One unexpected side effect of reading all the anti-Obama crap...

I mean the hardcore conspiracy Birther/supra-PUMA stuff, and I swear I'm moving past them, just noting, though:

While a lot of them are indeed right wingers, a fair number of them seem to have moved seamlessly from left-wing conspiracy tropes to the current ones wherein if they aren't right-wingers, they play them really well on TV. 9/11 Truthers, Bush stole the election(s), Black Box voting/Diebold means we'll never have a free and fair election again...the names and ideologies have shifted, but the ZOMG IT'S AN INCREDIBLY ELABORATE PLOT WE'RE ALL DOOMED is pretty consistent throughout, I notice.

And, okay. In 2004 or thereabouts, I read a lot of Democratic Underground and other such sites. While I obviously didn't have time for crap like "there were no planes on 9/11," or synchronized bombs or whatever the fuck (and yes, I had a few down the rabbit hole arguments on this with people I'd previously not tweaked were -that- ummm eccentric), at least some of it seemed somewhat...convincing. O.K., maybe the Chicken Little shit is a bit out of control, but yeah, the Diebold business--well, that is weird. So, Beverly Harris is -also- a bit weird, but there's probably -something- to all of it, right? We ARE really screwed, right? And--well, maybe Bush didn't KNOW beforehand, exactly, there is that whole PNAC business, and...yeah, okay, it's true that the final vote in 2004 was pretty solidly in line with most of the polls up till then, but dammit, it SHOULDN'T be possible that people would vote for the fucker AGAIN, there -must- be some mistake, and -everyone- knows THEY are so much more corrupt than we are, and, and...

and nothing, really. Listen, don't get me wrong: I haven't changed my politics. I don't think there's a damn thing benign about the way the Bush administration reacted to 9/11, and yeah, I think there was a fuckload of cynical opportunism. I do think people get disenfranchised in voting on at least some scale, and/or there's ballot-stuffing/dumping/tampering/whatever at least some of the time in some places; and yeah, it may well have made the difference in 2000, at least. And yeah, I think the Republican party, in its current incarnation at least, is a fucking cesspool, ideologically as well as ethically. (I make no claims for the sainthood of the Democrats--people like Blago are a great example of why not--but at minimum I feel slightly less cynical about them than I do the fuckers we just got rid of; which may just be a question of shiny newness, but otoh yes, ideology matters, and they're more or less -my- ratfuckers, more so than the R's, anyway, for now, like it or loathe it).

But...rightly or wrongly, I guess overall I'm now a bit more skeptical than I might once have been about -any- sort of "plot" talk. And yes, there IS Machiavellian shit in high places, no duh. I'm just not at all convinced that some random "experts" on the Internets have a better grasp of what is or isn't actually going down than, well, the rest of the world. Even if, next time, they DO happen to be more in line with my own beliefs. Wishing/fearing something doesn't make it so. And sometimes, Occam's Razor really does apply.

Reaping the whirlwind

John McCain is booed by his own rabidly anti-Obama crowds for telling them that maybe they ought to put down the pitchforks and torches after all.

The anger is getting raw at Republican rallies and John McCain is acting to tamp it down. McCain was booed by his own supporters Friday when, in an abrupt switch from raising questions about Barack Obama's character, he described the Democrat as a "decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

A sense of grievance spilling into rage has gripped some GOP events this week as McCain supporters see his presidential campaign lag against Obama. Some in the audience are making it personal, against the Democrat. Shouts of "traitor," "terrorist," "treason," "liar," and even "off with his head" have rung from the crowd at McCain and Sarah Palin rallies, and gone unchallenged by them.

...When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country," McCain stoked the sentiment. "I think I got the message," he said. "The gentleman is right." He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.

On Friday, McCain rejected the bait....

Um, yay? Still three and a half weeks to go, though, and that Ayers ad...and there's still your charming assistant running around doing her best Anita-Bryant-at-Nuremberg impression...

Well. And now for your moment of WTF?

"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:

"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

Arab: decent family man. Arab: decent family man.

"He ain't Arab, he's my colleague..."

'k then.

But no, there's no -racism- here or anything, so -stop saying that.- I mean, we totally almost don't even mind that he's -black.- What more do you want, for heaven's sake...?

Attention, attention must finally be paid. Again.

("D'Artagnan! How dare you talk to me that way, you...!")

O all right then, twist my rubber dwama/trainwreckspotting addict arm. Heart's got a new blog up

"to challenge and refute the attacks on me, on radical feminists and radical feminism on the internet."

