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:-)
Saturday, December 5, 2009
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.
| 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?
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?
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.
Labels:
Chicago,
health care debate,
Tea Party protests
| Reactions: |
Monday, November 23, 2009
Billboard links Obama with jihadists
David Zalubowski / AP
Maintenance man David Lee of Arvada, Colo., puts the finishing touches on a sign featuring cartoon drawings of a grinning President Barack Obama wearing a turban.
WHEAT RIDGE, Colo. - A billboard showing President Barack Obama wearing a turban has sparked a lot of attention at the suburban Denver used car dealership that put it up.
The sign, completed Friday by artist David Lee, shows a grinning, cartoonish Obama and bears the words "PRESIDENT or JIHAD?"
Underneath the president's image is a big yellow square with the phrase, "BIRTH CERTIFICATE, PROVE IT!" The words "WAKE UP AMERICA! REMEMBER FT. HOOD" appear at the bottom of the billboard at Wolf Interstate Leasing and Sales, about seven miles west of Denver. The sign is visible from Interstate 70.
Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. citizen born to Palestinian parents, has been charged in the Nov. 5 mass shooting at the Army post in Fort Hood, Texas, that left 13 dead and more than 30 wounded.
Lee said there were plenty of honks from car horns as he painted the billboard.
"One lady came by and gave me the 'shame, shame' look," said Lee, of Arvada, another suburb of Denver.
Mixed reaction
Dealership owner Phil Wolf was unavailable for comment Friday, but General Manager Wayne Means said the business has seen strong opinions about its sign.
"We've had people come by and say, 'Keep it up.' We've had people come by and say, 'Take it down,'" Means said. "We can have differences of opinion. This is America."
The left-leaning advocacy group MoveOn.org called the billboard "racist" and was asking customers to boycott the dealership. (Source)
Lee said the billboard has previously held other slogans questioning the president's citizenship, along with routine ads for cars.
The fringe so-called birther movement claims that Obama was born outside the United States and is ineligible to be president. The Constitution states that a person must be a "natural-born citizen" to be eligible for the presidency. Birthers contend that Obama's birth certificate is a fake, and many say he was actually born in Kenya, his father's homeland.
Obama's Hawaii birth certificate along with birth notices from the two Honolulu newspapers were brought forward even before he took office. State officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that Obama was born in Honolulu.
Should we be really surprised at the extreme right-wing's attempts, who've failed miserably at asserting Obama isn't a U.S. citizen, to link the Ft. Hood massacre to President Obama? Should one feel shocked/surprised/angry at such tactic or should one feel ambivalent about the issue? Is it racist, as the folks at MoveOn claim. I mean, we all figured there are quite a few in this country who cringe at the sight of seeing a man of color as the American president.
Say you?
Labels:
billboards,
birthers,
Ft. Hood massacre,
jihad,
President Obama
| Reactions: |
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Steele: some white GOP are "scared" of me
I must admit, this made me laugh. This guy has proven to be perfect at digging his own grave...
I am just amazed at what can come out of this man's mouth. But I'm curious to hear his explanation of his comments...
I am just amazed at what can come out of this man's mouth. But I'm curious to hear his explanation of his comments...
Labels:
GOP,
Michael Steele,
racism
| Reactions: |
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Why the Ft. Hood massacre is just the tip of the iceberg
There is a crisis in the military concerning the Department of Defense's efforts to provide adequate mental health services to its soldiers. And, if any of the stories regarding the lack of respect for the suspected killer's religion rings true, the military also has a tolerance problem.
CNN has a couple of stories that goes beyond covering the shootings that left 12 people dead and 31 wounded. One story claims the suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan was harassed due to his religious beliefs. A police report filed Aug. 16 involved Hassan's car being vandalized after a neighbor ripped off a pro-Islam bumper sticker off Hassan's car.
Various article also pointed to the alleged shooter's behavior leading up to the incident. There were reports of the alleged (I say alleged because he hasn't been convicted of any crimes and to avoid being sued for libel) shooter began giving away his belongings, became increasingly defensive about his opposition to being deployed to Afghanistan, etc.
Hasan's neighbors on Friday said he cleaned out his apartment the morning of the shootings and gave copies of the Quran to several residents. His next-door neighbor, Patricia Villa, said he gave her his furniture and paid her $60 to clean his apartment hours before the shooting. "He told me he was leaving for Iraq or somewhere," Villa said. "I didn't think much of it."
Another neighbor, Willie Bell, said Hasan had helped him set up his laptop and regularly tapped into Bell's wireless service. Bell, a maintenance man at Fort Hood who didn't show up for work Thursday, said he was interviewed by the FBI for four hours that day and the laptop was seized. He said he received two calls from Hasan early Thursday, one at 2:37 a.m. asking Bell to turn on the wireless service and again at 5 a.m. to say he was moving.
Here's an Anderson Cooper 360 discussion that outlined the "warning signs" Hassan displayed leading up to the massacre:
Religious intolerance is nothing new in the miliary. In April 2008, Specialist Jeremy Hall sued the Army, alleging his atheism was under constant attack by other soldiers. Earlier this year, the New York Times ran an article that outline the Army's use of religious-based videos to treat depression and suicidal thoughts.
As an atheist and someone who deeply values this country's allowance of people to worship whomever or whatever they want, this type of religious intolerance in the military should not be swept under the rug. Every soldier, regardless of faith or lack thereof, should be afforded the same rights and priviledges as their Christian counterparts in the military. The military is not, and should not be, exempt from following the First Amendment.
There has to be some sort of action taken by the military to do a better job of screening its personnel. My heart goes out to the friends and family members of victims who have to endure this type of tragedy because, as it seems, the military failed to take action.
The mental health care crisis in the military has been debated and criticized for years. An NPR investigation done in 2007 found that many soldiers' anguish and pain is often overlooked and ignored by Army officials. There was also a story in the Chicago Tribune that profiled the Army's struggles with a rising suicide rate. The San Francisco Chronicle in 2006 reported the Army, despite severe psychological problems soldiers are presenting, they were still being sent to Iraq and were even participating in combat.
