enforcement to enforce. At times in our history that has not happened; which supports the point that judges do not legislate.
In roughly paragraph seven you say "Beyond that what happens here is that judges are now no longer able to deliberate with immunity." Yes, because that is what it does. The Amendment is so poorly written that folks will be able to sue without burden. The amendment, as I stated previously, instructs jurors to favor the plaintiff from the beginning. Favortism is not justice. It will influence how a judge proceeds therefore how he/she deliberates.
You appear to be implying that Amendment E has something to do with a judge's final decision. It does not. It has everything to do with how the judge conducts his proceeding on the way to his final decision. And this DOES NOT influence the decision process? The steps to the decision do not influence the end result? Are you nuts? Re-read section 2. It says "Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of South Dakota or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute." But the South Dakota Constitution already has means to combat judicial misconduct. Its called the appeal process and liberally, all citizens of South Dakota can access the Supreme Court to have their case heard. There also is the Judicial Qualifications Commission and last but not least ELECTIONS!
It's how the judge conducts his proceedings, not his final decision. Again, I say
In roughly paragraph ten you say "The people have no business having power over the courts." Yup and especially you, Bill. I wish this had been alot of energy toward an issue you and those in your state need help with. But by your own acknowledgement this amendment isn't based on evidence of need. Its precient in a way, right? You looked into your crystal 8 ball and saw that this was not evidenced yet but might be, so lets amend the constitution for something that might happen sometime?
If not the people, who? The King? Well you sexist devil, you. It could be a Queen. It is the process which has power over the judges. Please avail yourself the information out there on how the judicial process works. And Bill, it does work, even in your state, which again, leads me to ask 'why the hell this is being done anyway?'
You're and elitist, aren't you? Jeez Bill, you say that like its supposed to hurt. The only people I've ever hear use that term negatively were sadly ill-educated, righteous in their ignorance and afraid of the smart people.
Bill Stegmeier
Sponsor of Amendment E