Let's Rein In The Women

See Tweet Here

Today on A.M. Joy, Jehmu Greene said that the man who said he wants to 'rein women in' was Sam Ronan, who is running to lead the DNC. His entire narrative is a tiresome rehashing of the fauxgressive talking points during and after the primaries. He believes the left can be reformed if it determines that Sanders' entire mantra be embraced. The poor forgotten white man is still a central point. No, he never mentions the white man, he just says the failure of the left is having forgotten the working class. This, of course, was the same talking point Sanders used to draw the same misguided correlation.

The bullshit projected there and adopted by the media on the left is painful. I remember vividly last summer when Hillary Clinton was holding rallies in Pennsylvania about her jobs plans and MSNBC broke into her speech to see if she was replying to the fact that Trump had started a fight with Khizr Khan on Twitter. When they determined that what she was talking about wasn't remotely tabloidesque, they cut away from her rally speech and went back to the punditry banter over all manner of nonsense wholly unimportant to the working class voters, and everyone else.

Hillary Clinton had an amazing platform for the working class to raise wages, lower taxes, protect our unions, strengthen small businesses, and every other damned thing you would expect from a REAL Progressive platform. Thoughtfully compare that to Sanders' platform which was focused more on outlining the issues American workers face than defining any actual plans (or means of funding them) for progress.

Clinton traveled the country giving Americans her vision for our future and how to move forward. The fact that every American didn't make it to a rally to hear that vision is not her failing, nor theirs. It is the failure of both the media who found ad buys more enticing than our democracy, and the fauxgressives who spent their time demanding both sides were rotten and only Saint Bernard could save the world. Don't fucking get me started ... there is little chance I will ever stop.

ANYWAY .... Back to my point.

The same people who project the image of the forgotten working class white man are the same people who remind us that 53% of white women voted for Trump. Pause and reflect. If a majority of white women aren't voting as Democrats, isn't it just slightly indicative of an issue speaking to women? And why might that be? I would say if a fauxgressive who is seeking to lead the party spends time thinking out loud that women need to be reined in, we have found a good place to start our reflection.

Of course real Progressives want to move women forward. Of course real Progressives believe in income equality. Of course real Progressives believe a woman should have the ONLY say in her reproductive and family planning choices. But if our party can be hijacked by a group proudly led by a man who writes rape fantasies and can dismiss them as being satirical while ignoring women during the entire campaign, maybe the party has a lot more work to do for the women who are being condemned for not hearing the message. It sounds to me like they probably have. The message they hear is the message our society projects - women need to shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. Women have all of the rights they need. And of course, women have destroyed the Democratic party. Do you think that's a stretch? Name me one Democrat who was maligned over the last two years who also has a cock. Thanks.

I will conclude my tirade by reminding you that most women on the left are what I call 'universal mothers.' You don't have to be a mother to be a universal mother. I sincerely believe it is inherent. Universal mothers are those of us who see every issue as a personal issue because they hit all of our children. We demand that the myriad concerns of true Progressives (those which the fauxgressives demand have been too distracting and alienated the white men) are all personal to us. We are fighting for LGBTQ, Black Lives Matter, immigrants, Muslims, campus rape victims, education, disability rights, gun control, mental health coverage, climate change, health care reform, criminal justice reform, etc. These are the issues that America's children face. And America's children are all our children.

If someone wants to lead the Democratic party to a place where 53% of white women aren't voting against their own interests, it would be in the interest of the Democratic leadership to remind themselves, so they can project that reminder to American women, that ALL OF THESE ISSUES are a sincere and beloved facet of our party. If our leadership can spend time denouncing them, they can hardly spend their time reminding American women why these issues are so important.

Trust me, the white man will be just fine. I'm sure having had unchecked privilege throughout our entire history is very comforting and the idea of allowing others to move into the foreground is unsettling. The objective of a REAL Progressive movement would consider it their responsibility to better explain the genuine necessity of inclusion instead of finding ways to counter it. No single aspect of our platform should be hindered to make anyone else more comfortable. And this woman is here to tell you, any motherfucker who believes women need to be reined in needs to exit stage right. Immediately.


Kiss Kiss...

Mean Progressive

(White) Boys Will Be Boys

Back in the day, growing up in Northeast Ohio, my brother had the same pellet gun that Tamir Rice had. One day, when we were 12, he was playing with my cousins in the parking lot between our family home and family business. They were creating a cops and robbers scene so perfect that, even if Scorsese had filmed it, no one would have believed. It ended with my brother running into the garage and hitting the button for the garage door to come down. As he rounded back to the front of the garage and the door was almost to the ground, he rolled on his back and fired at my cousin. Before the door hit the cement there was a scream from the parking lot. He'd shot my cousin. In the nuts.

My family were well off. My father and grandfather held prominent positions in our small town and were well respected. Even though the neighbor called the police, no charges were filed and no one was held accountable. No one pointed fingers at my parents and blamed them for having raised a child who would play with a toy gun. This was simply a case of boys being boys. My cousin wasn't badly injured and he has his own children now (I feel certain that more than one person has to be asking that question).

While remaining in NE Ohio, fast forward 30 years: We are now an open-carry state where the law requires neither a license nor a registration for firearms. Ohio does, however, have a duty to inform law which requires gun owners to inform law enforcement that they are carrying a weapon immediately upon confrontation. That law, of course, would mean that the person in question would have to be actually carrying a weapon and they would have an opportunity to speak a single word before the officers decided to open fire on them.

