Friday, February 28, 2014

Another Seemingly Good Idea That Isn’t – Tennesse Wants to Label All State Issued ID’s with Sex Offender Status

The state legislator in Tennessee has come up with absolutely horrible idea of making every state ID stamped with the words "SEX OFFENDER" in red in three different places.  Seriously?  While this may sound good on the surface we all know that the reasons that some people end up on these lists are bogus, the laws are too broadly written.  
Think back to that young man who was pulled a high school prank of streaking at football game.  While we don't know what would have happened to him but before his suicide he was told he would end up on the state registry for sex offenders.  Streaking is hardly a crime that constitutes being labeled a sex offender for the rest of your life.  
I am all for protecting children from predators.  But the truth is this, if these people are so dangerous that they can't be trusted to be around young children without raping them why aren't they in jail where they belong?  
The lawmaker, Matthew Hill(R), says the idea came to him from a constituent talking about how many day cares ask for an ID in order to pick up the child.  Again, on the surface that sounds good, but let's be realistic here, don't they have a list of adults that are able to pick up the child?  If not, isn't that the answer to the problem?  
Some of the crimes that can get you listed on a sex registry list is prostitution.  Engaging in consensual sex for money is not something that I would personally do, that doesn't mean that you are a "sex offender".  Some states go as far as putting people who are convicted of public exposure onto these lists as well.  Again, not behavior I would engage in but is that person really a danger to society for the rest of their lives?  
There are many instances where the sex is consensual but one person is under the legal age.  We are legally allowed to label an 18-year-old who is having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girl friend.  While I wouldn't approve of that behavior in my son or daughter I would like to think that they wouldn't have their driver's license stamped in big, bold, red letters for the rest of their lives because of it.  
Your ID is used for many things that have nothing to do with being a danger to children.  You need to cash a check, get into many businesses around the country, get on an airplane, and hundreds of other things that are have nothing to do with your past sexual history.  
The real goal should be to protect children by not allowing these people, who have a proclivity to harm, out of everyday society by strengthening the amount of time they spend in jail.  Not putting a scarlet letter on the ID's of some high school kid that decided it would be funny to take his clothes off at a football game.  
This bill needs to go the scrap heap where it belongs.  

A Little Twat and a Whole Lot of Controversy - When Republicans Are Their Own Worst Enemies

Bob Fitzsimmons, Treasurer of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) used the word twat in a facebook discussion a few nights ago.  Twat in case you don't know is sometimes used as slang for the female vulva.  

Now, I am not going to sit here and defend the use of that word.  It never should have been used.  The problem is that if you read the exchange in context, he was referring to the comment that someone else had made as ridiculous.  He used the wrong.  Obviously he isn't up on sexual slang words.  He should have used the word twaddle, which means stupid speech.  

Now, what you can't see in the above graphic is the comment he was answering.  That comment was about why Delegate Barbara Comstock should be the nominee in the hotly contested republican primary simply based on the fact that she is a woman.  His comment was about identity politics.  I am not sure who, if anyone, he is backing in this contest, but I can tell you that I support Barbara.  I like Barbara.  I have worked many a days knocking doors in her elections for the state delegate seat that she currently holds.  But I don't support her simply based on the fact that she is a woman.  I HATE identity politics.  It is a losing game and I have little respect for people who voted based upon gender, skin color, or financial status of the people in the race.  To me that is the democrats game and played a big part in why President Obama won his election.  On this Mr. Fitzsimmons and I agree.  We are never going to beat the democrats in that game, so lets put up the best possible candidate in each and every race.  I happen to believe that Barbara is that person.  Her voting record speaks for itself.  At the end of the day that is what really matters.  

What really sits in craw about this entire unfortunate episode is that people who don't like Mr. Fitzsimmons, for reasons ranging from he is a supporter of conventions over primaries (which I am not) and he is also a big supporter of Ken Cuccinelli and more libertarian leaning people, have used this to try and force him from his job.  Insert primal scream here.  

This has turned into a national story that has been on HuffPo and in The Washington Post simply because people, who I won't mention by name, even though I would bet my bottom dollar are involved, are using this to oust someone they disagree with.  

The man made a mistake.  He used an unfortunate word when he wasn't clear on the meaning.  There is no way that anyone reading what he wrote can misconstrue that he was calling Delegate Comstock a twat or even the young woman he was having the discussion with that word.  

Here is the post he was responding to with the name of the person not included:
I also think women are going to be very frustrated about about a man trying to usurp Barbara's position in this race. If women come out in force for her, it will create a battle cry for Republican women so loud that Howie Lind won't have a prayer of competing with her. Republican women are a force to be reconed with and I for one want to see this power harnessed effectively in key political races.
His response was the he doesn't like sexist twat.  Now, if he was talking about this woman or Barbara it would make sense that you would be able to replace the word with the name and it would still make sense.  But you can't do that in this case.  Because he wasn't referring to a person, he was referring to the thought of using identity politics.  

So, now we have a national story about how republican men and party officials were using sexual terms to talk about a woman when clearly that isn't what happened.  

We don't need the democrats to do anything, we are doing a bang up job all on our own.  Should he have apologized for using that word?  Absolutely.  Should he lose his job over it?  No, a very clear and unambiguous NO.  This has been blown out of proportion by people who don't like him and his stances.  Those are the people who should be called out in all of this.  Not a man who obviously needs to spend more time with a dictionary.  

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Cindy Sheehan for Governor of California? Take a Look at her Video

Cindy Sheehan has decided to run for governor of California.  She has a little song for you.  Oh my.  She wants to close the prisons.  Yes, she said that.  She wants all college education to be free.  She is planning on getting rid of nukes.

