An Internet Feminist's Manifesta on Language

A resource for online feminists

Whereas words and language have power to create meaning and ideas which, in turn, have power to create words and language;

Whereas each individual on this planet has the right to create their own identity within the larger group;

Whereas each individual's power within a group contributes to the power of the group which, in turn, contributes to the power of the individual;

And

Whereas all things female/feminine have been defined and codified throughout history as "other," lesser, weaker, "sinful," dangerous, repulsive, dirty, evil, petty, unworthy, pathological;

And

Whereas the leftist/progressive/liberal/Democratic ideals purport to be inclusive, diverse, welcoming, all-encompassing and empowering;

Whereas the group can only be as strong as its weakest member;

Whereas we find the following words, phrases, language and ideas with their subsequent subtext, to be antithetical to and destructive of leftist/progressive/liberal/Democratic ideals;

Therefore

We, encourage our fellow netizens to cease the use of and to cultivate their knowledge of the offensive, repressive, and dis-empowering nature of sexist, abusive, oppressive, regressive and destructive language, words, phrases and ideas; such as defined in the categories below:


A. Derogatory Language

1. "Cat fight" - usually used to describe passionate debate or argument between 2 or more women; used to degrade the import of the discussion as being unworthy of serious thought or concern. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things female are petty)

2. "Bitch" - the context and tone in which it is used and to what purpose, can be extremely negative and offensive. That it may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when it is used against males it is precisely because of its anti-female associated meanings that it is considered such a powerful insult. (associated phrases include "bitch slap," "make someone his/her/their bitch," etc.) (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, mean, etc.)

3. "Whore" - see "bitch" and include the added double standard applied to women and our sexuality in which our sexuality equates with our inherent character and that character is deemed evil, dirty, immoral, etc. That it may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when it is used against males it is precisely because of its anti-female associated meanings that it is considered such a powerful insult. (associated phrases include "media whore," "whoring for fill in the name.") (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, mean, etc.)

4. "Slut" - see "bitch" and "whore." other examples of anti-female epithets in this vein include: "Bi-Yach," "Ho," "skank" and "douche bag." That they may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when they are used against males it is precisely because of their anti-female associated meanings that they considered such a powerful insults. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, mean, etc.)

5."Pussy" - equates anything less than a sociologically defined masculinity as weak therefore bad, lesser, unworthy, not tough enough, in short, not "male" enough. Implies that only "masculine" traits are desired or the norm. Accepts the idea that to ascribe anything woman/female-like to a male is an insult. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, dirty, etc.)

6. "Sissy" - see "Pussy" also includes such "insults" as "cry/throw/hit like a girl" (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, dirty, etc.)

7. "Cunt" - derogatory slang for woman's genitalia usually used as an insult. Objectifies not only individual women, but also women as a class, by reducing them to their body parts. Implies that women's genitalia are somehow evil, dirty, immoral, etc. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, dirty, etc.)


B. Exploiting Rape to Vilify Women

1. "She asked for it" - not always stated outright, frequently implied. All statements place responsibility for the actions of a rapist on the shoulders of the women/girls who men rape. (see G. The Bandwagon Argument for why this section says specifically "men rape women.")

• 1.a. "she shouldn't have gotten drunk/high," - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men are incapable of controlling their "monstrous sexual appetites" and will "fuck anything" (denying the humanity of women who men rape) and also makes an assertion that men have no responsibility nor will take responsibility for their own "monstrous sexual appetites."


• 1.b. "she was dressed like a ho/skank/whore/slut, etc." - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men are incapable of controlling their "monstrous sexual appetites" and holds women responsible for controlling men's "monstrous sexual appetites" even though men, apparently, can't.


