ethecofem

Its like folks don't even think about it anymore

2012-02-19T12:01:00.001-06:00

So it would seem that in all the rush to make a quick remark about Jeremy Lin showing signs that he may not be the second coming of Kareem Abdul Jabbar (or whatever famous past player that played the same position as Lin) someone decided to say something that in this day and age they should know better than to say about an Asian person.

Apparently ESPN's mobile site ran a headline that said "Chink in the Armor" about a less than stellar performance by the rising star.

Honestly more than likely the person that ran this (its already been taken down an and apology has been issued) didn't even think about the implications of using that word in reference to an Asian person. I bet its not the first time someone has used "Chink in the Armor" to describe a rising or current star athlete that's on a hot streak that shows a little bit of imperfection.

And that's the problem. They didn't think.

You have to take that stuff into consideration when writing. If this had been LeBron James and DeWayne Wade back when the Heat lost the NBA finals how well do you think it would be taken if someone had said, "Boy I bet the folks in Miami are ready to hang LeBron and Wade for losing the Finals."? That shit would not have flown. And I bet one could think of more examples but let's not get bogged down in that.

As I said the problem here is that the writer didn't even stop to consider, "Is it okay to use that word in reference to an Asian person?". Racism hasn't just disappeared and now people are free to use whatever words they want under the impression that they no longer hurt people. Its still there, it still hurts (in fact that Huffington post I linked to mentions that Lin has said that he was called that during his college years at Harvard), and we still have to think about it.

ethecofem's Getting A Brand-New Look!

2012-02-17T18:19:00.001-06:00

That's right, folks, we're movin' up in the world... back to Wordpress! Only this time, we'll be self-hosted through iPage, a fancier, nicer, and greener web-hosting service! And not only that, but ethecofem will soon feature a community and forum, where you can chat away with other registered users about any topic you'd like, and a new streamlined guest-post submission process! Needless to say, I'm pretty excited. We'll be using BuddyPress, which allows all sorts of fun features to make ethecofem a great place to argue with each other about the political, ethical, gender...cal...(?) topics of the day.

Two things:

We've got the domain transfer costs covered, but the annual hosting fees are kinda up there. They're not due until June, though, so we've got time-- but if you'd like to help contribute to the awesomeness that will be ethecofem's brand-new look and funtionality, your donations of whatever amount are greatly appreciated, because we're broke. Also, what would you like to see on ethecofem? What would make ethecofem easier to comment on, more engaging, or any other damn thing? Let us know in the comments! And stay tuned.

Well since this doesn't involve walking off a cliff...

2012-02-17T14:58:00.000-06:00

I'll follow April's lead.

Top L: "What my friends think I do."
Top M: "What my mom thinks I do."
Top R: "What society thinks I do."
Bottom L: "What my boss thinks I do."
Bottom M: "What I think I do."
Bottom R: "What I actually do."

Bank Fraud Investigator -- What It's Really Like

2012-02-15T20:23:00.002-06:00

You know that meme going around Facebook, listing occupations and states and scores of other things, showing pictures of what someone thinks of it, what society thinks of it, what you wish it was, what it really was, etc.? I made one about my old job at TCF:

Captions: "what customers think I do," "how they make the job sound,"
"what I wish my job was," and "what it's really like."

Video of the Day - More than just dreams

2012-02-07T12:01:00.000-06:00

Because its not like the man was sleeping during all of his time in the Civil Rights Movement.

I particularly enjoy 0:35 - 1:10.

Olympics 2012: The Search For More Money

2012-02-05T11:35:00.000-06:00

I'm going straight to the point.

This is disgusting.

Long story short with the Summer Olympics coming up in London, England this year rental property owners are actually evicting people from their homes so the owners can offer them at skyrocket prices. And the ones that don't leave could be facing "penalty" fees (translation: since the landlord couldn't kick you and charge some tourist ungodly levels of money they are going to squeeze as much as they can out of you as a form of pouting).

That's fucked up on all levels. And this isn't just a London phenomenon by any means. This has happened in most of the venues that have served as the stage for the Olympics going back quite a while. I am glad however that it seems its getting talked about more.

So we have property owners kicking people out of their homes for a money grab, London law enforcement getting the power to enter homes to remove signs that basically the International Olympic Committee doesn't like (and they tend to think "what they don't like" = "illegal"), the possible suspension of the presumption of innocence for unauthorized trading near Olympic Park, and the International Olympics Committee threatening to sue ICANN if it doesn't get the special trademark protections it wants.

And we're supposed to believe that the Olympics are all about friendly competition and unity?

If I see the smallest hint of Occupy Olympics they will have my support (well at least moral since I live a few thousand miles from the UK).

Occupy Common Sense

2012-02-02T23:10:00.001-06:00

This is a guest post by Tony Boicourt. Tony was one of the founding organizers of OccupyMN, and is active in politics in Minnesota.

First to the friends I've never met, I'm Tony. One of the founders of OccupyMN, using that experience to assist early logistics of Occupy Duluth. I then started Occupy Black Friday & Remove Mayor Bloomberg.

Making my affiliations known not to inflate my ego, but rather to establish my connections and ensuring my motives. The following document contains more than 40 of my last 78 hours spent either writing or researching its contents. Admittedly, this started as a way to correct some misconceptions about Ron Paul. It has, however, evolved into something greater.

It is a final appeal of sorts, to all Americans those who occupy, and to those who don't. Liberal, Conservative, Marxist, Democrat, Republican, Left, Right, Up, Down, our ideologies matter not. I, for one, desire liberal policies, but that would be difficult to infer lately. Coming to you now not with what I want from politics, but what I feel would be common sense, if it weren’t for the Ameristocracy trying to blind and divide us. If we cannot stand united, we will fail. George Washington warned not to allow parties to divide us:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Following Sections Will:

Highlight the ways in which freedoms that men and women die to protect are being stolen from beneath our feet.

Educate about Wall Street corruption of our government.

Show why electing the same types of politicians and adopting more regulations/policies will not work to restore the United States. (You can't build a working car when all the pieces you're electing to use are broken)

Clear up misconceptions about presidential candidate Ron Paul.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. -Thomas Paine

----------------------------------------------------------------------

What Has Obama Done? What Else Would He Do?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama has either deceived us with brilliant charisma, or he has in fact changed since becoming president of The United States. This is not a matter of opinion.

NDAA

One of the most unconstitutional pieces of legislation ever passed. A clause within the Act includes that if you have over seven days of food in your house, or if you're missing a finger, you can be put on the terrorist watch list. What has worried many civil right experts is that the rest is written vaguely enough that it could be applied to U.S. citizens. The Military now has jurisdiction over U.S. soil, and INDEFINITE DETENTION without due process of the law is completely legal.

Obama threatened to veto the legislation, which actually wasn't because of the civil rights issues, but rather because:

"Any bill that challenges or constrains the president's critical authority to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation will prompt his senior advisors to recommend a veto,"

Yes, you read that correctly: the president was going to veto the bill because it restricted his power too much. So much for "preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States." The details of the NDAA should be the only reason anyone needs to hear to realize Obama does not stand with or for "The People." But don't worry he said he wouldn't use it against U.S. citizens, oh thank god... Wait, just like he said he'd make government more transparent? Or how the public will have 5 days to look at any bill before he signs it? um..... uh oh.

Also, why is he having the U.S. Military & police in L.A., Boston, and Little Rock perform joint exercise? And barring the public from observing. Not only do the military now have jurisdiction on U.S. soil, it’s supposed to be conspicuous in major urban areas?

"OBAMA CANNOT BE ALLOWED A SECOND TERM" - Reasons Follow:

5/26/2011-Obama extends Patriot Act’s emergency powers four more years

Allowing FBI agents to investigate people and organizations "proactively" without firm evidence for suspecting criminal activity.