I figure it'd be remiss to not at least point the way, all things considered.** So far it looks like the first few posts are about "the attacks on me," but I expect she'll get around to the rest of "radical feminists" and "radical feminism" and "on the Internet" shortly.

I will not be allowing comments on this blog; it is intended to serve as a resource. I will post each lie individually giving it its own post, so that a compendium is compiled, both of the lies and, indirectly, of the liars who tell the lies. I envision this as a sort of “Snopes” to which people can be referred whenever someone repeats or spreads disinformation.

Really? I envision it as a sort of Checkers speech as delivered by Time Cube guy, myself. I also envision you being just about ready for your closeup...

The lies, attacks, slander and defamation will come to an end.

Um...okay! This Will Come To An End! You Will Stop Looking At Me Funny! And then: EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINAAAAATE...!

no, no, sorry, wouldn't want to spread any more lies or slander: Heart is not, repeat, NOT a Dalek. Not even a LITTLE bit. Get that out of your heads right now. Severely.

my comments speak for themselves.

That they do, Heart. That, they most definitely do.

**see, Heart, even if you change your mind and the post after the fact, if you publish the post with links to someone's blog, it still shows up in one's Technorati stats. like this, see?

#
Lie No. 2: “Heart Has Said Women of Color Oppress Her/Are Morphing
Into Her Oppressor”
http:/ fightthelies.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/lie-no-2-heart-...

morphing into her oppressor’.” Inventers, tellers, and spreaders of
this lie: Encyclopedia Dramatica (which basically tells only lies,
but still, it tells this one specifically so I am including it)
drakyn, belledame, bintalshamsa, lisa harney, veronica, aradhana,
Trinity, Renegade Evolution* Truth: I do not believe, have never
believed, have never stated that women of color “oppress” me or any
other white woman or white women. I do not believe in
9 hours ago in Fight the Lies · Authority: 1

# Author unknown
Lie No. 1: “Heart is ‘Anti-Trans’ or ‘Transphobic’”
http:/ fightthelies.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/lie-heart-is-an...

Lie: “Heart is ‘Anti-Trans’ or Transphobic” Inventers, tellers, and
spreaders of this lie: snowe, anacas, dorktastic, drakyn, belledame,
snugglebitch, piny, who has blogged at Feministe, box3, bintalshamsa,
armchairshrink, Mandolin of Alas a Blog, lisa harney, marti abernathy
*, shannon* Truth: I believe that transgender persons should enjoy
full civil and human rights with all

Sadly, that excerpt is all that comes up in the stats, so we may never know why Renegade, Marti Abernathy and Shannon were asterisked. I'm sure they'll each be devastated.

ETA: snerk.

In which the author humbly requests that someone stage an intervention, or, um, something.

No, I mean for me, actually, though it might appear--stop me before I post this, I--

oh--

agh.

*sigh*

okay.

Dear Violet, and no doubt a bunch of other similarly inclined people that I don't "know" as well, by proxy more or less:

You know, I know it's been a hell of a long time since we've really been on speaking terms, and I realize we disagree on, well, a whole shitload of things.

It's just, well, I kind of had this idea that whatever else, you were always kind of ironically self-aware. Level headed. Wry. With a sense of humor, and proportion, and stuff.

So, well, I, I, I just don't really know what to make of, say, this entry:

I still don’t have regular internet access and I don’t watch TV, so
I’m out of the loop. But I hear things — weird, disturbing, almost
unbelievable things — and so I’m grabbing a few minutes here on my
Dad’s computer before a family birthday party for this brief announcement:

When I wrote this post on Democratic party history back in April, I was not calling for the assassination of Barack Obama. Just thought I’d get that out there now before the Gestapo shows up at here at the house.

Sorry to post and run, but I’ll leave you with something to think
about: if the collusion between the Obama campaign and the media
continues like this, will that pose the most severe threat to free
speech in this country since a) the Alien and Sedition Acts, b) the
1917 Espionage Act, c) the McCarthy era, or d) the Patriot Act of
2001? Discuss amongst yourselves.

Update: Over at the Mighty Corrente Building, FrenchDoc is facing a
fork in the road:

"There is no question that a line was crossed yesterday, by the
media and the so-called progressive blogosphere. Personally, it has
put me on the fence: if Senator Obama becomes the nominee, do I take a
break from politics until November or do I actively campaign against
him?"

I’ve been wrestling with the same issue, but I know now what my answer
is. Barack Obama has run the dirtiest, most dishonest campaign I’ve
ever seen from a Democrat on the national level. His mob-like
supporters terrify me. And his media enablers are catastrophically
dangerous. They must be stopped. Must be.