• 1.c. "she shouldn't have been there in the first place," or its inverse, "what was she doing there in the first place?" - perpetuates the illusion that all rape is "stranger rape," and since men are incapable of controlling their "monstrous sexual appetites," women "should" live their lives avoiding the places in which our lives take place; such as, the privacy of our own homes; at a party with friends whom we trust; the parking lot at the grocery store or work or a club or...; the playground with the kids; walking to and from work, school, the bus, the train; riding the bus or train or driving in our car; camping; family outings or family gatherings; or...anyplace that is not inside the illusionary safety of our homes.


• 1.d. "Women/girls need to take responsibility for their safety," - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that women have the sole responsibility to control men's "monstrous sexual appetites" and that we forget that responsibility at our peril


• 1.e. "If she had been smart..." or its inverse "If she hadn't been so stupid..." - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men rape only "stupid/slutty/whorish" women and that all women who men rape are "stupid/slutty/whorish."

2. "Boys will be boys" - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men begin to lose control over their "monstrous sexual appetites" at or near puberty and that they have no responsibility to learn such control.

3. "Date rape isn't as bad as 'violent rape'" - not always stated outright, frequently implied. Perpetuates the destructive and false idea that rape is just sex that got a "little out of hand." Denies and obfuscates the violently emotional toll rape has on women/girls regardless of presence or absence of physical evidence. Implies that women's emotional health is less important than not only her physical health, but in the "grand scheme of things."

4. "She's lying" or its inverse "the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty (implies "she's lying")" - perpetuates the assumption that sensational accusations of "false reports" of rape that appear in the corporate media, a) are false rather then "unprovable" in "a court of law," b) are indicative of the actual ratio of false to "provable" reports of rape, c) that the ratio is accurate in the number of "false" accusations to actual number of rapes d) that all acts of rape are reported and provable in a court of law and e) "proof" that women are a bunch of "gold-digging, money grubbing, liars". Further insults women by denying our credibility on a board whose members will "judge, try and 'hang'" a republican or a pedophile with never a though of "innocent until proven guilty" and whose members protest loudly and vociferously that the "media cannot be trusted!" Perpetuates the idea, that when a woman files a charge of rape, she is "guilty until proven raped."

5. Rape as "comedy" material; a source of jokes and amusement of the "it'll never happen (hasn't happened) to me so it's not important," and the "if it's inevitable, just lay back and enjoy it" crowds - used to deny the violent emotional and/or physical impact rape has on a girl's/woman's "sense of Self" and her, forever changed, place in the world. Denies and obfuscates that When a man rapes a woman or girl, he has not perpetrated just one violent act against one woman. Rape can irreparably change the entire course of a woman's life and those whose lives intersect hers. Thereby illuminating the "attraction" of using rape as a weapon of war. Rape is NOT funny.

(sexist, abusive, destructive: because the statements above remove all responsibility from rapists.)


C. Language Used to Glorify a Perverted and Anti-survival Form of "Masculinity"

1. "He's got balls!" - validates the pervasive and destructive and false idea that only those with the proper physiological equipment are capable of showing great strength or power and frequently used to promote an ideal in which, since women have no balls women are therefore handicapped in a world which values strength and power. Also validates and perpetuates the idea that "might makes right," in and of itself an anti-survival idea. Can also be used in a "positive" (destructive but favorable) manner, such as "She's got balls!" (sexist: because it it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things feminine are weak and pathological; destructive: because it endorses and perpetuates a perverted and anti-survival form of hyper-"masculinity.")

2. "Be a man!" - usually used in discussions in which a poster has questioned a perverted or anti-survival form of "masculinity" and implies that the poster is in some way weak or less than and therefore to be disregarded, ridiculed, or ignored. Can also be used in a "positive" (destructive but favorable) manner, such as "She's the man!" (sexist: because it it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things feminine are weak and pathological; destructive: because it endorses and perpetuates a perverted and anti-survival form of hyper-"masculinity.")