Were you aware that California had them?  News to me.

The woman is certifiable.  Sadly, in a state like California you never know.  If she becomes governor I think the reasons to cede the land back to Mexico are strengthened.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

The Huffington Post Strikes Again. - Steve Martin's Irony Misreported

Steve Martin, a state delegate from Virginia, made a facebook post that has recieved national attention thank to The Huffington Post.  

Here is the post:

I received a Valentines Card today with a two tone red heart on the front above the words, "Don't break our hearts." Inside was the following message:
"On behalf of women's Heath advocates across Virginia, we are disappointed in your record of voting to restrict access to critical healthcare for women and families. All women deserve access to their full range of reproductive health options - including preventing unintentional pregnancies, raising healthy children, and choosing safe, legal abortion - and your votes only make it more difficult for Virginians to plan and provide for their families. We are watching your actions closely, and hope that you will reconsider your position on this critical issue. Please don't break our hearts.
- The Virginia Pro-Choice Coalition"
~ How very heart warming - all while using ill defined terms. "Raising healthy children" in the context of access to abortions speaks only to the ability to "kill unhealthy children." Do they not see the sickness of that argument?
If it's your expectation that I should support such nonsense, I will be breaking your heart.
You can count on me to never get in the way of you "preventing" an unintentional pregnancy." I'm not actually sure what that means, because if it's "unintentional" you must have been trying to prevent it. And, I don't expect to be in the room or will I do anything to prevent you from obtaining a contraceptive. However, once a child does exist in your womb, I'm not going to assume a right to kill it just because the bearer of the child (some refer to them as mothers) doesn't want it to remain alive.
We finally get to to the truth at the end of that same line. What they want is access to "safe, legal abortions," any time one might be desired. Okay, then why did you write all the rest of that bologna about raising healthy children (by killing the unhealthy ones), having access to healthcare (which you do), and preventing unwanted pregnancies (don't have unprotected sex)?
Such nonsense, supposed adults have written, to celebrate love, on Valentines. These folks are really sick people!
Now, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see his use of irony in this post.  NARAL and other abortion activists have consisently used strategies about abortion that would absolutely frame the pregnant woman as a "host". The original post did use the word host instead of bearer of the child.  
  “disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest."
This is from Dawn Johnsen's brief she filed on behalf of NARAL.   She compared being pregnant to slavery. As a person who is an elected official who is obviously pro-life, Mr. Martin has seen many instances where the unborn have been referred as any number of things, including the most frequently used, a clump of cells (like we aren't all just a clump of cells from a biological standpoint).  See what I did there? I put my own opinion in parens.  Sort of like what Mr. Martin did.  

HuffPo knows that Mr. Martin never meant, nor does he believe, that a pregnant woman is nothing more than a mere host.  He views them as mothers.  That is what the irony of this whole thing is.  He was mocking the beliefs of many pro choice advocates and they turn it around to attack him on his views.   

Could it be because when they see it in writing in that fashion they realize how dehumanizing that opinion really is?  (Just a thought)