You know, and it's not as though the "media enablers" aren't also getting a tad, shall we say, melodramatic. Admittedly the only one I just really paid attention to is/was Keith Olbermann, who is also beginning to wear on my nerves, something I never thought I'd say--all RIGHT, we GET it, it was a stupid fucked up thing of her to say,** we're all vicariously cringing and were already beyond sick of the whole goddam thing, really, and yeah, I'm sure not exactly what either the Obamas or the Kennedy family really needed to hear, not to mention the rest of us; still, considering a) Obama himself just basically said 'let it go,' as did whichever the hell youngish Kennedy's still out there, I can't keep track b) she herself didn't actually KILL anybody, can we maybe stop with the Hercule Poirot GOTCHA routine?

...But, really. "They must be stopped?" THEY MUST BE STOPPED?

"...but how?" -bites knuckle-

I mean, fuck knows it's not like we had craptacular sensationalistic media before, EVER. Damn you, Barack Obama!

Okay, so at this point I realize that my little "y'know, there's this other dude McCain, and actually some of us think his presidency WOULD be more "dangerous" than that of Obama, even though I get that the latter seems suspiciously charismatic and that's automatically a Very Bad Thing and so on, well, I think basically at this point those who have ears to hear, you know. You'll live and die for Hillary (or Obama), for to save us from those other fanatics, yer fighting tooth and claw to the bitter bitter end; okay, I get it, wouldn't try to say you nay. Mostly because I'm on my very last pair of eyeballs, I don't get another prescription till next month.

But would it be too much to ask for people to, I don't know, consider getting a petit grip?

Just asking.

I mean, I understand, really. Well, sort of. God knows I've had plenty of rants, for far less than this, even, that probably led a number of people to the conclusion that I'm basically Time Cube guy at a John Birchers convention.

And having said that (I am large, I contain platitudes), I hereby request of all concerned friends and loved ones, that if I ever end up getting quite this um well apocalyptic about an electoral campaign, particularly a bleeding primary in which it's blatantly obvious to most of the non poliwonk-as-football-fan world that there's really not all that much difference between the candidates in question? that they beat me about the head and shoulders with a wet halibut until I damn well come to my senses.

Thank you.

**ETA and then, too, there is also this (thanks, Kevin):

I was not alive when Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968. Yet, when I hear the words “1968″ and “assassination” in the same sentence, I cannot help but to think of Martin Luther King, Jr. I cannot help but to think of the racial unrest of the period. I cannot help but to think of the struggles that my people have had to undergo in order for a black person to be seriously considered for the Presidency of the United States of America. I cannot help but to think of the numerous civil Rights leaders slain.

This is my history.

And let it be known that this is not solely the history of black folks. People of Color across the board share this history in the United States. We may be invited to the dinner table now and again, but don’t even think we will get anything until the establishment has had their fill.

I don’t think that Sen. Clinton’s statements can be divorced from several events that occurred in 1968:

The assassination of Robert Kennedy.

The Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The riots at the Democratic National Convention.

Maybe it’s just me, but when I learned of her remarks (which she has made before, but I was unaware of), that’s what came to mind. It was offensive to the Kennedy family, especially given Ted Kennedy’s illness (Sen. Clinton did apologize for that, however). It unnecessarily brought up the specter of black folks getting killed for being black and standing up for their humanity; and it also, for me at least, brought up the 1968 Democratic Convention riots, given all the talk these days about a “civil war” at the Convention, talk that I’m sure she is aware of.

Why? Why? Why? -Why- do I do this to myself?

I mean, it's not like there isn't -enough- stupid and hateful in the world that I need to go seeking out even -more- of it, right? There is absolutely no reason on Maud's green earth why I -need- to be reading fundamentalists of any sort, let alone a rare conglomeration of fundies of both the right-wing Christian type AND (a few of) the purportedly radical feminist type, all united and dovetailing in the hatred of teh Ultimate Ev0l, teh pr0n; and -beyond- that, there is -certainly- no reason to click on what I know will be a small tetchy clump of the Lyndon LaRouchites of the feminist-or-whatever-everyone's-calling-themselves-this-week...clump...but...um...

Listen, can someone help wean me off onto a healthier habit, like, I don't know, slamming my fingers in car doors, or huffing nail polish remover?