D. Objectification

1. Comments about women's appearance/dress - used as a weapon of attack against any woman with whom the poster has a difference of opinion. Used to attack the messenger rather than debating the message. Used to obfuscate the merit (or lack thereof) of the words, ideas, actions or contributions to society made by the object of such remarks. Objectifies not only individual women, but also women as a class, by reducing them to their body parts. Implies that said body parts are the standard by which women are measured. Sometimes referred to as the "fuckability quotient." (Examples include: "I'd do her," "Check out insert description of female body part," "She's hot!" "She's ugly (or some other adjective to define less-than-beautiful)", "Progressive women are hotter than conservative women (or some variation thereof)," "Can you believe she'd wear something like that?" "She dresses like a whore/slut/skank/etc." "She's had a boob job." "What a cow!") (sexist: because it objectifies women and it assumes and validates the idea that women are permanently on a runway to be constantly critiqued as sexual objects, no matter what context they are acting in; abusive: because it attempts to silence the message and the messenger.)

• 1.a. "She slept her way to the top" - used to promote the idea that women are incapable of succeeding without using their bodies and sex. Denies that the targeted woman is intelligent, talented or skillful in anything other than the "womanly arts" of seduction and/or sex. That it may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when it is used against males it is precisely because of its anti-female associated meanings that it is considered such a powerful insult.(the same stereotype when used in the context of marriage is "gold digger" and "trophy wife.")

E. Gender Identity Attacks

1. "Mann Coulter" – the implications of this phrase are that:

• 1.a. - because a woman looks a certain way, i.e., not "feminine" enough, she is not a "real woman;"


• 1.a.1. - that there is something pathological about not being a "real woman;"


• 1.b. - that a person's personality and/or pathology is tied to their appearance and or sex/gender;


• 1.c. - that there is something pathological with a person if their physiology does not match their gender identification;


• 1.c.1. - and that subsequently there is something pathological about transgendered people;


• 1.d. - That there is something pathological about a man wanting to be a woman.

(sexist: because it it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things feminine are bad, evil, dirty, weak, pathological, etc.)


F. Pompous Negation of Critiques of the Systems of Patriarchy and Authoritarianism

1. "Can't you take a joke?" - usually used in response to an individual's concern that a comment or post was offensive or sexist; implies that the individual concerned does not have the right to express their concern or that their concern is in some manner petty (other forms include: "lighten up," "get over yourself," "get a life," "not this again," "oh, you're one of those feminazis/militant feminists/radical feminists," "word police," "PC Police," etc.) {special note: many women on this board hear these phrases with the word "bitch" implied, for example; "geez, bitch, can't you take a joke?" or "jesus, bitch, get over yourself" and so on.} (abusive: because the concerned individual is being denied their own perspective)

2. "Male bashing" - usually used in response to a post in which an individual had the audacity to criticize men/males/boys and/or their actions. A form of hyperbole and duplicitous rhetoric in which the accuser purposely muddles a critique of behaviors and symptoms of a system of patriarchy with a critique of all men as individuals because the original poster did not weaken their statement or argument by including confusing and muddying conditional adjectives and statements such as "some" men/males/boys or "I know that it's not all men/males/boys, but..." or "with all due respect to the men/males/boys on this board" and so on. (abusive: because it is used to derail the original content of the post, i.e., deny or obfuscate the OP's message.)


G. The Bandwagon Argument

1. "It happens to men, too" - used as a conditional to legitimize an act which is perpetrated by men against women in significantly higher numbers than than when "it happens to men, too." Frequently used to imply that feminists are uncaring or "selfish" or that a poster is denying what is a legitimate claim though it is not the topic of discussion. Used to dilute or derail the debate. An in-depth view of the insidious nature of this remark, see Why I Write Not of Men posted by White Bear at Bitch Ph.D..

2. "Woman do it, too" - used as a conditional to legitimize an act which is perpetrated by men against women in significantly higher numbers than than when "women do it, too." Frequently used to imply that feminists are uncaring or "selfish" or that a poster is denying what is a legitimate claim though it is not the topic of discussion. Used to dilute or derail the debate.

