1 day ago
Friday, February 5, 2010
Anti-abortion group targets black women
Toomanyaborted.com is launching a campaign targeted towards African-American women in the metro Atlanta area. They've already began putting up billboards in the area, and they are planning to put up as many as 35 by Feb. 15.
Just to give you all a little background about this organization: it's collaborating with The Radiance Foundation and Georgia's Operation Outrage on its "Endangered Species" campaign. According to its website, it's the brainchild of The Radiance Foundation's co-founder Ryan Bomberger, who's spent decades advocating adoption and foster care.
As an aside, yes, Georgia has an exquisite foster care system. The children are only at high risk for abuse and neglect, complaints about the abuse they are facing are not fully probed. The problems with Georgia's child care system have even led to the resignation of the state's child advocate. I could go on and on to include the number of heart breaking cases that have occured in Georgia and the state's persistent problems that continue to be the state's 500-pound gorilla in the state legislature.
Let me start by saying that I understand why this group would be alarmed, if their stats are accurate. Since 1973, these people claim that more than 14 million black babies have been aborted and in Georgia, black women make up more than 50 percent of abortions performed on, despite being only about 30 percent of the state's population. Who couldn't argue with those statistics?
My problem with this campaign is that it's eerily similar to the anti-Planned Parenthood campaigns that use the groups sorrid history of its sterilization campaign against African-American women to promote their cause. They continue to use race and class to promote their own selfish goal: to rollback the constitutional protections provided to women with the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
These people could care less about the plight of African-American women and children. They like to plaster pictures of black women speaking out against abortion and stock pictures of beautiful black babies to appeal to the sympathies of the African-American community--just like any other nonprofit who claims to be "looking out" for our interests."
As I mentioned in a previous post, black women historically have not been on the front lines speaking out against or for abortion. Maybe this and other groups' who continue to use our images to promote their own selfish motives will stir some people, but I would suspect the majority of black women (and men) will see past their deceptive advertising and understand the true reason for their "concern" about our plight.
I can't avoid the obvious question here: if these groups are so concerned about my sister's plight, why are they not on the front lines fighting for our right to live in safe and secure neighborhoods, have equal access to the health care services that our white counterparts can enjoy or to protect our image from being used and abused by the media? Where are they?
Why aren't they concerned about the continued lag black children continue to have when it comes to education? Why aren't they concerned about the black children who have to go to bed with the sounds of gunfire in the background? Why aren't they concerned about the whopping number of black children living in poverty and are going to bed hungry at night?
Like other anti-abortion groups, these people could care less about the true problems plaguing various communities in which they've taken up the task to "protect" from the evil abortion industry. All they are after is the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which would inevitably return our society back to the times when women had risk their lives by undergoing back-alley abortion or resorting to their own methods of abortion.
Again, I must ask these groups: when are you going to drop your facade of concern and step for the rights of black women and children?
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
7:04 AM
Links to this post
Anti-abortion group targets black women
2010-02-05T07:04:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
abortion rights|black children|black women|classism|Planned Parenthood|racism|Roe v. Wade|sexism|
Comments
Labels:
abortion rights,
black children,
black women,
classism,
Planned Parenthood,
racism,
Roe v. Wade,
sexism
| Reactions: |
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Why CBS' decision infuriates me
View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
Okay, so ManCrunch (a gay dating website) is banned from the air, but the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family can recruit Florida football star Tim Tebow to talk about how happy he is that his mother chose not to abort him (against doctor's orders) due to complications of giving birth? According to this source CBS claims the ManCrunch ad ..."is not within the Network's Broadcast Standards for Super Bowl Sunday." Last time I checked, gay men are just like other men who love football.
I can understand CBS is trying to avoid another Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake fiasco and the evangelical Christian conservative uprising against the showing of a black woman's breasts on national television. I understand CBS is attempting to play it safe to avoid any fines levied by the FCC for "indecent" programming.
I would love to see what CBS' standards are when it comes to Super Bowl Sunday. So, it's okay for a conservative pro-life organization to buy air time to shove their beliefs down the throats of drunken football fans (and their indifferent children), but it's not okay for a business to cleverly promote their website? And, for those who support CBS' decision, don't give me the crap about how the gay dating ad is in "poor taste" when they'll be plenty of commercials that promote the objectification of women and laud drunken, boorish behavior. I wonder if the ad would have been approved if instead it was for a lesbian dating and used two women making out in skimpy clothing with men holding beer cans and doing traditional cheers.
One can only wonder if CBS would have made the same decision if Planned Parenthood or NOW decided to buy air time to promote the right to choose or access to birth control. Would those type of commercials meet CBS' elusive standards for Super Bowl Sunday?
Not only is CBS' decision to reject the Super Bowl ad is another example of the blatant double standards the advertising industry promotes, but it's a slap in the face to the tradition of the Super Bowl as a nonpartisan program in which people of all backgrounds and beliefs can come together and watch the big game. I don't know about you all, but the last thing I want to see when I'm at a sporting or entertainment event is some political message. Nothing is more of a buzz kill than when you see some organization attempting to shove its political beliefs down one's throat.
With this type of track record, CBS could well be on its way to become the Conservative Broadcasting System.
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
12:37 PM
Links to this post
Why CBS' decision infuriates me
2010-01-30T12:37:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
advertising|CBS|gay|Super Bowl|
Comments
Labels:
advertising,
CBS,
gay,
Super Bowl
| Reactions: |
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
ACORN film-maker arrested
From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:
Alleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe, 25, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group's credibility.
Also arrested were Joseph Basel, Stan Dai and Robert Flanagan, all 24. Flanagan is the son of William Flanagan, who is the acting U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, the office confirmed. All four were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony. According to the FBI affidavit, Flanagan and Basel entered the federal building at 500 Poydras Street about 11 a.m. Monday, dressed as telephone company employees, wearing jeans, fluorescent green vests, tool belts, and hard hats. When they arrived at Landrieu's 10th floor office, O'Keefe was already in the office and had told a staffer he was waiting for someone to arrive.
When Flanagan and Basel entered the office, they told the staffer they were there to fix phone problems. At that time, the staffer, referred to only as Witness 1 in the affadavit, observed O'Keefe positioning his cell phone in his hand to videotape the operation. O'Keefe later admitted to agents that he recorded the event. After being asked, the staffer gave Basel access to the main phone at the reception desk. The staffer told investigators that Basel manipulated the handset. He also tried to call the main office phone using his cell phone, and said the main line wasn't working. Flanagan did the same.
