Paradoxes

How does one define "sanity" or "healthy" while living in an "insane" and "unhealthy" world.

I would like to be a person who is completely free of capitalism; how do I achieve that living in a capitalistic society? I could perhaps go live somewhere and grow my own food and build my own house using tools I made for myself and sew my own clothes which I've woven myself if I can perhaps find a community in which I can barter with and for those things which each the other needs. Will they let me in for free or do I have to pay admittance thereby requiring capital? How do I get there? Drive? More money for vehicle and gas. Walk? How do I feed myself along the way? More money. Do they own the property outright? Taxes? More money. My point being, it may be doable but how do I get from here to there without, in some small part, participating in the capitalistic society in which I don't want to participate? The same paradoxes apply when discussing sex.

What is healthy sex? What is a healthy sexual self-image? Who decides? Based on what criteria and standards which are in turn defined by who? And of those definitions, how do I know which are truly healthy and which are derived from the definer's, possibly twisted possibly not, view of the world? How do I know my own definitions are healthy? Is BDSM healthy? Those who participate believe it is. As for me, it doesn't do much for me. Does that mean I'm not healthy? Does it mean they're not? There may be great minds out there who have that answer; I'm not one of them. And of the "great minds," are they healthy enough in their own sexuality to decide and define? Is it healthy to constantly look to get laid to the exclusion of any other activity? I've known men and women who go through their lives (or part of their lives) doing exactly that. I have other interests as well as sex. Who's "right"? Me or them? Both? Who decides?

My point being, how does one take information which we've internalized and examine that information without projecting our internalized information on the internalized information we're examining?

As to defining the opposite of sex-positive...why define an opposition to an already conflicted area of discussion? Instead of "either/or" why not discuss things as "both/and" and see where that leads us.

I'm curious as to why you would ask if I'm for "limiting rights" rather asking in what ways I can see expanding or increasing our rights and/or participation in the debate. My post dealt mostly with, what we refer to around here as "the law of unintended consequences" or "be careful what you wish for."

For example, speaking of government , women's rights activists wanted a famous woman to appear on U.S. currency; remember the Susan B. Anthony dollar? Well, we got what we wanted. Not quite how we wanted it, but we got it. Women's rights activists wanted the police to more seriously address issues of domestic violence and to protect women from men who abuse them. Now, in many places, when the police arrive at a domestic violence call, both parties are taken in. Women's rights activists wanted women to live safe lives away from their abuser. We now have women's shelters. The abuser stays in the home; the woman hides for her life leaving behind her home, job, friends and family. No-fault divorce so women could leave bad relationships. Say buh-bye to alimony and many forms of financial support for women who, many times, have no other form of financial support. Child custody was historically given to men as their "rights" of property. Women's rights activists fought against this and won the right of women to gain custody of their children. Single-parent households in which the single parent is a woman are traditionally one of the poorest demographics reported in the U.S. Again, unintended consequences. (note: broad brush applied for brevity)

So my point is, let's have all the ducks in a row before be start legislating or limiting or even defining what is or is not "right."

For starters, we live in a world in which we still have to define healthy sex as 'consensual'. Why is that? Why is 'consensual' not just a given, inherent in the definition itself? Perhaps it implies we need to step back and look at "relationships of power;" not just within the context of the sex act, but within our broader view. Why do I see healthy sex frequently defined as between consenting 'adults'? Is sex only healthy if one is an 'adult'? At what age, chronologically or otherwise, do we switch from child to adult? All of us identically? Girls the same as boys?

Oh, hell, for that matter is sex healthy? Some people view sex in any form at any time as unhealthy and/or sinful. (I think Paul's writing is the best/worst example of that.) Do they get a seat at the table? Or do we label them sick and repressed while they label us sick and perverted? Who's right? Who decides? The medical community from whence there once was a missive in which girls were warned their uterus would atrophy if they pursued a higher education? The psychiatric community from whence came the definition of homosexuality as a perversion and who once defined a slave who was unhappy being a slave as one who had a mental disorder (the name of which escapes me at this moment)? The church? Yeah, that's worked well. /sarcasm to the church part.

So let us all talk and debate. That's a big positive as far as I'm concerned. Sex is a topic of conversation that can be discussed in the light of day rather than hidden away while each person wonders if they're weird or stunted or repressed or...or...whatever. Let's have an old-fashioned, 60s type consciousness raising (yikes! I used 60s as old-fashioned! *sigh* Guess what that makes me?) Let's start talking again about what's what for us. You know, you've read them or heard them. "Wow, women can climax multiple times?!" "Wow, women can climax?!" "Is it only a climax when it's vaginal?" "Where is my vagina?" "Vagina, hell! Where's my clitoris?" "My what does what when I climax?!" "Oral?! Ewwwww." "Oral, mmmmm" "Is the 'g' spot real or did some guy make it up?"