Obama Orders assassination of U.S. Citizen

Obama deflected calls not wanting to "get involved" with the case of Troy Davis, a man who was executed even though there remained serious doubts of guilt

12/28/2011 TSA will now be searching passengers at other "Mass-Transit"

Occupy Crackdown Across the U.S. Coordinated by Department of Homeland Security

Gitmo Remains Open

Obama expands drone war to Somalia, which makes six countries, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq and Yemen

The list goes on, AND on...

The Federal government has gotten so big, so corrupt, that our representatives listen to the few rather than the many. If we don't choose to change our ways and our leaders, then, soon, there may never be another choice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Ron Paul? He's NOT a Corporate Pawn

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Paul says "corporations aren't people" a month BEFORE Occupy

What many hear about RP is that he'll "deregulate everything." Firstly as the president, he doesn't have the power to deregulate everything. Secondly, most people don’t realize many of those ‘regulations’ he would remove are actually benifeiting big business as laws. Corporate powers don’t want RP, because many regulations/policies of the two parties in power prevent negative things to happen. Like what?

"Too Big to Fail" - Ron Paul was opposed to the bailout of the major banks that many people have been protesting for months. Had their been no bailout, YES, many of the banks would have failed. However, at that point the banks that didn't run poor business practices would have become stronger. CEOs who ran our country into the ground wouldn't have recived exorbitant bonuses from taxpayer money.

Our Money would have been safe regardless. We pay FDIC with every paycheck to insure our money. Banks got bailed out, we got sold out. Our government chose to help the few over the many.

Corporations are required by law to maximize profits for shareholders.

Many regulations are championed by major corporations and pushed on congress in order to create more stringent and expensive hoops any competition would have to face, thus allowing the eradication of "real" competition. Competition drives innovation, and forces prices to lower without they can stay high and give you an inferior product. Who/what are the regulations actually for?

Philip Morris Lobbied for, and benefits from, 2009 tobacco regulations

JPMorgan Chase & Co., which received $391 billion in secret bailout money from the Federal Reserve and another 25$ from congress in 2008, was able to scoop up other companies that making it the largest bank in the country. Do you understand that? The Federal Government chose to give money to one bank that was supposedly "failing," but not the other that had been absorbed. I'll leave you with an excerpt from the article so you can get a better understanding.

JPMorgan Chase was not as deeply exposed to the mortgage market as some of its rivals, and was able to profit from others’ pain: it absorbed Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual IN DEALS BROKERED AND SUPPORTED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Not only that, but did you know that JPMorgan actually makes higher profits the more people are in poverty? It turns out the JP is the largest provider of food stamps in the nation. For every single person who needs food stamps make JP more money. Doesn't that give incentive to keep jobs low?

Remember: corporations are required by law to maximize profits for shareholders. Can you see how the companies have a strangle hold on our current system? Ron Paul was against the bailout and is calling for weaker regulations.

Now if this is exactly what the corporate Ameristocracy wanted, ask yourself the following question:

If Ron Paul would let the market "run wild," why don't big businesses support him?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Ron Paul?: Less Federal, More State

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The heading is Ron Paul's central tenet regarding U.S. politics. To many, "power back to the states" often sounds odd, especially to my generation. Most of them only ever knowing federal law as supreme. Since 1776 the states have become weaker with each passing year.

What people need to realize the original definition of a state, which is still used on an international level was:

A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government

When the constitution was ratified, it formed a union from pre-existing sovereign states. By doing this, each state gave up a piece of its power to the new federal government.

The Constitution specifically states what powers each branch of government has. Article II. Section 8 along with the 13th, 14th, 16th, 19th, 20th, 24th, 25, 26th amendments dictate the powers of congress.

The Signing of the Constitution, by Thomas Rossiter (public domain)

If something isn't defined by these powers the federal government has no right to legislate it. Throughout our nations history, there have been laws passed of questionable constitutionality that for one reason or another upheld. It's important to note that the 10th amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th amendment is very clear; any power not granted to the government shall belong to the states, or to the people. However, the power of the states, and therefore, the freedom of the citizens, have continued to shrink. The federal government has bent its power to tax, and to regulate interstate commerce to literally control the states and the lives of individuals. Examples follow:

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) , decided fed regulations could apply to wheat grown for "home consumption" – if farmers were allowed to consume THEIR OWN, instead of buying, they'd affect interstate commerce.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005) decided Because the fed's desire to have no marijuana available, Congress is allowed to restrict homegrown medical marijuana. As it could effect supply & demand of the commodity's "market."

South Dakota v. Dole (1987) decided Congress could restrict funds to a state for not setting 21 as drinking age, because Congress was is just "pressuring" for a policy, not forcing.

The Maximum speed limit law & No Child Left Behind would be two other examples of the states being coerced.

But wait, the Constitution says:

and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Sadly, this clause is rarely brought to light. If this piece of the constitution were being upheld as it should, the federal government wouldn't be able to withold funds from one state, only to hand them to another.

Ron Paul wants to give power back to the states. I only make that statement with confidence because, if you look at his voting record, the man actually says how he's going to vote. He would work to get the power back into the hands of the people, and that's exactly what we need.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't we need those departments/agencies? Short Answer, NO.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ron Paul wants to eliminate:

Department of Energy
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of Commerce
Department of the Interior
Department of Education
Eviromental Protection agency

Our energy policies are seriously troubled. Green energy is important, but we've created an artificial market. Without the grants & subsidies for green energy both/demand is low.

Now we've created a market with high supply/demand, which is causing companies who had started out in this area to fold or merge, creating less jobs even though green energy was supposed to help unemployment.

Who's benefiting? Who's paying? The usual suspects, of course, according to the NY Times excerpt below.

Cash grants and contracts that require electric customers to pay higher rates — largely eliminated the risk to the private investors and almost guaranteed them large profits for years to come. The beneficiaries include financial firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, conglomerates like GE, Exelon and NRG, even Google.

It's already been covered that when corporate interests get into bed with politics, the people lose. Example, Henry Ford was going to run the Model T with Ethanol; yup that's right, ETHANOL.

One problem, Rockefeller didn't enjoy that idea too much because his oil monopoly was just beginning. So what happened? Rockefeller promoted, and possibly funded the Anti-Saloon League. The group wrote a resolution which later became the 18th amendment. Prohibition lasted for 13 years, giving Rockefeller plenty of time to make people dependent on oil.

Ethanol wouldn't be mentioned as a serious fuel alternative for 50 years. 20 years after that Ethanol finally saw an increase, but not for the reasons we'd like. Methyl tertiary butyl ether n (MTBE) was contaminating groundwater. High MTBE use was caused by the Clean Air Act.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 granted subsidies to produce ethanol. Adding an expected 6-7 billion annually to the deficit. These programs ended last year, but there is already consideration to bring back the corporate welfare.

It's plain to see that government investment in the aforementioned areas have done nothing but hurt us as a nation. Just follow the chain of events.

Regulation lead to Rockefeller’s monopoly, stifling Ethanol investment for nearly a century.

Environmental policies resulted in environmental damage.

Use of ethanol increases to meet EPA regulations. (If only we had Ethanol the entire time, and we wouldn't have put nearly as much stress on the environment, wouldn't that have been great?)

U.S. Taxes spent for nearly 30 years to develop product, AND stifle competition to try and spur people to buy an inferior fuel.

Those issues all involves multiple regulations/agencies/regulations overlapping, let's look at some more.

The Department of Education currently has a testing system which tests schools throughout the nation for a fictitious "Standard knowledge"

This same system has defined both pizza & French fries as a serving of vegetables

‎The same system in which about a third of students have NEVER studied the constitution by the time they graduate high school.

The department of commerce mission statement states "promote job creation and improved living standards for all Americans by creating an infrastructure that promotes economic growth, technological competitiveness, and sustainable development." (They must be REALLY effective)

The Village Voice Ranked the Department of Housing & Urban Development as New York’s worst landlord because of poor living conditions & questionable eviction practices.

Defense Department can't account for billions for Iraq, audit finds

Former lobbyist serving as head of FDA? Yup; fact.