They then told the staffer they needed to perform repair work on the main phone system and asked where the telephone closet was located. The staffer showed the men to the main General Services Administration office on the 10th floor, and Flanagan and Basel went in. There, a GSA employee asked for the men's credentials, after which they stated they left them in their vehicle.Well, is anyone really surprised? There were questionable tactics this guy used in the first place. I mean, what pimp actually dresses as tacky as this guy did in this picture?
Anyway...
Also, what legitimate, fact-finding film-maker would misrepresent himself or herself just to obtain information? Anyone who takes his or her craft seriously can tell you that you should never damage your credibility just to gain information. If this so called film-maker was really concerned with ACORN's shady practices, he would have taken his "mission" seriously and gathered information in a tactful way.
Well, he got the information out to the public and put a spotlight onto ACORN's practices? The means justify the ends, right? Well, not really, in my opinion. It's well-known that O'Keefe edited the videos and ACORN was eventually cleared of any illegal activity. So, what greater good could come out of an "investigation" that starts out tampered in the first place? What unbiased and insightful information could an investigation conducted by a well-known conservative fanboy produce? It should be noted that BigGovernment refers to O'Keefe as an "investigative journalist" and a film-maker. Well any (respectable) investigative journalist will tell you that you should never compromise your credibility and misrepresent yourself just to obtain information.
Any respectable journalist knows the means don't justify the end.
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
7:33 PM
Links to this post
ACORN film-maker arrested
2010-01-26T19:33:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
ACORN|conservatives|James O'Keefe|
Comments
Labels:
ACORN,
conservatives,
James O'Keefe
| Reactions: |
Monday, January 25, 2010
Why don't black women speak out on abortion (and other women's issues)?
I saw this opinion piece on theRoot (written by Latoya Peterson, editor of Racialicious) and it was interesting, to say the least. The author contends that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, black women account for 36.4 percent of all abortions done in 2006, but were only 8.5 percent of the national population. Yet, black women continue to remain silent on the right to choose and reproductive rights as a whole.
It got me thinking: why are we silent on abortion rights (and its threat from the right) and the right to reproductive freedom?
As the author points out, black women's reproductive history in this country is one that's different from white women:
Then there's the aurora the term "right to choose" tends to have among black women. Having been historically shunned from the white feminist movement (due to these said feminists refusing to wage a campaign that was inclusive to poor women of color), black women see the cause of abortion rights as one of a white woman's issue. Whether this is due to black women not being invited to participate in the initial feminist debate or being caught up in the civil rights issue of advancing the entire black race is irrespective to the fact that we can not remain silent on this issue much longer.
Whether we like to admit it or not, the issue of abortion rights and other "women's issues" affects us deeply and--ironically--has more of a negative impact upon women of color if these rights are stripped away from us. With black women accounting for nearly 40 percent of abortions, combined with our unequal access to quality women's health care, our increased likelihood of living in poverty, in crime- and drug-ridden neighborhoods, it's imperative that we take a stand and fight for the right to choose and for the right to reproductive justice.
We owe it to our bodies and to our selves to fight for the opportunity to have the same access to services and the freedom to reproduce without interference from outside sources just as the sisters who came before us had fought for.
What do you think? Why don't black women speak out on abortion rights and other women's issues?
It got me thinking: why are we silent on abortion rights (and its threat from the right) and the right to reproductive freedom?
As the author points out, black women's reproductive history in this country is one that's different from white women:
We’ve often been the targets of sterilization programs. (Along with American Indian, mentally handicapped and Puerto Rican women living on the island.) The original founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was also a staunch believer in eugenics, and made specific references to "racial regeneration" through the promotion of abortion.Historically, black women and other women of color have had their rights to bear children stripped away completely while white women have historically been encouraged to breed and bear more white children for the survival of the race. Women of color have been told that our children are the problem children; that our genes are too inferior to produce offspring; that our style of parenting will only lead to delinquent criminals who will eventually become a burden onto the system--and whites. With this type of history hanging over our heads, black women, I believe, tend to look at abortion rights as a minute problem in the face of reproductive justice.
Then there's the aurora the term "right to choose" tends to have among black women. Having been historically shunned from the white feminist movement (due to these said feminists refusing to wage a campaign that was inclusive to poor women of color), black women see the cause of abortion rights as one of a white woman's issue. Whether this is due to black women not being invited to participate in the initial feminist debate or being caught up in the civil rights issue of advancing the entire black race is irrespective to the fact that we can not remain silent on this issue much longer.
Whether we like to admit it or not, the issue of abortion rights and other "women's issues" affects us deeply and--ironically--has more of a negative impact upon women of color if these rights are stripped away from us. With black women accounting for nearly 40 percent of abortions, combined with our unequal access to quality women's health care, our increased likelihood of living in poverty, in crime- and drug-ridden neighborhoods, it's imperative that we take a stand and fight for the right to choose and for the right to reproductive justice.
We owe it to our bodies and to our selves to fight for the opportunity to have the same access to services and the freedom to reproduce without interference from outside sources just as the sisters who came before us had fought for.
What do you think? Why don't black women speak out on abortion rights and other women's issues?
| Reactions: |
Friday, January 22, 2010
Arlen Specter: FAIL
While I'm not a fan of Michele Bachmann, the first-term Congresswoman who embodies a Palinesque attitude in politics, my feminist nature requires me to come to her defense after Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat from Pennsylvania, told her to "act like a lady" while they both appeared on a Philadephia talk radio show.
"I didn't interrupt you," Specter said. "This is beginning to sound like a TV talk show."
When Bachmann interrupted again, Specter angrily responded. "Now wait a minute, I'll stop and you can talk," he said. "I'll treat you like a lady, so act like one."
"I am a lady," Bachmann retorted.
She again interrupted Specter later in the interview. And again, Specter told her to "act like a lady." Bachmann one more time confirmed that she is a lady.
"Well I think you are too, that's why I'm treating you like one," Specter said. "But just don't interrupt me."
All I can do is shake my head at this. While Sen. Specter may have traded in the R behind his name for the D, he may have not shed his former's party inclination for patronizing women and "showing them their place." On the flip side, as some radical feminists would have one to believe, maybe all men, regardless of political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc., have some (whether covert or overt) contempt for women in power.
What do you think?
"I didn't interrupt you," Specter said. "This is beginning to sound like a TV talk show."
When Bachmann interrupted again, Specter angrily responded. "Now wait a minute, I'll stop and you can talk," he said. "I'll treat you like a lady, so act like one."
"I am a lady," Bachmann retorted.
She again interrupted Specter later in the interview. And again, Specter told her to "act like a lady." Bachmann one more time confirmed that she is a lady.
"Well I think you are too, that's why I'm treating you like one," Specter said. "But just don't interrupt me."