The lack of adequate health care for military personnel and their families has always been an issue that's gotten under my skin. How can the world's most "powerful" country, which spends more on defense than on anything else in its budget, expect to have the best men and women within its ranks if they do not supply the necessary services needed to live a decent life? How can a country, that spends so much on the latest combat technology, chooses to ignore the plight of the men and women (and the families) who will make the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedom and liberty?
Any successful CEO will tell you: you can not run a successful business if your employees aren't physically or mentally capable of handling the duties given to them. Quality output can not be expected if a corporation does not invest in ways to make sure their employees will give their all for their job.
The military can not continue to operate on a bare minimum policy when it comes to the health and well-being of soldiers. If they expect to have a military that's competent enough to participate in combat, then it's imperative on them to give their employees the best mental health care services possible.
It's high time for our nation's generals, colonels, lieutenants, sergeants and Pentagon bureaucrats to being an overhaul of this country's military policy and move it into the 21st century. We can't fight 21st century wars with a pre-1950s military policy.
CNN has a couple of stories that goes beyond covering the shootings that left 12 people dead and 31 wounded. One story claims the suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan was harassed due to his religious beliefs. A police report filed Aug. 16 involved Hassan's car being vandalized after a neighbor ripped off a pro-Islam bumper sticker off Hassan's car.
The bumper sticker incident at Hasan's apartment complex in Killeen, Texas, is the first known example of harassment that has surfaced since the shooting. Apartment manager John Thompson said Friday that he reported the situation to police after the girlfriend of then-resident John van de Walker told him that he did it. Thompson said he saw van de Walker apologize to Hasan and that a police report was filed. He added that the bumper sticker said "Allah is Love" in Arabic, but that van de Walker knew that Hasan was Muslim before seeing it. Thompson said the last time he asked Hasan about the incident, Hasan said he was still waiting for reparations for damage to his 2006 Honda Civic.His cousin also claims Hassan felt he was treated differently because of his race and his religion:
Various article also pointed to the alleged shooter's behavior leading up to the incident. There were reports of the alleged (I say alleged because he hasn't been convicted of any crimes and to avoid being sued for libel) shooter began giving away his belongings, became increasingly defensive about his opposition to being deployed to Afghanistan, etc.
Hasan's neighbors on Friday said he cleaned out his apartment the morning of the shootings and gave copies of the Quran to several residents. His next-door neighbor, Patricia Villa, said he gave her his furniture and paid her $60 to clean his apartment hours before the shooting. "He told me he was leaving for Iraq or somewhere," Villa said. "I didn't think much of it."
Another neighbor, Willie Bell, said Hasan had helped him set up his laptop and regularly tapped into Bell's wireless service. Bell, a maintenance man at Fort Hood who didn't show up for work Thursday, said he was interviewed by the FBI for four hours that day and the laptop was seized. He said he received two calls from Hasan early Thursday, one at 2:37 a.m. asking Bell to turn on the wireless service and again at 5 a.m. to say he was moving.
Here's an Anderson Cooper 360 discussion that outlined the "warning signs" Hassan displayed leading up to the massacre:
Religious intolerance is nothing new in the miliary. In April 2008, Specialist Jeremy Hall sued the Army, alleging his atheism was under constant attack by other soldiers. Earlier this year, the New York Times ran an article that outline the Army's use of religious-based videos to treat depression and suicidal thoughts.
As an atheist and someone who deeply values this country's allowance of people to worship whomever or whatever they want, this type of religious intolerance in the military should not be swept under the rug. Every soldier, regardless of faith or lack thereof, should be afforded the same rights and priviledges as their Christian counterparts in the military. The military is not, and should not be, exempt from following the First Amendment.
There has to be some sort of action taken by the military to do a better job of screening its personnel. My heart goes out to the friends and family members of victims who have to endure this type of tragedy because, as it seems, the military failed to take action.
The mental health care crisis in the military has been debated and criticized for years. An NPR investigation done in 2007 found that many soldiers' anguish and pain is often overlooked and ignored by Army officials. There was also a story in the Chicago Tribune that profiled the Army's struggles with a rising suicide rate. The San Francisco Chronicle in 2006 reported the Army, despite severe psychological problems soldiers are presenting, they were still being sent to Iraq and were even participating in combat.
The lack of adequate health care for military personnel and their families has always been an issue that's gotten under my skin. How can the world's most "powerful" country, which spends more on defense than on anything else in its budget, expect to have the best men and women within its ranks if they do not supply the necessary services needed to live a decent life? How can a country, that spends so much on the latest combat technology, chooses to ignore the plight of the men and women (and the families) who will make the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedom and liberty?
Any successful CEO will tell you: you can not run a successful business if your employees aren't physically or mentally capable of handling the duties given to them. Quality output can not be expected if a corporation does not invest in ways to make sure their employees will give their all for their job.
The military can not continue to operate on a bare minimum policy when it comes to the health and well-being of soldiers. If they expect to have a military that's competent enough to participate in combat, then it's imperative on them to give their employees the best mental health care services possible.
It's high time for our nation's generals, colonels, lieutenants, sergeants and Pentagon bureaucrats to being an overhaul of this country's military policy and move it into the 21st century. We can't fight 21st century wars with a pre-1950s military policy.
Labels:
Ft. Hood massacre,
mental heath,
military,
religion
| Reactions: |
Thursday, November 5, 2009
AJC story: Hired as a man, fired as a woman
This is a great story by Christian Boone I saw on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's website this morning:
On Halloween 2006, Vandy Beth Glenn, unlike some of her costumed colleagues, came to work dressed in typical business attire. For that, the former editor with the Georgia General Assembly was fired, as her then-boss recently acknowledged in court documents.
I chose to feature this story in today's blog because I felt this is an issue that has become all too common in the workplace. Too often, transgendered folk in this country and across the world, for the fear of ridicule and shame, are forced to live a life of contradiction. The type of comments Brumby made also disturb me:
Also, Mr. Brumby, how do you know what members of the legislature would think? Do you really think acceptance of anyone, regardless of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, religion, would be viewed as immoral, unnatural, liberal or, as you put it, ultra-liberal? Have you taken a poll of all employees of the Georgia General Assembly and asked them what they would think?