So let's talk...again. Let's define, together with each other, for ourselves and for each other, what sexual health is, what healthy sex is. Then, when we've defined the myriad healthy sexual experiences and sexually healthy bodies, let's talk about what's "right" and what's "wrong". Some strippers love the attention and feel powerful using their bodies in that way. For some it's a soul-destroying way to make money. For others it's somewhere in between. Some women enjoy making money for providing sex; they feel powerful, beautiful and they can pay the rent or go on a cruise. Some are coerced or know no other way or feel unworthy of anything but. And others are somewhere in between. It's my job to define what "is" for me and, sometimes, it's my "job" to share what "is" for me with others to see if that's what "is" for them. And sometimes it's my job to listen or help those who are hurting or validate and celebrate those who aren't. And sometimes it's my job to just shut-up. Which I will do right after I note; as you may have noticed, I don't view this as a binary, on/off, black/white, yes/no, good/bad, issue - there's just too much "in-between" in there.

"Taming of the Shrew" syndrome?

It's a theory I'm playing around with. The premise of the play is to "tame" the "wild, unruly" sister who refuses to follow the rules and therefor upsets the "natural order," in this case, the "natural" order of which sister marries first.

The same idea plays out in "breaking" horses (sometimes associated more with girls than boys), "conquering" nature (frequently referred to as feminine), "conquering" nations (most of which are also referred to with...yep, feminine pronouns) and, well you get the gist and I bet many here could add more. It appears to be some sort of "rite of manhood" or some such.

It also goes along the same lines of criticisms in which feminists are told if they'd just "get" a "good man" they wouldn't be so "angry," read "sexually frustrated or frigid" in place of "anger."

So, on a smaller scale, we get guys trying to "prove" their "manhood" by "taming" the "shrew" they see in feminism and women who refuse to remain silent and play by the "rules" of "natural order."

My $0.02 (not adjusted to current dollar values) opinion.

THE OFFICIAL CENSORSHIP that never happened (D&G)

The moral of this story I'm about to tell you is, think, read, learn, think, question, think. Oh, and the next time you see, read, or hear someone griping our congresscritters don't come together in concert to make "demands," just remember, when they do, it's interpreted by many as OFFICIALLY sanctioned by the GOVERNMENT.

So, yesterday, all the articles began "A CONTROVERSIAL ad by fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana suggesting gang rape has been banned from Italian publications." One itty, bitty problem with that sentence. By whom had it been banned?

In a wonderful example of how to manipulate rhetoric (and people), most of the articles continued with "13 Italian senators and Equal Opportunity Minister Barbara Pollastrini demanded in a joint letter to the IAP that the ad be withdrawn from circulation."

Well, a "logical" conclusion might be - THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALLY BANNED AD! Or not.

Let's start at the bottom with the perception of government involvement. Ya, see, it's like this - Imagine a situation in which our congresscriters might come together to, oh, say "demand" an apology of say, oh, trent lott or even our most recent diva of slime, little miss repub mouth-piece annie. Might be nice, huh? However, even if it were to happen, it wouldn't be an official act of the government. It would however be a group of congresscritters coming together to lend their authority to the issue. See other examples such as repub congresscritters constant demands we hold our people accountable (Edward's bloggers, anyone?) - lot o' hot air - not much government sanction.

Next - on to the BANNED issue. Check this out - the IAP, who is the organization who is allegedly responsible for said ban is

(from their website) "The self-regulatory system was set up in Italy in 1963, the year in which the 7th National Conference on Advertising was held. IAP has been set up and funded by the advertising industry to apply code and rules regulating advertising content. IAP receives complaints for investigation, and in case the complaint is upheld, the advertiser will be requested to withdraw or amend the advertisement. (emphasis added)

So, an industry "watchdog" group formed and funded by the industry itself, received complaints and requested the ad to be withdrawn. The Italian Minister and the 13 Senators came together to lend their authority to the issue by "demanding" in a letter to the industry funded industry regulating group, that it "apply code rules and regulat(e) advertising content," i.e., their function.

Today, after "Italian union CGIL's textile workers' division had called for a boycott of Dolce & Gabbana products on International Womens' Day over the advert. (and) Italy's self-regulatory advertising body IAP called for the advertisement to be withdrawn..." Dolce & Gabbana bow to criticism and pull ad. Sounds suspiciously like an effort we have going here; except they actually have an industry watchdog group that, ya know, watches their industry? Censorship? Banned? Maybe. Government sanctioned censorship or banning? Not so much. With a hue and a cry and a threat to the bottom-line, D&G got some free publicity and paid a price.

Gotta love the free market.

You can't do that!

Yes, you can.

"Boycotting republican mouth-piece annie, is denying her right to free speech" - Nope.

"Expressing outrage, offense or anger at certain marketing tactics which causes them to be removed from the market is censorship/banning." - Nu, uh.

"Telling me you find my words insulting, offense, sexist, racist, etc., means you're trying to silence me. I've got the right to free speech." - er, missed the point and...nope.

I'm not buying it. Any of it. I've wrestled with First Amendment issues for a long time; from an activist's point of view. Example of several debates I've had with co-activists:

Question: Should our organization support another organization who wants to tell radio stations to remove ?
Answer: Er, no. If we do, who's next? Us? Probably.
Question: Does have the right to say that crap?
Answer: Er, yep.
Response: But, but, they're lying!
Answer: Yes, no, maybe. Prove it. Protected speech. They keep saying we're lying. We'd likely be next.
Result: Impasse.