We have all seen the video. We saw where a kid was playing with a toy gun and pretending it was real. We have been told that the officers thought he looked older than 12. That is meant to offer absolution to the officer who shot Tamir Rice because his being older would make him a threat. Why? They didn't even talk to him. Not only did they not take the time to determine if he was actually carrying a weapon or how old he was (where if he were the grown man they said he seemed, he may have been legally open carrying a gun), but there was never a determination that he had broken any laws. Ohio allows people to open carry their weapons. He was not in conflict with anyone. He was literally standing there doing NOTHING. And to some, apparently, that is quite enough:

This bullshit comment showed up on my Facebook page today in reaction to the shirt I designed for Black Lives Matter showing dozens of names of people of color murdered. I've heard it all before. This is the shit some white people tell themselves to remain in their little happy world where everything is right and their white supremacy is the standard. I realize that a lot of people don't understand that this is what their subconscious is doing, but I can't allow them that freedom, either. You don't get to rewrite histories or biographies to make yourself feel better. How many people are presently feeling good about themselves saying, "Yeah. Well they were killed because they were criminals or ran their mouth"? How can you not then allow a revelation that neither of those things warrant being murdered?

In America, if you commit a crime you are arrested, given a court hearing and a judge or jury determines your guilt. If found guilty, you are then sentenced. Few crimes warrant death. Asshole.

Running your mouth? Really? Anyone who knows me will tell you that all of my life I have 'run my mouth' giving no consideration to the power or position of its recipient. Fortunately, however, I was white while I was doing it.

She concludes her nonsensical list of reasons to murder people with Tamir Rice and his fake gun. She doesn't expand on her thought process (I generously attribute one to her, which is probably unnecessary) but it seems to tell me that children with fake guns should be murdered without question or due process. Thank goodness my brother had that white skin or who knows what might have happened to him. Cunt.

Apparently, unless a police officer screams the words, "I'm killing you for your blackness," while shooting, there will never be a way to make some people understand. I honestly don't want to share the planet with people who are this shallow, selfish and willfully ignorant. If you have thought things similar to the comment pictured above or nodded your head when someone else was saying these things, I compel you to take this test. If you get to the end of it and do not see the problem with your thinking, you are hopelessly devoid of humanity. But that means my words are of no consequence to you. So I offer you the most abject shame and hope you have little time left in this word with no influence over the next generation.

Honestly, we are settling for this society. Until every rational voice demands coherence out of those who embrace hate and ignorance while completely dismissing lives lost to people of color, we will remain right here. Until our 'leadership' believes that the majority of Americans see the truths behind these killings, they will not do anything. They don't have to. A very precious few of them do anything unless it helps them get reelected. Please stand up. Please shout for justice. Please don't wait for the next innocent child to end up dead for engaging in his childhood. PLEASE.


Finally, please READ AND SIGN THIS PETITION.

Thank you.

Regressive Women's Health

Right. Go to Rand Paul's website and you will promptly be invited to donate to his campaign. This is the message he chose to send to Americans who want him to lead us all. It never surprises me when they flaunt their arrogance and their ignorance. It pisses me off, though. I, too, believe in the rights of men. However, I'm partial to this new fangled way of thinking where everyone should have an opportunity to the same rights.

I'm sure many in the Regressive Party will condemn me for playing semantics. True, it is beneath me. But that is the only weapon they seem to have. So I will gladly point out the fact that any noun at all could have filled that space. He could've used "American's," "Humans," "Everyone's," but he didn't.

Rand Paul uses only semantics here to explain his new position against choice. For any who are not sure what he is talking about, don't feel bad, he isn't either. You see, no woman will walk into a hospital the day before she is due to give birth and get an abortion. The Regressive Party has been using this nonsense to promote the miseducation of people who can't (won't) think for themselves. Again, critical thinking is a gift some of us are not born with. This talking point is meant to diminish a woman's right to choose an abortion after 20 weeks. They never allow the conversation to go beyond rhetoric, of course, because 20 weeks is about the time that technology can detect birth defects. And their argument also completely belies the fact that when a doctor determines a late-term abortion is necessary, it is to spare the woman's life or health. As much as we all enjoy our second class citizen status, maybe we could let up just a bit when it is actually talking about life and death?

Because their use of semantics is so pervasive in all of their talking points, it makes it too hard to point them out every day so I usually give them a pass. Today, however, Paul gets none. He is, at present, passionately compelling those in the Senate to vote for a bill he proposed to cut all funding for Planned Parenthood next month.

The videos which have been leaked lately are meant to be fantastical. They are only shocking to people who lack the capacity for reason and who are anti-choice. Those are the people who were already going to vote for Rand Paul. This will end up being another waste of his rhetoric and time in the Senate because it will not garner a single new vote. He may, however, be able to lose some. Every woman on the right who believes in choice will be given a chance to hear about these attempts every time we take the time to explain them. There are many on the right who believe in choice. The Regressives call them "RINOs" (Republican in Name Only) and don't really even consider them a part of their party.

Unfortunately, many of the RINOs don't pay enough attention to realize what has become of their party. They are traditional Republicans who have always walked into the voting booth, checked the Rs and gone home. They feel content having done their civic duty and will show up again in 4 years to do the same. Because they don't pay much attention, however, they don't realize that their party has been hijacked by the Regressives and they don't realize that the ideals which were once held as sincerely radical in their party are now those which define its platform.