This is the problem I have with conservatives. Too often, they proclaim how they perceive the reaction of a larger population would be if they encountered anything different or, as Mr. Brumby puts it, "unnatural." Frequently these self-proclaimed conservative moralists hide behind their patriarchial tendencies to "protect" American from what they view as filth and the influence of the so-called liberal, gay culture on the broader American society.
Sadly, this type of patriarchal, protective nature straight, male, conservative WASPs blocks any sort of progress society needs to make in order for everyone to share the same equal protection of the law. No one, regardless of their religious and political beliefs, race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or nationality, should live a life of hypocrisy for the fear of a backlash from straight, male conservative WASPs.
NO ONE...
On Halloween 2006, Vandy Beth Glenn, unlike some of her costumed colleagues, came to work dressed in typical business attire. For that, the former editor with the Georgia General Assembly was fired, as her then-boss recently acknowledged in court documents.
Glenn had decided weeks before that she could no longer navigate separate personas, working as Glenn Morrison (her birth name) and living as Vandy Beth. Glenn informed her immediate supervisor, senior editor Beth Yinger, that she had been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder, a psychiatric classification for persons in conflict with their biological sex.
Yinger and Glenn agreed she would make her workplace debut as a woman on Halloween. Glenn dressed conservatively, wearing a knee-length black skirt and a red turtleneck sweater.
"I don't think anything could have turned me back at that point," said Glenn, who would not give her age. "I reached a point in my life where I said it was time to stop fronting. Besides, I thought it was well understood this was a medical condition."
Her boss, Georgia Legislative Counsel Sewell Brumby, saw it differently.
“It makes me think about things I don’t like to think about, particularly at work … I think it’s unsettling to think of someone dressed in women’s clothing with male sexual organs inside that clothing,” said Brumby, in a deposition taken May 11th in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. He's among the defendants in a federal suit filed by Glenn that claims her former employers violated the Constitution's equal protection clause.
"It's always preying on you," Glenn said of her identity disorder. "It doesn't go away, like a monkey on your back it keeps eating at you. It's mentally exhausting carrying that around with you."
In her deposition, Yinger said she supported Glenn's decision, though she expected some would have trouble adopting to the change. “But I did think that he should be allowed to stay employed," said Yinger, who declined to comment for this story.
Brumby, who did not respond to interview requests, disagreed, according to court documents, though he anticipated legal retribution.
"I thought there was a strong likelihood that I would get sued, and I thought there was a strong likelihood that I would be criticized," he said.
But retaining Glenn "would be extremely harmful to our work operations," he said in the deposition. Though Glenn worked in a windowless office and had little, if any, contact with legislators, Brumby worried about their reaction.
“I think some members of the legislature would view that taking place in our office as perhaps immoral, perhaps unnatural, and perhaps, if you will, liberal or ultra-liberal,” he said.
Glenn is not suing for damages. She just wants her job back writing and editing state laws.
"I liked it a lot," she said. "I loved the people. I liked being part of the machinery of government. And work was only four miles from home."
Glenn mostly freelances now. And the self-described political moderate has become a transgender activist, testifying recently before Congress on behalf of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Hearings resume Thursday. If the legislation had been enacted prior to Halloween 2006, Glenn would likely still have her job.
"The rule in Georgia is you can be fired for any reason," said Glenn's attorney, Greg Nevins, "as long as it's not one prohibited by law."
The state's attorney, Richard Sheinis, filed a motion to dismiss last year, arguing that Glenn does not have legal grounds to sue because neither state or federal law mandates transgendered protection. In June, U.S. District Judge Richard Story ruled against the defense.
Regardless of how her case is decided, Glenn has no regrets.
"The most important thing [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] people can do is come out," she said. "The way to solve problems like this is to show people how ordinary we really are."
I chose to feature this story in today's blog because I felt this is an issue that has become all too common in the workplace. Too often, transgendered folk in this country and across the world, for the fear of ridicule and shame, are forced to live a life of contradiction. The type of comments Brumby made also disturb me:
"It makes me think about things I don’t like to think about, particularly at work … I think it’s unsettling to think of someone dressed in women’s clothing with male sexual organs inside that clothing."Well, Mr. Brumby, would you feel more comfortable thinking those thoughts at home or in the gay clubs you probably frequent on a regular basis? Or are you not comfortable with those thoughts because they remind you of the possible questions you have about your gender identity?
Also, Mr. Brumby, how do you know what members of the legislature would think? Do you really think acceptance of anyone, regardless of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, national origin, religion, would be viewed as immoral, unnatural, liberal or, as you put it, ultra-liberal? Have you taken a poll of all employees of the Georgia General Assembly and asked them what they would think?
This is the problem I have with conservatives. Too often, they proclaim how they perceive the reaction of a larger population would be if they encountered anything different or, as Mr. Brumby puts it, "unnatural." Frequently these self-proclaimed conservative moralists hide behind their patriarchial tendencies to "protect" American from what they view as filth and the influence of the so-called liberal, gay culture on the broader American society.
Sadly, this type of patriarchal, protective nature straight, male, conservative WASPs blocks any sort of progress society needs to make in order for everyone to share the same equal protection of the law. No one, regardless of their religious and political beliefs, race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or nationality, should live a life of hypocrisy for the fear of a backlash from straight, male conservative WASPs.
NO ONE...
Labels:
AJC,
General Assembly,
Georgia,
transgender,
WASP
| Reactions: |
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
This man should have the book thrown at him
Ever since the story about the 20-year-old Iraqi woman being run over by her father because was "too Westernized" came to light a few weeks ago, it has made my blood boil. Now that she has died, it has only hardened my feelings towards this father's actions.
Noor Faleh Almaleki died Monday of injuries suffered when she was run over October 20 in a parking lot in the Phoenix suburb of Peoria, Arizona, police there said. Authorities said they expect to change the aggravated assault charge against her father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, to more severe counts after meetings with prosecutors, Peoria police announced.
After the incident, Almaleki's father drove to Mexico, abandoning his vehicle in Nogales, Peoria police said. He then made his way to Mexico City and boarded a plane to Britain, where authorities denied him entry into the country and put him on a plane back to the United States, police said.
A friend of the daughter, Amal Edan Khalaf, 43, also suffered serious injuries in the attack, police said. Almaleki faces a separate aggravated assault charge in connection with her injuries.