Monday, February 24, 2014

Don't Slut Shame Me, My Porn Career is Paying for College

A student known only as Lauren (not her real name) is a porn star and student at Duke University.  She uses the proceeds of her career choice to pay tuition.  She believes that she will leave Duke University with a good education, ready for law school, and be debt free.  Good for her on being debt free.  
The problem has become that someone on campus saw on of her "films" and has outed her as a porn star.  She feels she is now being bullied for her choice.  She tried waitressing, but apparently that didn't work out as well for her:
"I worked as a waitress as a job for a year in high school," Lauren told Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle. "Not only did it interfere with my school where I was barely sleeping and wasn't doing my work, but I also was making $400 a month after taxes."
She also found working as a waitress humiliating.
"I felt like I was being degraded and treated like s***,” Lauren said.
I don't know, I managed to waitress/bartend my way through college and never felt degraded.  Where are going as a society that a college freshman feels that being a waitress is more demeaning that taking your clothes off for a rough sex porn site?  That is the better alternative?  
“For me, shooting pornography brings me unimaginable joy. When I finish a scene, I know that I have done so and completed an honest day's work. It is my artistic outlet, my love, my happiness, my home,”
How often is she tested for STD's?  That is something that you don't need to take into consideration when you are working as a waitress.  At least that was not my experience.  
Sexually transmitted diseases are highly prevalent in the pornography industry. Among 825 porn performers screened in 2000–2001, 7.7% of females and 5.5% of males had Chlamydia and 2% overall had gonorrhea. Dr. Sharon Mitchell confirms the STD prevalence in an interview with Court TV, in which she states: “66% of porn performers have Herpes, 12-28% have sexually transmitted diseases and 7% have HIV.”
Well if that isn't something that should bring joy to your life, I don't know what is.  Oh, but it gets better.  This from a male porn star:
“Drugs are a major, major problem in my business. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to you. I can’t tell you the number of girls who have disappeared and dropped out of the business because of their drug problems. It is unbelievably sad to think about, and seeing some of them fall into a downward spiral hurts me more than others. But I think we all can agree that a huge majority of drug users will never change unless they get professional help. I have seen all manner of drugs on set, at parties, in cars, everywhere. If I had to guess, I would put marijuana use at 90 percent of ALL people involved in the industry (performers, directors, crew, agents, drivers, owners, office workers, etc.). I have been on a set where a girl has passed out during a sex scene with me (she was abusing oxycontin). Just recently a girl overdosed on GHB (a party drug that is a clear odorless drug that doesn’t mix well with alcohol) on set. I have seen a girl win a prestigious AVN Award, not show up to accept the award, and then fall into the throes of drug use that caused her to lose at least 50 pounds and drop off the face of the earth. Why is drug use so prevalent in our business? Well, let’s figure that out. First of all, remember that the business is populated largely with girls aged 18-21. And the majority of those girls are uneducated (many haven’t graduated high school). Add to that the fact that many come into the business because they have no money and are working at menial jobs like fast food places. So you have young girls who are uneducated with very little money entering the business.
We can now move onto the violence in the industry.  Now, I have never seen a porn film, but I would assume that most of the violence is generated towards women.  
Former pornographic performer Alex Devine shares her violent experience and writes:
“Donkey Punch was the most brutal, depressing, scary scene that I have ever done. I have tried to block it out of my memory due to the severe abuse I received during the filming. The guy, Steve French, has a natural hatred towards women in the sense that he has always been known to be more brutal than EVER needed. I agreed to do the scene thinking it was less beating, except the ‘punch’ in the head. If you noticed, Steve had worn his solid gold ring the entire time, and continued to punch me with it. I actually stopped the scene while it was being filmed because I was in too much pain.”
There is a very heavy emphasis on rougher, more sadistic sex, with slapping, spitting, violent hair-pulling and scenes of extremely abusive hardcore sex acts. In one film, the man forces the woman’s head into a toilet during the final scene, a technique that seems to help him achieve climax.
Just lovely.  
From Australia:
A recent University of Sydney study, in which two professors surveyed more than 800 men, found that excessive porn consumption was reported by almost half the respondents (85 per cent of whom were married or in a relationship), and was harming their professional success and relationships.
The numbers were dramatic: 47  per cent of the male subjects watched between 30 minutes to three hours of porn per day, one in three said it harmed their work efforts, and one in five would rather watch porn than have sex with their partners.
So Lauren, do you still want to believe that you are just being free and enjoying your "kink"?  What you are doing is adding to the misery of people all over the world.  You are complaisant in the act.  She says she doesn't like the whole virgin/whore dichotomy that goes on at Duke University.  Ok, that may very well be a problem.  But is men viewing the violent nature porn that you star in helping with that?  I have this feeling it is actually adding to it, not solving the problem.  
From feminist Naomi Wolf:
Young women tell me that hair-pulling, and even pressure around the neck at orgasm, are normal parts of courtship sex these days. These are 'porn cliches', as one young woman put it. I am not surprised by these shifts because  we all know about the pornification of society.
I believe more voices would be speaking out if the new research on this issue were better understood. What we're not being told - and this is a view which many scientists now confirm, but too few ordinary people understand - is that porn use poses health problems.
Porn actually promotes the notion that women are sex objects.  It doesn't cure it.  Your little money-making venture dear Lauren is robbing more and more young women of real experiences of what sex should really be about.  Two people coming together to enjoy each other.  Instead, we know have a generation of people who don't see mystery in sex.  They don't see as something that is to be enjoyed between two consenting adults in relationship based on mutual love and respect, but nothing more than scratching an itch.  
Lauren was also upset by the one of the papers who interviewed her noticing that she had a very expensive designer handbag as part of her new-found riches from her job.  Yes, she may be making good money.  Yes, she may graduate law school debt free (her career goal after getting a pre-law degree from Duke).  Yes, she is far from the only one who has chosen this path in order to pay the bills during college.  But, don't be surprised years from now that you can't have children due to the STD's you received.  Don't be surprised that many a decent man will not be willing to marry or raise a child with someone with this past.  Don't be surprised if you fall into a deep depression when you a woman tells you how your films shattered her marriage.  Remember Christie Brinkley's very public divorce?  Someone was starring in those porn films her ex-husband was watching.  
You keep doing what you're doing because you don't want to demeaned by being a waitress.  It is really not that big of a deal.  The "bullying" is really the least of the issues your career choice will bring to your life.  