If these RINOs only hear bits and pieces of what is going on in the country from people at work or at family functions, they might be horrified to hear the rumors about Planned Parenthood. Its pretty easy to set them straight and let them know that the tapes were profoundly altered and then ask them to think about what the actual takeaway from the hysteria is without any outside influence. Then remind these RINOs that Planned Parenthood is an essential need for many women throughout the nation who don't have access to family planning and gynecological care in rural areas. Remind them of the many resources they offer to millions of Americans. Finally, remind them that the Senate is voting to cut all of their federal funding because they oppose abortion. Don't forget to add in this discussion that #1 abortion is legal and #2 Planned Parenthood receives no federal funding for abortions #3 tissue donation should be a revolutionary way to create live-saving medical advancements, not create controversy. The RINOs are the ones on the right who aren't sheep. Thoughtful discourse is possible with them.

We have time to make sure they are aware. Each of us. One at a time. And we also have time to call our Senators and tell them what we plan to do. And tell them we will be making sure to keep track of how they vote on Planned Parenthood next month.

Don't be confused by their wordplay. There really is a genuine War on Women presently being waged by the Regressives. And it really is time that we fight back.

Scott Walker and His Welfare Queens

We have Scott Walker's idol, Ronald Reagan, to thank for the term "Welfare Queen." He offered a depiction of a woman who was taking advantage of the system to malign an entire subset of society. All of the poor who received aid were condemned to a hypothetical representative that would've been impossible for anyone to duplicate. The woman Reagan cited did exist, but she was not the typical welfare recipient. She was an actual con artist. Her entire scheme was to get over on anyone in any way she could. She took advantage of many people and many government agencies.

While campaigning for the presidency, Reagan failed to mention all of the other government agencies she managed to take advantage of. Why would he not mention the rest? Because he was a dick. Because he didn't need her for that. He only needed a means to vilify the poor and create a narrative that would have Americans thinking twice about their tax dollars going to help them. The funny thing, which happens to not be funny at all, is that, as with all Republican approaches to societal issues, the idea of fixing a broken system that could be taken advantage of was not the issue. He did not talk about how to make the system more productive in its means of caring for the nations poor. The issue was to condemn those who needed it. And, for the Regressive Party, this has never changed.

Earlier this year, Kansas passed a law saying that welfare recipients cannot spend their money on cruise ships. Well holy shit! That must happen all of the time, right? I mean, either that or Kansas has gone so far out of its way to cure all of its ills that it is only left to mend the problem of assistance dollars being spent in the Caribbean. The focus of this new bill was meant to limit the amount a recipient can spend in one day to $25. This, obviously, makes it quite hard to pay rent and utilities. But I will explain what it does that is not so obvious. When I was on welfare, I didn't have a car most of the time. I had to take a bus wherever I went. Once a month I took a cab to get my groceries. I could hardly bring them all home on the bus, and a cab ride was not free. For the bulk of the time I was receiving aid, my daughter was in diapers. They are not cheap and (sorry Bubba) my baby girl had a very sensitive bottom so we had to buy only a specific (expensive) brand or she would have a terrible rash. With this new proposal, we would have to take a cab to the grocery store several times a month to do our shopping as you simply cannot, even with coupons and a wonderful sale, get a months worth of diapers with $25 along with everything else one needs to feed their family. And I had a family of two. I don't even want to try to imagine how many trips it would take to get the necessities for a family of five or six.

Honestly! Who believes this shit?

This year Maine, Missouri and dear Scott Walker's state of Wisconsin have been working on laws demanding that food stamps cannot be used to buy junk food or expensive items, like steak and lobster. Of course, this is all rhetoric in an attempt to get on the news to remind their lowly base that they need to hate the poor and completely ignore what other items their 'representatives' have on the agenda. The legislators know full well that they would never be able to maintain this even if they manage to pass these bills. First they would have to define junk food. Then they would have to deal with the lawsuits from companies who wanted to contend that their food should not be classified as unhealthy with so many studies defining subjectivities. Then they would have to back off because they were only doing it to rile up morons, anyway.

Lets just pretend that they were able to limit what a family can spend their food allowances on, okay? So we, my daughter and I, were a normal American family. Regardless of how much money we contributed to stimulating the economy, we were a normal, yet small, family. Every year on Audrey's birthday she would get to pick whatever she wanted for dinner. So if my child wanted me to make her a steak that would be unacceptable? And if I wanted to make her a birthday cake, which would be deemed junk food, that should not be allowed? And every month when my period comes I am not allowed to have a candy bar? I dare any legislator to come to my house when I'm on my period and tell me I can't have chocolate. They will leave fearing for their life. I'm pretty sure that's not even an exaggeration. Are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only available to those who can afford it? Shit!

Actual Welfare Queen and my Princess :)

This myth created by Reagan, and perpetuated by Scott Walker and the Republicans, of what it is like to live on welfare is ridiculous. You do not get enough money to go on a cruise. You do not get enough food stamps to buy expensive (or healthy) food items. No one is having a wonderful life from the benefits this assistance offers them. It creates so many limitations that it is very hard to get off of welfare, too. With maybe $600 coming in a month you would be hard pressed to save anything. But if you could find a way to do it, you are not allowed. If you have money set aside, you do not need assistance. But if you do not set money aside, there is no way to get off of assistance without something pretty miraculous happening. Its an ugly circle. Americans who are desperate to condemn others to inflate their own pathetic lives seem unwilling to realize that there really are not enough bootstraps to go around.

Walker was so desperate to condemn those on welfare to drug testing that last year he said he would take it all the way to "a fight with the federal government and in court." Right. So the testing has already proven to be a profound waste of tax payer dollars in other states and now he thinks it is a justifiable use of tax dollars to pay for a lawsuit? This is the same man whose new budget just offered $250 million to millionaires and billionaires. It is curious that those who so excitedly support Scott and his plans are so easily distracted by his games. Wait. No. It isn't, is it? They have been playing the same game since Reagan invented it and designed the rules: Create distractions where the lowest individuals can feel better about themselves by giving them someone to malign and blame for their lot in life so they don't notice that on the other side they are literally giving away the money that could be used to create jobs in these communities to help those in need to the richest among us and their corporations. It's brilliant. Because their base are so stupid.