Also, don’t forget the Goldman Sachs ties throughout the Obama administration.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Ron Paul? SAFE Foreign Policy

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 6 of the following article would have you believe Ron Paul's foreign policy would be a disaster with Ron Paul promoting isolationism.

The author proves to know little of what they describe. Mentioning the ICC and how Ron Paul wouldn't honor its authority like Bush didn't (Obama also doesn't). Stating Ron Paul wouldn't honor the Rome Statute, even though Clinton signed it. However the signature means nothing, as the senate never approved it.

Leaving the U.N. would actually be good for the U.S. We would stop being pulled into international conflicts, because of unnecessary alliances.

In his farewell address in 1796, George Washington said the following:

"Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world..."

Long-term treaties are what inflated the World Wars to their massive size. Our one-sided intervention during WWII caused Hitler to declare war on the U.S. Linked is the declaration of war: Hitler speaks of how we had no right meddling in European affairs.

Our interventionalism helped bring about 9/11. The U.S. Trained Osama Bin Laden & armed the Taliban in the early 80s to promote removing the Soviets from their land. So then what? We build bases, filling them with troops, resulting with Bin Laden declaring war on The U.S. in 1996 because we occupied Saudi Arabia & Israel. Two separate pieces of Muslim holy land. Yet we stood, and still stand by our decision of ignoring international sovereignty to create a Jewish state.

How wasteful must we be? We've destroyed cities. Then, funded with American tax dollars, we feed, clothe, and rebuild. We've funded and armed a new government, with U.S. money, and for what? 10 years later, still there's no peace. We've come full circle, completely ignoring what happened the last time we intervened like this.

Ron Paul's proposed foreign policy is a solid one. Pulling troops out of foreign countries would do great things for the image of the United States. It could help ease tensions throughout the globe, save money, and bring our fellow Americans home. We would stop spending endless amounts of money on foreign issues, and we could deal with our own.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Ron Paul?: He'll Work to Repeal the Corrupted Health Care Law

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to note that I am actually a big proponent for UNIVERSAL health care. You know, that thing Obama kind of focused his entire 2008 campaign on? This was one of the definitive issues that all nearly all of his supporters got behind.

He promised transparency for when the bill would be negotiated so lobbyists/special interests couldn't have their way the American people. Well, most of the meetings were done behind closed doors with lobbyists/special interests.

Look what we got, a healthcare bill that could hardly be called "universal," which has a mandate that REQUIRES U.S. citizens to buy insurance, or be charged a fee. Because of this mandate, the insurance corporations will be able to thank Obama for forcing an additional 30 million customers their way when all pieces of the act are in place.

Not only does the above just once again fall in the favor of the corporations that are using regulations and our government to secure the highest profit, it restricts the personal liberty to choose, and goes against everything Obama had promised. He had compared forcing a mandate on people to making a homeless person buy a house.

Another issue with the plan is it could very easily have the same effect on the nation as RommneyCare did in Massachusetts. There were many lower middle-class families that made enough they wouldn't qualify for any government assistance, but they didn't make enough to afford coverage for their entire family. There is no way of knowing until the law is fully implemented. We do know, however, that nothing has been done to stop the rising costs and price gouging millions of people face.

Ron Paul plans to attempt to repeal Obamacare, and even as a proponent of universal healthcare I realize that is not what we got, Obama sold us out, and Ron Paul actually has some interesting ideas on the matter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

But isn't Ron Paul racist/Anti-gay/anti-feminist?: NO

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The only reason I highlight this up is because it's such a high point of contention for some people. CSMonitor Article Excerpt Below:

In a 2008 TV interview, he responds to a question about racism by asserting that libertarians like himself "are incapable of being a racist" because they view "everybody as an important individual" rather than identifying people in groups.

There are people who think he's racist because he has said he wouldn't have voted for The Civil Right's Act of 1964; not in the form that was passed, anyway. I can understand how people would jump to conclusion on this matter, but if you listen to him speak, his reasoning comes without stutter or any moment of rethinking.

Everyone should realize how volatile of a conversation this is, if he TRULY racist and just making up excuses, why ever bring up the civil rights act in the first place? Not only that, but everything I've heard him say on the matter has been nearly identical.

Paul dismissed claims that he is a racist as “outlandish” and said he would have voted to desegregate public facilities. He insisted, however, that private business owners have an absolute right to decide what to do with their own property.

I am personally happy that 1964 act did in fact become law, but I do want to say that I completely understand his viewpoint. Let's use a Catholic church as an example the church has every right to not allow a member of another religion to its services, because it's their property. It's an interesting point, however I honestly do believe the only way to change people's mindset was by forcing desegregation. I have in no way found any other sources which state he would try to repeal it, I think he's wise enough to know that it would never happen.

here's Another Excerpt:

You'd think Black -- a former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard -- would know whether the presidential candidate he supports is a racist. It takes one to know one, right? Well, it seems that neither Black, nor any of his n-bomb-dropping followers thinks Paul's a racist.

"...I respond to media by simply noting the obvious truth," Black writes. "Paul's not a White Nationalist and he doesn't address the problem of White genocide, but we support his strongly held positions opposing foreign interventionism and wars for Israel, government welfare and 'affirmative action' programs, police statism, the Federal Reserve scam and immigration."

Amid the incoherent ramblings of self-admitted racists -- "racialists" is their preferred term -- the Stormfront users vehemently deny that Paul is "pro-white" like they are.

**Doesn't PROVE anything interesting to note all the less.

The newsletters have been all over the news today, and he has released an official statement saying his assistances statement is absolutely incorrect. The first article I read on the matter today even played with the notion that with the timing of it all it could easily be a fabricated story.

Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs, and upon being sworn in as president, release ALL non-violent drug offenders from prison. A LARGE majority of those people would be African-American. If he were racist why would he do such a thing? He's also already done the following:

He voted to repeal don't ask don't tell

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Even if he doesn't like homosexuality, or if he's pro-life so what? He's voted for gay rights, and he's voted on numerous laws that would restrict abortion. BECAUSE IT'S IN LINE WITH THE CONSTITUTION, he doesn't believe it's the federal governments power to dictate such things.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

What about Obama's Racial Discrimination?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Many saw the election of Obama as The United State's move into a "post-race" era. This however not true, yes racisism exists. ON BOTH SIDES, yet no one seems to notice:

Obama supported the New Black Panther party on his website. For Those who don't know this IS considered a racially based hate group.

That Justice Department attorneys dropped charges against two New Black Panther Party members who brandished a nightstick at a Philadelphia to prevent whites from voting.

The Department of Defense is ignoring Racial disenfranchisement in Guam an article states:

"his application was rejected and marked as "void” by the Guam Election ----Commission because Davis is white.". ‎ For those who aren't full aware of our territorial holdings as a nation:

Citizens of Guam ARE U.S. citizens and are supposed to be protected under the 14th amendment

----------------------------------------------------------------------

But He's a Gun Nut? No, He's a Constitution Nut

----------------------------------------------------------------------

This was part of our Bill of Rights in case the national government became to powerful or tyrannical we would be able to defend ourselves

Thomas Jefferson said:

"The beauty of the second amendment is, we won't need to use it until they try to take it away"

There are countless studies that have shown violent crime has gone down while conceal and carry rates have gone up, think about it someone is planning on a robbing a bank, you think gun laws are going to stop them from getting one? no... but allowing people to carry guns means when that robber runs in he doesn't know who's packing heat. By restricting guns you only hurt the law-abiding citizens. Admittedly debate on the cause-effect relationship is one that ebs and flows, one study says one thing and the next say another.

Firearm Deaths Drop as Sales Increase

In the 1980s and ’90s, Americans were killed by others with guns at the rate of about 5.66 per 100,000 population. In this decade, the rate has fallen to just over 4.07 per 100,000, a 28 percent drop. The decline follows a fivefold increase in the number of “shall-issue” and unrestricted concealed-carry states from 1986 to 2006.

The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state.