All I can do is shake my head at this. While Sen. Specter may have traded in the R behind his name for the D, he may have not shed his former's party inclination for patronizing women and "showing them their place." On the flip side, as some radical feminists would have one to believe, maybe all men, regardless of political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc., have some (whether covert or overt) contempt for women in power.
What do you think?
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
7:58 AM
Links to this post
Arlen Specter: FAIL
2010-01-22T07:58:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
act like a lady|feminism|Michele Bachmann|politics|Sen. Arlen Specter|sexism|
Comments
Labels:
act like a lady,
feminism,
Michele Bachmann,
politics,
Sen. Arlen Specter,
sexism
| Reactions: |
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Is this really a surprise?
Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has admitted that he fathered a girl with his mistress. "I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves," Edwards said in a statement.
The former 2008 Democratic presidential candidate previously denied that he was the girl's father.
"It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me," Edwards said.
"To all those I have disappointed and hurt, these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry."
Click here to read more of the story.
John Edwards, to me, is one of the greatest disappointments in Democratic political history. He seemed to have all the right "qualities" that would have made him a good populist candidate: blue-collar background, a history of fighting corporate interests as a lawyer and a decent voting record. But, it seemed he let his ego get the best of him. I must admit, there were times in which he came across as fake and cunning to me. Also, I didn't vote for him in the 2008 primaries and I didn't care for him as John Kerry's vice presidential pick. But, I felt he had some future as a successful politician. I mean, the one thing lawyers and politicians have in common is their ability to talk themselves around issues.
Not only did Edwards cheat on his wife (who was battling breast cancer, mind you), but he fathered a baby by this woman whose, according to Mrs. Edwards, first words to her husband were "You are so hot." I guess one could liken Edwards to Gary Hart, a rising 1980s Democratic politician who saw his star burn quickly after his affair with Donna Rice became public.
I honestly don't see any way Edwards could come back from this scandal and resume his political ambitions--if he has any. And quite frankly, I would prefer him to remain the shadows among other disgraced politicians.
What do you think of John Edwards?
| Reactions: |
Saturday, January 16, 2010
How to help those in Haiti
Photo courtesy Getty Images
For those who wish to help out, President Barack Obama announced a collaborative effort between former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton to help charities get the funding they need to help Haiti recover from the earthquake. To donate to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, you can visit the website or just mail a check to:
The Clinton Bush Haiti Fund
c/o William J. Clinton Foundation Donations Department
610 President Clinton Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72201
Or here:
The Clinton Bush Haiti Fund
c/o Communities Foundation of Texas
5500 Caruth Haven Lane
Dallas, TX 75225
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
3:55 PM
Links to this post
How to help those in Haiti
2010-01-16T15:55:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
disaster assistance|earthquake|Haiti|Michelle Obama|
Comments
Labels:
disaster assistance,
earthquake,
Haiti,
Michelle Obama
| Reactions: |
Friday, January 15, 2010
Why I love Keith Olbermann
These are probably his best comments he's made thus far. Classic.
Anyway, as I think more and more about this topic, I can not find any justification for the right-wing's attempt to politicize Haiti's devastation. The traditional noise makers on the far right, realizing they are becoming less popular among mainstream voters and Republicans alike, are jumping on this issue in order to stay afloat in a era dominated by the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Even still, their hijacking of the Haiti earthquake and transforming the government's response into a so-called opportunity for Obama to score points with the black community is appalling, but not surprising.
The desperate right-wing machine continues to further alienate itself from mainstream political operations.
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
7:13 PM
Links to this post
Why I love Keith Olbermann
2010-01-15T19:13:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
Haiti|Keith Olbermann|Pat Robertson|Rush Limbaugh|
Comments
Labels:
Haiti,
Keith Olbermann,
Pat Robertson,
Rush Limbaugh
| Reactions: |
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Why is this nutjob still on the air?
Just for those who don't want to bother listening, here's a transcript Media Matters provided:
PAT ROBERTSON: And, you know, Kristi, something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French." True story. And so, the devil said, "OK, it's a deal."
And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It's cut down the middle. On the one side is Haiti; on the other side is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, et cetera. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy, I'm optimistic something good may come. But right now, we're helping the suffering people, and the suffering is unimaginable.
KRISTI WATTS (co-host): Absolutely, Pat.
Um, last time I checked here, 80% of Haiti's population was Roman Catholic, 16% protestant, 1% other, 3% none. I guess whenever brown and black people attempt to free themselves from colonialism, it's called making a deal with the devil. It's interesting how Anglo-Saxon countries aren't portrayed as making deals with the devil when they rise up and kick out their oppressors, a la the American Revolution.
| Reactions: |
Monday, January 11, 2010
My transformation from eating animals to an activist
I asked for a copy of this book for Christmas and I got what I bargained for--literally. Upon receiving it, I immediately began to immerse myself into the author's words about his life growing up with a grandmother who survived World War II (and her delectable chicken with carrots dish) and his transformation from a waffling vegetarian to a committed one. It wasn't until the months leading up to his son's arrival that he began to think about eating animals and the impact this demand for meat has on our environment.
Foer's words also made me think about my own life as a waffling vegetarian. For the past year, I've dabbed into excluding animal flesh from my diet--with some result. However, like most new veggie-lovers, I had a few slips. I never thought it was a big deal until I began reading Foer's book.
Aside from the usual account of the life of a factory-farmed animal, Foer recounts his middle-of-the-night visits to farms that "prepare" animals for slaughter (don't want to spoil the details for you, but you can just do an Internet search and finds out what the life span--and what they go through--of a tasty animal is). He also took the time to talk to numerous owners of chicken, cow and pig farms about their business and the morality of farming animals to fill our bellies. Hearing these farmers justify the means to an end, talk about animal husbandry and consent (the idea that animals "consent" to being our eventual meals because we humans will take good care of them) really opened my eyes into how eating animals has been justified in our culture.
I don't consider myself an animal rights activist by choice. I never grew up around dogs or other animals for me to develop this passion for animals as a whole. Sure, I had dogs, but they were outside dogs and I never got a chance to form a bond with them. I grew up eating meat--chicken, pork, beef, turkey, etc.--and loved it. My favorite was chicken and turkey. My absolute favorite dish would be chicken (baked, broiled or friend) with English peas, mashed potatoes and macaroni and cheese. My mom also had good pork chops that I liked. I also liked ground beef in spaghetti and lasagna (although I believe both dishes taste a lot better with ground turkey). I never thought of the concept of vegetarianism until the last year or two. It always crossed my mind as something I would like to do one day, but I never took it seriously.