He is currently held in Phoenix, with bail has been set at $5 million, Tellef said.
While my outrage should be felt by anyone who has a soul, we know that there are a minority of people who will commend this man for killing his daughter. Radical groups who identify with Islam often hide behind their religion to tolerate honor killings. Defined by Human Rights Watch (via Wikipedia), honor killings are:
I must note that investigators have not concluded the Arizona case an honor killing, but the father's reasoning is eerily similar to what some point to as an "immoral" behavior (disobeying a father's rules).
The United Nations points out that honor killings occur in a diverse array of countries such as Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda and the United Kingdom and as many as 5,000 are victims in honor killings. (Source)
And there have been a few cases in the U.S. and Canada that police have connected to honor killings. In 2008, two teenage girls were shot to death in a taxi cab in Texas. Police immediately issues a warrant for the girls' father, who still remains on the run. In Ontario in 2007, the father of a 16-year-old was charged with murder after he called police and informed them of his actions.
I hate to sound like a typical western woman who is jumping on the bandwagon to decry the human rights abuses these poor women and girls are suffering, but this issue can not be ignored and covered up. I'm sure apologists and those who like to hide behind cultural relativism will come to support these actions and criticize westerners for meddling in the business of other religions, cultures and countries.
But that type of criticism doesn't hold water. No woman should be killed because she's brought "dishonor" and shame upon a family. No (male) family member has the right to take a (female) family member's life because of his feeling of embarassment.
The problem I have with those who justify honor killing is they imply women are the cause of their family's "shame." It's a woman's fault if she's raped by a man on the streets. It's her fault if she takes on a different "lifestyle" than what her family approves of. It's a woman's fault if she loses her virginity before marriage. It's a woman's fault if she decides not to enter into a pre-arranged marriage (not because she isn't interested or doesn't like the man selected for her).
Another problem I have with honor killings is how little attention it's gotten from states and their leaders. These male leaders continue to turn a blind eye from the blatant human rights violations that are ongoing in their backyards. Fearful of losing the support and backing from male citizens and lawmakers, female leaders have also done little to nothing to make this issue a priority in their governments. In an attempt to hold onto traditions, many families have also been reluctant to protect their female family members of the wrath of these men hell-bent on protecting their "honor."
I eagerly look forward to the day in which I won't have to blog about this issue. I look forward to the day in which women and girls can enjoy the same choices and freedom their gender counterparts can partake without any consequences.
But, as a realist, I know this issue will only be "resolved" once our world's states and their leaders and regular citizens take a stand and denouce crimes against their sisters, mothers, cousins, girlfriends, wives and grandmothers.
Noor Faleh Almaleki died Monday of injuries suffered when she was run over October 20 in a parking lot in the Phoenix suburb of Peoria, Arizona, police there said. Authorities said they expect to change the aggravated assault charge against her father, Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 48, to more severe counts after meetings with prosecutors, Peoria police announced.
Peoria police said Faleh Hassan Almaleki believed his daughter had become "too Westernized" and had abandoned "traditional" Iraqi values. Peoria police spokesman Mike Tellef told CNN the family moved to the Phoenix area in the mid-1990s, and Almaleki was unhappy with his daughter's style of dress and her resistance to his rules.
A friend of the daughter, Amal Edan Khalaf, 43, also suffered serious injuries in the attack, police said. Almaleki faces a separate aggravated assault charge in connection with her injuries.
He is currently held in Phoenix, with bail has been set at $5 million, Tellef said.
While my outrage should be felt by anyone who has a soul, we know that there are a minority of people who will commend this man for killing his daughter. Radical groups who identify with Islam often hide behind their religion to tolerate honor killings. Defined by Human Rights Watch (via Wikipedia), honor killings are:
acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce—even from an abusive husband—or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that "dishonors" her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life. (Source)
The United Nations points out that honor killings occur in a diverse array of countries such as Bangladesh, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda and the United Kingdom and as many as 5,000 are victims in honor killings. (Source)
And there have been a few cases in the U.S. and Canada that police have connected to honor killings. In 2008, two teenage girls were shot to death in a taxi cab in Texas. Police immediately issues a warrant for the girls' father, who still remains on the run. In Ontario in 2007, the father of a 16-year-old was charged with murder after he called police and informed them of his actions.
I hate to sound like a typical western woman who is jumping on the bandwagon to decry the human rights abuses these poor women and girls are suffering, but this issue can not be ignored and covered up. I'm sure apologists and those who like to hide behind cultural relativism will come to support these actions and criticize westerners for meddling in the business of other religions, cultures and countries.
But that type of criticism doesn't hold water. No woman should be killed because she's brought "dishonor" and shame upon a family. No (male) family member has the right to take a (female) family member's life because of his feeling of embarassment.
The problem I have with those who justify honor killing is they imply women are the cause of their family's "shame." It's a woman's fault if she's raped by a man on the streets. It's her fault if she takes on a different "lifestyle" than what her family approves of. It's a woman's fault if she loses her virginity before marriage. It's a woman's fault if she decides not to enter into a pre-arranged marriage (not because she isn't interested or doesn't like the man selected for her).
Another problem I have with honor killings is how little attention it's gotten from states and their leaders. These male leaders continue to turn a blind eye from the blatant human rights violations that are ongoing in their backyards. Fearful of losing the support and backing from male citizens and lawmakers, female leaders have also done little to nothing to make this issue a priority in their governments. In an attempt to hold onto traditions, many families have also been reluctant to protect their female family members of the wrath of these men hell-bent on protecting their "honor."
I eagerly look forward to the day in which I won't have to blog about this issue. I look forward to the day in which women and girls can enjoy the same choices and freedom their gender counterparts can partake without any consequences.
But, as a realist, I know this issue will only be "resolved" once our world's states and their leaders and regular citizens take a stand and denouce crimes against their sisters, mothers, cousins, girlfriends, wives and grandmothers.
| Reactions: |
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Happy Pride!
Photo courtesy of the Atlanta Pride Committee
So, if you're in the Atlanta area, please come by Piedmont Park to check out the festivities. Most importantly, don't forget to see the parade, which will begin at 1 p.m. sharp.