In a capitalist society that is woefully unbalanced, some aspect of that society will have to be weakened by that imbalance. The poor are those to suffer. Always. The Supreme Court has determined, through its Citizens United ruling, that campaign funding can be limitless and secretive, allowing the wealthiest Americans and corporations to control the message to the voters, and thus those who are elected. The poor can't afford a lobby, let alone the capacity to purchase their very own Congress.

Today the right has managed to convince its followers that Jesus Christ, himself, would condemn those who need assistance in caring for their families. That contention has even been made in a Congressional hearing on food stamps while (mis)quoting a passage from Thessalonians. Well, if St. Ronnie wasn't enough to convince them, Jesus certainly should be. How desperate can one person be for a scapegoat to allow the Bible to be rewritten to justify not helping the poor?

While you are being asked to hate the poor and imagine them sitting around having a lavish lifestyle, ask yourself how likely that really is. Realize, first, that many receiving aid are actually working. But they don't make enough money on their minimum wage job (the wage your representatives would like to eliminate altogether) to come anywhere near the poverty line. Ask yourself about the people you know who have fallen on hard times and needed assistance. Why do you allow them a pass? You don't know every family in America receiving aid. And you don't know what brought them to this place. No one aspires to end up on welfare. And no one wants to imagine continuing to have to give their children the lives welfare affords them.

Why not take a good ten minutes out of your desperate need to hold contempt for everyone you have been told to hate and quietly reflect as a human being why the politicians you support are asking you to hate the group who cost America a third of the amount lost annually by tax breaks offered to those who are meant to be stimulating our economy? And realize, you cannot condemn this economy that you attribute as a failure of President Obama, but then state that the economy is doing so well as to warrant tax breaks to those who are stimulating it so successfully.

Also, quietly ask yourself about the necessity of drug testing those receiving aid beyond the obvious profound waste of those taxpayer dollars you are always so mindful about. The basic tenet of this incredible belief system is that the poor should not be receiving federal dollars if those dollars are being used to buy drugs instead of feed their families. So the obvious first question is, "So the children won't get fed?" Which begs the question, "Wait. What is our objective?" If the answer to the first question is, "Fuck the children." Then the only response is, "Hello, we are asking ourselves the wrong question!" Kindly at least pretend to give a shit about someone other than yourselves and understand that those who are in need of aid are not your enemy. They did not create the system that left Americans with shitty wages and ever decreasing benefits. These are the people who have fallen through the cracks that your elected officials have created and have no intention of repairing. You helped create it. By condemning those with no power to fix the problem you are only enabling those who have created and are perpetuating the problem. That means YOU are the problem. Scott Walker is only the latest to join the circus of clowns who want to entertain and distract you instead of lead us all to a positive future.

Instead of criticizing those who have no means of defending themselves, maybe go demonize the politicians who think so little of your intelligence and capacity for critical thought that they asked you to get riled up about this in the first place. You are supporting those whose agenda is to only benefit the corporations who pay for their elections. They don't care about those of you who actually elect them. Wake up! When these corporations end up with the policies they want (those that will deregulate the means by which they run their corporations, are taxed and are responsible to their employees), Americans will be much poorer. Immediately. That includes you. Obviously none of you are well off (or well educated). You will be screwed. And the safety nets you rallied so hard to get rid of will be gone. And you will need them. And won't that just suck?

An Actual History Lesson

I have seen this ridiculous meme countless times in the last month. I know that anyone who demands its history of pride and heritage has either been conditioned to believe that or is desperate to be seen as something other than racist trash. I also know, for certain, that the person who posted it is in desperate need of many history lessons. The kind of history lessons that won't be found in the new books Regressive Party politicians across the country are trying to rewrite to create this exceptionalism they try to force feed those who don't think for themselves. The kind of history lessons that don't come from memes, the most common means of far right dissemination of 'facts.' And the kind of history lessons that won't be found in a book written by Bill O'Reilly, a man who calls himself a historian but who the intelligent among us call a propagandist.

I always end any debate regarding that flag with the same question, "Would you expect to see the Nazi flag flying in Germany today?" It is the exact same thing. Nazi descendants live today. They don't leave a Nazi flag on the tombstones of their ancestors. No state or official buildings fly the Nazi flag. In fact, the flag is illegal in Germany as it is such a source of shame. Why demand that American society be less than that of the Germans?

As with all aspirations of the Confederacy, Nazis built their new society by kidnapping, forced labor and genocide. They both had the same agenda: Define, create and maintain a master race. Hitler was actually inspired by Americas treatment of its slaves and the Native Americans when he created his plans. Hitler believed innovation was a marked feature of a leading world power. He used the ideas of free labor to build German industries and believed that The Long Walk of the Navajo was a brilliant means of weeding out the Jews who would be useless to him as they could march to their prisons and if they were unhealthy, they would just die along the way.  His intent to build his ideal society drew directly from the shames America tries to forget.

The Confederate Congress initially adopted a flag which ended up creating a lot of controversy because many believed it looked too similar to the American flag, so it was promptly replaced. The second and third flags adopted both had the symbol we now associate as the Confederate flag as part of the design where only the number of stars would increase based on states joining the Confederacy. The second flag adopted had an entirely white background and the 'X' was where todays American flag has its stars. The man who designed it, William T. Thompson, called it the "White Man's Flag" because it symbolized the "supremacy of the white man." He wrote for Savannah's Daily Morning News in 1863:

"As a people we are fighting [to] maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.