I began to seriously consider becoming a vegetarian after a co-worker went veg. I thought, "Well, if she can do it, then I can certainly try." I went home that day and began my research into vegetarianism and meat production. Here's a great video shot by PETA (I know, I'm not a fan either), but I think it's a really good start:
I must say I was horrified at what I saw. I knew where meat comes from, but I was never informed of the cruelty and suffering these animals must undergo in order to feed me. From that moment on, I never looked at meat--or meat eating--the same. Every time I see a person pile a piece of animal flesh onto their plate, I think to myself about where this animal came from and what horrors did it undergo in order to feed this person. These simple videos and my research into the practice of farming animals transformed me into a person who rarely thought about animal rights into a citizen concerned about the toll eating animals has on our environment and our health.
Like others in the industrialized world, eating meat was ingrained into my psyche as something we just do; we never questioned where the meat came from or the practices uses to get cheap meat onto our tables. Sure, we all know where meat comes from, but we don't like to remind ourselves that we are eating the remains of a corpse. With my recent exploration, I began to think of eating meat in a whole new light. I began to wonder, how can we as meat eaters justify these means to an end that only last for less than 10 minutes? How can we justify the castration and the mutilation of animals in order to satisfy our appetite for animal flesh? How can we justify the impact of factory farming onto our environment and human health?
As Foer outlines in his book, eating is a shared activity--often around a dinner table. Eating meat is something we can all come together and participate in and usually feel good about doing. Just about every holiday, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, families get together and share in the joy of eating good, plentiful meat in each other's company. Along with being centered on kitchen and dining room tables, food, specifically meat, has become the center of our lives. As humans, why have we divorced meat eating from the undeniable environmental impact the practice has had on our planet? How can we humans allow other humans to factory farm our meals at the expense of our health and the future environmental health of Mother Earth? The two go hand-in-hand, in my opinion.
No, I'm not here to recruit you into becoming a veg. While PETA and other pro-vegan organizations would like me to do so, I don't believe I should proselytize about and impose my food habits onto others. I can tell anyone about the pros of going veg, but I can't make anyone ditch their meat. However, what I can do is ask one to begin researching where their meat comes from and the carbon footprint industrialized meat production has on the environment. I can urge one to be informed about the pain and misfortune animals go through in the name of feeding humans. I can urge one to begin thinking about meat eating and how it's become part of their lifestyle and how our food culture has become embedded into our psyche. I can ask one to think about how our bodies has been affected by our glorious past time of eating meat.
Finally, I can urge one to ask himself (or herself) two simple questions: Is your appetite for meat superior to the physical and psychological torture animals being prepped for slaughter must undergo? Are your 10 minutes of pleasure more important than factory farming's impact on the environment?
Foer's words also made me think about my own life as a waffling vegetarian. For the past year, I've dabbed into excluding animal flesh from my diet--with some result. However, like most new veggie-lovers, I had a few slips. I never thought it was a big deal until I began reading Foer's book.
Aside from the usual account of the life of a factory-farmed animal, Foer recounts his middle-of-the-night visits to farms that "prepare" animals for slaughter (don't want to spoil the details for you, but you can just do an Internet search and finds out what the life span--and what they go through--of a tasty animal is). He also took the time to talk to numerous owners of chicken, cow and pig farms about their business and the morality of farming animals to fill our bellies. Hearing these farmers justify the means to an end, talk about animal husbandry and consent (the idea that animals "consent" to being our eventual meals because we humans will take good care of them) really opened my eyes into how eating animals has been justified in our culture.
I don't consider myself an animal rights activist by choice. I never grew up around dogs or other animals for me to develop this passion for animals as a whole. Sure, I had dogs, but they were outside dogs and I never got a chance to form a bond with them. I grew up eating meat--chicken, pork, beef, turkey, etc.--and loved it. My favorite was chicken and turkey. My absolute favorite dish would be chicken (baked, broiled or friend) with English peas, mashed potatoes and macaroni and cheese. My mom also had good pork chops that I liked. I also liked ground beef in spaghetti and lasagna (although I believe both dishes taste a lot better with ground turkey). I never thought of the concept of vegetarianism until the last year or two. It always crossed my mind as something I would like to do one day, but I never took it seriously.
I began to seriously consider becoming a vegetarian after a co-worker went veg. I thought, "Well, if she can do it, then I can certainly try." I went home that day and began my research into vegetarianism and meat production. Here's a great video shot by PETA (I know, I'm not a fan either), but I think it's a really good start:
I must say I was horrified at what I saw. I knew where meat comes from, but I was never informed of the cruelty and suffering these animals must undergo in order to feed me. From that moment on, I never looked at meat--or meat eating--the same. Every time I see a person pile a piece of animal flesh onto their plate, I think to myself about where this animal came from and what horrors did it undergo in order to feed this person. These simple videos and my research into the practice of farming animals transformed me into a person who rarely thought about animal rights into a citizen concerned about the toll eating animals has on our environment and our health.
Like others in the industrialized world, eating meat was ingrained into my psyche as something we just do; we never questioned where the meat came from or the practices uses to get cheap meat onto our tables. Sure, we all know where meat comes from, but we don't like to remind ourselves that we are eating the remains of a corpse. With my recent exploration, I began to think of eating meat in a whole new light. I began to wonder, how can we as meat eaters justify these means to an end that only last for less than 10 minutes? How can we justify the castration and the mutilation of animals in order to satisfy our appetite for animal flesh? How can we justify the impact of factory farming onto our environment and human health?
As Foer outlines in his book, eating is a shared activity--often around a dinner table. Eating meat is something we can all come together and participate in and usually feel good about doing. Just about every holiday, from Memorial Day to Labor Day, families get together and share in the joy of eating good, plentiful meat in each other's company. Along with being centered on kitchen and dining room tables, food, specifically meat, has become the center of our lives. As humans, why have we divorced meat eating from the undeniable environmental impact the practice has had on our planet? How can we humans allow other humans to factory farm our meals at the expense of our health and the future environmental health of Mother Earth? The two go hand-in-hand, in my opinion.
No, I'm not here to recruit you into becoming a veg. While PETA and other pro-vegan organizations would like me to do so, I don't believe I should proselytize about and impose my food habits onto others. I can tell anyone about the pros of going veg, but I can't make anyone ditch their meat. However, what I can do is ask one to begin researching where their meat comes from and the carbon footprint industrialized meat production has on the environment. I can urge one to be informed about the pain and misfortune animals go through in the name of feeding humans. I can urge one to begin thinking about meat eating and how it's become part of their lifestyle and how our food culture has become embedded into our psyche. I can ask one to think about how our bodies has been affected by our glorious past time of eating meat.