Hope to see you all there!
Labels:
Atlanta,
Atlanta Pride weekend,
Gay Pride,
gay rights
| Reactions: |
Friday, October 30, 2009
Sixth person arrested in homecoming rape case
Another teenager was arrested in the case of a 15-year-old student who was gang-raped outside her homecoming dance at Richmond High School.
Jose Carlos Montano, 18, was arrested on charges of felony rape, rape in concert with force, and penetration with a foreign object, said Richmond Police Lt. Mark Gagan. Montano was arrested Thursday evening in San Pablo, California, a small town about two miles from the city of Richmond, where the crime took place. Montano, who was held in lieu of $1.3 million bail, is accused of taking part in what police said was a 2½-hour assault on the Richmond High School campus.
This case has just become so troublesome to me. Not only because bystanders did nothing to prevent this crime, but the video below (from a friend of the victim) speaks volumes as to they type of "security" that was in place at this school.
Four officers at the dance, none of which patrolling the area...Several men sitting outside the dance, none of which had their identity checked...the assistant principal, who saw the men, also didn't checked the identities of these men...
This student also brought up the racial aspect of the school and how it's played a role at the lack of security at the school. While I can't give any opinions about that, it's definitely got the wheels turning in my head.
Something's wrong here, people.
Jose Carlos Montano, 18, was arrested on charges of felony rape, rape in concert with force, and penetration with a foreign object, said Richmond Police Lt. Mark Gagan. Montano was arrested Thursday evening in San Pablo, California, a small town about two miles from the city of Richmond, where the crime took place. Montano, who was held in lieu of $1.3 million bail, is accused of taking part in what police said was a 2½-hour assault on the Richmond High School campus.
This case has just become so troublesome to me. Not only because bystanders did nothing to prevent this crime, but the video below (from a friend of the victim) speaks volumes as to they type of "security" that was in place at this school.
Four officers at the dance, none of which patrolling the area...Several men sitting outside the dance, none of which had their identity checked...the assistant principal, who saw the men, also didn't checked the identities of these men...
This student also brought up the racial aspect of the school and how it's played a role at the lack of security at the school. While I can't give any opinions about that, it's definitely got the wheels turning in my head.
Something's wrong here, people.
Labels:
Calif.,
homecoming,
rape,
Richmond,
Richmond High School
| Reactions: |
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Brother of Afghanistan's Karzai on the CIA's payroll
Yes, people. This is true, according to a New York Times article in yesterday's paper.
Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials. The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.
Um, is this a joke? Is it true that our government is shooting itself in the foot in trying to make Afghanistan a stable "democracy" by paying off a suspected drug lord?
More from the article:
"Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it,” a senior American military officer in Kabul said. Like most of the officials in this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the information.
He added:
“If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck,” the American officer said of Mr. Karzai. “Our assumption is that he’s benefiting from the drug trade.”
Don't you just love bureaucracy and the hypocrisy our government likes to show the world its capable of?
Let's get one thing out on the table: funding the Afghan opium trade won't help the U.S. achieve its longstanding dream of having a flourishing democracy in the middle east and in western Asia.
According to this Washington Post article, opium production in Afghanistan increased by 34 percent over the past year and "country is now the source of 93 percent of the heroin, morphine and other opiates on the world market."
93 percent, people. 93 percent!
The article points out that the production is the highest since the opium production in 19th century China. The connection to funding the Taliban insurgency was also outlined in this article:
The surge in opium production has frustrated U.S. and NATO military commanders, who believe that the trade plays a major role in funding a Taliban insurgency that has become increasingly deadly over the past two years. Commanders also believe that the involvement of public officials in the drug trade has undermined Afghans' confidence in their government.
While our government may receive some short-term benefits from paying off drug lords (which is essentially paying off the Taliban to postpone their desperate attempts to overthrow the Karzai government), there are no long-term benefits our government can get from this--or the people of Afghanistan. If this country continues to turn a blind eye from the flourishing opium trade (and the world's addiction to heroin), the people of Afghanistan will be the ones left to deal with the consequences of a country immersed in a probable bloody civil war.
Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country’s booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials. The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.’s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai’s home.
Um, is this a joke? Is it true that our government is shooting itself in the foot in trying to make Afghanistan a stable "democracy" by paying off a suspected drug lord?
More from the article:
The ties to Mr. Karzai have created deep divisions within the Obama administration. The critics say the ties complicate America’s increasingly tense relationship with President Hamid Karzai, who has struggled to build sustained popularity among Afghans and has long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. The C.I.A.’s practices also suggest that the United States is not doing everything in its power to stamp out the lucrative Afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the Taliban.
More broadly, some American officials argue that the reliance on Ahmed Wali Karzai, the most powerful figure in a large area of southern Afghanistan where the Taliban insurgency is strongest, undermines the American push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the United States to withdraw.Well...yeah! Here's an obvious quote from an official who spoke on the condition of anonymity:
"Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it,” a senior American military officer in Kabul said. Like most of the officials in this article, he spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the information.
He added:
“If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck,” the American officer said of Mr. Karzai. “Our assumption is that he’s benefiting from the drug trade.”
Don't you just love bureaucracy and the hypocrisy our government likes to show the world its capable of?
Let's get one thing out on the table: funding the Afghan opium trade won't help the U.S. achieve its longstanding dream of having a flourishing democracy in the middle east and in western Asia.
According to this Washington Post article, opium production in Afghanistan increased by 34 percent over the past year and "country is now the source of 93 percent of the heroin, morphine and other opiates on the world market."
93 percent, people. 93 percent!
The article points out that the production is the highest since the opium production in 19th century China. The connection to funding the Taliban insurgency was also outlined in this article:
The surge in opium production has frustrated U.S. and NATO military commanders, who believe that the trade plays a major role in funding a Taliban insurgency that has become increasingly deadly over the past two years. Commanders also believe that the involvement of public officials in the drug trade has undermined Afghans' confidence in their government.