Saturday, February 22, 2014

The Arizona Bill Doesn’t Say What You or the Media Thinks It Says

Not that it should be a surprise, but the media is calling Arizona's 1062 Bill "Anti-Gay", discrimination, a return back to Jim Crow and other such nonsense.  The bill isn't any such thing.  The legislation that passed does one thing and one thing only.  It expands who gets covered under religious liberty claims under the law in terms of lawsuits.
Today the law in Arizona the law only covers you if somehow the government is involved in the preceding.  This expands it so if a private business or a church gets sued they can claim they are exercising their religious free will.
Section 41-1493 of the Arizona Revised Statutes regulates who can claim religious freedom or exercise thereof as a defense in a lawsuit.
Senate bill 1062 revises that law by expanding the definition of who is a person to "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution, estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity", and allows for religious-freedom lawsuits "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.
Nowhere in this legislation does it say that you can hang a sign in your storefront refusing service.  It simply allows a business owner or a church to claim that they are exercising their right to their religious beliefs and a judge can't throw that out as a non-defense.  It will be allowed to be heard by a jury and they get to decide if that defense has merit or not.
People behave as if somehow the rights of one person automatically trumps the rights of another.  They don't.  Rights are given to all people.  There is no doubt that gay marriage is a topic that is virtually impossible to bridge the deep divides.  But lets say for instance a person who is divorced by no desire of their own.  Their spouse packed up and left after deciding they didn't want to be married anymore.  Most states today have no fault divorces so it is very likely that can just file and be divorced in relatively short order.  The spouse that was left is a practicing Catholic.  Over time they rebuild their lives and meet someone new.  They decide they want to get married again.  By Catholic doctrine they cannot be married in the church.  Should they be able to sue under the grounds they are being discriminated against because they are divorced?  Shouldn't the Catholic Church be able to walk into a courtroom and say this goes against their teaching and doctrines without being labeled bigot?
I, for the life of me, can't figure out why a couple would want to force a business to work with them when they don't want to.  Especially for something as important as a wedding.  This is a day that to a Christian is a sacrosanct covenant with God.  You are not just making that vow to each other, but you are making that vow to God himself.  You can disagree with that premise all you like.  It doesn't make it less relevant or real to a person who takes that seriously.
We have already seen a business taken to court for not wanting to participate in something they view as sinful.  A lawsuit is being filed in England right now to force the Church of England to perform Gay Marriages even the law has put in protections to guard that from happening.  We all know all too clearly what happens when a person speaks up about their religious beliefs that gay marriage is sinful.  They get called a bigot.  It never occurs to the person doing that name calling that they may be the ones who are bigots.  That they are the ones forcing another to go against deeply held beliefs and trying to force them to accept their choice to get married to someone of the same-sex.  No it is just the other way around.  It is just the Christian who is the bigot.  It is never anyone else.
I am not saying that the whole "agree to disagree" is something that is simple.  But it isn't as complicated as some make it sound when it comes to a baker, a photographer, a florist, or any other vendor that someone may use to celebrate their wedding day.  It is going to be a rare case indeed that another vendor that is more than happy to work with the couple isn't available and the only option is the one that feels this strongly about it.  Why would want to give your money to someone who is being forced to work with you?  Have you ever thought about what they could put in that cake?  I say that jokingly of course, but it could happen.
A business in a free market society should be allowed to decide for themselves who they work with and who they don't.  The consumers can then make their choices and decide if they want to give their money to a business who adheres to certain practices.  I certainly would never go to restaurant that hung a sign saying they wouldn't do business with a group of people for reasons such as skin color, religious background, or heritage.  I will take my money elsewhere.  That is the power that I possess.  Nor is that even a relevant issue when it comes to this piece of legislation.
A jury will get decide.  This law doesn't guarantee they will win, only that they will be heard.  One would think that gay activists would be happy to put this into a court of law.  They have done so many, many times over the past decade to force their will onto others.  Why are they upset about this?  This piece of legislation just took a page out of their playbook.  

Friday, February 21, 2014

Defining the Abstract

We spend a great deal of time in our country (way too much in my opinion) in arguing over what things mean.  How exactly do you define the abstract?  What does it mean when people say "they just want freedom" when talking about people from other nations?  Do they define freedom the same way you do?
We can't agree on what freedom means in this country, yet people want to define it for someone who has no concept for government like ours.  They have never lived in a "free" society.  President Bush famously (or infamously depending on how you look at it)
"And my deepest conviction, the guiding principle of the administration, is that the United States of America must drive to expand the reach of freedom.”
Go and talk to the average person who lives in Europe and ask them if they are "free" and have "freedom".  The answer you are very likely to get is yes.  Yet, you ask a person who is on the right in this country if they do the answer is very likely to be no.  Most European countries are set up as Socialist Democracies.  A very ugly concept to the view of many in this country.
The Arab spring didn't happen because of the overwhelming desire for freedom.  It started over the price of bread.  In Egypt and Palestine they have gone to the polls and voted in the likes of Hamas and The Muslim Brotherhood.  While you do have to take into account that many of these elections are likely rigged, but sorry to burst your bubble, many people willingly voted these people into office.
While that sometimes is mind-boggling, one has to remember that both of these terrorist organizations also have an arm to them that aren't at all terrorist, but work as a charitable organization.  They help the unemployed feed their families, they help with goods and services that many of the poor in those areas simply cannot afford to get on their own.  When you have close to 70% unemployment in the Palestinian Territories, you are going have a great deal of need.  These organizations go in and fill those needs.  It allows them to do their terrorist activities with a wink and nod from the population, they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.  For many, this isn't just a saying, but a literal thing for them.  They are dependent on these people for their livelihoods and for those of their children.  It is far more complicated than many in this country dare to even try to understand.
The world is a very complicated place.  It is very easy to sit in the cheap seats, which believe me the U.S. are the cheap seats, and make statements about what others want and need.   When you live in the U.S. you have safety nets in place (we can argue the right and wrong of these at another time).  No matter how poor you are in this country, you are still richer than approximately 70% of the rest of the world.  This isn't about bashing poor people in this country, but just about perspective.
I saw this posted by Kira Davis on her Facebook page yesterday:
I make it a general rule not to argue about the Constitution or the principles of freedom with non-Americans. Not because of anything biased or personal, but just because being an immigrant myself I know that the way the rest of the world views freedom is far, far different than how Americans view freedom - yes, even the lefties. You can't debate someone who has a fundamentally different understanding of what it means to be a free citizen and what a "right" is.
Decades ago we saw people in the streets in China demanding more "freedoms".  The government crackdown was harsh and immediate.  But, in those preceding decades, the government of China has loosened some of the restrictions.  The citizens are getting more freedom over their lives from an economic perspective.  There are more jobs.  There is more autonomy.  They are allowing more and more people to drive cars.  I look at that country and am horrified at how little freedom those people have, yet they are feeling more comfortable with the changes the government is making.  It is about perspective.  I don't get to define what freedom means to the average Chinese citizen. I wouldn't want to live there, but that doesn't mean that many of the people who do aren't satisfied with their lives.
Emerging markets growth will also dramatically redistribute the bourgeois around the world. For instance, as our Rapid-Growth Markets Forecast explores, the number of households in Mexico with annual disposable incomes over US$50,000 is expected to reach 7.1 million by 2020, and 9.4 million in Brazil. For both countries this is an increase of over 50%.
Nevertheless, China’s and India’s contributions will be substantial.
Today, China has around 150 million people earning between US$10 and US$100 per day. As long as China continues to grow, and necessary economic reforms are made, we expect as many as 500 million Chinese could enter the global middle class over the next decade.
By 2030 around one billion people in China could be middle class — as much as 70% of its projected population.
To them, this may mean "freedom".  You can't say that it does or it does not.  But many have said over the years the reasons that the communist government of China made economic reforms to help its citizens, is because it wanted to keep mass unrest from happening.  This likely will allow them to control the country for a longer period of time.  Are the people stupid for going along with it?  Some will say yes, others will say no.  That will depend on your perspective.  Many in this country look at this a model of how government should work.  The heavy hand of government to guide economic policies that help all.  That is their idea of freedom.
We can talk all we want about what people in foreign lands want and or need.  We are doing so from our perspective, not from theirs.  We have not lived their lives in those places.  We don't get to define what their lives should be, what their hopes and desires should be.  We also can do the same about people in this country.  We have plenty of people in this country who define freedom in ways that I don't.
When you make broad statements about what abstract concepts mean, just remember that just because you define it a certain way that doesn't mean that others do the same way.  When you talk about how everyone just wants freedom, just remember what they view as freedom won't necessarily match up with you think it means.
Tony Blair believes in "freedom" heck President Bush even gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and he is a socialist.
"We are a left of centre party, pursuing economic prosperity and social justice as partners and not as opposites"