Finally, I can urge one to ask himself (or herself) two simple questions: Is your appetite for meat superior to the physical and psychological torture animals being prepped for slaughter must undergo? Are your 10 minutes of pleasure more important than factory farming's impact on the environment?
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
10:26 AM
Links to this post
My transformation from eating animals to an activist
2010-01-11T10:26:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
Eating Animals|environmentalism|food culture|meat eating|PETA|vegetarianism|
Comments
Labels:
Eating Animals,
environmentalism,
food culture,
meat eating,
PETA,
vegetarianism
| Reactions: |
Monday, December 28, 2009
This type of filth should disgust the most avid meat eaters
How can this remain in operation for so long without anyone saying anything is beyond me. Not only are these animals being mistreated beyond comprehension, but the affect these slaughterhouses is having on the local environment is daunting and something that can't be ignored.
Labels:
animal slaughter,
environmentalism,
Miami Fla.,
vegetarianism
| Reactions: |
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Yay, East Point, GA!
It's always encouraging to see cities adopt ordinances that bans discrimination, especially when they are protecting the same people who work behind the scenes. One of metro Atlanta's largest cities, East Point, recently did just that.
From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
The local law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, approved by the City Council earlier this week, is almost an afterthought in a city that has offered same-sex domestic partner benefits for employees since 2005. The city charter also includes a Bill of Rights section that says the city will not adopt any laws that intentionally discriminate against gays and lesbians.
It would be my hope that metro Atlanta's more conservative, established counties and cities begin to embrace and accept the other segments of their population who continue to flock to the area often seen as the hub of the so-called New South.
From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
East Point has become just the second city in Fulton County -- and one of a handful statewide -- to adopt protections for its gay and transgender employees.
The local law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, approved by the City Council earlier this week, is almost an afterthought in a city that has offered same-sex domestic partner benefits for employees since 2005. The city charter also includes a Bill of Rights section that says the city will not adopt any laws that intentionally discriminate against gays and lesbians.
“We had to make sure that we had a good policy in place for employee protection,” said Lance Rhodes, the openly gay councilman who championed the measure. “We have to talk about what’s good for all of our employees.” The unanimous vote came just a month after two openly gay candidates posted strong showings in City Council elections, though not enough to win office. In recent years, the city has gained a reputation as gay-friendly, which has led to some conflicts in and out of City Hall. The domestic partner benefit, for instance, won on a 4-3 vote.
Councilman Greg Fann was among those who cast dissenting votes in 2005 on the domestic partner benefit. This week, one of his last votes on the council was to approve the nondiscrimination policy. Fann, a minister at Liberty International Church, said he supported the latest measure out of a sense of fairness. “My religious values do not afford me to agree with an alternative lifestyle, but that does not mean you can discriminate against someone for that lifestyle,” Fann said. “I do not believe in discrimination, period.”
This week’s vote caps a flurry of similar laws adopted in the past two years by cities in the metro area. Just last month, Chamblee joined Atlanta, Clarkston, Decatur and Doraville in prohibiting discrimination against gay employees.
In addition to East Point, only Atlanta, Decatur and Doraville extend that protection to transgender workers, or those whose outward appearance or gender identity doesn't match their gender at birth. “I hope some of our elected officials are realizing our gay and lesbian community is growing so much they can’t ignore them,” Rhodes said.
I always feel encouraged whenever cities, particularly those in the South, begin to transform themselves from stogy areas trapped by those holding on to "traditional values" into cities that are eager to move into the 21st century. As one who lives in metro Atlanta, I'm so lucky to live amongst a diverse population that's completely different from that of 100 years ago--we are more diverse in our religion, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, economic prosperity and political leanings. No longer can cities continue to operate in a mindset that caters to one segment of their population--the white, wealthy long-time residents who continue to reject that imminent change that's on the horizon.It would be my hope that metro Atlanta's more conservative, established counties and cities begin to embrace and accept the other segments of their population who continue to flock to the area often seen as the hub of the so-called New South.
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
4:42 PM
Links to this post
Yay, East Point, GA!
2009-12-24T16:42:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
East Point|gay rights|Georgia|New South|politics|
Comments
Labels:
East Point,
gay rights,
Georgia,
New South,
politics
| Reactions: |
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Houston did WHAT?!?!?
From CNN:
Annise Parker made history Saturday as Houston's first openly gay mayor. Parker, who served five years as city controller, beat former city attorney Gene Locke with 53.6 percent of the vote in a runoff election. Both are Democrats who faced off for the second time because neither emerged with more than 50 percent of the vote in the November 3 election.
Parker's election also makes her the second woman to become mayor of Houston. Other cities such as Providence, Rhode Island, and Portland, Oregon, have picked openly gay mayors. Houston is the fourth-largest U.S. city. Parker's victory is also remarkable because a few years ago, Houston rejected a referendum to offer benefits to same-sex partners of city workers. Also, the city sits in a state where gay marriage is against the law.
Read more here. I think it's fascinating that a city can vote to deny same sex partners of city workers the same benefits their heterosexual counterparts have, but they can have an openly gay woman lead them as mayor. It would be interesting to know what were some of the reasons why voters rejected the referendum. Why could they overlook the issue of sexual orientation in this election, but not when it came to extending benefits to same sex partners of city employees?
Annise Parker made history Saturday as Houston's first openly gay mayor. Parker, who served five years as city controller, beat former city attorney Gene Locke with 53.6 percent of the vote in a runoff election. Both are Democrats who faced off for the second time because neither emerged with more than 50 percent of the vote in the November 3 election.
Parker's election also makes her the second woman to become mayor of Houston. Other cities such as Providence, Rhode Island, and Portland, Oregon, have picked openly gay mayors. Houston is the fourth-largest U.S. city. Parker's victory is also remarkable because a few years ago, Houston rejected a referendum to offer benefits to same-sex partners of city workers. Also, the city sits in a state where gay marriage is against the law.
Read more here. I think it's fascinating that a city can vote to deny same sex partners of city workers the same benefits their heterosexual counterparts have, but they can have an openly gay woman lead them as mayor. It would be interesting to know what were some of the reasons why voters rejected the referendum. Why could they overlook the issue of sexual orientation in this election, but not when it came to extending benefits to same sex partners of city employees?
Labels:
gay rights,
Houston TX,
politics
| Reactions: |
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Why Uganda matters
For those who may not be in the loop, Uganda is considering a bill that would impose the death penalty on some gays in the country.