While our government may receive some short-term benefits from paying off drug lords (which is essentially paying off the Taliban to postpone their desperate attempts to overthrow the Karzai government), there are no long-term benefits our government can get from this--or the people of Afghanistan. If this country continues to turn a blind eye from the flourishing opium trade (and the world's addiction to heroin), the people of Afghanistan will be the ones left to deal with the consequences of a country immersed in a probable bloody civil war.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
CIA,
opium trade,
Taliban,
war on drugs
| Reactions: |
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Girl gang-raped during homecoming dance
This story is just plain disturbing.
A California high school student who police said was gang raped in a two-and-a-half-hour assault outside a homecoming dance remained hospitalized in stable condition Monday, two days after she was flown from the attack scene in critical condition.
Here's a video from Northbaytv with an interview with one of the officers:
The girl was assaulted outside Richmond High School. Nineteen-year-old Manuel Ortega was arrested as was a 15-year-old. A third teenager has been interviewed by police, according to Lt. Mark Gagan of the Richmond Police Department.
This is the part that's most troubling to me:
A California high school student who police said was gang raped in a two-and-a-half-hour assault outside a homecoming dance remained hospitalized in stable condition Monday, two days after she was flown from the attack scene in critical condition.
Here's a video from Northbaytv with an interview with one of the officers:
The girl was assaulted outside Richmond High School. Nineteen-year-old Manuel Ortega was arrested as was a 15-year-old. A third teenager has been interviewed by police, according to Lt. Mark Gagan of the Richmond Police Department.
This is the part that's most troubling to me:
Investigators said as many as 15 people, all males, stood around watching the assault, but did not call police or help the victim, a 15-year-old student at Richmond High School in suburban San Francisco. "As people announced over time that this was going on, more people came to see, and some actually participated," Gagan said.How can 15 males stand around and watch a girl be gang-raped and not say anything or even participate? How would these people feel if this were their sister, mother, aunt, cousin or grandmother who was subjugated to such brutality and humiliation? Along with the fullest prosecution of the rapists, I think these spectators should also face punishment.
Labels:
crimes against women,
homecoming,
rape
| Reactions: |
Monday, October 26, 2009
Another gringo's attempt to regain superiority
Note: I learned about this Associated Press story from Siddity, who posted her entry about the same story.
Larry Whitten marched into this northern New Mexico town in late July on a mission: resurrect a failing hotel.
Larry Whitten marched into this northern New Mexico town in late July on a mission: resurrect a failing hotel.
The tough-talking former Marine immediately laid down some new rules. Among them, he forbade the Hispanic workers at the run-down, Southwestern adobe-style hotel from speaking Spanish in his presence (he thought they'd be talking about him), and ordered some to Anglicize their names.
No more Martin (Mahr-TEEN). It was plain-old Martin. No more Marcos. Now it would be Mark.
Whitten's management style had worked for him as he's turned around other distressed hotels he bought in recent years across the country.
The 63-year-old Texan, however, wasn't prepared for what followed.
His rules and his firing of several Hispanic employees angered his employees and many in this liberal enclave of 5,000 residents at the base of the Sangre de Cristo mountains, where the most alternative of lifestyles can find a home and where Spanish language, culture and traditions have a long and revered history.
"I came into this landmine of Anglos versus Spanish versus Mexicans versus Indians versus everybody up here. I'm just doing what I've always done," he says.
Former workers, their relatives and some town residents picketed across the street from the hotel.
"I do feel he's a racist, but he's a racist out of ignorance. He doesn't know that what he's doing is wrong," says protester Juanito Burns Jr., who identified himself as prime minister of an activist group called Los Brown Berets de Nuevo Mexico.
The Virginia-born Whitten had spent 40 years in the hotel business, turning around more than 20 hotels in Texas, Oklahoma, Florida and South Carolina, before moving with his wife to Taos from Abilene, Texas. He had visited Taos before, and liked its beauty. When Whitten saw that the Paragon Inn was up for sale, he jumped at it.
The hotel sits along narrow, two-lane Paseo del Pueblo, where souped-up lowriders radiate a just-waxed gleam in the soft sunshine as they cruise past centuries-old adobe buildings. One recent afternoon, a woman slowly rode her fat-tire bicycle along a cracked sidewalk, oversized purple butterfly wings on her back and a breeze blowing her long, blonde dreadlocks.
The community includes Taos Pueblo, an American Indian dwelling inhabited for over 1,000 years, and an adobe Catholic church made famous in a Georgia O'Keeffe painting.
After he arrived, Whitten met with the employees. He says he immediately noticed that they were hostile to his management style and worried they might start talking about him in Spanish.
"Because of that, I asked the people in my presence to speak only English because I do not understand Spanish," Whitten says. "I've been working 24 years in Texas and we have a lot of Spanish people there. I've never had to ask anyone to speak only English in front of me because I've never had a reason to."
Some employees were fired, Whitten says, because they were hostile and insubordinate. He says they called him "a white (N-word)."
Fired hotel manager Kathy Archuleta says the workers initially tried to adjust to his style. "We had already gone through four or five owners before him, so we knew what to expect," Archuleta says. "I told (the workers) we needed to give him a chance."
Then Whitten told some employees he was changing their Spanish first names. Whitten says it's a routine practice at his hotels to change first names of employees who work the front desk phones or deal directly with guests if their names are difficult to understand or pronounce.
"It has nothing to do with racism. I'm not doing it for any reason other than for the satisfaction of my guests, because people calling from all over America don't know the Spanish accents or the Spanish culture or Spanish anything," Whitten says.
Martin Gutierrez, another fired employee, says he felt disrespected when he was told to use the unaccented Martin as his name. He says he told Whitten that Spanish was spoken in New Mexico before English. "He told me he didn't care what I thought because this was his business," Gutierrez says.
"I don't have to change my name and language or heritage," he says. "I'm professional the way I am."
After the firings, the New Mexico chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a national civil rights group, sent Whitten a letter, raising concerns about treatment of Hispanic workers. Whitten says he sent them a letter and posted messages on the hotel marquee, alleging that the group referred to him with a racial slur. LULAC denied the charge.
The messages and comments he made in interviews with local media, including referring to townsfolk as "mountain people" and "potheads who escaped society," further enflamed tensions.
Taos Mayor Darren Cordova says Whitten wasn't doing anything illegal. But he says Whitten failed to better familiarize himself with the town and its culture before deciding to buy the hotel for $2 million. "Taos is so unique that you would not do anything in Taos that you would do elsewhere," he says.