Requisite disclaimer: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night. My reading of this is basic, so I presume, DUers with legal backgrounds will be more than happy to point out where I've gone wrong. If you want to debate the intricacies of case law, don't look to me; see first sentence in this disclaimer.


Part A. - Free Speech unabridged by Congress

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added) link to Findlaw, First Amendment

1. Congress...shall make no law - it says nothing about We, the People, nor does it mention or imply a right to be free of the peculiarities of "market forces."

2. It does not guarantee, explicitly or implicitly, a right to benefit, financially or otherwise, from said free speech.

3. Nor does it guarantee explicitly or implicitly, a right to a megaphone, a large arena, or a large audience which might influence "market forces."

3. It does not guarantee, explicitly or implicitly, a right to be free of accountability in the exercise of free speech including loss of financial benefit from previously mentioned "market forces."


Part B. - Free speech "abridged" by the U.S. Supreme Court

We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205 , 206 S., 25 Sup. Ct. 3. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439 , 31 S. Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919)

1. Falsely is the key word in the above citation. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, in some contexts, false speech is not necessarily protected, free speech. (There are more issues in this ruling, I'm trying to keep it simple without obfuscating. If my simplistic view causes truths to be obscured, it is through ignorance rather than intent to obscure. See opening disclaimer about my legal background. )

2. Causing a panic is the next phrase I find interesting. In some contexts (U.S. at war is the context of this ruling), false speech may not be a right.

So, here's how I "read" this issue (for it is different pieces of the same issue).

"Boycotting republican mouth-piece annie, is denying her right to free speech" - Nope. She can speak all she wants. She's not guaranteed a right to financially benefit from it. She's not guaranteed the right to an audience. Talk away.

"Expressing outrage, offense or anger at certain marketing tactics which causes them to be removed from the market is censorship/banning." - Nu, uh. You play for pay, you pay for how you play. I don't spend my money on companies that insult my intelligence or try to manipulate me. If I catch you at it, I'm going to respond accordingly. Lose my business or play your way. Market forces in action. I'm pretty sure businesses in the U.S. are not guaranteed a right to make money (though that may come *sigh*).

"Telling me you find my words insulting, offense, sexist, racist, etc., means you're trying to silence me. I've got the right to free speech. The Thought Police are here." - er, missed the point and...nope. I, speaking only for myself, am asking you to think about what you say, before you say it. I am asking you to expand your vocabulary beyond what you already have. I "came of age" at a time when a person's language skills were judged as an indication of their logic. That may be right or wrong, but that's what I learned. If your only response to a discussion is to resort to name-calling, then I presume you have no valid points to make about a topic. If the most creative language you use to describe another, is limited to school yard put downs and insults, then I presume your logic still rests back at the school yard. If I say, let's try to do this or look at this another way with different words and you hear "shut up," I'm not sure what that says about either of us; except we're not communicating at all. And finally, if you think pointing out objectionable language is some form of Thought Police activity, I have two questions for you. What other things do you think you should get to do with impunity? Seriously. If you get to speak (or act) without impunity and you insist on railing at people who would presume to call you on it, then why the hell aren't you giving the same pass to the little republican mouth-piece annie?


"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln (attrib.)

"There's a reason we've been given two eyes, two ears and only one mouth" - unattributed axion

DOD makes War on Peace Activists

The Department of War, as the DOD was once more appropriately

titled, has always had problems with peace activists. I imagine their files are full to overflowing with the "intel" they've collected over the decades.

Have you heard of the Spiderweb Chart? Here's the link to information about its existence http://womhist.binghamton.edu/wilpf/doc3.htm complete with interactive chart.

Decades of Indoctrination

Abortion is murder.

A woman finds herself pregnant and she has internalized this message. So now what, "I'm pro-choice but I believe abortion to be a sin/murder." And now we have an unwanted pregnancy with a moral dilemma she may not have faced prior to the indoctrination. This is why I worry about the "I'm pro-choice, but..." people.

This is what years of media framing have done to our collective conscious. Abortion clinics were once called women's health clinics or family planning clinics. We tried to get "pro-life" groups called anti-choice, very little success. OB/GYNs were called women's doctors or women's health care providers. Now, if they provide abortion they are called abortion doctors.

The framing has been successful.

Abortion before it was legal.

and pictures of what can happen when abortion is illegal.

The site is graphic! Proceed with caution if you go there to read the stories, which are also very graphic, and to view the site.

Life and Liberty for Women

Is it the intent of anti-abortion extremists to ban all abortions?

Of course.

And does their intent involve another method of banning abortions other than overturning Roe vs. Wade?

Yes.

One strategy is to ban abortion procedures one procedure at a time which would effectively make abortion illegal.

In a perfect world.

sex would not have a stigma attached to it.

Were that the case, then yes, by all means let's discuss what causes sexual excitement in an individual. Let's discover the different forms of excitement and categorize those which are sexual and those which are induced by violence. The commonalities between and the differences of. What does sex look like when it's not commodified, stigmatized and brutalized?

In my previous post, I started to post about the notion that "fear is excitement without the breath." Two distinct emotions with similar physiological responses. Few, I think, confuse one with the other. Yet we frequently confuse emotions induced by a brutal act with emotions induced by sex.