The decline in gun homicides also comes as U.S. firearm sales are skyrocketing, according to federal background checks that are required for most gun sales. After holding stable at 8.5 to 9 million checks from 1999 to 2005, the FBI reported a surge to 10 million in 2006, 11 million in 2007, nearly 13 million in 2008 and more than 14 million last year, a 55 percent increase in just four years.

Gun Control is a touchy subject, but we should NEVER underestimate our need to protect ourselves, and our loved ones:

From criminals
Possibly Animals
MOST importantly, should our government become a 1984-esque form of "Big Brother"

As cliché as the old saying is: "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Final "Hope"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So many elected Obama with the "hope" he would "change" everything; well, some things have changed, but by and large, they have all been for the worse. Our freedom is being restricted more every day; our founding fathers would be appalled as to the way our government behaves.

The final straw that pushed America into revolution was a BAILOUT for the East India Trading Company. This company was given giant tax breaks, and was given the right to monopolize vending in the American colonies. Sound at all familiar?

Our founding fathers fought for freedom declaring independence. We needn't go that far, we however MUST take our country back from the Ameristocracy that has taken hold. I present you with some passages from The Declaration of Independence. Sadly, much of it feels all too relevant today.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people

-Declaration of Independence

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Closing Statement

----------------------------------------------------------------------

George Washington made it clear to not let differing ideologies divide us; I see that very clear today. We must stand together if we wish to take back our country.

Most who know me would usually call me a "bleeding heart liberal"; I, however, do not present liberal ideas above. I don't see the next step we take as a nation as one that should be taken divided by party lines.

Every passing day that we choose to adhere to the status quo is another day opression's roots are allowed to grow beneath all of us; if we blink now, it may be too late.

IT IS EASIER TO RESTORE "GENERAL WELFARE" SYSTEMS SHOULD THEY BE REMOVED, THEN IT IS TAKE BACK FREEDOMS ONCE THEY ARE LOST.

Even if a shrinking of federal government would make changes some of us don't completely agree with, it is a better outcome than the complete dissolution of our nation and the rights its supposed to stand for.

The Bald Eagle may be our nation’s icon,

but I truly believe the mystical phoenix is our nation's spirit.

Americans have before us, during revolution, during civil war, reconstruction, progression, and depression embraced this spirit, and we shall too.

Let us reduce the corruption we face to ash

so the fire which lady liberty holds in her hand

may shine brighter and burn hotter than ever before.

------------------------------------------

Wherefore, instead of gazing at each other with suspicious or doubtful curiosity, let each of us, hold out to his neighbor the hearty hand of friendship, and unite in drawing a line, which, like an act of oblivion, shall bury in forgetfulness every former dissention. Let the names of Whig and Tory be extinct; and let none other be heard among us, than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the RIGHTS of MANKIND and of the FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA.

-Thomas Paine from "Common Sense"

Occupy Minneapolis Glitters Romney

2012-02-02T00:31:00.002-06:00

It was bound to happen.

Occupy Minneapolis: Space Liberation Edition

2012-02-01T03:57:00.001-06:00

Short, inconsequential review of 1Q84.

2012-01-24T16:04:00.001-06:00

Adding to the litany of reviews over this book. It might be that culture is like a river and unless I keep current I might be swept away to the cascades. Spending all these precious minutes and finite man-hours, something productive [must] come by. If so, then I've no choice, but to conspicuously consume this book by writing a review. In consideration, a reputable source of journalism that might have been the New York Times called it the literary sensation of the year.

First, to describe 1Q84 in Lemony Snicket terms, presenting the ridiculous yet quintessential circumstances in which fate deposits the hero and heroine of the story. Indeed, it is the fault of fatality. Involucrated: Janacek's Sinfonietta, a Green Pea moon, fatal acupuncture techniques, the mysterious Sakigake religion, its pointedly ethereal Leader and his perhuman daughter, Fuka-Eri, and a race of tiny demons that wreak havoc with time and space, in addition to working towards the rape and murder and general fucking-over of humans.

Beginning on a unexpectedly congested highway in Tokyo. The main protagonist, Aomame Masami [Ah-Oh-Mah-Meh, the book is explicit], whose story weaves in an out tangetially with that of the secondary protagonist, Tengo Kawana, finds herself stuck in traffic with a far-from-ordinary taxi driver, who tells her, if it's necessary to make her next appointment on time, a contract killing at an upscale hotel, she should climb off the highway by means of an emergency staircase. Immediately after doing so she begins to notice inconsistencies with her previous reality. Somewhere else in the city, Tengo Kawana receives an offer from his editor and acquaintance Komatsu, should he like to rewrite in secret a story about 'air chrysalides' and their makers, the 'Little People'. He then learns the story might reflect far more reality than fiction.

It sounds like an exciting and mysterious adventure, exciting and adventurous and it is for the most part as well as being a fucking mystery past the end. Of course there comes a time in the book when the action is slowed down, little new drops of information are revealed and you might wish for the climax to come before the year's end. This book-cum-murder weapon might have been condensed by two thirds with the removal of extraneous details and repeated descriptions for heavy narrative effect. Of course, Murakami continues a preternatural obsession with name-dropping Western culture and specific lifestyle details (¡look what an exciting and varied lifestyle I lead!), so much so that if the names of places and people were changed, the entire story could just as well have taken place in Los Angeles rather than Tokyo. Regardless, a page turner with words as cheap and delicious as Coca-Cola.

Quoting "Dance Dance Dance", a book to the same effect, but much more humorous and concise:

«Along the way I stopped into a coffee shop. All around me normal, everyday city types were going about their normal, everyday affairs. Lovers were whispering to each other, businessmen were poring over spread sheets, college kids were planning their next ski trip and discussing the new Police album. We could have been in any city in Japan. Transplant this coffee shop scene to Yokohama or Fukuoka and nothing would seem out of place. In spite of which—or, rather, all the more because—here I was, sit ting in this coffee shop, drinking my coffee, feeling a desperate loneliness. I alone was the outsider. I had no place here.»

Of course, I read some more books by Murakami, and found that he is a lot like Woody Allen in the way he recycles characterizations and settings and such. Woody Allen being my favorite American film director. I missed out on a frame of reference begotten by reading, for example, Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and learning about the character of Ushikawa or the Cutty Sark brand of whiskey or about the introduction of cute and vivacious teenage girls in 1984. It is possible that 1Q84 concludes a certain period of writing, and that by involving himself more in this book(metatextually) than in any other we can hope to see something completely different for a following project.

Video of Day - Roland Martin

2012-01-16T09:38:00.000-06:00

I did a small bit of looking but could not find the study (but let me say that I'm terrible at finding those things). If someone finds it please, share with the rest of the class?

Humiliation or Affirmation?

2012-01-11T23:06:00.003-06:00

This one is about to be about porn and sex. Tread carefully.

I'm liking this piece by Hugo Schwyzer right here.

Its a post on why it may be a bit presumptive to go straight to "he wants to degrade and humiliate her" as to the reason men want to give women facials (facial: ejaculating on your partner's face). A bit of background on the origins of the facial.

Glickman suggests that the AIDS crisis and the concern with safer sex was what made the facial popular. "Cum on me, not in me" was a popular sex educator slogan as far back as the late 1980s. Ejaculating on a woman's stomach, however, usually meant that the camera wouldn't let the audience see the actress' expression. But if the male actor came on her face, the viewer could see two things at once: evidence of male pleasure (symbolized by the ejaculation) and the equally important sign that a woman's reaction to that pleasure mattered. With sex now so dangerous — and HIV particularly likely to be spread through semen — facials were relatively "safe." But in the era of AIDS, they were also compelling visual evidence that a woman wasn't threatened by a man's semen. In that sense facials were, almost from the start, more about women's acceptance of men's bodies than about women's degradation.

I think this is a plausible explanation that could serve as an almost polar opposite of the "humiliation/degradation" view on facials.