Whitten grew subdued as a two-hour interview with The Associated Press progressed. He said he was sorry for the misunderstanding and insisted he has never been against any culture.
"What kind of fool or idiot or poor businessman would I be to orchestrate this whole crazy thing that's costed me a lot of time, money and aggravation?" Whitten said.
Whitten should have dealt with the situation differently, especially in a majority Hispanic town, said 71-year-old Taos artist Ken O'Neil, while sipping his afternoon coffee on the town's historic plaza.
"To make demands like he did just seems over the top," he says. "Nobody won here. It's not always about winning. Sometimes, it's about what you learn."
First point I want to make: is this even legal? I don't know if the mayor has heard, but the 1964 Civil Rights act clearly prohibits discrimination based on one's nationality and ethnicity.
Second: barring his employees to speak Spanish in front of him? This owner is purely paranoid and is showing his obvious xenophobia towards Latinos.
This backlash against Hispanics and Latinos in this country is forcing those who feel threatened to "re-establish" a sense of Americanism and a sense of superiority and power in their communities. This power struggle is also creating an segment of our population that does not feel welcome and appreciated for their contributions to our society.
And this hotel owner's actions only further alienates Latinos and Hispanics from feeling like they aren't welcome in the same communities they break their backs for to just make a decent living.
Labels:
Americanism,
Hispanics,
Latinos,
racism,
Texas,
xenophobia
| Reactions: |
Did anyone ever call Bush I, Clinton and Bush II out on excluding women (and minorities) from sports outings?
Liberal activists and self-proclaimed feminists have criticized Obama for surrounding himself around his "dudes" in the White House and on the field. And, as someone who's affected by "influential" press coverage, Melody Barnes accompanied the president on a golf outing on Saturday.
Barnes, wearing a baseball cap, dark long sleeve shirt and beige pants, joined Obama the same day that the New York Times ran a front page story, "Man’s World at White House? No Harm, No Foul, Aides Say," the latest in a round of similar stories triggered by a high-profile, all-male basketball game the president played in earlier this month.
First, I want to address a nagging issue. Why did this article feel it was necessary to point out what Barnes was wearing? Why do people (men and women) in the media feel it's compelling to point out a woman's style of dress? As a matter of principle, I won't even place an image of what Barnes was wearing to perpetuate that sexist style of reporting many self-proclaimed unbiased journalists feel the need to interject into their stories.
Second, why is this an issue? Self-proclaimed liberal bloggers have feigned their concern about Obama's frat-boy attitude towards women:
From Tennessee Guerilla Women:
The White House has always been a boys' club. But in 2009, at a minimum, half the people in the White House should be women -- excluding housekeepers and baby-sitters. A cabinet that is 75 percent male does not remotely resemble progress. Throw in a president who spends his leisure time networking with the boys and you have a president who has a woman problem.
The president has always been criticized for his sexist language. Columnist Taylor Marsh in February last year, called Obama's thinking as "last century." I'll let you all read the post to get a grasp on her rambling, unorganized thoughts.
As a feminist, I find myself completely disconnected from what "mainstream" women think and feel about women's issues. And this is a prime example of how a minority of white, pro-Hillary Clinton feminists have further pushed the cause into the extreme corner of the American brain. Newsflash: this feminist could care less if President Obama plays golf or basketball with a bunch of dudes.
It's imperative that I point out that I do not recall Presidents Clinton and the Bushes being called out for excluding women and minorities from their cabinets and sporting events. Sure, Clinton did appoint the highest number of women and minorities to his cabinet, but he never golfed with women. And the only minority he (publicly?) golfed with was Vernon Jordan. And George W. Bush...well, let's say he NEVER surrounded himself with women or minorities unless he was about to appoint them to a position (which was rare).
But, why is it expected more from Obama than the previous two presidents? Why is the nation's first black president expected to be inclusive and the two baby boomers who preceded him were given a pass? Why have white women jumped to criticize Obama for having a "frat-boy" mentality towards women when they were all but mum on the previous presidents' same behavior?
There has always been a disconnect between white feminists and black feminists on various issues, but the election of Obama, in my opinion, has further expanded that divide. During the campaign, white feminists and black feminists were divided on their split support for Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton: white feminists went into the Clinton camp and black feminists backed Obama. White feminists and other women claimed racism and charged Obama got the Democratic nomination, in part, because of his skin color. In a March 12, 2008, post, I challenged feminists such as Ferraro to look at why they continue to harbor such resentment for people of color, particularly black men and examine their own feelings of superiority and racism towards black men. Gloria Steinem's New York Times Op-Ed she penned in January 2008 further perpetuates her subconscious feeling that Obama's race is more unifying than Sen. Clinton's gender and, thus, has propelled him to the White House.
I want to remind feminists not to get bogged down in minuscule issues such as who Obama plays golf with because it just doesn't matter. The majority of Americans came together and voted for Obama to get this country back on track after eight years of dysfunction and isolation. We need to remind ourselves that the business of inadequate health care, an ever-expanding gap between rich and poor, a lingering recession and various social inequalities should be our top agenda.
Sure, we should expect him to be as diverse and inclusive in who he hires and appoints. But, if we want to see our dreams of adequate health care, gay rights, equal protection under the law, a diminishing gap between the rich and poor become a reality, we need not let 2012 be a year of "divide and conquer."
Labels:
feminism,
golf,
media,
Melody Barnes,
President Obama,
racism,
sports
| Reactions: |
Friday, October 23, 2009
Funny Fridays
She's just so entertaining. You truly can't take her seriously anymore. Her thoughts are just pure comedic gold. I never knew delusion could be so funny!
Labels:
Ann Coulter,
conservative women,
The Joy Behar show
| Reactions: |
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Is FOX News "un-American?"
Jacob Weisberg makes this argument in an online blog that appeared on Oct. 17. Weisberg argues that, in light of the Obama administration's criticism of the cable news network, real news organizations would "take pains to cover presidential criticism fairly. It would regard doing so as itself a test of integrity."
At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.
Weisberg further argues that FOX has become more "boisterous and demagogic." He also cites its overt support of the Tea Party Protests, its use of Karl Rove as a source to "fact-check" Obama's health care proposals, Glenn Becks "Strangelovean concern" about the direction of the government.