3. "I'm a humanist" - used to promote the idea that feminists and feminism are elitist, narrowly focused, or an exclusive club and that feminist ideals are nothing more than a selfish attempt by a few women and men to promote an agenda which will take rights for themselves at a cost to others' rights. Denies and obscures the comprehensive nature of feminism and the very existence of patriarchal oppression.

4. "All feminists are/believe/do/think fill in negative stereotype" - implies a form of "groupthink," or "hive mentality" within the feminist movement as though the women and men of the feminist movement are incapable of independent thought. Sometimes used to catapult anti-feminist propaganda or an anti-feminist writer as indicative of the "feminist" movement. {editor's note: Anyone who thinks "all feminists think alike" has obviously never been in a room with 2 or more feminists in their life.}

5. "Not all men do/think/act fill in the blank" - used when a woman or man has the "audacity" to make a declarative statement rather than placating the reader with conditional words such as "some," "not all, but" "with all due respect," and so on, when writing about traits, actions, ideals which have traditionally been associated with a perverted and anti-survival for of "masculinity." It is usually an attempt to deny the existence of patriarchal systems of domination and their horrible impact on women and men. (abusive: because it is used to divert and/or silence the message.)

• G.A. Jumping Off the Bandwagon


• "I'm not a feminist, but..." - usually followed by a list of women's rights for which many feminists, female and male, now and throughout history have fought, were imprisoned, have had their lives destroyed, and for which, some have died. Dishonors the long history of struggle from which we, women and men, have benefited. Usually used to distance herself from the myths that feminists are: humorless (F.1.), frigid (H.1.), manhating and/or angry (H.4.) or pathological (listed throughout). Corollaries include: "I'm a feminist, but I love/like porn/sex/men" (subtext: but not one of "those" feminists (H.1., H.2., H.4., G.4., F.2. and throughout), use by women of destructive and sexist language because "I'm not that sensitive," "It's just words," "I'm not like that," "It doesn't mean anything," "I've never taken it that way," etc. usually as an attempt to distance the poster from "those women" and to show how "unlike" "those women" the poster is. Validates the destructive idea that language has NO power. Validates the usage of destructive language since "women do it, too" (G.2.). Denies and dishonors the long history of struggle as mentioned above.

H. Anti-Feminist Propaganda

The intentional and the unintentional use of anti-feminist rhetoric used to "catapult the propaganda" that falsely portrays feminists and feminism in a negative, sometimes pathological, light. Many of the falsehoods listed below have been repeated so frequently for so long they have become "common knowledge;" though they have unfortunately become common, they are not knowledge as they are falsehoods created to discredit feminists and feminist ideals.

1. "Feminists want to outlaw porn" - usually used in a debate to define feminists as "frigid," anti-sex, "man haters," cold, sexually repressed and so on. It is also used on occasion to equate feminists with neo-con religious fundamentalists as an added insult. Will sometimes include an incomplete quote of Catherine MacKinnon's anti-pornography legislation. "1. "Pornography" means the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words" and does not include the rest of the line which states: "that also includes one or more of the following:" followed by a list of depictions of women in pornography with which many might actually agree. Click here for the full text of Mackinnon's definition of pornography within the anti-pornography legislation which she proposed.

2. "Feminists believe all sex is rape" - implies a form of "groupthink," or "hive mentality" within the feminist movement as though the women and men of the feminist movement are incapable of independent thought. "MacKinnon claims the first reference... surfaced in the October 1986 issue of Playboy. ..., the statement (which had previously been attached to feminist Andrea Dworkin) was made up by the pornography industry in an attempt to undermine her credibility. It became inextricably linked with MacKinnon's name after she began working with Dworkin in the early 1980s to write model anti-pornography laws. Full story.