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Liberal Meme Fail of the Day – Paul Ryan Edition

This is floating around social media.  I guess they have problems with reading comprehension.  They are correct that a congressman named Ryan voted yea on the minimum wage hike in 2007.  The problem is that Ryan is Tim Ryan of Ohio, a democrat. Paul Ryan voted no.  Read the Roll Call on the vote here.  
RYAN min wage

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Yep, The Democrats are Proud of Fewer Jobs in Our Future Due to Obamacare

Truly sad.  This is something that the Daily Kos is circulating through social media.
obamacare jobs

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Feminist Blogger Now In Fear - Men May Have Discovered That We Are On To Them

A "radical feminist" blogger wrote a post a while back on how all "Penis in Vagina" or PIV intercourse is rape.  Of course myself and others who read this dribble rebutted and or made fun of the post.  Well, that caused more traffic at her blog.  Most bloggers are happy to get additional traffic.  Isn't the entire point of writing these posts is getting others to read them?  Not in her case.
When men view our blogs in such large numbers, it’s a threat. They’re not just looking at it, they view it with the intent of harming radical feminists and women in general. They do it to collect information so they know what next to do to prevent women from going there. They batter radfem work in public for all women to see and show the result of their verbal and written battering as an example of what will await women if they do, think or say the same. They write nasty and threatening comments, that in order to trash, I have to read at least a few words of. Even though it doesn’t hurt my feelings, they are still harmful and inevitably affect my thoughts.
How exactly does she know the gender of the those making the hits?  I need to update my analytics, I don't these type of break-downs immediately.  Anyhoo, at least some are men.  Those men are hateful beasts that only want to destroy.
85,000, that’s the maximum number of views I had in one day a couple of weeks ago when the liberals and MRAs circulated my PIV blogpost for punishment. Unlike a normal blogger, attracting 85,000 hits isn’t something I want to celebrate. It’s threatening: you know they’re after you, it only means you’ve hit men’s radar and you have no idea what they plan to do. Will they attempt to hack into my blog? Will they try to find info about me? The kinds of thought this leads me to is 85,000 men going after me in real life. Probably a bit less if you discount the women. If that happened, how on earth could I hide from tens of thousands of men?
There is no denying there is a whole lot of crazy out there, but hey isn't this type of talk adding to it?  I mean does she really believe that men are worried about her getting the word out that having intercourse is rape that they want to silence her?  We. Must. Not. Let. This. Out.  She must be stopped at all costs.  She is letting out their little secret.  They only want intercourse to subjugate us.  We are nothing without them and they must be allowed to continue to rule the world.  Oh my.
All this is gaslighting and bullying, men’s lies are meant to sound convincing. They convince with the use of force, ordering me to comply to their view by using an authoritarian, terrorising tone. ‘How dare you see otherwise. You’re crazy. You’re a bully. Etc.’ Which is why it works so well to instil self-doubt because it’s a mindfuck, it’s thought-blocking, it’s also an assault and it creates fear and willingness to appease to avoid further assaults. Brainwashing works through a mix of mind assaults, terror and constant repetition of a same message until it’s hammered into our brain, which is psychological violence. 85,000 views and hundreds of trolling comments is in effect a blitzkrieg brainwashing attack by men and male-colonised women. Hundreds of men and their pawns attempting to reprogram the minds of deviant female bloggers, women who don’t comply and who break through men’s myths and lies.
It’s interesting that Cathy Brennan’s response to the whole thing led a commenter, Tracy, to comment about what it meant on reformism: I hadn’t framed it in that way (see discussion herehere and here). I’ve been thinking about it for a while but haven’t had the time to comment on it properly so I’ll continue my thoughts in this post. Tracy defined CB’s post as reformist to the extent that CB doesn’t name the agent, that is why men isolating us from one another is so dangerous, why it’s so important to huddle together in this circumstance [because men are waiting in line to rape and kill us]. CB asks us to take safety measures against a threat -men- that she won’t name, and at the same time treats men as an audience to appease, as if they would take note and change their behaviour accordingly. Tracy named that gaslighting because it’s acting as if two opposites (truth vs. omission/lie; threat vs. safety) were the same. Of course it’s not CB’s fault because she herself is victim of it.
Men are waiting in line to rape and kill us?  Really?  I have never seen nor heard of such a line.  May I make a suggestion, if such a line exists outside of your home, move.  My neighborhood is quite safe.  No men actively trying to rape you on a daily basis around.
I get that most women that call themselves a "feminist" call this thinking silly.  The problem is that this is the logical conclusion to that thinking.  Men are bad.  Women are victims.  Women are treated so unfairly that the government must step in to  protect them.  If the entire belief system is based on that women are tough enough and smart enough to be like just like men why in the world would you need the government to step in?
Life will never be fair nor will women and men ever be totally equal.  There are differences between men and women that just are.  Most men are stronger.  Our upper body strength isn't what there is.  Of course there are women who are stronger than men, but generally speaking that isn't the case.  There was just a scientific study released that our brains are hardwired differently.  It shows up in the scans. We are built this way.  It is biological.
What really gets my goat about feminism is the fact that the majority of the work for women and "fairness" is done in the industrialized west.  If they spend the majority of their time talking about how in some cultures the physical abuse of women is not only commonplace, but perfectly acceptable it would be different.  In some countries, such as Afghanistan, women were beaten in public for having one strand of hair showing.  The same still happens in Iran.  Some women are not allowed to work.  To heck with the fact that their husband or main provider has been killed or is missing for any reason, she still is not allowed to get a job to support herself.  At least not without the threat of jail, physical abuse, up to and including the threat of death.  I don't hear these topics being discussed much in the world of feminism.
Feminism also makes great assumptions about men that I take issue with.  Why do these women think that men don't feel bad about working long hours and being away from their children?  Do they think that they don't care that they miss the school plays?  Do they honestly believe that men don't get wanky when the house needs work?  It is assumed that they don't feel overwhelmed by a weekend of yard work, soccer games, shopping, and whatever else their particular chores end up being.  I am sorry but I find that very hard to believe.
I know plenty of men who feel just as overwhelmed as women do when it comes to using their time most efficiently to get everything they want done accomplished.  I also know men who are stay at home dads, so it is their job to clean, to cook, to do laundry, and whatever else needs to be done around the house all the while taking care of the kids.  It is simply a silly assertion that men don't feel the same type of things that women do.  We all feel a certain amount of guilt in our lives.  We all question our choices from time to time.  I don't think I have ever met a parent, male or female, that doesn't wonder if they could have done certain things differently.  That don't dwell, even temporarily, on the mistakes that we all make when raising children.  They don't come with a handbook, it is trial by fire.  That is especially true with the first one.
 Just because we make different choices in many instances it doesn't mean that men don't have the same type of emotions that women do.  One of the main differences is that men tend to keep these things to themselves.  They don't dwell on them in the same way that some women tend to do.   Many men look at this as part of life and complaining about it makes them "less manly".   Men deal with them differently, that doesn't mean that they don't feel it.  That is what feminism today says.  That somehow men are emotionless and guilt free.  They live lives that they actively believe makes them superior to women.  A very silly and uncaring assertion.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Quote of the Day - Coach Tom Izzo Edition