Meanwhile, I -am- sorry, but MISERY LOVES COMPANY, DAMMIT:

exhibit #1:

I used to think men cared about women, and they would protect us if
necc. All that went right out the window, breaking me at my very core/
soul. If a man can use any woman he can use all women. There's no good
and bad uses of women. I don't want to be used in the so called good
way - as wife and fako partner, any more than I want to be used in the
bad way of p wh. It's ALL BAD!!! Using anyone is BAD!!!! There's no
good way to use someone. Yet there men are, celebrating the abuse of
women. I used to think the USA had a strong military full of strong
manly men dedicated to protecting us from external forces...

We're left feeling sooo alone in the world when we discover those who
vowed to love and honor us, have only been using us, while they also
contribute to destroying us. There's no connection between how they
treat other women, and how their fellow men treat us. They like to see
men sexualizing their OBJECTS.

...And I don't buy the BS about women do it because they like it and
they want too. If a woman likes it and wants to then she is mentally,
emotionally, and spiritually retarded, just like I was when I was also
under the influence of these man-made lies. To me it's like taking
advantage of the handicapped in our society, in soul torturous ways,
and calling that ENTERTAINMENT for MEN. That's soo messed up, in soo
many ways, it's no wonder we can't wrap our hearts and souls around
it. It's insanity, and sane people don't do it.

[another poster]
The other night there was an episode of 'Intervention' on,which I made my h watch. It was a lady who was addicted to heroin and she prostituted to get the money.

At 1st my h was angry,"I never saw a prostitute what does this have to do with me?"
I told him that that's what these womyn in p*rn movies are,they are prostituted once in the movie,and then over and over visually for sick men.

My h admitted to me that he separated these womyn in the movies from womyn in real life,because they were "sluts and they wanted to be there" :-X (I still can't believe my h said this..How can he be this man..and the one I thought I knew?)
Maybe some do think they want to be there,but if so,it's that they have been brain washed into thinking that's all their is for them.

I have seen interviews with these womyn,I have read books..I have seen these shows/documentaries,and I even knew a lady from my childhood who out of drug addiction finally resorted to prostitution,They didn't want to be there. They had no choice,or thought they had none. They had no voice and knew that that was the one thing they could always sell.

These womyn are addicts,they would do anything for their drugs. These womyn are womyn who have been abused all their life and feel as though they have nothing else to offer but their sexuality,as they've seen it's all anyone wants from them. They continue to be abused each time they do these acts.
These womyn are real ppl,they are not some mere object to be used,abused,and then used again.

I am so angry and resentful,that I am with someone who is a secret abuser of womyn,. It doesn't matter if it was visually...
That he lied,that he had everyone fooled...I could rant on this forever.

It makes me sad,angry and sick to think this is all the progress that has been made throughout human history? They went from walking hunched over,pulling us by the hair into a cave,to walking upright..only to be hunched over the computer victimizing us again,only visually.

At 1st..I was angry at God..I thought why did God let this happen to me? I am a good person,I try to live a respectable moral life.

Then a calm came over me,and I realized it wasn't Gods doing. God gave us free will so we can make the right choices,and find our way back to him. P*rn imo is truly evil,it is truly the work of "the devil" and of mans weakness for lust.

I think some of these men can save themselves,if they really see the problem as a whole. It's not just p*rn,it's not just mb. It's how womyn are seen and valued in their minds,how our role in society is placed. They have to place value on every womyn,no mater how "lowly" she might be...or they might not ever win this.

Two books I thought I might mention,if you're feeling mad as hell and don't mind getting madder:

'Against our will' -by Susan Brownmiller
and
'Who Cooked the Last Supper: The Women's History of the World'-by Rosalind Miles

on another thread:

I'm not coming at you with a machete nor am I trying to drive you off
the boards in any way. I am simply pointing out the error in your ways
when you encourage porn addicts to look up to someone for recovery
when that same person would tell the PA's on here they don't have a
porn addiction, and the SO's that they are insecure and porning for
men is a normal and healthy activity..

[sig quote]

..."Feminism is the radical notion that women are people"

and then, from the main pages of that same site:

Overcoming temptation is easier with an Accountability Partner.
That's why Covenant Eyes is effective. It is NOT a filter -- but it
does restore your freedom to choose.

Fully endorsed by: "Promise Keepers Men of Integrity"; Steve Hewitt,
editor and President, "Christian Computing Magazine"; by "Focus on the
Family"; and by No-porn.com.

Benefits and Features:

* Tracks every web visit and sends an e-mailed report to the
accountability partner(s) of your choice.
* Removes the secrecy of using the Internet. Reports can be sent
every seven, 14 or 28 days.