In a perfect world, perhaps we could discover the different forms of "sexual" excitement. In the meantime...sex is taboo unless selling something or for procreation, except for "studly" men and never for women and lets not even talk about same sex or racially "mixed." I'm not sure I, or anyone actually, can define "healthy" sex or "healthy" sexual arousal.

Until the time we have valid information we gets to work with whats we got. And what we got is a society in which women who are raped are frequently stigmatized, demonized and vilified. And what about men who are raped? We haven't even begun to deal with that; perhaps because that might start to show that rape is a violent crime, used by men (most rapists are male) as a means to humiliate, control, punish, destroy, dishonor and/or demoralize a person or persons. Think of the use of rape to dishonor families and demoralize the enemy during wartime.

I wish I had an answer. I wish we lived in a "perfect" world. I wish sex and sexuality were honored or sacred or healthy or good.

I wish.

Understanding Sexism

Understanding sexism, racism and other isms in the progressive/liberal communities.

The full book title for those of you who have not already read it is "Sacred Pleasure: sex, myth, and the politics of the body" by Riane Eisler; who, some of you know, also wrote "The Chalice and the Blade."

It has been my experience that many feminists cringe when confronted with anything related to spirituality and/or religion; with good cause given what has been done against/to women in the name of god and/or religion. I believe and I have believed since beginning my feminist research and career that we avoid the spiritual realm to our own detriment. It has been such an effective tool against us, we must understand its workings in order to defeat its efficacy. I've spent much of my feminist career examining religions and comparing mythologies of the sacred feminine and how many of those myths define what it is to be human and to define what it is to be female; usually different and conflicting pictures. As a matter of fact, I realized recently, that my feminist consciousness came about due to the fact that I questioned many of the tenets within the religion of my childhood; the catholic church.

Since this may be a book which would be overlooked by feminists due to its spiritual theme, I felt I should post about it here. Quite frankly, I hope that I'm wrong and that my experiences within the feminist community are now quaint anachronisms of the feminist movement past. :D

The theme throughout both "Chalice" and "Sacred Pleasure" is that of dominator versus partnership societies. "Sacred Pleasure" begins where "Chalice" left off and shows the inter-connectedness of dominator ideals as they impact the "nuclear" family, economic realities, the political sphere, the role of religion and myth-making, the role of media to promote approved mythology, and the ever present need and erotization of "sacred" violence or threat of violence in order to maintain dominator (patriarchal) systems of oppression over those defined as less than, weaker, less worthy, less god-like, i.e., "feminine." Her theories say that sexism against women is the "linchpin" upon which all isms are modeled. Sexism is the "template" for all forms of discrimination and hatred toward "out groups."

Her theories about dominator versus partnership help to explain sexism, racism, homophobia, and other anti-"other" behaviors and comments many here experience within our own progressive/liberal movement; from men and women.

I highly recommend you investigate both "Chalice" and "Sacred Pleasure" with an eye toward defining that which continues to "defeat" us and separate us as we continue to re-define the world in which we live and to see those dominator ideals which we and "ours" continue to propagate within our work toward peace, partnership and equality rather than violence, hatred and power-over.

We may have come a long way, but we have a long way still to go.

Let's make up our mind, shall we?

In a world in which politics = attainment/retainment of power...

and power = authoritarian rule over others, in other words, politics = attainment/retainment of authoritarian rule over others...yes repubs are better as that is their reality, their game; they have home field advantage, if you will. And, they move the goal and change the rules when and as it benefits them.

As progressives, liberals, Democrats, our reality, our game, is (was?) more about distribution of, or sharing power with rather than over, something closer to an egalitarian structure rather than and authoritarian structure.

As the current political system/structure exists, we do not have home field advantage and we're uncomfortable with the rules of the game and we can't keep track of the goal as it's always moving.

As long as our political system is about "winning" at all costs, about attaining/retaining authoritarian power over, as long as repubs define what "winning" is, as long as we continue to embrace our ideals over winning strategies, we will continue to "lose."

As a movement, not just a party, those of us on the left must decide if we want to "win" the political game or if we are in this to improve, make better our world. Why are we in this? What is our goal?

If our goal is to "win" authoritarian power over, then we need to quite slamming ourselves and our representatives for selling off pieces of their souls and ideals in order to acquire votes and appear "mainstream." We have to quit hobbling our representatives with ideological standards that lose votes. We have to quit applying a double standard to "our" reps which weakens their ability to acquire money and power in order to play by "their" rules.

If our goal is to make better, improve our world, then we have to stick with our high ideals and we have to change the political system and the "accepted norms" which are anti-survival and antithetical to sharing power with. We have to provide "the people," on both ends of the "political" spectrum, with the knowledge and education that there are options, that there are other ways in which to exercise power and that there are other forms of power than authoritarian power over.

I'm an outcast in my own party

The Democratic Party I grew up in actually put great value in the intellect of its people. I can remember being proud that I was part of a party that recognized intellect and gifted individuals as people to be admired; education was valued and higher education and rewards for excellence were to be aspired to.