The Ugandan legislation in its current form would mandate a death sentence for active homosexuals living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. "Serial offenders" also could face capital punishment, but the legislation does not define the term. Anyone convicted of a homosexual act faces life imprisonment. Anyone who "aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage of acts of homosexuality" faces seven years in prison if convicted. Landlords who rent rooms or homes to homosexuals also could get seven years and anyone with "religious, political, economic or social authority" who fails to report anyone violating the act faces three years.
The legislation has drawn fire from human rights activists inside Uganda and across the globe as one that promotes hatred and one that would set back the country's attempts to tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis affecting its population. It's also drawing the ire of some of this country's most prominent self-proclaimed Christians, such as Rick Warren and others.
A protest was held outside the country's embassy in London. I think the photos of those in the AFP picture below shows some of the outrage that's felt by many across the board
Other organizations such as the conservative GOProud also denounced the legislation. It should be pointed, as the MSNBC article does, that this legislation followed a meeting of American conservative Christian leaders who touted therapy to turn gays into heterosexuals. More on that later...
This sort of legislation should draw the attention to any nation-state that's concerned about the possible circumventing rights of a minority--and the stability of a region. Activists who believe this sort of legislation could curtail the progress Uganda has seen in preventing new HIV/AIDS cases are dead on. According to a report from AVERTing HIV and AIDS, Uganda is "often held up as a model for African in the fight against HIV & AIDS." But, the report indicated, there are an estimated 940,000 people in the country with HIV and 1.2 million children orphaned by AIDS. These type of witch-hunting laws that are enacted by governments do nothing but further isolate a segment of a population (often the population those in the "majority" want to "rid" the country of) that already faces some form on institutionalized discrimination and second-class citizenship. Criminalizing homosexuality will only force Uganda's gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered folk further into the shadows of society and further exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS.
I say what this country does matters because this sets a precedent for other countries to follow, particularly on a continent that already filled with disease, famine and genocide. On a continent in which ethnic groups were pitted against each other (with the result ending in roughly 800,000 killed in the Rwandan genocide and at least 400,000 killed in the ongoing Darfur conflict) and where millions are killed and orphaned due to AIDS each year, attempts to marginalize segments of populations can not stand.
I saw that this country does matters because it's a blatant violation of the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And, as a member state of the U.N., Uganda would be turning its back on these same principles it proclaimed to protect before joining the U.N. In essence, it would be turning its back on its duty as a state to protect all its citizens from injustice and discrimination.
The Ugandan legislation in its current form would mandate a death sentence for active homosexuals living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. "Serial offenders" also could face capital punishment, but the legislation does not define the term. Anyone convicted of a homosexual act faces life imprisonment. Anyone who "aids, abets, counsels or procures another to engage of acts of homosexuality" faces seven years in prison if convicted. Landlords who rent rooms or homes to homosexuals also could get seven years and anyone with "religious, political, economic or social authority" who fails to report anyone violating the act faces three years.
The legislation has drawn fire from human rights activists inside Uganda and across the globe as one that promotes hatred and one that would set back the country's attempts to tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis affecting its population. It's also drawing the ire of some of this country's most prominent self-proclaimed Christians, such as Rick Warren and others.
A protest was held outside the country's embassy in London. I think the photos of those in the AFP picture below shows some of the outrage that's felt by many across the board
Courtesy AFP/Getty Images
Other organizations such as the conservative GOProud also denounced the legislation. It should be pointed, as the MSNBC article does, that this legislation followed a meeting of American conservative Christian leaders who touted therapy to turn gays into heterosexuals. More on that later...
This sort of legislation should draw the attention to any nation-state that's concerned about the possible circumventing rights of a minority--and the stability of a region. Activists who believe this sort of legislation could curtail the progress Uganda has seen in preventing new HIV/AIDS cases are dead on. According to a report from AVERTing HIV and AIDS, Uganda is "often held up as a model for African in the fight against HIV & AIDS." But, the report indicated, there are an estimated 940,000 people in the country with HIV and 1.2 million children orphaned by AIDS. These type of witch-hunting laws that are enacted by governments do nothing but further isolate a segment of a population (often the population those in the "majority" want to "rid" the country of) that already faces some form on institutionalized discrimination and second-class citizenship. Criminalizing homosexuality will only force Uganda's gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered folk further into the shadows of society and further exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS.
I say what this country does matters because this sets a precedent for other countries to follow, particularly on a continent that already filled with disease, famine and genocide. On a continent in which ethnic groups were pitted against each other (with the result ending in roughly 800,000 killed in the Rwandan genocide and at least 400,000 killed in the ongoing Darfur conflict) and where millions are killed and orphaned due to AIDS each year, attempts to marginalize segments of populations can not stand.
I saw that this country does matters because it's a blatant violation of the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And, as a member state of the U.N., Uganda would be turning its back on these same principles it proclaimed to protect before joining the U.N. In essence, it would be turning its back on its duty as a state to protect all its citizens from injustice and discrimination.
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
8:11 PM
Links to this post
Why Uganda matters
2009-12-10T20:11:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
Christianity|evangelical Christians|HIV/AIDS|homosexuality|human rights|Uganda|United Nations|
Comments
Labels:
Christianity,
evangelical Christians,
HIV/AIDS,
homosexuality,
human rights,
Uganda,
United Nations
| Reactions: |
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Good to know that the South Carolina legislature cares about ethics
Yeah, not reeally. According to this from The State, the constitutional law subcommittee voted 6-1 against the impeachment resolution against Gov. Mark Sanford. The only vote in favor was state Rep.Greg Delleney, one of four sponsors of the resolution. The panel instead voted to censure the governor, which would give Sanford the opportunity to serve out his term, which ends in a year.
Lawmakers said that while Sanford may have used a 2008 Argentina trade trip as a cover to initiate an extramarital affair and that his use of state aircraft deserved an S.C. Ethics Commission review, the charges did not meet the high standard they felt was necessary to remove Sanford from office. Delleney said he'll continue to try to push for the full Judiciary Comittee to vote for the impeachment resolution, but he wasn't optimistic about the outcome.
What's also disappointing and appalling about Sanford's behavior is the sheer arrogance he's displayed throughout this entire constitutional crisis in the state. The blatant evidence against him, the public flogging his persona has experienced and the humiliation brought onto his wife and children still weren't enough to bring down the sheer arrogance of Sanford. His refusal to resign not only thumbs his nose at the state legislature, it also shows his contempt for public opinion--and for the office of governor.
But, in the age of political scandals being made public at the rate of about one every 3-4 months, why should we be surprised at such arrogance these pols continue to flaunt to the media and their constituents?
My suggestion for Sanford (who's shown he's not interested in not taking a page from Georgia's former House Speaker Glenn Richardson's book): once your term ends, pack your bags and disappear from the limelight until you can comprehend the mess you've made of South Carolina.