I've talked about how many view male sexuality as dirty before. I wonder if the "humiliation/degradation" crowd are starting from the destructive premise that since male sexuality is dirty then giving a woman a facial is a way to "make her dirty". Just like with other sex acts the facial may be seen by such people as another way that a "pure woman" is made "dirty" by having sexual contact with men. Which may be why some people have a hard time with the idea that a woman may not care if a guy gives a facial and a really hard time with the idea that she may actually like it (there's a small anecdote in the article about a woman who experienced her first orgasm after getting a facial). But let's go a bit deeper.

It probably won't take much effort to realize that a lot of males think that their sexuality is dirty. They are sex hungry brutes that need to have sex with as many women as possible as fast as possible (its a sign that they're "real men" right?). So what if a male thought that the sight of a woman letting him ejaculate on her face and not freaking out about how "disgusting he is" was a form of acceptance? A sign that she wasn't repulsed by a part of him. Proof that she is okay with coming in contact with semen. Because let's face it (see what I did there) if a woman is letting you cum on her face then that probably means she trusts you if for no other reason than a lot of bad stuff can be transmitted through semen to skin contact.

And yes I said "letting him". This is contingent on consent. There is nothing wrong with a woman that doesn't want a guy to ejaculate on her face. She could have any number of reasons from having a traumatic experience, to she's allergic to it, to even the idea that she thinks its disgusting (and yes its entirely possible for her think semen is disgusting while not thinking the guy its coming from is disgusting) for not wanting it done but those are neither here nor there. Also more than likely a guy that's looking for affirmation, validation, and TRUST will be respectful enough to take a woman at her word when she says she doesn't want a facial.

That bit about trust will eliminate from this line of thought any guys that actually get off on doing it to her for their own pleasure whether she wants to or not and in their sick minds her not wanting it is a usually a bonus. They are in it for the lack of consent (notice that they don't even ask or do it anyway after she says no), humiliation (because there aren't many things that will generate humiliation more than having something done to you against your will), degradation (thinking that them doing it to you anyway is a sign that you are beneath them) and who knows what else. So bear this in mind.

In any case, humiliation and affirmation aren't incompatible reactions to the same act; a feeling of indignity when your partner ejaculates on your face isn't contingent on his intending to demean you.

In short the fact that you find facials to be disgusting doesn't automatically translate into "he wants to do it to humiliate me".

Personally I think that this could hold true for guys that want to ejaculate on a woman's face but don't want to do it to humiliate her, who are probably operating from the thought that if she is being humiliated (and I don't mean "she gets off on being treated that way but its consensual" I mean "she just had her boundaries violated in a serious way") then she's not going to want to be with him. What person wants to be with some that doesn't respect them?

Two things I want to add:
1. I'm not trying to pass this off as proof that no guy has ever wanted to give a woman a facial for sole purpose of humiliating her. Yes there are jerks out there like that.

2. Despite this being written in terms of man ejaculating on woman this could probably be applied to any (and I can't believe I'm about to say this) ejaculator/ejaculatee relationship. In fact I think the existence of facials in male/male porn challenges the assumptions that facials are about humiliating women, as the article notes. (unless you're one of those folks that traces everyone back to a hatred of women).

Reading debates.

2012-01-09T06:46:00.000-06:00

NOW, LISTEN HERE. I'm one of those old geezers who lacks a fascination with the television as a medium for everything. Weather channel this and shopping channel that. I also feel the television is not a great place to experience a Presidential debate, which plays out like (American) football, punctuated by endless and irrelevant advertisements, more filling than crust in my opinion.

Which is why I like to snuggle up in an old office chair, a cup of heated chocolate drink in one hand and a debate transcript glaring loudly on the monitor, appropriately playing Last of the Country Gentlemen as the backdrop to this cabal of Southern-wannabes, and a great country album altogether if any one person were to be so inclined. Although I might not have the good chocolate or a particularly comfortable chair, I can get through what is sure to be an uncomfortable experience faster than fiddling with the remote control. ABC, which co-sponsored the debate I'm reading in conjunction with Yahoo, makes it quite simple: like all the cool kids, their website offers a pre-formatted PDF option for particularizing people like me.

Not that much was picked off of this debate besides that comically out-of-touch bet from Mitt-Mitt. These 'debates' rehash so much territory they are akin to the Christmas specials of election cycles; they only produce new ones because candidates die or drop out. However, I'm not here, today, standing here today to whine about implausible candidates, nonviable promises or impossibly perfect coifs that supposedly don't need pomade. It is the state of the debate as a whole, this time around, that worries me now, if you can call these sordid hours of television a debate. The candidates get a lot of practice in folksy stuttering, the fine art of circle jerking, and ignoring Ron Paul; they can dodge questions like the Matrix and massage their singular life accomplishments into their very existence and being. (If I experience any more Republican debates I might start to believe that Romney is the Tenth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment is Romney, and on the sixth day he created healthcare, and he saw that healthcare was good, but only for Massachusetts, because each state should decide what's good for itself, except of course for Texas.) Spoken like true career politicians, but haven't you heard, you can be run for office three times, spend three decades in Congress and three terms as governor and still not be a career politician.

The last presidential debate I've seen was three or four years ago, but I distinctly remember a certain rigidity, a certain programmatic element and mechanical progression, even if that was Obama vs McCain and this here's a field of lightweights. The moderators stuck to the script, asked questions and made sure the candidates did too (no, Mr. Gingrich, you do not get four portions of time even if you were attacked on four different points) instead of turning an inquiry about how they'll fix the dismal economy into a parade of the children you've sired by your wives. Although it's possible any one of the other four and twenty debates are more substantial than the 18,000 and counting words I've just read, ephemeral like the foam of the sea, and I just happened to pick on the runt of the litter, it's possible, yes.

Post that goes nowhere piece of shit.

2012-01-05T02:55:00.001-06:00

In those halcyon days of capital punishment, we'd used to layout a picnic blanket in the town square and kindle someone alight. Roast some pork in the tangy smoke. Bring fire pokers so that the children might examine (mind your-selves!) what would happen to the worst of sinners. At the close of the day, we'd watch a convict make their last stride for heaven in the ascending ashes.

Or maybe it wasn't as romantic as a touchdown in the eleventh hour. The Apollo capsule rounding the moon, and mooning the forces of nature. As a hall of Republicans would have you think in the wild blaze they erupted, some time ago in the era of journalistic irrelevancy. It is unfortunate that 2011 will go down as a another year in a series of millenia where people still get hard and wet, contemplating execution on a herded, emotional basis, although it must be noted it was Allen in 1977 who first made the connection explicit when he suggested to Annie she should take sodium pentothal to slumber through relational duality.

A tad bit odd (just a tad bit) to bring up the death penalty in this joyous time of year for the West. There are no 'cause celebres' on the verge of the void to rally about, to print t-shirts and take action around. In fact, I can honestly say that the readership of this blog is unlikely to ever face the death penalty, we're all such nice people. (Isn't it disgusting the way I make blanket determinations about a class of people?) That doesn't make it any less of our concern, apparently. Being a public occasion is one aspect of execution that has yet to change in the continuum of Davis, Capet, and Christ but we no longer revel in gore but for the opportunity to write psuedophilosophical tracts on obscure blogs. Poor bastards, the bloggers, not those departed.

It is said by pithier people that societies are or should be measured by how well it treats those most worst off, like prisoners, but it is said by me that we only have regard for those people in the off-chance one finds oneself disgraced. I won't pass judgment on you that I might not be judged, the golden rule of justice and the vicious circle of life. Unfortunately for the condemned, even this does not apply here, when to see the end of days on death’s row you must have been accused and convicted of the worst and most unsavory of crimes (in all likelihood you're guilty as well): kindermurders, ultrarapes, trafficking and perhaps most importantly, homicides predicated on felonies and-or bad taste in music (forgive me, a flight of fantasy), although in lesser instances the state is hampered by that bothersome parchment the Constitution, and its draftees the Supreme Court. The mere name of 'punishment' betrays the abandonment of any noble rehabilitation, the so-called unringable bell, athough that phrase might have originated elsewhere, we must use only the finest words here, these are people's lives we're talking about.