3. "Womens libbers burned their bras" -

• 3.a. the use of the word "libbers," as was the case with the use of the word "suffragette" in its time, was devised by the media and women's rights opponents of the day, to ridicule and denigrate women who spoke out in an "uppity," "strident," "shrill" and "unlady-like" manner. "Dyke," "man-hater," "lesbian," "castrating bitch," "ice queen," and "dragon lady" are other examples of epithets which are used against feminists. {special note: most feminists today have healed their own homophobia and are no longer "cowed" by the use of "dyke," "lesbian," and *wink*wink*"Oh, you're one of those."}


• 3.b. "the bra burning incident" - "That's a myth. It was the time of draft-card burning, and some smart headline writer decided to call it a 'bra burning' because it sounded insulting to the then-new women's movement. We only threw a bra symbolically in a trash can." (emphasis added) Full story.

4. "Abortion clinic," "Abortion doctor" - the subtext of these phrases is that all women's health clinics and all OB/GYNs associated with them are "killing babies." They are "intellectually dishonest" and obfuscate the wide range of "non-controversial" services provided by many women's health care clinics and our doctors. "Saving babies" is then used to justify closing clinics which provide vital "women's" health services such as, contraception, emergency contraception, family planning advice, sex education, pap smears and/or other gynecological exams, breast exams, etc.

5. "Feminists are 'manhaters'" or its corollary, "Feminists are 'angry'" and the placating versions "I don't hate men, but..," "I love men, but..." - used to imply that if the poster in question, would only "learn to love men," read that as "get laid" or "get a man," rather than "hating men" or "being angry" read that as "instead of being a frigid bitch," the poster would "be cured of her pathology," read that as "remember her 'place' as chattel." Used as a tactic to imply the poster is pathological because she is "angry" or because she "hates men." The men and women who accuse a poster of "hating men" because the poster has criticized or commented on a sexist or abusive post, could perhaps put their defensive outrage in perspective by reading any version of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto to see what angry, manhating looks like. Its author, Valerie Solanas, took her angry, manhating to its logical and extreme conclusion as depicted in I Shot Andy Warhol.

Power Over: the Opportunistic Virus

The common element destroying our planet is Power Over. The most horrifically impelling tool of Power Over is money.

Money is power. Money is the power to control ones life, ones existence, and today in our world, to control others. Money is the power to control truth. Money is the tool of the Power Over mongers.

Power Over is the drive within some people to control and to have. The drive to acquire Power Over is of such intensity they will let nothing, no one, nor any altruistic trend interfere with the onward march of acquisition and control. No person, no ideological paradigm, no sense of the common good is sacred to the Power Over mongers. They will do, say, or destroy anything or anyone in their path. They will do so without a moment's thought as to the eventual impact on the planet or its people.

They will exploit any situation to their advantage. Death and destruction is just another opportunity to obtain more Power Over. A moment's weakness is all it takes. As an opportunistic virus invades the human body during lowered resistance, so too do the Power Over mongers move in to exploit any weakened condition. Famine, death, destruction, war are the energies on which they feed.

We as concerned inhabitants of this planet are left with the task of battling the Power Over mongers on thousands of fronts; under attack as we are from all sides. Our environment, civil rights, peace on earth, religious rights, human rights, human decency, animal rights and the list goes on and on, are constantly under attack by those who would exploit anything of use to them in their quest for Power Over.

We run around as so many ants after an olive has been dropped in our midst disrupting our orderly existence and movement. We split into fragments of movements to fight environmental destruction, warmongering, repressive laws, famine, flood, exploitation of workers, women, children, animals and our planet. We are a handful here and there, running and fighting on all fronts at once, fighting the Power Over mongers and fighting each other. As we fight, they forge ahead destructively and terribly. They march over us as so much detritus to be shoved aside discarded and abandoned, with no more thought than we give the colony of ants under our feet. We are nothing to them but tools to be exploited.

This is a reminder of what we are up against. This is a reminder to carry on the good fight. This is a caution that we not become as they; sterile, cruel, disconnected and unconcerned; power crazed. This is a call to unite as we battle for our very existence against the opportunistic virus of Power Over.