"I'm not religious, so I was pleased to find out that using this
doesn't require religion. It is just common sense."

o noez, doesn't require religion, it's only endorsed by FOCUS ON THE
FAMILY and PROMISE KEEPERS. i can totally understand why some "radical feminists" (hi, one angry girl! you've been cited in there!) would be sympatico here! I mean, they're only using software that's a-ok with frigging FOCUS ON THE FAMILY and PROMISE KEEPERS. Absolutely! Certainly much better allies than, o I don't know, female sex workers who don't happen to agree with you about whether their job is so terrible that they need to stop and repent forthwith, but DO agree with you wrt reproductive rights, gay rights, whether or not it really -is- a woman's -only- rightful place to sit at home by her husband's side and raise kids...

you stupid, stupid fucks.

and yeah, -nice- with the eye and the whole thing, not at all
Handmaid's Tale.***

Please, do tell me another one about how the ONLY reason I could -possibly- be more concerned about rabid anti-porn/kink/etc/etc/etc "feminists" than, I don't know, Playboy, or "raunch culture," or the harm my queer pro-domme friends who make indie pr0n are causing to anxious straight womyn who can't keep their husbands at home, is because I luuuuuurrrves the porn so very, very much.

NOT because o i don't know not only does it SOUND like right wing fundamentalism a lot of the time, not only is it -possible- that right-wing fundamentalists use this shit to further their own agenda (that no-porn board has literally hundreds of thousands of postings, apparently tens of thousands of regulars if you buy their "survey" numbers, or did), but in -some- cases we are in fact talking about -the very same people.- That's a lie! That never happens! And, y'all (y'all know who you are) are SO RIGHT to be so much more willing to work/engage with these people than someone like this.

I'll skip the bit with the terribly earnest young man who's convinced he must be entirely chaste because he has a homosexual orientation -and- is a Christian, but -for some reason- just can't stop looking at Those Pictures or thinking Those Thoughts, can anyone help? or indeed the guy who's convinced he's an "addict" because he still jerks off once a week, and the very helpful woman who may or may not be a "feminist," it's a bit ambiguous from her login and other posts, who suggests imagining his dead grandmother looking on every time he starts to lapse, hey, whatever works, right?

just, by way of transition to the next Place What Makes My Brain Hurt, one last, thiswas also rather choice, I thought:

Even if they are looking at straight men having sex, they are mb to
other men having sex. And whether they are consciously aware of it or
not, it's a perversion, and their subconcious is soaking it all up no
matter what they think. I often wonder if my h is gay, even when it's
not shemales, because I can't tell what he's looking at the girls or
the guys. And often the so called girls, are really men, made up to
look like women, so often times they are wanking to men while thinking
they are women, but their soul sees them as the me they are regardless
imo. It's only a small step from there to shemales imo. It really
doesn't matter what kind of p it is though, because it is all messed
up, and they get messed up no matter what kind they are using from the
tamer type to the grosser type. Using p makes them pornosexuals, and
totally ruins their natural hetrosexuality no matter what the images.

Had enough of that? Okay! Moving on. And in fact, this has gotten SO long and unwieldy that it's now TWO posts o'rantiness, continue here.

***

Sometimes the movie she showed would be an old porno film, from the seventies or eighties. Women kneeling, sucking penises or guns, women tied up or chained or with dog collars around their necks, women hanging from trees, or upside-down, naked, with their legs held apart, women being raped, beaten up, killed...

Consider the alternatives, said Aunt Lydia. You see what things used to be like? That was what they thought of women, then. Her voice trembled with indignation.

Moira said later that it wasn't real, it was done with models, but it was hard to tell.

Sometimes, though, the movie would be what Aunt Lydia called an Unwoman documentary. Imagine, said Aunt Lydia, wasting their time like that, when they should have been doing something useful. Back then, the Unwomen were always wasting time. They were encouraged to do it. The government gave them money to do that very thing. Mind you, some of their ideas were sound enough, she went on, with the smug authority of one who is in a safe position to judge. We would have to condone some of their ideas, even today. Only some, mind you, she said, coyly, raising her index finger, waggling it at us. But they were Godless, and that can make all the difference, don't you agree?

and

Lilies used to be a movie theater, before. Students went there a lot: every spring they had a Humphrey Bogart festival, with Lauren Bacall or Katherine Hepburn, women on their own, making up their minds. They worse blouses with buttons down the front that suggested the possibilities of the word undone. These women could be undone; or not. They seemed to be able to choose. We seemed to be able to choose, then. We were a society dying, said Aunt Lydia, of too much choice.

...Women were not protected then.