But here's the nut graph of Weisberg's argument:
I think what makes this argument interesting is that it doesn't continue to beat the dead horse of FOX News is slanted right in its coverage. The argument that it's adaptation of the British-Australian models of politicized news sources is inherently "un-American" is one that any viewer of FOX should pay attention to.
To FOX's credit, the new channel is completely independent by the government whereas the British Broadcasting Corporation, known as the BBC, is funded by a license fee each household in the UK contributes to. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is financed by the federal government. So, FOX does have differences to the the major components of the British-Australian model of media.
However, one can not overlook FOX's politicization of the news. There is no need for me to re-list some of the channel's offenses. Any avid news and political junkie or anyone with a brain can think of at least one instance in which FOX has tainted it's "fair and balanced" coverage with the opinions of its "journalists."
It seems odd that a network that likes to brand itself of being independent of the traditional, liberal media and a network proudly uses the American flag as part of its graphics would be an industry stand out in its co-opting of foreign media models. While I'm concerned with the affect this slant right-ward is having on FOX follower's psyche, I'm more worried about the influence it's having on the cable news media.
To counteract FOX's line up with angry, conservative white males, MSNBC has a left-wing all-star lineup of stars such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (which, I must add, doesn't do much to counteract the network of white men and the token hot blonde). CNN, in a battle to appeal to those who have questions, but still haven't committed to the angry white male party, has Lou Dobbs as its champion of those pragmatic, center-right folks who are fed up with the influx of brown people into this country. Also, the use of no-nonsense, center-brain pundit Jack Cafferty is also used to lure in those moderates who don't know which side to join.
This pandering by these news channels to both sides of the political spectrum forces me to speculate about what the Murdoch affect has done to the state of cable news. Lost in the battle for the biggest audiences is reporting unbiased, factual news to the public. The race to finish first on cable news channels (as well as other forms of media) seriously compromises the quality of reporting viewers deserve. Viewers are left in a whirlwind of misinformation, slanted coverage of events and essential, lingering questions about the actual story.
So, what do you think? Is FOX News "un-American?" Has FOX's "un-American" approach to covering politics and other news stories tainted the cable news media?
At Fox, by contrast, complaints of unfairness prompt only hoots of derision and demands for "evidence" that, when presented, is brushed off and ignored.
Weisberg further argues that FOX has become more "boisterous and demagogic." He also cites its overt support of the Tea Party Protests, its use of Karl Rove as a source to "fact-check" Obama's health care proposals, Glenn Becks "Strangelovean concern" about the direction of the government.
But here's the nut graph of Weisberg's argument:
That Rupert Murdoch may tilt the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox's model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to develop a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. In this way, Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Its example has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable.
What's most distinctive about the American press is not its freedom but its century-old tradition of independence—that it serves the public interest rather than those of parties, persuasions, or pressure groups. Media independence is a 20th-century innovation that has never fully taken root in many other countries that do have a free press. The Australian-British-continental model of politicized media that Murdoch has applied at Fox is un-American, so much so that he has little choice but go on denying what he's doing as he does it. For Murdoch, Ailes, and company, "fair and balanced" is a necessary lie. To admit that their coverage is slanted by design would violate the American understanding of the media's role in democracy and our idea of what constitutes fair play. But it's a demonstrable deceit that no longer deserves equal time.He further argues that journalists, politicians and pundits who continue to appear on the network subconsciously promote FOX's propaganda, undermines legitimate news organizatins and any "respectable" journalist should stop appearing on its programming.
I think what makes this argument interesting is that it doesn't continue to beat the dead horse of FOX News is slanted right in its coverage. The argument that it's adaptation of the British-Australian models of politicized news sources is inherently "un-American" is one that any viewer of FOX should pay attention to.
To FOX's credit, the new channel is completely independent by the government whereas the British Broadcasting Corporation, known as the BBC, is funded by a license fee each household in the UK contributes to. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is financed by the federal government. So, FOX does have differences to the the major components of the British-Australian model of media.
However, one can not overlook FOX's politicization of the news. There is no need for me to re-list some of the channel's offenses. Any avid news and political junkie or anyone with a brain can think of at least one instance in which FOX has tainted it's "fair and balanced" coverage with the opinions of its "journalists."
It seems odd that a network that likes to brand itself of being independent of the traditional, liberal media and a network proudly uses the American flag as part of its graphics would be an industry stand out in its co-opting of foreign media models. While I'm concerned with the affect this slant right-ward is having on FOX follower's psyche, I'm more worried about the influence it's having on the cable news media.
To counteract FOX's line up with angry, conservative white males, MSNBC has a left-wing all-star lineup of stars such as Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (which, I must add, doesn't do much to counteract the network of white men and the token hot blonde). CNN, in a battle to appeal to those who have questions, but still haven't committed to the angry white male party, has Lou Dobbs as its champion of those pragmatic, center-right folks who are fed up with the influx of brown people into this country. Also, the use of no-nonsense, center-brain pundit Jack Cafferty is also used to lure in those moderates who don't know which side to join.
This pandering by these news channels to both sides of the political spectrum forces me to speculate about what the Murdoch affect has done to the state of cable news. Lost in the battle for the biggest audiences is reporting unbiased, factual news to the public. The race to finish first on cable news channels (as well as other forms of media) seriously compromises the quality of reporting viewers deserve. Viewers are left in a whirlwind of misinformation, slanted coverage of events and essential, lingering questions about the actual story.
So, what do you think? Is FOX News "un-American?" Has FOX's "un-American" approach to covering politics and other news stories tainted the cable news media?
Labels:
cable news,
CNN,
Fox News,
journalilsm,
MSNBC,
Newsweek,
un-American
| Reactions: |
How does FOX News ignore a protest like this?
Well, according to Jon Stewart, they don't send their own camera crews to cover the march, which drew tens of thousands of people to Washington.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Queer and Loathing in D.C. | ||||
| www.thedailyshow.com | ||||
| ||||
Labels:
Daily Show,
Fox News,
gay rights,
Jon Stewart,
Washington
| Reactions: |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)