Most alarming is the abandonment of parity in crime and consequence, whereas in 2009 fifty-two people were executed, 15,200 were murdered. Where are my 15,200 executions, and what is it with this half-asséd approach to capital punishment? There are 399 people on death row in Florida, the state blessed to have me. That is still a few hundred and one persons short of a humanitarian crisis, but at the lethargic rate of executions we'll be tugging at the heartstrings of their enlightened excellencies the Europeans in no time at all. (Most certainly distasteful it’d be to have them executed all one day.) I once swept dirt from my kitchen into a crevice because I didn't care to bend over but I feel the filth was fit to find its way back on the floor again in the annals of kitchen cleanliness. (It is certain.) So put many in peril but none in harm's way for the time being, speak the actions of governors like Oregon’s, who so far has pursued the most passively aggressive resistance to the death penalty in recent memory, ceasing during his term which has stayed only temporarily the execution of this year’s lucky man. The same wishiwashiness and delay that that has pervaded American executions, except Texas, seemingly able to survive any infection of liberalism or humanity. Why, it takes almost thirteen years for someone to be executed in la Floride!

On one hand, the intense scrutiny, and time, and money, because time is money and money can buy time on death row, all those things that they'd forget and repurpose if we were to merely imprison offenders and dispose of the key. Even the Supreme Court could agree that it's not that big of a deal to imprison an innocent person for the rest of their natural life in the name of justice. Then politicians and judges and juries could reuse the newfound hours of the day to the noble task of playing chicken with the deb ceiling or some shit like that.

Then again, how can we really assess the effectiveness of execution if we allow the process to proceed in slow motion (and keep the sample size insufficiently stacked)? The good people of this nation would be thoroughly outraged if we waited thirteen years for someone to begin a prison sentence on the off-chance of a judicial miscarriage. Get the president on the line, there really is only one solution to this dilemna: we need to execute more people, starting with those 15,148 miscarriages of justice I mentioned earlier. (This will also serve the second purpose of puffing chests with our stone-happy neighbors the Iranians and the Chinese, We're just like you!)

P.S. Someone wants to take me up on my offer already.

Most Viewed Posts of 2011 [that's right, another end-of-year Top Ten list!]

2012-01-02T19:09:00.001-06:00

Inspired by Alas, A Blog's recent post, I decided to see what our most widely-read blog posts of 2011 were. The Top Ten (drumroll, please):

Distributism, a blog post that contained precisely three original words, yielded a whopping 638 pageviews;

Still Think Intent Doesn't Matter? received 695 pageviews;

American Aristocracy and the Return of Prosperity received 772 pageviews;

Weiner's Wiener, whose accompanying image is mysteriously MIA, got an annoying 802 pageviews;

Best Films of the Decade got 830 pageviews;

Discussion Thread: Politicians came in at 961 views;

One Industry That Should Never Be Privatized was viewed 978 times;

A Story About the End of the World had 1,093 views;

You Cannot Vote In Favor of Defining Marriage As Between One Man and One Woman Without Being A Bigot, a post with likely the longest title in the world, came in at 1,405; and last but not least, with 2,498 pageviews, is

"Nice Guys," Sex, and Self-Confidence.

Also, since the blog's move form Wordpress to Blogger, we've been viewed a total of 96,182 times! Woo! Thanks for all your awesome reading, readers, and our awesome writing, fellow writers. Here's to an even more well-read 2012!

Prognosticating the Politics of 2012

2012-01-02T16:52:00.001-06:00

After living through a volatile 2011 (the Arab Spring, the Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear meltdown, Libya, the Occupy Movement, economic uncertainty, etc.) the world might see a 2012 that's just as chaotic and harrowing. Yet there's much to be thankful for as we begin another year, with the potential for more outbursts of democratic revolution.

via Los Angeles Times

Syria Moving Toward Peace?
The political will of the people is becoming centralized of late, deciding to go it alone by not allowing a foreign military intervention (ala Libya). It's exciting to not only see this unity of opposing factions but also the clarity of their purpose, unwilling to be compromised by external forces in pursuing the ouster of Bashar al-Assad. Who knows if the military will continue their sniper attacks, continuing their assault on the citizens of Syria that's raged since last March or if the Arab League will be able to diplomatically influence what's happening on the ground. In time, the only ways I see a peaceful resolution to this bloody turmoil is either an overthrow of the Assad regime or long-term economic isolation to the point of Assad conceding. Neither outcome looks to be on the immediate horizon.

The latest news in Syria, reported just this morning, is that the government has withdrawn their tanks out of the cities and released "3,500 detainees" as a result of "regional initiative" following reports from Arab League observers on the ground who recently withdrew as well. The evident goal is cease-fire, which has not as of this morning been achieved, yet every positive step in the process is welcome at this point.

Scary to see how linked our growth is to Europe's... via American Progress

The Global Economy
In the US, the economy is finally starting to show signs of life with increased growth and lower unemployment of late. The problem now? The shoe is on the other foot with economic foreign powers slumping (China, Europe) while we're just starting to get back on our feet. If the EU debt crisis continues to damage the European markets and/or China's growth continues to slow, it could spell a longer economic recession for everybody and cast further uncertainty on who leads America going forward. In 2012, I see an increase in American output, a slower yet steady continuance of Chinese growth and a mediocre or even no recovery for the Euro-zone, potentially similar to the slow 2011 recovery here in the US. ABC News put something out this morning on their projections for the US economy.

via theaustralian.com.au

China and North Korea
Will they become further destabilized or instead continue their partnership of citizen oppression, censorship and famine? If North Korea or China are ever going to trend toward the Democratic changes we've seen in the past year in the Arab states, it'll happen in the next five years. Though what's been most evident during Kim Jung Un's transition to power is just how strong their Stalinist system is, with those in power enjoying the fruits of their work. Historically, the most successful attempts at toppling a regime have been undertaken during times of transition and in North Korea I see no such weakness. While the people of China are are gathering and protesting more than they have in recent years, there is no doubting the power their leaders have in suppressing the voices of the people via censorship, jailing human rights lawyers, continued suppression of religion and human rights, with no evidence of their leadership crumbling at this point.

The Occupy Movement
While most of the occupy encampments have been forcibly removed and the cold weather may have frozen out the original notion of a constant physical presence (though there are exceptions), there continues to be a plethora of activity in many of the originally occupying cities. The most exciting recent actions have included the West Coast port shutdown, the Minnesota house occupations and just this morning, the march that concluded the Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena. I don't see the Occupy Movement abating anytime soon, expecting it to only gather more steam as the weather gets better this Spring.

via CBS News

The Caucuses and Primaries
Romney will most likely capture a majority of the state-by-state contests, with Paul and Gingrich possibly picking up a couple and Perry potentially snagging one or two himself. It's pretty tough to project considering the volatility of the electorate, as evidenced by their mad Fall campaigns, the diversity of the states and the huge fluctuations in polling. I see Romney winning a long battle (reminiscent of the long primary season between Clinton and Obama in '08), ultimately ending with Romney losing by a greater margin in the general election than McCain did to Obama in 2008. Below is the most recent poll of polls from Real Clear Politics:

People get so wrapped up in polling and the excitement the traditional horse race handicapping of candidates that they often miss the simplicity of how determining a projected winner can be. Please take a look at Allan Lichtman's Keys to the White House method of prediction. He's accurately predicted 7 of the last 7 presidential elections based on his thirteen criteria. He had a great debate earlier last year with Nate Silver and this year he's predicting a victory for President Obama. I see no reason to doubt his method at this point, unless the economy takes a drastic turn for the worse.

For more political and cultural commentary, stop by Auspicious Scuttlebutt, as I'll be covering the coming primaries and caucuses, plus in-depth looks at each of the remaining candidates.

Hope your 2012 is filled with joy and prosperity!