I remember the rules, rules that were not spelled out but that every woman knew: Don't open your door to a stranger, even if he says he is the police. Make him slide his ID under the door. Don't stop on the road to help a motorist pretending to be in trouble...

Now we walk along the same street, in red pairs, and no man shouts obscenities at us, speaks to us, touches us. No one whistles.

There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, you had freedom to. Now you have freedom from. Don't underrate it.

--Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid's Tale

and the hits just keep on coming.

Meanwhile, not very far away...

Kim has some information to share; or, rather, a friend of hers who wishes to remain anonymous does (attention, Sam Berg and supporters).

Thank you, and is it too much to ask to get an apology?????"

Depends who you ask, doesn't it...

Seriously. Isn't it just a -little- embarrassing?

Or, I don't know, I'm reading both Jill's and RE's accounts of how it all went down and I'm just...I don't know...

Jill:

-snip-

Sam writes: “that wholesale changes were being made to the panel just five days before the event without informing me. I had agreed to do the panel with John and Amanda, and I hadn’t gotten any emails saying she couldn’t attend or that they were looking for a replacement.”

I have done many panel discussion/debates both while as a radical feminist activist and later as sex worker rights activist in which the other presenters were fluid and ultimately irrelevant. One agrees to speak on a panel discussion to represent their views and present them to an audience. They aren’t intended as personality contests. Who the other panelists are should have very little bearing on anyone that is well prepared and knows and believes in what they are representing. Even in the case of Sam being intimidated by Renegade Evolution, the conference organizers went above and beyond the call of duty as not only was security and police presence and awareness of her concerns offered but Karla Mantilla another radical feminist was offered and accepted a position on the panel in support of Sam to no objection of either Ren and I.

Sam writes: “If they had told me Amanda couldn’t make it I would have suggested that pornographers and strip club owners are very easy to find through legal channels so they could have been asked to appear on the panel.”

It is entirely out of the context of standard procedure of panel discussions for panelists to place demands o who they are debating. And why would a strip club owner come take time off work running his business to debate a feminist and a male feminist? That is an unrealistic expectation.

Sam writes: “ I would have also suggested that the number of porn-using men on campus should have been able to produce just one pornsturbator willing to defend his porn consumption.”

This is almost jaw dropping. To expect Constance to find a “pornsturbator” defies the remotest level of professionalism. This would be entirely unproductive as just the term pornsturbator is so inflammatory that it would have lead to heated confrontation. It would also make Constance guilty of setting up this “pornsturbator” to be blasted with rhetoric of this nature, which would lead to him being angry, and an audience that gets cheated out of a debate and instead exposed to some kind of tag team on some guy that watches porn. To give into a demand of that nature would make Constance a very poor organizer. While personally I don’t watch porn and don’t give a lot of thought to the concerns of men that do as my focus is on sex worker human, civil and labor rights and don’t have the bandwidth or honestly the desire to defend mens porn usage, I can’t see any inherent value in placing him in what would be an obvious sham debate which ultimately would turn into a shame based free for all argument trying to convince him of his wrong doing. Again!!!! The audience is the reason for the debate. Not the other panelists...

...Sam Writes: Constance. Constance said she was excited to have me coming and offered to let me spend Monday night at her place, where she planned on cooking dinner for a group of people post-panel”

Which she did and does for every event………….. Wow, cooking dinner for you, what a terrible thing to do, offering you a place to stay so you don’t have to pay hotel costs because she couldn’t get funding. My grandmother would be making the sign of the cross over her chest and saying Ave Marias after hearing of such treachery and skulduggery

Sam Writes: How do you think it would feel if a pro-choice feminist were invited to a predominantly pro-life campus by a predominantly pro-life group and the pro-life organizer did everything Constance did without revealing her pro-life politics to her pro-choice panelist and house guest?

How about you invite me to a panel discussion that I had to pay the flight for because you couldn’t get the funding and you were concerned about my expenses and appreciated me flying to Portland on my own dime to present on your panel, so you invite me to your house for supper with other guests, audience, panelists, and let me stay the night without charge rather than having me eat supper alone and go to a hotel I had to pay for alone? I would assume you were being kind, being a human being concerned about me, my finances, my not being alone in a far away city and that you were kind enough to care about me regardless of whether you disagreed with my politics. That is how I would feel. I would appreciate your kindness and feminism that we could agree , disagree or in between but that you treated me with kindness. That would be how I would feel. It would exemplify feminism.