Stealth Campaigns in the Democratic Party

"Democrats for Life" uses the same rhetoric as many rabid anti-choice organizations, e.g. pro-life versus pro-abortion, unborn rather than zygote or fetus, pro-choice="radical", stem cells are people, and wrap their message in religious terms.

If all pro-life people shunned the Democratic party, who would then speak up for the unborn?

--snip--

It is too dangerous to allow a group with that much power to be totally under the influence of the pro-abortion mentality....serve as a buffer against the more radical elements in the party.

--snip--

The party has sent out such a strong and pervasive pro-abortion message that many pro-life people have felt silenced or alienated.

link accessed from this page

This is the speech presented by Dr. Lois Kerschen, President of Democrats for Life of Texas, on January 25, 1997 to the Greater Austin Right to Life Rally. The rally was held on the steps of the Capitol in Austin after a walk by an estimated 1500 Pro-Life supporters.

They are anti-stem cell research:

Because embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) doesn't have the starkness of other pro-life issues, some people may not realize what an urgent issue it is. My wife, a former AIDS and cancer-research technician at Johns Hopkins University, put it simply: When it comes to ESCR, "the problem isn't the cells, it's the person you have to kill to get the cells."

--snip--

You have to be able to see and understand that your debate partners really are trying to do what they think is right, and appreciate that they might not have been presented the truth in a way they can understand. You have to love them as Jesus did when He wept for them—to see them with His compassion when He said they were “like sheep without a shepherd” (Mk 6:34).

link accessed from this page

Supporters of the 95 10 initiative include, wow, a token woman beyond the ED, /sarcasm who'd have guessed? /sarcasm:

Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH)

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI)

Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN)

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN)

Congressman Jerry Costello (D-IL)

Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN)

Dan McConchie, Americans United for Life

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr. Assistant National Director of LEARN (Life education and resource network)

Tom Atwood, President and CEO, National Council on Adoption

Dr. Randy Brinson, Redeem the Vote

State Representative Mark Miloscia (D-WA)

Kurt Entsminger, President, CareNet - who stands to profit quite handsomely from "Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number/National Public Awareness Program - Enact an advertising campaign in each state to provide a toll free number that will direct a woman to organizations that provide support services for pregnant women who want to carry their children to term and/or direct women to adoption centers. Organizations that qualify for the referral from the toll-free hotline must be non-profit, tax exempt organizations that do not provide abortion referral services."

Through our phone and internet services, we have been able to educate men and women on the risks of abortion as well as provide them with resources and information about abortion alternatives. But more importantly, through the Option Line and the work of affiliate centers, these men and women have been exposed to the message of the Gospel, and by the grace of God, we have seen many make decisions for Christ. Care Net's "Option Line"

CareNet also opposes emergency contraception for women.

The 95 10 initiative also presents, as fact, that abortion (has) adverse side effects to a woman's health in spite of the fact that there is no valid proof of detrimental effects to a woman's health, mental or physical despite years of anti-choice activists who insist on proving otherwise.

Still, it is fair to say that neither the weight of the scientific evidence to date nor the observable reality of 33 years of legal abortion in the United States comports with the idea that having an abortion is any more dangerous to a woman's long-term mental (or physical, read the article) health than delivering and parenting a child that she did not intend to have or placing a baby for adoption.

So, to summarize to this point,

- the federally funded "informational" hot-line is bait-and-switch and removes abortion from the choices offered
- women's "right to know" will include false and disproved information
- college women will be given the option (bribed?) to receive help to carry a pregnancy to term but removes abortion from her federally funded choices
- requires women's clinics to provide "adoption referral information" to further complicate a difficult decision during a stressful time and is part of a collection of trap laws which are used "to subject abortion providers to burdensome restrictions that are not applied to other medical professionals"
- provide additionally confusing and distressing information should a woman choose to undergo prenatal genetic testing; will they cover a second opinion? Is this another trap law?
- federally funding to "collect accurate data on why women choose abortions"?! There are several studies already available; here's one. Why do they need more studies and research? Do they not like the answers they've received to date?