The third flag was barely seen because the war ended as it was being introduced. Debating over which flag was put to use is a wasted exercise in semantics, however, as the objective of its creation was pretty much encapsulated in the quote above. (and in the fucking war itself for Christ's sake)

Hitler proudly designed the Nazi flag himself. He decided to use the traditional colors of Germany because:

"As National Socialists, we see our program in our flag. In red, we see the social idea of the movement; in white, the nationalistic idea; in the swastika, the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man, and, by the same token, the victory of the idea of creative work. (from Mein Kampf)

The swastika was meant to represent an Aryan objective to have a racial 'cleansing.' Beginning in the early 20th century German nationalists determined the Aryans of India (many hundreds of years BC) depicted a glorious tradition of superiority and, basically, rewrote their own version of history to support this premise based on Nordicism disturbingly embraced and defined by British psychologist, William McDougall, explaining a 'master race' in 1920:

"Among all the disputes and uncertainties of the ethnographers about the races of Europe, one fact stands out clearly—namely, that we can distinguish a race of northerly distribution and origin, characterised physically by fair colour of hair and skin and eyes, by tall stature and dolichocephaly (i.e. long shape of head), and mentally by great independence of character, individual initiative and tenacity of will.

The invasion was profoundly misinterpreted by Germans to define the glories of Aryan invasion where the intimidating symbol of the swastika would also serve as reminder of the dangers of spiritual and racial mixing due to close proximity of the races.

Both the Confederate flag and the Nazi flag are used today by white supremacist groups all over the world as a means of glorification and intimidation. It is not a coincidence that they have both been adopted by those with such mentalities. The flags are symbols which represent times and places where white supremacy was given a voice and an opportunity to thrive. Germany spends none of its time celebrating either that history or its soldiers. Remembrances of ours should also be left to (actual) history books.

No rational or thoughtful individual would take time with this argument and explain to me the pride they have in their ancestor who fought to enslave people and commit treason. Those who demand otherwise are free to fly that flag in their homes or in their lawns and silently tell the rest of society who they are, as any German would if they projected pride over the Holocaust. And the rest of society will shun them and diminish their voices, as we should. We are the 'land of the free and the home of the brave.' As such, we have no business glorifying those who meant to enslave others and, in a cowardly fashion, tried to secede rather than give up an entitlement to continued atrocities.

White Lives Matter

The Fox cable channel with the word "news" in its title was so moved by the recent tragic waste of a young life that they had their little ass-kissing O'Reilly fanboy go all the way to San Francisco to speak to their Board of Supervisors. Jesse Watters asked them, "How many dead people does it take?" It seems to take quite a lot, Jesse. Either that, or your question wasn't specific enough and missed an all-important adjective. It certainly takes a lot of black people if we are meant to go by Fox coverage which still demands that the entire black community bears responsibility for the myriad killings by police officers. If you did forget the adjective 'white,' however, it seems one is enough.

I know its hard to make it out in the video, here is her picture. She was absolutely beautiful. 

Here is another photo of a beautiful face we lost far too soon to indefensible and horrific gun violence.

Fox news, however, had a completely different perspective on that tragedy. The explanation for this loss was quite easy to find. There is a reasonable and understandable explanation for this murder, you see, the young man pictured above "looked a certain way." 

Aside from the very important information as to the immigration status of the alleged killer in this story (who, curiously, does not seem to be alleged when mentioned on Fox or by the Regressive Party candidates), little is known about this case, so far. I think we can all be sure, however, that she had to have been wearing a hoodie, or she would still be with us today.





POST: No one need bother play semantics with my sarcasm as I am one who sincerely believes that, in fact, all lives DO matter. You can feel free to write me a book below. I will not waste my time with white trash, however, and will ignore it without reading. No Regressive is worth my time. You were the moron who followed a link to a site called "Mean Progressive," after all.

Dear Media: ABC I Have Snap Judgment for You and Whoopi Goldberg

Yeah? You know what Whoopi (and all producers of The View)? Your show is supposed to be a place for women to come together and hear perspectives of other women. Regardless of whether or not one identifies as a feminist, a community for women should certainly not be perpetuating patriarchy. Whoopi's comments and blind support of Cosby are so extreme and unsettling that its comparable to those in society who demand that President Obama is a Muslim terrorist because they haven't yet been given enough evidence to support the idea that he isn't. What evidence do you think you are going to get these many years later, Whoop? Do you think we might be able to find some DNA from a hotel room in 1967? Do you think the rapist has a video library someone might be able to dig up? Will you need 100 more women to come forward and give similar testimonies? I am disgusted by this blatant disregard for the rights of women and compel those who run The View to sincerely consider the voice you are sending to American women and the voices her big mouth has managed to already force off of the show because she is such a bully (ehem...Ive been paying attention and I am not the only one).

Whenever I have an opportunity to put someone in their place about 'supposed' domestic violence allegations, I gladly take it. I will always do the same for rape, too, Whoopi Goldberg. It is curious that these are the laws, both overwhelmingly perpetrated against women, which are acceptable to question the validity of. Just by questioning allegations, one not only negates the victim, her trauma and her safety, but also perpetuates the societal norm which implies that women aren't trustworthy and any violations against them will require extensive scrutiny whenever reported.

It pisses me off  whenever I have to deal with anyone who contends that we do not live in a patriarchal society. One literally has to forego reality to sincerely believe that. For nearly 100 years we have been unable to find 2/3 of states to ratify the ERA and one of our two major political parties is still working tirelessly to take our rights away as if our capacity to decide what to do with our bodies and how to manage our own families is just too much for us to be entrusted with.