My first (successful) GIF- Jimmy McNulty

2012-01-01T23:21:00.003-06:00

I don't know why but I find this irrationally funny. (Perhaps it's the duck-face he's making?) I suppose this starts the year on a good foot.

A deservingly stupid EOY meta-list.

2011-12-31T00:25:00.000-06:00

[I apologize in advance if you find this post offensively unfunny. I can only say with certainty that I think I'm humorous.] THERE SEEMS TO BE an excess of top-lists in the internet world. Even in this-here relative ark of sanity some hack has managed to toss in a list about the 'best' movies or something, a conclusive thing like a funeral, sending off at sea the preceding year, decade, and century. In a floating wooden box so that the culture-waste might wash up the random shore, or otherwise orbit the web of garbage alleged to be the size of Texas! In parody and in honor of these squandered clicks, that appear in yours and mine Google News page, seducing good men and women with the secret to happiness in life: The whitest bleaches for removing gravy stains. The best apps for engaging in anonysex with twenty-something homosexual lawyers. Most popular weights of paper for printing office memos regarding kitchen cleanliness. Quietest hammers for night-time construction work. Music lists from magazines scared of their readers so that every genre is mashed together, with requisite token spots for bestselling albums, Radiohead or Coldplay and even some harpsichord revivalism (it's coming back!) for the lunatic fringe.

Now that it has been established that lists are made for everything, I've decided to contribute a few of my own worthless microlists. Join in, I'll append.

Hottest US Cabinet members of the year:

Hillary
Geithner
Panetta
Holder

Best songs directed at telephone operators I've listened to:

"Satellite", Kills
"Little Black Submarine", Black Keys

Best foods I tasted for the first time this year:

Cashews
Waffles
Black Coffee

Top colors of the year containing diphthong 'au':

Taupe
Mauve
Auburn
Jaundice

Best books of all time with years for titles:

1914
1939
1984
1Q84
2001
2666

Hipster Madison

2011-12-24T14:59:00.001-06:00

Squee... Slow Club.

2011-12-23T11:16:00.000-06:00

A long post you needn't bother read.

2011-12-17T17:01:00.000-06:00

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING about Newton, Willard or any other of the gawp candidates except hearsay. The same cannot be said about President Obama. Having read his books and listened to his speeches on the telly, I admire him with a respectful gaze and cast dirty looks at those who sully his name.

Considering the possibility that I've been so deranged by liberal media I can no longer discriminate good idea from terrible concept, and that perhaps the neoconservatives have good thoughts and valid criticisms I’ve failed to consider. For all intensive purposes I should be considered an Obamabot, if that is the term in actual use. The connotation that I follow orders, that I am a member of 'Obama's army', an accusation leveled at every irate liberal group alike to Wisconsinites, is not appreciated. Robot does best describe my avoidant reflex to being confronted with a swatch of deep red candidates who think gays, liberals, and minorities are sinners, and sins are real, and that there is one court higher than the Supreme Court and that is the court of Christ the King from which they received divine mandate.

No matter how much I complain about the quantity and quality of Republican candidates I can't say that I've watched any of their umpteenth debates, read one of their numerous folios, or made an effort to look for news sources more impartial than Colbert satire and gay, liberal, minority columnists in frighteningly left-wing publications such as Mother Jones. Most conservative ideas are repugnant simply by means of my class membership: I resent the Jewish-Nazi dynamic of immigrants and Alabamans because I’m an immigrant, I shy away from capitalistic worship as I’m neither rich nor a ‘job creator’, I don’t drive a car or trade oil futures, so why must the Americas be sucked dry? In a constitutional trial, a public forum, the defendant has the right to an impartial jury and the prosecution must reveal exculpatory evidence. To be the loyal and rational opposition to the right-wing, I might have an obligaton to consider points-of-view that could safely be assumed antagonistic. The defenders of conservative ideals might give off a foul mouthfeel, to do otherwise would make me a grade-A douche for not giving conservative values 'due process', and I'd hate to play into 'botnik' perceptions of liberals. What a dilemna!

That the couch potato acolytes of fnc doctrine should be taken as a representative sample of conservatives and the Republican is a consequence of their ability to make fantastic momentum from tiny mass and great velocity. One look at the prolific Disqus profiles of fnc commentators shows they are abhorrent people: statements rife with misspellings, purposeful and otherwise, odd choices of ASCII art, and a binary view of the world into actions for which President Obama is directly responsible (initiating the moral decay and eventual collapse of the American Empire) and those for which he conspired with other liberals to bring about (loosening hordes of hipsters unto the good people of various central business districts).

I did not harbored strong feelings against the fnc or the Republican party until the commencement of President Obama’s administration, when I began to notice all the vicious attacks derived from blackness or liberal elitism amongst other nonsense. Internally, it seems I’ve been reviewing those years, 2001-2009, looking for the case that I can refudiate modern conservative policies on feel alone, America by heart without the need to look twice. It cannot be said that I have been indoctrinated from birth with the ideas of the left. Similar to the perptuation of religious beliefs, family legends, and preferences regarding milk fat content passed from parent to child, had I been, I believe I would not now hold a depraved indifference towards conservative ideas. My earliest memory of an American politician, a man sympathetic our plight, whatever we were: George W. Bush in a television advertisement. The conservatives seemed to be nice people, and it was difficult to hear otherwise; perhaps I was an intelligent child but watching the English local and Spanish international news nor cared to have formed a hole in a picture of the nation at large.

When Barack Obama came around, only then was I becoming politically aware as a person. Formulating an opinion on everything: the war in Iraq is wrong, the war in Afghanistan is okay. I have decreed it. The war on drugs is a failure but government regulation is required. It is so ordered. Perhaps the single-minded fanatacism I can only be too concerned now, those ridiculous antics of Washington. It worries me when I visit my favorite news site, foxnews.com, and I’m browsing through the stories. As stated before, hilarity ensues when a story is published, while it could be about anything, wingnuts always scramble to make President Obama the causative agent. Observe that it is only one short step from pathological hatred of Obama to belief that he is conspiring with the Russians to “sap our precious bodily fluids through fluoridation”. But when fox finds itself reporting something worthwhile like the Fast and Furious debacle I look the other way, avoiding clicking the link to preserve my bubble. The callous attacks from right-wing nuts has filtered my vision of the presidency. These people have played the dangerous game of crying wolf too many times and now I cannot take them seriously anymore! I have done what is anathema to the family, and put my faith, which is an unnatural belief, in someone inherently undeserving of trust and belief, a politician. Where is President Obama’s birth certificate? Does he have enough experience to be President? At first, at the outset, I might have weighed both sides of the issue but I've been worn down by extremist insistence on the examination of minutiae.

But Obama, in addition to being a gorgeous, lyrically-spoken man, is the President of the United States! These are the kind of people that fight wars, as he has. The ruthless men who draw up budgets and treaties and laws as if they were playing board games, and then relax over a game of golf. Par!I shouldn't be caught defending their ethical transgressions in blog posts. (Did I ever say that it was okay to assasinate citizens of the United States? I don't recall at this moment.) Even though none of this improves in a change-up with Romney, Froth and Gang, I still can't pretend that Obama is my knight in white armor, ready to defend the goodness and wholesomeness of America. That he should be above criticism because he's the Obamabot's only viable candidate, the Luke Skywalker to our Leia-in-Distress, but I and the other bots need to grow the fuck up, because even Princess Leia knew her way around a ray blaster. So next time, I'll probably post something about how he has failed to live up to the phrase “Speak softly and carry a big dick” or some dissappointment and another.

Merry “winter religious festivities”, and a happy Gregorian new-year!

Baby Jesus: He brings you presents.

Recent changes to the ethecofem website.

2011-12-09T20:57:00.000-06:00

In case any of you have recently started reading ethecofem, we are a blog. Simple folk really: four, occasionally less or more little blogsters hoping that their words are relevant in the expanding blogosphere. With this in mind, I am posting a few informative updates about the website structure.