This initiative is a "beard". The more I research the more it looks like the anti-choice, pro-fetus, anti-women people have infiltrated the Democratic Party. /sarcasm Gee, what a surprise. /sarcasm

R.I.P. Democracy

More images and links to protest at http://www.bushblackout.com/

Happy Holidays and Peace on Earth

International Co-operative Alliance

We're fighting a war with spit wads

and our government won't provide spit.

Bulletproof vests Iraq-bound

Mims mother collects nearly 500 [bulletproof vests] to help protect Marine son's unit

BY TOM BREEN
FLORIDA TODAY

Joanne Homer would do anything for her son, the Marine.

Joanne Homer of the Brevard County Sheriff’s Department hands Susan Johnson some bulletproof vests. Central Florida law enforcement agencies donated the vests to Homer’s son, Marine Sgt. Jessie Holton and his fellow Marines, who will be deployed to Iraq in January. Image by Rik Jesse, FLORIDA TODAY
And the Mims mom is doing it now -- trying to keep him from harm by helping gather nearly 500 bulletproof vests for the troops in his unit to use to protect the Humvees they'll ride through the war zone in Iraq.

Similar concerns about a lack of armored protection for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are growing.

On Wednesday, a Tennessee National Guard soldier in Kuwait asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld why "we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor vehicles."

More at Florida Today

It's just Business

"It's nothing personal." "It's just business." Usually said in response to an action which were it done by an individual would be at the least frowned upon or at the most criminal.

Business has no morals, no ethics, no reponsibility to society or the planet. It's just business. It's role is to make a profit.

If that means another business has to be shut down, so be it. If that means employees are paid slave wages, so be it. If that means employees have to access health care through state welfare agencies supplemented by U.S. taxpayers, so be it. If that means parts of the planet are destroyed, so be it. It's just business.

If banks are closed and people lose their retirement and life-time savings, so be it. If a business files bankruptcy causing its employees to lose their retirement and life-time savings, so be it. If a business wants to sell a product which harms or kills people, so be it. It's just business. It's nothing personal.

If businesses want to destroy culture or economies, so be it. It's just business. And while we're at it, let's give them a tax break for destroying cultures, economies, individual's lives and health, for creating working poor and costing U.S. taxpayers billions in tax money. It's just business. It's nothing personal.

Wal-Mart vs. the Pyramids

World Aids Day - December 1, 2004

World Aids Day - December 1, 2004

Coping with a life full of pain

These types of stories just break my heart. I will never understand a mind set that puts man-made morals before human compassion.


"...Then came the night, a year later, when Raich steered her wheelchair into the bedroom of her sobbing 9-year-old daughter, who asked her, "Why can't you do the things that other mommies do?''

Partially paralyzed, in constant pain from multiple disorders and desperate for help after trying nearly three dozen doctor-prescribed medications, the 30-year-old woman, a product of a conservative upbringing that made her recoil from illegal drugs, decided pot "might be my last shot.''

It worked. Raich regained her appetite, felt less pain, got out of her wheelchair 18 months later and embarked on a career of advocacy for herself and other patients that has led her to the U.S. Supreme Court..."

The rest of the story is here

Big Brother - Watching You in the U.S.

More and more people in the great old U.S. of A. are coming to the realization that our government may not be the innocuous, bumbling giant we've all grown to love and cherish.

The federal government of the U.S. in partnership, or perhaps, under influence from corporate capitalism, is taking us closer to the day when the individual right to privacy will no longer exist; even in theory.

"Discovery Times Channel Explores Private and Government Surveillance in America in SOMEONE'S WATCHING"

... "In SOMEONE'S WATCHING, viewers go inside this "brave new world" of
surveillance in America: a world in which they can be watched, tracked and
listened to at home, at work, by the government and even by private database
companies. This documentary takes a hard look at the balancing act in America
between competing interests of convenience, security and privacy." ...