In America it has always been acceptable, and even encouraged, to promote women as sexual objects, but at the same time it has always been absolutely unseemly and disgraceful for a woman to explore and express her own sexuality. Such was the case when Lisa Bonet, the actress who portrayed Bill Cosby character, Dr. Huxtable's daughter, Denise on The Cosby Show in the late 80s. I remember when he came out and publicly condemned her for having been in a movie called Angel Heart and doing a sex scene, but I wasn't old enough to see it in the theater at the time. I remember thinking it sounded like she made a porno by the way Cosby made it sound and was disappointed because she was my favorite of all of the Cosby kids as I identified with her free-spirit. I was too young to understand that I was in a patriarchal society, but Cosby wasn't, and neither was Whoopi Goldberg. That should've given her a clue about his ideas about women.

It is unbelievable to me that ABC is giving us a woman's voice that is willfully diminishing the place of women in our society instead of promoting us. ABC has had plenty of allegations of promoting contempt toward women in the past with lawsuits filed for discrimination in hiring and creating shows to display women as they 'truly' are: fighting over men and looking ridiculous on The Bachelor, back in the days of their understood and accepted subjugation on The Astronaut Wives Club and being backstabbing little minxes on Mistresses. Well done, ABC. Maybe you should just come out now and endorse every Regressive Party candidate running for any office anywhere. Its quite obvious your opinions of women coincide.

GOP Congressman Promoting Imperialism. Still.

I am an Ohioan. We have been called a blue state recently in the news. I would love to live in a blue state, however, I do not. We might be leaning toward purple, but we are most certainly not blue. We have Boehner for Christ's sake. And Rob Portman *sigh*. And we have a Congressman from the district where I grew up named Bob Gibbs. He represents the Canton area. That is where you find the Football Hall of Fame. Many famous athletes and celebrities go there every summer for the inductions, but apparently that honor is not enough for Congressman Gibbs.

As seen in this Daily Show piece from last night, he and the McKinley Presidential Library and Museum believe that they speak for all Ohioans (and Americans?) when they demand that America doesn't acknowledge the original name Denali for the random mountain they decided to attribute to the former President. Honestly, McKinley had nothing to do with this mountain. Alaska hadn't even become a state by the time he died. But since 1975 when Ralph Regula was in Congress, those trying to have it acknowledged by its original name, Denali, have been denied.



We all need to appeal to Bob Gibbs and tell him that to sincerely represent Ohio he needs to focus on his disgraceful voting record of consistently trying to take away women's rights and Ohioans access to affordable healthcare, always caving to the NRA lobby to maintain that 100% rating, decimating our environment and repeatedly voting to stymie the progress of America by wasting time on bills meant to only distract voters and condemn the legacy of President Obama. Ohio often looks like a backward and ignorant state when we make national news, don't be our next embarrassment.

During this time when Americans are finally having an awakening about her history of legitimate oppression of so many and obliteration of entire cultures, it is offensive to think you would be battling those who mean to rename Mt McKinley back to its original name. Come on Bob! Your constituents have a lot of things to worry about, the name of a mountain is on no one's agenda. You were sent to DC to represent us, not humiliate us. Welcome to the 21st century, Imperialism is no longer accepted. Thanks.


Please sign this petition and forward to everyone who would like to see this one simple act of Congress to actually accomplish something positive.

Woody Allen Deserves No Quarter

Last night Bill Maher was quick to support Woody Allen when they were discussing the Bill Cosby rape allegations. Maher said that he would offer 'quarter' to Allen and insinuated that his accuser (Mia Farrow) had a personal reason to make accusations and that it was different. I make few distinctions between rapists and child molesters. It is hard for me to believe that any thoughtful person could with what we do know about Allen, regardless of whether or not he was ever found guilty.

It always disgusts me to hear Woody Allen celebrated. Do we not have enough off-beat comedic talents that we can't spare just one? The fact that he has maintained his career and continues to draw the biggest celebrities to be in his movies is, frankly, disturbing. The charges of molestation against his own adopted daughter, Dylan, were never filed in 1992 by the prosecutor who cited that there was potential for instability during a trial due to the child accusers instability. Their having gone unfiled had nothing to do with credibility or evidence. I don't need those charges to be true to loathe him, however. I find his lacking morality cause enough to believe the child and find him repulsive.

When Allen started his affair with Soon-Yi, not only was he supposed to have been her father-figure, but he was in a relationship with her mother. Her mother discovered the affair by finding naked photos of her daughter taken by Allen. Obviously this discovery precipitated the end of their family. That is a lot of weight for any child, but especially an adoptee, to bear. And how long had the relationship been going on? His having had the affair and then advising her to keep their secret is not only a blatant disregard for the family of which they were both members, but overt evidence of grooming techniques attributed to pedophiles. He destroyed the security of Soon-Yi and all of her adopted brothers and sisters. Whatever role or bond that each of the family members was meant to have had was made irrelevant and completely destroyed. Imagine explaining to a child that their sister would now be having the relationship that their mother had had with the man who had been their father-figure, and actual father to one, Ronan. (but I'm still pulling for that Sinatra rumor to be true).

Of course, he reminds everyone that he was neither her legal father nor biological. Right. No, sure. That makes sense. Never mind the fact that you were the father-figure in her home from the age of 10; or that you knew her as a young, broken and vulnerable child acclimating to a new country, language, home and family. There is no rational way for that familial relationship to ever gravitate into a romantic one. It was your responsibility as a guardian to make her feel safe in her new life. Piece of shit.