“It is a little harder to motivate kids I guess because they’ve been pampered so much. We’re in the trophy generation, give ‘em a trophy for 23rd place, make ‘em feel good. Make mom and dad feel good.” 
Amen.   The more you pamper a child the less they are prepared for the real world.  Mr. Izzo is the basketball coach at Michigan State University.  

Friday, February 7, 2014

Being Your Own Worst Enemy - Black "Community Organizers" Drive Out Trader Joe's

In Portland, Oregon a small organization called Portland African-American Leadership Forum decided to rally against a proposal from Trader Joe's to build a store in a building that has been empty for decades.  This construction would have been done by a minority owned company and would have provided more jobs once the store opened.
But no, we can't have that can we?  The organization (whose leadership don't actually live in the neighborhood that is in question) felt the construction project wasn't doing enough to help the "oppressed".  They want racially based jobs and small business loans as well as affordable housing.  Well, had you put up a new grocery store that gives people more options maybe you would get more foot traffic that creates more jobs.
What is really sad is that is this organization could care less for the people in this neighborhood, which largely wanted the store to open.  They wanted an empty lot to be filled with a new business.  The neighbors were hoping that would help keep the neighborhood safer and cleaner.
“All of my neighbors were excited to have Trader Joe’s come here and replace a lot that has always been empty,” said Nghi Tran. “It’s good quality for poor men.” Like many residents, Tran pins the blame on PAALF. “They don’t come to the neighborhood cleanups,” he said. “They don’t live here anymore.”
I fully understand arguments about gentrification.  It happens to many neighborhoods, especially in larger cities.  I have friend who lives in Brooklyn and it is happening in her neighborhood.  But the upside to it is that her neighborhood has gotten safer and it has prompted her to purchase their apartment instead of continuing to pay high rents that line someone else's pocket.
This is why poor neighborhoods stay poor, this is why so many people say that the poor blacks are their own worst enemy.  Because they do bone-headed things like this.  Yes working at Trader Joe's isn't going to make one a millionaire, but it will pay your bills.  It will give you benefits.  It will give your resume a boost.  It could potentially lead to management positions.  The good far outweighs the bad in this case scenario.
Basically what this "community organization" ended up doing is costing the people who could have gotten that job more unemployment.  The construction company likely lost thousands of dollars in profit, it may even have to lay people off for lack of work.  The neighborhood won't get a make over.  The people won't have an additional shopping option.  Trader Joe's can be quite economical on many items.  You can buy bananas for .19 each at the one near my house.  The cost didn't change when I moved hundreds of miles away either.  So I would assume this is a national price for them.  I don't know of another store that has better prices on nuts than Trader Joe's.
You just have to shake your head at these people.  What did they accomplish in the end?  Nothing.  They go back to their own neighborhoods that likely don't have buildings that have been empty for decades, having shopping options, and to heck with the people who actually have to live there.
The neighborhood is 25% black.  What about the other 75%?  They don't count?  This is what happens when you look at everything based on color.  Every bad thing that happens to you is because you are "oppressed".  The big scary man is out to get you.  The evil white man is keeping you down.
One can hope that people of this neighborhood see for themselves that far to many "black activists" are more worried about raising money for themselves, lining their own pockets and could care less about the people who actually live in these neighborhoods.   Trader Joe's will be just fine.  They will just open their store in a neighborhood that wants them there.  The people who live near the abandoned lot, well they have been living with that for decades now.  What is another ten years?