Remember all the talk about how Kerry was so great in the debates compared to shrub and his mumbling, stumbling and (possibly) prompted mutterings. The Democrats were the "thinking man's" (and later, the "thinking woman's") party. JFK, RFK, MLK and today RFK, Jr., Randi Rhodes, Janine Garofalo and so many others. So many talented and gifted writers and actors and artists and sports figures; many of whom have discussed the problems they've confronted in their lives trying to conform to the dominant society's definition of normal.

The repubs were always labeling us "elitist" and "snobs" and "arrogant" because we value our gifts and the gifts of our members when all we were doing was trying to debate issues which included the nuanced and subtle language required to fully understand an issue rather than 30 second sound-bites of "black and white" pablum.

And now, because a group of those very same people within our party and on this board want to come together to discuss how those very same attacks and ideas influenced their lives, for good and ill, and I read with amazement the same words, "elitist," "snob" and "arrogant."

Well, okay, then...welcome to shrub's amerika. I'm so proud.

Education - It wasn't so blatant in the past

In the past, it was more covert:

In 1888, the Senate Committee on Education was getting jittery about the localized, non-standardized, non-mandatory form of education that was actually teaching children to read at advanced levels, to comprehend history, and, egads, to think for themselves. The committee's report stated, "We believe that education is one of the principal causes of discontent of late years manifesting itself among the laboring classes." (emphasis mine)

In his 1905 dissertation for Columbia Teachers College, Elwood Cubberly—the future Dean of Education at Stanford—wrote that schools should be factories "in which raw products, children, are to be shaped and formed into finished products...manufactured like nails, and the specifications for manufacturing will come from government and industry." (emphasis mine)

Several years later, President Woodrow Wilson would echo these sentiments in a speech to businessmen:

We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks. (emphasis mine)

While President of Harvard from 1933 to 1953, James Bryant Conant wrote that the change to a forced, rigid, potential-destroying educational system had been demanded by "certain industrialists and the innovative who were altering the nature of the industrial process." (emphasis mine)

Excerpts from an article stored at The Memory Hole: The Educational System Was Designed to Keep Us Uneducated and Docile discussing John Taylor Gatto's book, The Underground History of American Education: An Intimate Investigation into the Problem of Modern Schooling (New York: Oxford Village Press, 2001).

Bush (mis)Administration Supports Illegal Immigration

current (mis)administration's lack of enforcement

In 1999, under President Bill Clinton, the US government collected $3.69 million in fines from 890 companies for employing undocumented workers. In 2004, under President George Bush, the federal government collected $188,500 from 64 companies for such illegal employment practices. And in 2004, the Bush Administration levied NO fines for US companies employing undocumented workers. link

how businesses benefit and how illegal immigrants contribute to our economy

Having a sub-minimum wage working class in this country has the effect of benefiting business.

--snip--


"It creates a group of people do not demand, for the most part, do not demand their rights as American workers," San Miguel said.

--snip--

"The employers prefer to hire undocumented workers because they are more manageable," San Miguel said.

--snip--

University of Houston history professor John Hart said what counts is immigrants' contributions to the economy. He estimates undocumented laborers contribute $540 to $590 billion a year to the economy. link

businesses recruit illegal immigrants as cheap labor

His story is not unusual. A growing number of U.S. employers and migrants are tapping into an underground employment network that matches one with the other, often before the migrants leave home.

--snip--

As debate over immigration heats up in the United States, more and more U.S. companies in need of cheap labor are turning to undocumented employees to recruit friends and relatives back home, and to smugglers to find job seekers. link

Hemp plastics and hemp biofuel...

From an article in Popular Mechanics 1941...

Henry Ford in straw hat. Here is the auto Henry Ford "grew from the soil." Its plastic panels, with impact strength 10 times greater than steel, were made from flax, wheat, hemp, spruce pulp.

"After twelve years of research, the Ford Motor Company has completed an experimental automobile with a plastic body. Although its design takes advantage of the properties of plastics, the streamline car does not differ greatly in appearance from its steel
counterpart. The only steel in the hand-made body is found in the tubular welded frame on which are mounted 14 plastic panels, 3/16 inch thick. Composed of a mixture of farm crops and synthetic chemicals, the plastic is reported to withstand a blow 10 times as great as steel without denting. Even the Windows and windshield are of plastic. The total weight of the plastic car is about 2,000 pounds, compared with 3,000 pounds for a steel automobile of the same size. Although no hint has been given as to when plastic cars may go into production, the experimental model is pictured as a step toward materialization of Henry Ford's belief that some day he would "grow automobiles from the soil."

"When Henry Ford recently unveiled his plastic car, result of 12 years of research, he have the world a glimpse of the automobile of tomorrow, its tough panels molded under hydraulic pressure of 1,500 pounds per square inch from a recipe that calls for 70 percent of cellulose fibers from wheat straw, hemp, and sisal plus 30 percent resin binder. The only steel in the car is its tubular welded frame. The plastic car weighs a ton, 1,000 pounds lighter than a comparable steel car. Manufacturers are already talking of a low-priced plastic car to test the public's taste by 1943." images and text from 1941 article

It would have to be put forth, in my opinion, from an economic standpoint as a way to save the farmer. A money crop with, so rumor has it, has over 30,000 uses.