If society can accept this behavior, adoption should be outlawed because every child's emotional development and stability are at risk. If these are the mindsets of those raising our adopted children, how are they supposed to grow up strong with self-respect; with a feeling of connectedness and security? As best I can tell, the only accessory that never goes out of style in Hollywood is the adopted child. But they line up to kiss his ass. Does no one look at their own family and question what type of monster Allen must be? I believe in the goodness of people. I believe everyone deserves a chance until they give you a reason to question their character. I believe Allen has more than gone out of his way to prove his own repulsive character. As long as Hollywood continues to revere him, they bare their own character, as well.

Contrived Through Christ

The Regressive Party are not only bastardizing any intelligent discourse in our society, but the narrative surrounding understandings of our Constitution and the Bible. How far will we allow them to go? They have worked very hard to deny rights of others while demanding they are the ones being persecuted. When is some credible facet of our society going to shut this nonsense down? The Constitution has been interpreted to them as having given them rights to allow for discrimination based on their Bible. When thoughtful Americans counter their bullshit, these Christians (who make up the bulk of our population) determine that they, and their religion, are under attack. This assertion is being fed to them all day long in messages laced with fear and hate from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, their hundreds of presidential candidates, and, of course, the Fox cable channel with the word 'news' in its title. This belief in their own persecution is sincere. Its ridiculous. But it is sincere.

Presently the far right is demanding that the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution be used to allow businesses (which, apparently, can have a religion?) to discriminate both in hiring/firing and in determining which citizens they want to serve. If that is the way we are meant to interpret ones freedom of religion, shouldn't there be a means of differentiating religious ideals?

The right has recently allowed for new translations of the Bible than those Americans had traditionally been raised to believe. Jesus, as well all know (or once knew, at least), wanted us to love and not judge one another. However, Regressive Christians are trying to pass laws so they can discriminate against those they pass judgments on. The old time Christians still believe that it is our duty to care for the sick and the poor but the Regressive Party Christians are fighting against allowing everyone to have access to healthcare and condemning the poor by using a misinterpreted line from Thessalonians to support it. These new Christians are also very anxious to start wars in the Middle East and many have said this was a means to "administer the wrath of God upon an unbelieving mankind." I remember having learned about Jesus being anti-violence and bringing on 'end times' was never given to me as an objective. Was my minister a quack?

How is the law meant to differentiate which interpretations of Christianity are right? Translations are, quite obviously, subjective. Do we need for the Supreme Court to have a mandate to tell us exactly which passages in the Bible can negate which of our laws? We will then need to identify each religion, each of their sects and each of the laws that their followers are allowed to ignore. Does everyone need to carry an identification card to show the police that they are absolved from arrest and prosecution? It seems like a lot of work to allow people to break laws we would otherwise be bound by.

The Regressives use the Old Testament to support a lot of their beliefs. Would we need to pass laws to support both Testaments? The Old Testament supports acts of extreme violence and violate many laws we presently have to follow. Should adultery be illegal? Would it be okay if someone killed a cheating spouse? Will everyone currently in prison for this offense be released if they are Christians? If a teenager is caught masturbating by his/her parents who believe it is a sin, can they legally stone their children? The Old Testament said that if an engaged woman was raped she would have to be put to death. Should her fiancé be allowed to go through with that if his particular sect of Christianity supports these values? (Of course, we would first have to determine if it was a 'legitimate rape')

When we open ourselves up to defining our rights based on something completely subjective, we are asking for trouble. Recently a Satanist group petitioned the courts to overrule a law imposing a waiting period for an abortion because it was against their religion. I don't know what their religious tenets are, but they are Americans. And they are afforded the same religious freedoms as the rest of us, right?

As much as the entire conversation in society is disturbing and shows the tragic regression of our citizenry, it is curious to me that it is even a part of our discourse. How does it get to be a legitimate discussion when it was created by the Regressive Party who, to their own definition, support the Constitution without exception? No exceptions would mean that this interpretation of their right to religion is impeding on other people's freedoms. Although they don't seem to be aware of it, we have more than two Amendments to the Constitution.

Those on the right who are demanding their religious freedoms only like to believe that those freedoms are inherent to Christianity, but many other religions exist. The fears that have been instilled in those in the GOP about Islam have offered them a very dark vision of its teachings and they are being conditioned to believe that all Muslims are terrorists. These zealots want to dismiss every question posed to them about the tenets of other religions, but if they sincerely believe that Islam is the boogey man they have been told about, do they want to allow the 'Sharia Law' they've heard so much about practiced in America? Because that is what it means to define rights in our Constitutional democracy.

The Regressive Party does so many things to create and perpetuate hate, but the thing that is most painful is their misuse of the Bible. They are blasphemous when repeating their newly interpreted words of God. I don't know how America can abide this and allow so many GOP hopefuls to run for the Presidency without being publicly condemned daily for furthering this hateful narrative.

Maybe somehow, before we have to go any deeper into this completely irrational discussion, we could have some intelligent discourse in America where a respected leader can explain to these 'patriots' what it means to actually be an American and take that privilege seriously. We are all afforded the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If, in pursuing happiness, you are hyper-focused on taking away the liberties of others, you are not just a shitty American, but you are not a Christian.

American Exceptionalism?

The fact that politicians on the right are espousing a heartfelt belief in American exceptionalism and are bullying those on the left to prove they believe the same is, frankly, disturbing. Although my computer keeps trying to tell me that exceptionalism isn't a word, the concept has been around for a long time. Exceptionalism is a theory where one society, culture, country, etc. is extraordinary above all others, having something unique which makes it shine above the rest. That is ridiculous. Not only are we an adolescent in comparison to the nations they profess superiority over, but those who are making these demands actually behave like adolescents in regard to, and often in the presence of, those other countries.