Lawmakers said that while Sanford may have used a 2008 Argentina trade trip as a cover to initiate an extramarital affair and that his use of state aircraft deserved an S.C. Ethics Commission review, the charges did not meet the high standard they felt was necessary to remove Sanford from office. Delleney said he'll continue to try to push for the full Judiciary Comittee to vote for the impeachment resolution, but he wasn't optimistic about the outcome.
Not to be outdone, the governor released a statement after the decision was made:
"In light of the ad hoc committee wrapping up its work today, I would like to make several points. One, I'd like to thank the Committee for its work, and for their deliberate and measured approach throughout the process.Two, we agree with the Committee's dismissal of 32 of the 37 ethics allegations. From the beginning I acknowledged my moral failing, and I apologized repeatedly. But in the same breath I said, as real as that was, what has been suggested with regard to supposedly not watching out for the taxpayer was just not correct; and that if there had been any oversight, it was minor and technical in nature. We are confident that the remaining five allegations will be dismissed just as the 32 were, because we have consistently tried to be true to the taxpayer. This has not changed, and it will not change. Three, I want to thank the people of this state for their kindness and grace. I was encouraged repeatedly in traveling across the state over the last several months by countless people telling me to 'hang in there,' and 'finish strong.' The people of South Carolina have given me great strength in this adversity I've created for myself, and I want to again thank them for it. It's my intention to finish strong focusing on the economic challenges facing our state -- just as we've seen with Boeing's record-setting announcement a month ago, with Crane Company announcing 1,000 new jobs in Barnwell County a couple of weeks ago, or with Red Ventures, where I was earlier today, announcing 1,000 jobs in Lancaster County. I'll also be focused on real opportunities for reform on the legislative front in making South Carolina more competitive in the global competition for jobs, investment and way of life. We'd ask that people from all corners of the state make their voices heard on this front."While I may not be priivy to the inner workings of South Carolina state politics, this type of apathy displayed by lawmakers is a disservice to their constituents. However, due to the dismissal of 28 of the 37 civil ethics charges against Sanford by the ad hoc panel created to consider impeachment, the decision to forgo impeachment isn't surprising, I guess.
What's also disappointing and appalling about Sanford's behavior is the sheer arrogance he's displayed throughout this entire constitutional crisis in the state. The blatant evidence against him, the public flogging his persona has experienced and the humiliation brought onto his wife and children still weren't enough to bring down the sheer arrogance of Sanford. His refusal to resign not only thumbs his nose at the state legislature, it also shows his contempt for public opinion--and for the office of governor.
But, in the age of political scandals being made public at the rate of about one every 3-4 months, why should we be surprised at such arrogance these pols continue to flaunt to the media and their constituents?
My suggestion for Sanford (who's shown he's not interested in not taking a page from Georgia's former House Speaker Glenn Richardson's book): once your term ends, pack your bags and disappear from the limelight until you can comprehend the mess you've made of South Carolina.
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
7:24 PM
Links to this post
Good to know that the South Carolina legislature cares about ethics
2009-12-09T19:24:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
Argentenia|ethics|Gov. Mark Sanford|impeachment|South Carolina|
Comments
Labels:
Argentenia,
ethics,
Gov. Mark Sanford,
impeachment,
South Carolina
| Reactions: |
Saturday, December 5, 2009
An apology
Um...I just want to say that I realize that my settings were changed to not allow comments on my posts. I'm in the process of fixing this issue, so please bear with me.
I truly apologize for this as I'm sure some recent entries have been hot-button issues many people would like to express their opinions on:-)
I truly apologize for this as I'm sure some recent entries have been hot-button issues many people would like to express their opinions on:-)
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
6:42 PM
Links to this post
An apology
2009-12-05T18:42:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
HTML|technical difficulties|
Comments
Labels:
HTML,
technical difficulties
| Reactions: |
Friday, December 4, 2009
Palin joins the Birthers movement
Should we be surprised, though? We all knew Palin was/is a little off, so this type of rationale shouldn't come as a shock to us mainstream folk. More from the story:
McCain's campaign counsel has said the campaign did look into the birth certificate question and, like every other serious examination, dismissed it.
McCain's campaign counsel has said the campaign did look into the birth certificate question and, like every other serious examination, dismissed it.
Palin suggested that the questions were fair play because of "the weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son -- 'You need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid,' which we have done."
"Maybe we can reverse that," she said, returning to Obama's birth certificate, describing the type of thinking involved with a word that isn't clear in the audio.
So, is this more about retaliation for Palin as opposed to sincere "concern?" Is this validity she's trying to portray her way to get back at those on the far left (a distinct minority) who questioned if Trig was her real son? As we've seen with previous politicians (such as George W. Bush using Saddam Hussein's assassination attempt on the elder Bush as one motive of creating a war with Iraq), revenge politics never ends well for those involved.
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
8:09 AM
Links to this post
Palin joins the Birthers movement
2009-12-04T08:09:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
birth certificate|birthers|Gov. Palin|President Obama|revenge politics|
Comments
| Reactions: |
Monday, November 30, 2009
While working today...
I came across this while visiting someone's home:
Yes, folks. I came across this in someone's home. In case you're lost, it's a life-size (3-foot) mammy doll. Considering where I'm located (on the northern end of metro Atlanta), this type of decor isn't surprising. Earlier in the day, someone had a smaller type of doll that was sitting on top of a shelf or a cabinet.
When I saw it, I honestly didn't get mad or offended. I was probably more shocked/surprised than anything. Shocked to see this type of doll in plain view and surprised the homeowner didn't seem to think (or care) that I may be offended by such decor.
I'm always fascinated by a person who decides to dive into a collection such as this. Maybe it's similar to those who collect items with the Confederate battle emblem or KKK items. Or even golliwog dolls.
Nevertheless, why collect something so offensive as this?
What value (if any) does having a collection of mammies (and other racially/ethnically/gender insensitive items) give a person? What do you say when you're asked why you choose to collect something so offensive? Maybe the people who collect items with the rebel flag or the KKK symbols can possibly make the argument about being Southern history buffs/Civil War enthusiasts.
What kind of argument could a person who collect mammy replicas make for taking up such a hobby? That you are fascinated by one of several stereotypical images of black women that continue to hang over our heads varying forms (read: overweight black women portrayed in Tyler Perry and other filmaker's movies/television shows)?
Anyway, it was an interesting day, to say the least.
Have you ever encountered something similar to this at a person's home? What did you do/say when you saw the doll or statue? Did you find it offensive?