Sam Writes: I agreed to do the panel with John and Amanda three weeks ago. Though it was unethical to make major lineup changes at the last minute like that without telling me and things started feeling really fishy due to the lack of notification about the event anywhere besides pro-john blogs

Pro John blog,,,, I’m done with this,,, There is a difference between arguing factual misrepresentations and rhetoric. We’ve hit the rhetoric point.

Do you realize what you have done Sam? Do you even realize what you are doing?

***

You know, that is one of the questions for the ages, isn't it. Me, I'm just sitting here with the popcorn. I mean, seriously: How! Do you spell! DIVA!

Oh, I had my own answer to this bit, btw:

How do you think it would feel if a pro-choice feminist were invited to a predominantly pro-life campus by a predominantly pro-life group and the pro-life organizer did everything Constance did without revealing her pro-life politics to her pro-choice panelist and house guest?

Um, well, okay, going with the analogy just for the sake of it, I -guess-:

first of all, I'd think she was kind of a brickhead for either not figuring out that it was a predominantly pro-life campus in the first place, or knowing that it was a predominantly pro-life campus and not really considering the possibility that the person inviting her might share those beliefs.

and then I'd think she was -really- delusional if she thought that under such circumstances she'd be able to control who she did and didn't debate, given that that's not exactly a standard for debate invitees -anyway-

Then, well, what Jill said. And I'd wonder why the invitation of person X as opposed to person Y suddenly means the organizer is this Bad Person who was Clearly Trying To Set Our Heroine Up, because she, what, was supposed to know by osmosis that THIS person was unacceptable?

That she should have axed person X just because Our Heroine threw a shit fit, even when person X was being perfectly civil and reasonable and had no problem debating either Our Heroine or someone else?

That the organizer -owes- Our Heroine something after all this? That offering to put Our Heroine up for the night and make her dinner is, in the context of her not booting person X, clearly a sign of her Sinister Intent? What, like, once she got her in her house, she was going to force Our Heroine to watch pr0n sorry I mean pro-life propaganda? Drug the food? Or, just, it's not -enough-, any of this; clearly Our Heroine has been grossly mistreated, and is fully justified in her Cartmanesque denouement (tm I can't remember who coined the phrase, 'twasn't I).

"SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M STAYING HOME!"

Honestly, -even if- that analogy made sense, even if that hypothetical were true: um, bluntly, I'd be embarrassed that someone who was supposed to be representing my side was acting like such an asshole, and I'd be thankful as hell that someone -else- took it on and acted like an adult. And I'd wonder why the hell this person was acting this way, and who elected her Spokeswoman For The Cause anyway.

oh, yeah, and when I found out that there was another pro-choice person right there at the university, but instead of trying to talk sense into Our Heroine or at least taking on the other side like an adult as he'd agreed to do in the first place, stomped off because -the playing field wasn't level enough-, I'd think, "damn, what a fucking douchebag. Are we sure these people aren't actually plants for The Other Side? How embarrassing is this?"

Now: as to the analogy itself.

a) okay, so, once again, "choice" is invoked completely unironically when it comes to reproductive functions, but is BadWrongIrrelevant when it comes to what a woman does with her body -sexually.- Got it.

b) ime, generally in fact it's the pro-life side who acts the way Sam & co. did, handwaving about how TERRIBLE the industry is, never mind nuance, we TRIED talking to THEM one time but they, like, argued back, clearly that's out of the question, they're BAD PEOPLE, ABORTION IS MURDER! PORN IS RAPE! TO THE BATTLESTATIONS, THIS IS WAR!! Nuance? Vas is das "nuance?"

c) William and Mary is now apparently, what is it now? a pro-porn university? Wow, we -are- living in a Corrupt Age, aren't we. I can't wait till the Rapture I mean the Revolution comes to blast away all this Evil. Dark days ahead, the path of the righteous etc. etc. etc.

d) send us a postcard when you get to China, will you?

ETA: and it just keeps getting better!

Good grief.

This was also sort of telling, I thought:

Other women out there will come to our blogs and listen. They hate pornstitution (or do not feel comfortable about it) so they will follow their feelings and there will be other new Rad Fems in the future -- at least it is how I became a rad fem: by listening to what I believe was a group that had strong arguments backed up by thorough research and facts and refusing to listen to the other group that merely had money, corporate media, lobbyists, lawyers, managers, marketeers, industry analysts, paid writers of “opinion” and “journalism”, publicists, etc. to defend their fallacious arguments supporting misogynistic industries. Rad fem arguments are so real and based on experience. The "other side" is so fake: it is patriarchy, it is "the state of schizophrenia" (as I would call it).

specifically:

it is how I became a rad fem: by listening to what I believe was a group that had strong arguments...and refusing to listen to the other group

(because radical feminism, this person seems to think, was always primarily about hating "pornstitution.")