Given it's uses to create plastic, fuel, paper, cloth, etc. it would be up against the paper industry, oil companies, the cotton industry and the chemical companies who may have had much to do with its demise in the first place.

I think it's a wonderful idea and I think we should promote it as corporations taking food out of the mouths of farmers. The family farmer, rather than agribusiness conglomerates, could once again support their families while providing, again, for the American people.

My Uterus is not a Football

I'm tired of both major political parties in this country using my uterus as a political football. Howzabout we get some male body parts and start flinging them around for a while? Let's see what happens when we legislate the use of male body parts and their role in the reproductive cycle.

The Democrats want abortion "safe, legal and rare".

Howzabout we go in the order stated...1 - SAFE, 2 - LEGAL and save RARE for when 1 and 2 are established and in place.

And howzabout we add, we don't worry about rare until contraception is safe, legal, and available to any and all who want it.

And howzabout we add, we don't' worry about rare until every girl and boy and every woman and man in the U.S. is 100% literate about contraception, pregnancy, safe sex, and oh, I dunno, maybe even 100% literate about sex.

Quit using my uterus for your football!

"There but for the Grace of God, go I"

It's a fairly common turn of phrase; mostly spoken by people, whom I believe, would probably bite off their tongue before saying it if they understood what it is they just said.

What they said was

1) I have God's Grace (cool beans)
2) therefore I am doing well (however 'well' is defined)
3) They are not doing well (we've just passed judgment and found their circumstances don't conform to our standard of 'well')
4) therefore 'they' must not have God's Grace (uh, oh)
5) which sometimes means that 'they' are not a good person otherwise they would have God's Grace, wouldn't they?

Cliff notes version: they aren't a good person or they would have God's Grace and not be in such bad shape.

Most of us don't pay attention to what we say or how it can be interpreted; the recent Biden/Obama dust up comes to mind. We engage our mouths without having taken the time to think of the words and how they can be parsed.

I'm not sure if we're ignorant, we're lazy or we just don't care; or perhaps some combination thereof. Geez, they're only words, after all. Words aren't really that important or we would have, oh, I dunno, put the protection of them in U.S. Constitution or something. Oh wait! We did. Hmm, you think the framers knew that words have power?

In case you can't tell, I find it ironic that one of the most sacrosanct documents we have here in the U.S. recognizes the importance and power of speech, yet, "We, the People" will argue against that same importance and power of speech and the words which comprise speech when it means we have to examine our own speech. Words have power. Why else do we discuss Democrat versus Democratic? Why debate the meaning and the implication of 'liberal' and 'progressive'? All words have power; not just the ones we cherry-pick at our own convenience.

Oh, and context and tone matter. Ever had a parent tell you "don't speak to me in that tone of voice" or have you or anyone you know ever said "it's not what you said, it's how you said it"? Ever had someone tell you or have you ever told someone that what they said was 'inappropriate' or 'uncalled for'? I know, I know, it's "hard work" "watching what we say" and how we say it. Personally, I think it's worth it.

If it's important to understand the power of Democratic versus Democrat, why isn't it also important to understand the use and context of all words and speech? (asked in general, not of the OP)

Oh well, hey, ya know "there but for the Grace of God, go I."

How Universal Health Care was Destroyed in the U.S.

Much of the rw (and lw) spin currently floating about our heads came from this debate. Many of the phrases and attacks we hear (and innocently repeat) come from this time. Since many on DU have said 2000 was the year they began to pay attention to politics, I thought some of those same people might want to read about where some of the "common knowledge" which is wafting about in political debate, discourse and attack had its origins. This is a 3 pager, but I believe it is well worth the time to it takes to read it to have a more comprehensive understanding of the political process; and perhaps a scorecard of some of the players.

I've added emphasis for the parts that jumped out at me and also at the beginning of paragraphs for 'readability.' The four paragraph rule made this less impressive than if I'd been able to emphasize more, so please, take the time to read as I had to leave out some excruciatingly amazing information.

Enjoy. (how Freudian of me, I accidentally typed 'endjoy' instead of 'enjoy' before correcting it)

A Detailed Timeline of the Healthcare Debate portrayed in "The System" (From PBS, May, 1996)

Spring 1991 - Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, in a private discussion about long-term Republican political strategy, predicts that the "next great offensive of the Left," as he puts it, will be "socializing health care." Gingrich declares the need for hardline Republicans to begin positioning themselves now to keep Democrats from winning in the future.

--snip--

August 30, 1992 - Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller gets wind of Clinton's waning support for "pay-or-play" and fires off a memo arguing against any change of direction. He also tells Clinton that his statement that "Americans deserve or have a right to health care" might present problems for the candidate in the future. "Although many Americans may initially react positively to this statement," he writes, “over time it can make them uneasy. Before long they will be asking: How would we pay for all that care for all those people? Won't it require a huge new government bureaucracy?"

--snip--to Page 2--snip--

November 1, 1993 - Hillary Clinton launches a scathing attack against the insurance industry to counter the highly damaging "Harry and Louise" ads. She accuses the industry of greed and deliberately lying about the reform plan in order to protect its profits. She specifically denounces the ads' claim that the Clinton plan "limits choice." Rarely, if ever, has a First Lady publicly attacked any American industry or industry group -- and certainly never in such strong language and in such a furious manner. Her assault makes front-page newspaper stories, network TV news shows, and calls more attention to HIAA's role and message.