Yes, folks. I came across this in someone's home. In case you're lost, it's a life-size (3-foot) mammy doll. Considering where I'm located (on the northern end of metro Atlanta), this type of decor isn't surprising. Earlier in the day, someone had a smaller type of doll that was sitting on top of a shelf or a cabinet.
When I saw it, I honestly didn't get mad or offended. I was probably more shocked/surprised than anything. Shocked to see this type of doll in plain view and surprised the homeowner didn't seem to think (or care) that I may be offended by such decor.
I'm always fascinated by a person who decides to dive into a collection such as this. Maybe it's similar to those who collect items with the Confederate battle emblem or KKK items. Or even golliwog dolls.
Nevertheless, why collect something so offensive as this?
What value (if any) does having a collection of mammies (and other racially/ethnically/gender insensitive items) give a person? What do you say when you're asked why you choose to collect something so offensive? Maybe the people who collect items with the rebel flag or the KKK symbols can possibly make the argument about being Southern history buffs/Civil War enthusiasts.
What kind of argument could a person who collect mammy replicas make for taking up such a hobby? That you are fascinated by one of several stereotypical images of black women that continue to hang over our heads varying forms (read: overweight black women portrayed in Tyler Perry and other filmaker's movies/television shows)?
Anyway, it was an interesting day, to say the least.
Have you ever encountered something similar to this at a person's home? What did you do/say when you saw the doll or statue? Did you find it offensive?
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
7:05 PM
Links to this post
While working today...
2009-11-30T19:05:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
mammy dolls|racism|sexism|slavery|
Comments
Labels:
mammy dolls,
racism,
sexism,
slavery
| Reactions: |
Saturday, November 28, 2009
"Resolutions," anyone?
I'm not really big into New Year's resolutions, but I do have a few things I would like to try to do in 2010:
-stick to my vegetarian diet.
-develop (and stick to) a good exercise/gym plan.
-shop at more black-owned/operated businesses.
-develop a consistent blogging schedule.
-expand my intellectual self--meaning expanding my knowledge about various subjects.
Well, those are a few I can think of. I don't really like to call them resolutions, but I can't think of another word to replace that one:-)
I decided to go vegetarian in Feb. 2008. I was doing good for a while, but I have been slipping. If I'm going to do this, then I need to do it right, plain and simple.
My life has always been synonymous with a proper diet and exercise. I absolutely love hitting the gym and hitting the weights. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty healthy, but I want to take it to the next level.
I never thought about shopping at black-owned/operated businesses until this year. It never occurred to me how important it is to support my fellow brothers and sisters in their efforts to become successful in the business field. It'll be a challenge to find them and support them, but I'm up to the task.
Writing has been my passion for as long as I can remember. And I fell in love with blogging several years ago and I still love it to this day. I won't set ridiculous standards (blogging everyday) for myself as my busy life will get in the way of those high standards. I will say I'll blog at least three times a week and no more than once a day.
I want to expand my knowledge (and topics I blog about) to various subjects, including (but not limited to) atheism, agnosticism, The Mommy Myth, the role of women in the political system, the role of black women in the black political system, the indoctrination of black women by our "community" into accepting various ideals, etc. These are just some things that continue to plague my mind.
What are some things you are interested in "pursuing" for 2010? Why?
-stick to my vegetarian diet.
-develop (and stick to) a good exercise/gym plan.
-shop at more black-owned/operated businesses.
-develop a consistent blogging schedule.
-expand my intellectual self--meaning expanding my knowledge about various subjects.
Well, those are a few I can think of. I don't really like to call them resolutions, but I can't think of another word to replace that one:-)
I decided to go vegetarian in Feb. 2008. I was doing good for a while, but I have been slipping. If I'm going to do this, then I need to do it right, plain and simple.
My life has always been synonymous with a proper diet and exercise. I absolutely love hitting the gym and hitting the weights. Don't get me wrong, I'm pretty healthy, but I want to take it to the next level.
I never thought about shopping at black-owned/operated businesses until this year. It never occurred to me how important it is to support my fellow brothers and sisters in their efforts to become successful in the business field. It'll be a challenge to find them and support them, but I'm up to the task.
Writing has been my passion for as long as I can remember. And I fell in love with blogging several years ago and I still love it to this day. I won't set ridiculous standards (blogging everyday) for myself as my busy life will get in the way of those high standards. I will say I'll blog at least three times a week and no more than once a day.
I want to expand my knowledge (and topics I blog about) to various subjects, including (but not limited to) atheism, agnosticism, The Mommy Myth, the role of women in the political system, the role of black women in the black political system, the indoctrination of black women by our "community" into accepting various ideals, etc. These are just some things that continue to plague my mind.
What are some things you are interested in "pursuing" for 2010? Why?
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
8:44 AM
Links to this post
"Resolutions," anyone?
2009-11-28T08:44:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
black community|black women|black-owned businesses|blogging|religion|The Mommy Myth|vegetarianism|women's rights|
Comments
Labels:
black community,
black women,
black-owned businesses,
blogging,
religion,
The Mommy Myth,
vegetarianism,
women's rights
| Reactions: |
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Protesters heckle woman who lost daughter and granddaughter
I saw this story on The Huffington Post and I just couldn't ignore it. Here's a video of what went down at a Nov. 14 town hall meeting the Chicago Tea Party Patriots had with Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinksi. These people, who obviously believe in mob rule and ignoring Democracy, pretty much dismissed this woman's story.
According to Southtown Star, the organizer of the event offered this explanation of the audience's behavior:
Catherina Wojtowicz, of Chicago's Mount Greenwood community, an organizer for a Tea Party splinter group, Chicago Tea Party Patriots, falsely claimed that the Houghs fabricated their story. In an e-mail, she called them operatives of President Barack Obama who "go from event to event and (cry) the same story."
Yeah, these people always have an excuse for their behavior and lack of respect.
According to Southtown Star, the organizer of the event offered this explanation of the audience's behavior:
Catherina Wojtowicz, of Chicago's Mount Greenwood community, an organizer for a Tea Party splinter group, Chicago Tea Party Patriots, falsely claimed that the Houghs fabricated their story. In an e-mail, she called them operatives of President Barack Obama who "go from event to event and (cry) the same story."
Yeah, these people always have an excuse for their behavior and lack of respect.
Posted by
The New Black Woman
at
7:55 AM
Links to this post
Protesters heckle woman who lost daughter and granddaughter
2009-11-24T07:55:00-05:00
The New Black Woman
Chicago|health care debate|Tea Party protests|
Comments
Labels:
Chicago,
health care debate,
Tea Party protests
| Reactions: |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)