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Mental Illness Cuts Another Life Short - Phillip Seymour Hoffman Dead

Phillip Seymour Hoffman was found dead from overdosing on drugs Sunday morning.  He was found with a needle still in his arm.  On the surface it is easy to say "so what".  He was just another actor who had fame and fortune who threw it all away with the selfish use of drugs.  A theme that is all too common when these things happen.  

But the truth is his problems started long before he was either.  The truth also is that his battle with depression had been ongoing for most of his adult life.  He went to rehab for the first time in his early twenties right after college.  So his problems had nothing at all to do with being rich or famous.  His problems had to do with the fact he was human.  He had the same frailties that all the rest of us have.  We all have issues.  We all have things we wish could change, do differently, react differently to, be better.  

Mental illness isn't something to mess around with.  It isn't something that will just "go away" in time.  It is a medical condition, not unlike high blood pressure or diabetes, that requires medical attention.  In some cases it requires medication, in others talk therapy will work just fine.  But in either event it is a medical condition.  

I was watching Hannity on Fox News last night.  Something I rarely do, as he isn't one of my favorites.  Last night he reminded me of why.  He was showing pictures of the last few days and/or weeks of Mr. Seymour's life.  The pictures were from another "news" organization that I avoid like the plaque, TMZ.  It is nothing more than an exploitative gossip organization that seems to get off on the tragedies of others.  I am not sure how much money they paid for the pictures, and for my own mental well being I am better off not knowing.  

Have your opinions on what drug addicts are, that is fine.  If you believe they deserve what they get, OK.  I will get to how you are wrong about that shortly, but that is your opinion.  But remember, famous people have families as well.  He had a long time girlfriend and three young children; Cooper, Tallulah, and Willa.  The youngest being only five years old.  These young children just lost their father.  

I grew up with parent with a substance abuse problem.  It is certainly isn't the easiest of childhoods.  It is downright painful in fact.  Which his relapse back into to the addiction cycle may have been part of the reasons that he was separated from his long time girlfriend.  That isn't something that is really any of our business in any event.  That is between him, her, and their children.  But that doesn't make the love they felt for their father any less than that of your children towards you or your love towards your parents.  They deserve time to mourn in private without the people from the cheap seats chiming in on how he deserved what he got because he was a no good addict.  

As I have stated mental illness is just that, an illness.  It isn't as simple as going to the doctor, getting a blood test, and be given a treatment that will help control or cure it.  For many, such as myself, it is a life-long struggle that requires care.  Care from others and care from myself towards myself.  It is very easy to say well people like this are selfish when their lives end in a tragedy such as a drug overdose or suicide.  The reality is far different.  

Drugs and mental illness are very closely related.  As I said it requires care.  Sometimes that care comes in the form of self-medicating.  It becomes the way to feel better, just for a moment.  One moment in time that you don't feel bad.  You don't feel that the entire world is closing in around you.  For many, which I firmly believe that my father was one of these people, the stigma of mental illness is far worse than self-medicating.  Being a drunk, an IV drug user, a pill popper, a snorter or whatever else your drug of choice may be is the better option.  It is easier.  

Dealing with a mental illness is painful and it is work, very hard work in fact.  You are surrounded by a society that doesn't even make the attempt to understand what you are dealing with.  You are just labeled.  You may as well just be the addict.  

As a society it is well past time that we start dealing with these issues.  Virtually every mass shooting in this country has roots in mental illness.  Our jail and/or prison system contains a very large amount of mentally ill people, almost half in fact.  The number is estimated to be about 48%.  Nearly one-third of our homeless are mentally ill.  We spend the money on the back end housing and feeding these people in our jails and homeless shelters.  Yet we do very little to help them avoid those pitfalls and get the medical help that they need.  Just in terms of dollars and cents, it makes far more sense to spend that money on the front end.  Because we are spending it.  That can not be denied, at least not honestly.

We stigmatize them.  We tell ourselves that people like Mr. Hoffman was just a selfish man who had fame and fortune who was too weak to stay away from powerful drugs.  We tell ourselves that the parents of these young shooters should have done more to help their children.  We tell ourselves these things because it is easier than looking at ourselves and saying we too are to blame.  We could do more a society, we just would rather not because if we did, we may have to look at ourselves and our frailties.  We would have to look at our families and admit there may be a problem.  It is far easier this way.  We will just label them, call them weak.  Nothing to see here folks, just move along.  

Rest in Peace, Mr. Hoffman.  I hope that you rest easier than you lived.  Your talent will be missed.  