Several years ago, the President was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism. He basically said that he believed in it the way that other countries believed that they were exceptional. That would be a pretty fair answer for an absurd question at a NATO summit, I would think. He went on to explain his answer in a thoughtful manner, full of words his detractors would have to look up before countering. Of course, they didn't need to counter his contentions, they had what they needed in that one little sound bite. So the far right had a new rallying cry against the President to say that he didn't love America. Most critical thinkers would have agreed with the President. Some might even think he was being generous. But the far right doesn't talk to critical thinkers. They are talking to people who don't want to be bothered to think for themselves. So they were given their talking points and sent on their way.

At present, we are being inundated by the right with their varied definitions of exceptionalism. Ted Cruz had a rather bizarre and, quite obviously, insincere revelation in March where he explained that his people, those who listen to country music, are superior because of the way that industry responded to 9/11. Before then, he explained, he had been a lover of classic rock & roll. But he was off-put by their response to the attacks on 9/11. Apparently the international fundraisers held in both September and October were not, you know, patriotic. Maybe because of his hasty conversion to country music he missed the new songs which came out about the attacks by classic rockers like Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney and John Mellencamp. Even Neil Young came out with a song that honored the heroes of flight 93. Cruz's attempts to garner supporters will have certainly fallen on deaf ears. No one who wasn't already going to vote for him would ever fall for that shit.

Mike Huckabee, too, has been all over the media, first promoting his book and now on his campaign for President, explaining that there is something quite ideal about the way they live in the south. Apparently he believes his constituency wants or needs to be pandered to. And, apparently, he believes they are not intelligent enough to realize that's what he's doing. His contention is that their superiority is defined by virtues only southern women possess, like not using birth control because they know how to control their libidos. And those women are also too classy to ever use a curse word like those trashy northern women (we know, Mike, but fuck you for noticing). Southerners are funny, where those outside of "Bubbaville" (I can't make this up) are of less humor. Those red, white & blue Bubbas are God-fearing, principled folk and the over-educated city slickers have had all principle taught right out of them. He is really big on reiterating those over-educated every time you hear him speak. It really is curious. How do southerners like having been condemned to being a comical, yet ignorant, bunch who cannot even reason through rhetoric and see that they are being mocked by the man who is professing their superiority? This is an American society. It cannot be defined by someone who is telling us any exceptionalism found in the society is a narrow subset who adhere to his prescribed ideals.

There is something inherently grotesque about the right demanding a moral or patriotic high ground. It is as if their followers, collectively, have such low self-esteem that they need to be told of their supremacy. Secretary of State John Kerry said that the idea of American exceptionalism makes him uncomfortable. I would think most thoughtful people would agree with that assertion for reasons outlined herein. However, the right jumped all over him suggesting that he and the Liberals don't love America and those on the right are more patriotic. Why do the people on the far right need to hear that? People with actual grace and moral standing don't need to be convinced of it. Nor do they need to be told that they're superior for having attained it.

I am an actual patriot. I don't prove it by putting a flag and an eagle and the Statue of Liberty in my avatar. I prove it by loving my country and my countrymen. I prove it by voting and volunteering in my community. I prove it by sincerely supporting our troops, in wanting them to only have to fight when it is necessary and make sure they are 100% taken care of when they get home. I prove my patriotism by wanting to protect America's land and natural resources. And educate her children. And feed her poor. I prove it by not only learning and understanding my country's history, but by promoting ideas of our improving on it. America cannot be a great society just because I wish it to be so. When my daughter was an adolescent, oftentimes she behaved like an ass. At those times I didn't clap my hands together and throw them in the air to proclaim, "Voila! Perfection!" I sighed, realized I still loved her more than anything and acknowledged I had more work yet to do. I am a patriot who loves my country and wants to see her progress toward something exceptional.

As America's history is short and relatively brutal, her stories of greatness would need to be promoted and her failures denied in order to really promote exceptionalism. And we cannot rewrite our own history in order to create a more appealing chronicle. Last year, however, the RNC resolved that the AP History tests, which had been updated to require critical thinking, as had been added to English and math, were focusing on too many negative aspects of our history. Then states began to follow with their own complaints about information that should be removed: slavery, internment camps, issues of equality, etc. Oklahoma tried to pass a bill that would stop funding of AP tests for their students because they wanted a stronger emphasis on positive aspects of history.

In Colorado, one teacher literally came out and demanded that the new testing was bashing America. As if any of the items given to prepare the students for the tests were created out of thin air or this was an attempt to make students less patriotic? The students in Colorado actually went on strike when they realized what was going on. They were, after all, the ones who would have to go to college having never learned about or been asked to consider the facts of our history. As such, these states were not even asking themselves to be accountable for the education of their children. As a mother and an American, that has to be about the most unexceptional thing I can think of. If the focus is to rewrite our own history to create our greatness, the mission has already denied the objective.

Historically, the civilizations that we exalt and remember as having been exceptional are those which have grown into something substantial and influential. Their history defines struggles and teaches a means of overcoming them. This gives all societies something to reflect on, learn from and grow toward. Those on the right who are presently trying to demand our exceptionalism are not only trying to negate the fact that we have not overcome the trials we have created and endured, but they are working very hard to go back to many of them as if they were never problems to begin with. As long as those same people continue to create a mangled present day narrative of hate, dependency, inequality and injustice, I'm not even convinced we can call ourselves a civilization. But I am quite certain that we are not exceptional.