Discovery Times Channel Explores Private and Government Surveillance in America in SOMEONE'S WATCHING

You will know us by our warts

What would feminists look like and what would feminists do if we fit the image the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich presented of us?

Well, for starters, we'd be dragging pregnant women off the streets into "abortion clinics" and forcing them to have abortions. Or, we'd be dragging pregnant women, mid-delivery, out of hospitals and into ritual rooms and immediately sacrificing their newborn babies in the name of Satan. Then we'd eat the pieces parts of the newly murdered babies.

We'd be out on the streets grabbing small children and dragging them into other ritual rooms where we'd indoctrinate them into our perverse life styles of homosexuality and/or sexual orgies.

We'd be dragging men in off the streets and castrating them or cutting off their penises.

We'd be practicing strange rites of witchcraft where all the above mentioned would be incorporated into strange and hellish rites of debauchery and murder, mayhem and maiming.

Oh yeah, and we'd ride broomsticks, have warts all over, and scare the hell out of all and a sundry who looked at us.

Have you seen any of us, yet? You'll know when you do. Just look for the warts.

Selling Car Wrecks for Fun and Profit

Normalizing aberrant behavior for fun and profit.

Humans have a morbid fascination with car wrecks, train wrecks, plane wrecks. We pull over to the side of the road to see what is happening. Watching for blood and gore. Grimacing and feeling somehow better because it's them and not us.

Corporate media reports on these wrecks. Presents the occurrences as a normal part of everyday life. Normalizing the abnormal, normalizing the obscene. To the point that most Americans believe the abnormal has become the norm, that the absurd is common. So much so that events of neighbor helping neighbor are seen as aberrant rather than common occurrence. Especially if you know someone whose sister knows someone whose hairdresser knows someone whose brother has met someone who actually did that.

Then there are the urban myths. Shared by one and all whose morbid fascination with things obscene and weird for entertainment and warning. The modern day boogey man for adults. Did you hear the one about the guy who went on a blind date only to awake in the morning in a bathtub full of ice with one kidney missing?

And there is enough aberrant behavior in the world to make it seem as though these types of things happening could possibly be true. Unless of course, the thing that's happened is just "too good to be true."

Have you heard that? So and so is "too good to be true." Have you ever heard anyone ever say someone was "too bad to be true?" "That's just too awful to have actually happened." No matter how outrageous or horrific, the human capacity to believe the worst of anyone or anything far outweighs any normal skepticism that might occur would the event be something altruistic or kind. Did you hear about the kid that found $1M dollars and found and returned it to the owners? Isn't he just too good to be true? Did you hear about the guy that lured homosexual teenagers to his apartment, killed them, then chopped them up into pieces and ate them? Isn't that just the most horrific thing you've ever heard? How awful. Tell me more.

Corporate media uses this part of the human psyche's fascination with the morbid and obscene to market the nightly news. Or the 24 hour news. And even the daily talk shows. Not only reporting on the car wrecks by the side of the rode, but diverting traffic to them for all to see. And when that's not enough, erecting blazing neon signs over the wreck to attract traffic from other parts of the freeway to come and see the car wreck. And during sweeps week, making sure the neon signs are placed in such a way to ensure additional wrecks to add to the gore and blood and gruesome sights. All for fun and profit.

The bottom line; marketing the news as entertainment. Blood, gore, and the destruction of human lives for the benefit of all mankind that we might feel relieved that "there but for the grace of God, go I."

I wonder how long until the deviant behavior marketed by corporate media has become so common place and so ho hum that they'll be forced to start marketing stories about good works by neighbors for neighbors. How long until it's considered more unusual to help thy neighbor and love thy neighbor so that corporate media will begin to market stories about the good works of people for people for fun and profit.