--snip--

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

--snip--Read the full account at the link above

More on the Power of Language

I have some theories as to why there is such hostility toward languages other than American English in the U.S. It's early morning here and I'm feeling "chatty," so I'm gonna spend a bit of time and type it out. Put your feet up, grab a cuppa and smoke 'em if ya got 'em. This is gonna be a doozie!

I say the hostility toward languages other than U.S. English is a combination of fear of others, fear of "scarcity," and cynical manipulation of those fears used as a diversion of blame.

First, I've not noticed the same hostility towards British English as there is against, say, Spanish. I don't notice a lot of Americans complaining about German in our schools, or Italian. French only recently came under fire after France refused to be part of the "coalition of the willing." And usually, any hostility toward a foreign language is followed by some epithet about "them damned foreigners!"

Well, you might say, there aren't a lot of German or Italian speaking people "inundating" our country, or even French speaking. But that's now. In our past, there were a lot of German, Italian, French and other foreign language speaking people coming to the U.S. During that time, there was also a "hue and cry" against "them damned foreigners!" There was even "tension" between the groups of foreigners. The Irish, when they came to the U.S. were reviled because they talked funny and they smelled funny and they were portrayed in the newspapers of the day as criminals and animals. As were the Chinese. In short, any group that "inundated" the U.S. has been labeled and despised by the "native" population. I think a lot of people forget or never learned this part of U.S. history, at least here in the U.S. We have a long history of hostility toward those who look or sound "different."

Now, add to that some fear and a perception that resources are finite; that is, there is only so much money to go around, only so much land, only so many jobs available to the "native" population who has a "Manifest Destiny" to achieve the "American Dream" for themselves and their "posterity" and sprinkle in a little public relations campaign promoting "conspicuous consumption" and we have one helluva a tool to control and manipulate "the unwashed masses."

I don't mean to make this sound like a conspiracy of people got together and planned an agenda to control and manipulate. I will argue, however, that it can be a convenient coincidence which can easily be exploited by whomever might benefit from making land more dear through scarcity. By whomever might benefit from keeping control of wages and jobs. By whomever might benefit from keeping our history from us. By whomever might benefit from our ignorance. Who benefits from lower wages? Who benefits from job "scarcity?" Who benefits if we and our children don't understand "the markets" and how money works? Who benefits from our ignorance, fear of scarcity, fear of and hostility towards others? Of those who benefit, who can influence our "common knowledge?"

A conspiracy? Who knows. Convenient and easily exploitable? Definitely. I remember in the months leading up to 9/11, there were stories beginning to come out about airlines that were heading for bankruptcy. "Fortunately" for them, they were able to exploit the horror of 9/11 to receive financial support. I know it sounds awful, I also know what I remember reading and hearing just before and just after 9/11. Do I think they caused 9/11? Nu, uh, no way. Do I think they'd use it to prop up their bottom-line? Oh, yeah. Several casinos in Vegas used 9/11 as their reason for laying off 25,000 employees within 2 weeks of the attack. The following first quarter reports showed those same casinos making record profits and their CEOs received substantial bonuses. Nike just made a large donation to some schools local to them. Just good neighbors? Training ground for future Nike employees with a future cost/benefit to their bottom-line? Large corporations donate buildings and wings of schools and hospitals. Altruism? Influence? Exploitation? Who knows.

So, to get back to the question of language. (Thought I'd forgot, huh? ) Which is more profitable for a business or land owners or even our government which increasingly profits from business monies? A population well and comfortably paid with benefits to secure their path to the "American Dream" for them and their "posterity?" Or, a population who will work for pittance wages with few or no benefits? Do businesses admit they could pay their employees more if only the CEO would take a cut in pay and benefits? Or do they blame low wages on "them damned foreigners" who work for their "competition" and artificially deflate the going wage so they can't pay more or they'll lose some of their profits? Profits, which by the way, are those monies left over after a business has met all their financial obligations; NOT the monies needed to stay in business. Do businesses go out of business because their profits are down; or does it just mean the CEO has to keep his car another year rather than buying the latest? And who's to blame? Why, "them damned foreigners." How can you tell who "them damned foreigners" are? They don't speak English, dammit!

How the Right Wing will Attack Nancy Pelosi, Madam Speaker

Every "mistake" she makes will be analyzed ad nauseum; every success will be glossed over or framed as a loss.

Every move she makes will be analyzed down to dots on 'i's and crosses on 't's.

Pictures will show her in the worst light. She will look "tired," "angry" or small.

Her choices for office furniture, clothes, hairstyle, makeup and diet will be discussed ad nauseum.

There will be comments about her "looking tired" in order to suggest the job is too much for her.

Anytime she has a disagreement with another woman it will be called a "cat-fight" or words to invoke the image of cat-fight.

Her tone of voice will be frequently described as angry, shrill, hysterical or grating rather than passionate, firm, etc.

If she is persistent on an issue she will be described as being stubborn, pugnacious, unbending, unyielding rather than focused, persistent, determined, etc.

If she does compromise she'll be labeled weak, inefficient, wishy-washy, etc.