The default font for everything was recently changed to Arial, twelve and one-half point at #111111. Because you know, it's not such a bad font at all. [Perhaps I'm not a huge fan of the droopy capital R, but it still beats that wanker Helvetica any day of the week.]

Unlike the cods of Washington who can't seem to get anything done, ethecofem has successfully engaged in label reform. The dilemma of choosing which labels to keep and discard is between the metatextual doozies that provide ironic commentary ["Lee Doren is a dumbass"] and the simplistically accurate tidbits for which I have opted to dispay in the tag cloud [simply "Lee Doren"]. This actually started as a simple project but got dragged out because of Blogger's concatenative selection mechanism, and thus error-prone labelling system. In continuum, the number of tags located at the bottom of the page will be whittled down by hundreds. Also, in the left gallery, there are author-specific tags: this is a bastardized implementation of a previous idea that the tabs below the header should perform this function. Perhaps in the future, people mentioned in posts will get a Concerning list.

In case you are so impressed by this amazing website, do not forget about our presence on all the "cool" and "hip" pages of the internet. We are now into plussing [not as successfully as I'd hope], tweeting, force-feeding, bitlying, facebooking, and almost any other noun that doubles as a verb. Of course we also put tried and tested methods such as flogging one's blog posts in the town square in play as well.

Last item: I copied this picture from the "Sharing + Disqussing" tab. Perhaps you have not seen it already. It describes the action of mentioning someone in the official, Disqus context. First off, have you heard the Good News? ¡You do not need a Disqus account to comment! Alabanzas al Señor. However, if you are interested in continuity of discussion, I beg you to use the mention function as it (a) allows you to notify someone of involucration in a comment, and (b) give visual cues to someone scanning ethecofem's flattened threads of what's happening.

The value of Microaggressions, e-mail response.

2011-12-05T15:00:00.001-06:00

An e-mail response to the Microaggressions post, by Dani. She can be found @thequeengeek, and on her own blog, A Geeky View on Life.

I'm not looking to start a flame war as much as a discussion back and forth about what I see as an interesting and multifaceted issue.

Some disclaimers: I'm a white, cissgender, college educated woman. I was raised in a low income, working class home, and have spent a large portion of my adult life in pretty precarious poverty, but I have to acknowledge my privilege where it lies. I also have never seen that website till your blog post, so I can't speak about it from a place of expertise.

I think my issue with the post is that you seem to dismiss any positive outcome of recognizing the daily small events that highlight our institutionalized racism, sexism, ableism, cissgenderism, classism, homophobia, etc. I think there is some inherent value in pointing out that certain games, shows, magazines, websites, etc are geared to one gender, age, sexual orientation, et al. Akin to consciousness raising groups in the late 60s and early 70s, it helps people be able to identify where the ingrained and societal biases lie, so that the battle ground is clear.

On the other hand, I do take issue with the idea that changing language alone can end oppression. I think there is some validity to the idea that the way we speak about ourselves can change attitudes about certain things, BUT, I don't think that by changing language, all the biases of the world will magically melt away.

If people are feeling marginalized by language, though (ie, Gentlemen start your engines), perhaps it is a symptom of an illness. The individuals feel excluded, pushed out and unwelcome in the community (in this case, gaming), but can only find physical proof in the words and packaging of the institution. Does that make sense? I know, for example, when I worked in a gaming section of a retailer, the men did not take me seriously as an expert. But only once did one say to me "Can I speak to a dude?" I felt he put his finger on what I was feeling through non-direct actions to be true-- that men would rather talk to a man about gaming, because they assumd I knew nothing based on gender. That one incident should not have been as offensive as it was, but it was an illustration for a greater feeling.

Then there's the argument that people who feel marginalized and slighted should be able to have a voice and a place to express it. That the internet gives people facing oppression the ability to speak out about how they feel, and how certain things make them feel. That it's a fine line to draw, saying what is a big enough deal to express publicly, and feeds into a stereotype of minorities being whiners and wanting special treatment because they can't man up and take it, etc.

I don't know. I think you're right in some aspects, too, but these difficulties came to mind. All the issues are super tough, and I'm just looking for people who want to sit down and talk them through, because even if we never agree, the discussion is stronger than anything. I totally respect what you do, and think you do a good job doing it.

-Dani

I wonder how long I've been doing that.

2011-12-02T08:09:00.001-06:00

A while back I recall reading a post on some blog (I THINK it was NSWATM) on a study that showed men as well as women were more mindful about what they ate when they were in the company of others. I didn't think I did this but low and behold I do.

A few days ago while out to lunch I came across some coworkers who offered me a seat at their table and I accepted. Just to explain I live in what one would call the boonies so its not like options to eat out are all over the place. Anyway this place in particular has a pretty good buffet given the lack of choice. And by pretty good I mean two plate plied up followed by dessert minimum good.

Oddly enough on that day, with those coworkers, I only ate a salad and a single modest plate.

It actually hit me as I was leaving that I actually cut my meal short out of fear of "looking like a pig". Don't get me wrong there's nothing bad about cutting your meal short in and of itself. To me its a matter of why one cut's their meal short. Am I doing it for me or am I doing it for other people? That whole thing about ends and means and justification.

Just an observation.

Excuse me while I rack my brain thinking back on every meal I've had with company to examine if I cut the meal short because I was with company (or because of certain company)....

Later.

Hostility towards Microaggressions.

2011-11-30T16:05:00.000-06:00

Specifically, my hostility towards the tenuously valid culture of victimization that exists on the website of Microaggressions, a Tumblr where people can and unfortunately do submit anecdotes with subtle tinges of injury from the cornucopia of progressive terminology: racism, feminism, religion, weightism, agism-or-is-it-ageism, so forth and so on until someone shuts the website down. It is the belief of this microaggressive community that it is possible, to quote this delightful APA article, to be racist or discriminatory in a manner "so subtle that neither victim nor perpetrator may entirely understand what's going on". Wonderful.

The original definition was bounded by interracial interactions, but the Tumblr expands this to any social construction [their words]; any person could decide to "construct" a personal class and claim insult against it. If, say, a lactose-intolerant person is offered cream with their coffee at a café, the waitress would be guilty of microaggressing the customer: How dare she assume the customer can digest milk sugars! The scheme of Microaggressions is that we are all, or at least have the potential to be vicious microaggressors. Soon, even I will be accused of microaggression for assuming the person-waiting-the-tables was a woman.

It is unfortunate, perhaps, that some of the anecdotes are in fact totally valid, universally recognized instances of racism and sexism that have "somehow" ended up on a website that is supposed to be about injurious but not malicious or overt discrimination. For example, with the statement, "Practicing already, huh?", a young girl's act of eating a popsicle is sexualized by her stepfather, a blatant disregard for feminine sensibility and a rude thing to say in any respect. But the stepfather is just a jerk; this is no microaggression. It'd rather look like this gem, which like many submissions, involved an interaction in an inanimate and immutable environment:

I am playing a racing game. The game says “Gentlemen, start your engines.” I am a woman. It made me feel marginalized and annoyed.

Apparently, the microaggresse has been so repeatedly violated by these injustices throughout their life that even the most common of phrases can set them off. The concept that you should [and eventually will] have your feelings hurt by every politically-incorrect, non-inclusive statement, that not having sole domain over commentary about your class, is like the petulant artist who insists that no one understands their artwork, and those who criticize it or reveal its lack of substance, are incompetent.

I wish I could say that Microaggressions was an even mildly open platform like Fuck My Life, an apparent progenitor of this website, but I don't think any of us will ever know the content of those submissions which never make it to the home page. [Can a Republican be microaggressed?] Their submission template does not call for creativity. The emotional value of those that do make the cut is diluted by the generic language that every experience is transformed with. First, the offender: which made the aggressee feel: , et cetera et cetera et cetera.

In conclusion, the more and more I think about this website the more and more I fucking hate it and the way it gives people an excuse to inflate the tiniest incidents into class warfare.