Monday, February 3, 2014

Yes Coca-Cola, America the Beautiful Should be Sung in English

It seems that every year after the Superbowl there is controversy about the commercials.  This year is not an exception.  An ad done by Coca-Cola is the one that is creating the most buzz this year.  The ad seemed harmless enough at the start.  I assume it was trying to convey that America is a melting pot of people from all over the world that come here.  The song America the Beautiful was being sung while showing all the difference ethnicities that make up our country.  The song was being sung by a variety of different voices in other languages.  Yes that was wrong.
I have blogged about this previously.  I am first generation.  Proudly so in fact.  I grew up in  a household that ate foods that may be considered different by a large swath of people in this country.  Especially when you consider lutefisk at Christmas time.  Believe me when I tell you, it isn't something that Americans widely embrace.  I LOVE it.  I don't really care that someone else thinks it is gross and unappetizing.  It says Christmas to me.  I put up my tree on December 13 as is tradition in my family's native country.  It is Lucia after all.  I eat a great deal of root vegetables and fish.  I love Scandinavian candies and cookies.
This was the first Christmas in almost two decades that I was able to go to the Scandinavian club for the Christmas party.  I not only enjoyed all the different foods I was able to get, I really enjoyed seeing the people who I grew up around.  I hadn't seen many of them since moving to DC almost  two decades ago.  Although I still would hear about the goings on in their lives through the people I had stayed in contact with.
People have this wrong-headed belief that those who believe that new immigrants should learn English are being told they can't have their own traditions.  That somehow in their home they are unable to keep their traditions alive.  Simply stupid, I know of no one who is saying that.  I do firmly believe that families should keep those things alive for their children.  Children should be taught where they come from.  They should be taught all the things that make their family and ancestors uniquely what they are.  That is part of you.  But that doesn't mean that you sing a national song that is uniquely American in another language.  Ask yourselves how that would go over in a country such as France.  Do you think that the French people would be happy to hear one of their national songs sung in another language?  Considering they have a board to help keep slang from entering their language, I think I am pretty safe in saying the answer to that question is no.
Should Russia, who is hosting the Olympics starting later this week, have their national songs sung in all the different languages from the countries that will be descending upon them?  The answer to that is no.  This is no different.  It isn't a swipe at immigrants or visitors to their country.
As I said, I grew up around immigrants.  Most of my childhood was spent with people who didn't speak English as their first language.  On any given holiday you didn't hear much English being spoken.  We celebrated the Fourth of July like most Americans did.  We had picnics, we ate hotdogs and hamburgers, we went and watched fireworks to celebrate something that was near and dear to the hearts of those immigrants.  The promise of the American Dream.  That they too could come to this country, work hard, and give their children a better future that they could have ever hoped for in their small town by the Lapland.  A town that had little hope at the time after the devastation of World War II.  Europe didn't recover as quickly as the U.S. did, or least not the part where my family comes from.  These people whose lives started around the time of the depression and the war didn't see many options in their hometowns.  They were brave enough to set sail to America (legally, by the way) and make something more for themselves and for their kids.  Some of those children were born there, others, like myself, were born here.
I have always looked at the way I grew up as the foundation to the believe system that I hold today.  These were people who came with very little.  As far as I know none of them knew the language when they got here.  They would depend on the others who arrived before them to help them with the transition.  Those that could speak English would act as interrupter to help them get their children enrolled in schools.  They would give them advice on jobs, housing, and getting themselves settled in their newly adopted land.  Every one of them learned English.  Why?  Because the entire point of coming here was to build a life for themselves and their kids.  If they wanted to do that they had to learn the language.
The ones that had a hard time adjusting went back to Finland.  That didn't happen often, but it did happen.  But the vast majority of them struggled to learn the language.  Some of the stories that I have heard over the years of the words they would get wrong are quite funny.  One woman was trying to show off her new language skills while have tea and cookies with her immigrant friends.  She came and put down a plate of homemade cookies down on the table and told everyone that she made the vegetables herself with a recipe from the "American" woman who employed her to clean her home.   A few that knew the language better than her laughed and told her about her mistake.  My dad never did get the proper pronunciation of any word that started with the J as that sound doesn't exist in his native language.  Considering my last name starts with one it always confused people to hear him say it.  Jello was Yellow in my house.  But they did the best that they could.  They helped each other to become Americanized, which was not something they viewed as a burden or an insult.  They wanted my generation to be Americans and be proud of our citizenship.  If I had a dime for every time I was told how lucky I was to be born in this country while I was growing, I would have quite the nest egg.
I am a person who does believe that being bilingual should be a goal for most people.  It does help you in the world that gets smaller and smaller all the time.  This isn't about learning other languages.  This isn't about not accepting the fact that America is a country of different origins that come together as one.  That is actually the point.  Out of Many, One.  Our national motto.  Language needs to be one of the unifiers.  The national songs also need to be one of the unifiers.  Those songs should be sung in English.  It is about bringing all those ethnic groups and people who have hailed from other native lands together to prosper as one country that is united.  When we stand together we are a far greater force.
There are things that are American to their core.  Our national songs must remain that way.  English, while not the official language (and should be), is the language of the land.  We start taking that away, we close our eyes while that is slowly being changed, we may as well give up on the thought that we can survive long-term as a country that is The United States of America.  Speak whatever language you want in your home.  Speak whatever language when you are out with fellow immigrants in public.  But when it comes time to stand as an American and sing the National Anthem or America the Beautiful, get out your English skills and do your adopted country proud.
So yes Coca-Cola you were wrong.  That commercial does nothing to actually help Americans come together.  Quite the contrary in fact.  It divides us and weakens us further. Just ask the European countries that are having problems dealing with the immigrants that are not assimilating well into their new adopted countries.  
Related Posts with Thumbnails
Google Analytics Alternative