And, finally, she will be responsible for single-handedly "feminizing" the Democratic Party and liberals.

14 Warning Signs of Fascism

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute.

5. Domestic spying. Secret surveillance of and gathering dossiers on its own citizens.

6. A controlled mass media. Whether directly or indirectly, these regimes exercised power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite.

7. Obsession with national security. National security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.”

9. Power of corporations protected. The corporate structure was a way to not only ensure military production, but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal.

12. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism.

14. Fraudulent elections. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

The Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11

I'm not gonna sit still for it!

The fact that you used every filthy, misogynistic stereotype known to women in order to slam a vitriol spewing, right wing bag of pus, was way too much for me. I had to comment. Hate her message? Say so. Sling misogynistic stereotypes used to keep girls and women in their place at her? Not gonna sit still for it.

I'll call her "Ann'. Every high school had one. She went steady with every boy on every sports team. She also went steady with every boy on the debate team, the chess team, and the detention room. There were also rumors of her going steady with a few of the male teachers.

She never really did but all the teenage boys sitting around in the locker room having a mental circle jerk sure made sure to say they had so they wouldn't feel left out. The ones who were most pissed off about her turning them down even said she'd "done it with the math teacher".

Everybody liked Ann because she would do anything. At one point, Ann was the most popular girl in school. She played the flame to every boy's audition for the the role of 'moth'. By Junior year, even your parents knew of Ann.

She rarely if ever really did the things she was accused of. But, boy, them teenage boys were gonna "get them some 'o that" and they'd crucify her for the fact all the other boys lied to them about it. It was called being a "prick tease" back in those days. Or even a "dyke". What're they calling those girls these days?

But into Senior year, Ann was finding it harder and harder to get dates. The boys had moved on to more serious social lives. Ann, rather than being the object of everyone's fantasies and desires, was little more than a locker room joke. Or an object lesson.

Ann never did go to the prom. Nobody wanted to take her.

Yep, the nascent neo-cons had done quite a number on the poor girl's good name. Everyone was convinced she was nothing but a sleazy, skanky, whore. Of course the little monsters were still throwing her name around their daily locker room circle jerk.

She was seen, a few years after high school, at a few of the bachelor parties given for her former 'steadies'. No one really wanted to confirm that she was there, or why.

Too bad she came from a small community, huh? Years of being treated and called a whore and all she could get were a couple of gigs here and there playing "mind fuck" with some of those former "steadies" who'd lied about her all those years. Fortunately, she'd learned to sock away the bucks made off her previous enemies.

Its kinda sad. When she was old enough, she started hanging out in bars. She had a reputation for short dresses and outrageous antics. It was again kind of like high school, but with older 'boys' now. With jobs. Ann took to promoting whoever her current flame was. Working to make him, in the eyes of others, more than he was. She'd say and do damned near anything to enhance the image of her latest beau.

Yeah, still thinking there might actually be a couple of good men out there. Unfortunately for her, she still kept meeting the "circle jerk club". Sad what a woman will do to herself to be "accepted" into a group. She even went so far as to try to win over one of the circle jerks by being the "woman behind the man". It didn't work of course. Those kind of men only want eye candy and whores anyway. She was traded in on the newest model.

But then it was found out she was taking money to do this. The boys were paying her and using her. And then moving on and settling down with a 'nice girl'.

And she was laughing all the way to the bank after exploiting the jerks' own teenage fantasies. Watching as their "nice girls" turned into "religious" whackos because their new husbands only knew to treat women as whores.

Ann took to wearing shorter and shorter skirts. She was rumored to have an eating disorder as she became obsessed with her image.

She lost weight working all those weird hours and putting herself through college to make something of herself. People who remembered "her past" constantly found fault with anything and everything she did. Even the fact she stayed her high school weight was fodder for snarky remarks. So, she kept her nose to the grindstone and made a point of wearing shorter and shorter skirts to really piss off the now, full grown neocons with their Valium-taking, wacked out wives and their beer guts and juvenile delinquent kids.

Soon enough, everyone in her social circle was ...... somewhere else. Ann was all alone. Her only loves? Chardonnay and cigarettes.

Whatever happened to Ann? Maybe someone can find her on one of those high school reunion web sites .........

Did she ever make something of herself?

She moved on, far from her old neighborhood to get away from the narrow minded circle jerks, and became successful as a lawyer helping women whose husbands beat them bloody, working for women's rights in the U.S. and helping to educate the public about sex, sex education and the teenage male habit of demonizing girls who "don't put out."

She lives in a modest home with her husband who, as a teenager, thought the locker room circle jerks were asinine. She's raising her daughter and her son to respect women and to understand healthy sex and healthy relationships.

The neocon assholes of her childhood are regularly spewing filth on the nightly news about pot smoking, oversexed, "wine loving" elitist liberals.

One especially has become infamous. An old "enemy" of our girl who hated her with a passion because she'd seen our girl as prettier, smarter and more popular than she; and more importantly, because our girl got out of this narrow minded hell hole while your Ann was stuck married to one of the more "popular" circle jerks. The enemy of our girl is named Ann, too.

I am one of many women whose been called many of the things you listed by men who blamed me because they were jerks.