Not entirely unrelated, perhaps, to this:

and we will grow in numbers and get louder and louder, and stronger and more demanding until we drown out any 'what about the men' or 'but I like my porn' bullshit people throw at us. These things will happen regardless of what anybody outside of radical feminism thinks about it, these things will happen even if the patriarchy and the ridiculous patriarchy-pleasing "feminists" ignore us and belittle us, and speak about us as though we should be extinct. These things will happen, somehow, despite the world-changing presence of that MRA's wet dream the "sex-positive feminist", and despite the women-murdering men, and despite the 95% of rapists who get away with it. We are not going to shut up and go away. We are not going to be distracted into self-indulgent discussions of our 'privilege' and examining our navels. We are not going to be distracted by the stones thrown every time a woman says, "Yeah, I'm a feminist, but, like, prostitution is just a job like any other, you know?"

So.

So. Indeed.

Fisk Me, Baby, One More Time

So, first of all, update on this situation: the upshot is, Renegade and Jill Brenneman are going to speak at William and Mary; Sam Berg, now that her attempt to get RE uninvited has been unsuccessful, has withdrawn. In, um, protest, or something. According to her supporters, this was the professional thing to do. I am sure that she did it in a most professional manner, too, to be sure.

And one should probably just leave it at that.

But, well, just, some peoples' performance excuse me -activism- is so remarkable that I had to, well, remark on it.

Liars. They lie. They negate the lives of those suffering for the choices they make and then have the audacity to promote themselves as the ‘one true voice’ in the well of silence centred in the poverty of those they argue they represent.

And then they get booked to speak at the last minute in discussions about how what they do impacts upon the rest of us (women). And they agree! And then they start posting about “laughing like a super villain” and their “wank worthy fantasy” of debating “some anti-porn sex work types”. To me, the language used is the same language that rapists use (I’m a rape crisis counsellor, I’ve heard it a million times)

Maggie Hays // April 20, 2008 at 12:05 am

...“laughing like a super villain”? “wank worthy fantasy”? I agree that these comments were totally inappropriate. This makes me think: this kind of language is awfully similar to the sort of language a porn-using abuvive ex-boyfriend of mine was often using when talking to me.

#

Laurelin // April 20, 2008 at 10:16 pm


It’s interesting to note how many of the male ’sex pozzes’ use this sort of language to ‘argue’ against radical feminist arguments against pornstitution. They speak of ‘fisking’ us, accuse us of ‘wanking’ over details etc (Witchy has certainly had this aggressive language used against her recently by cowardly fuckwits).- all of it is major projection, of course. They cannot see the world in any other way, they use sexualised language to try and win their pathetic little game. It speaks volumes about them, it really does, and it only proves our point about pornification. The more the shout to drown us out, the more they tell us just who they are.
#

Laurelin // April 20, 2008 at 10:17 pm

I think ‘fisking’ is a sexualised word- do tell me if I’m wrong. (Don’t have a dictionary to hand)

Well--perhaps that would be the problem then; we're really not speaking the same language.

Because, I don't know, just, the professional defender of all women and fearless crusader against porn, Sam Berg, the one you're defending against the abusive pornspeakers here, yes? The professional. She never uses gratuitous sexualized language, one would certainly assume.

So, therefore, there's nothing at all inappropriate or boundary violating or creepy when she says, for instance:

‘Model’ is so 1980’s and doesn’t capture the “I’m hot, bi-sexee, and willing to fuck and suck anything for money” pornsick approval meme nearly as well as “sex worker”.

or

The vaunted "right" for women to be or simply act like cum-hungry bi-sexee hoes is affirmed all over these two liberal cities I have lived in the past few years.

or

There is no sensible feminist reason to ignore the 92% of prostitutes who do not consider it work but slavery in favor of the 8%minority, especially when doing so only affirms the rape culture that already says (often literally) men have a God-given right to wet their penises with women's holes any way they desire, any time they want it.

or

Amber, you can have all of Sonia's former customers now that she has been freed because her many male customers are still around and they have your blessing to continue renting women's insides to spill their fluids into like renting a port-a-potty.

or, one of my favorites:

Turn the male gaze around just once and take a long look at the men who pay to see women smiling while hanging upside down from a pole like a painted negro in a minstrel show dancing for peanuts and stripping looks entirely different.

I'm sorry your paper's allegiance to the money and faux hipsterism of strip club culture makes the truth about men's demands for women to act like disposable dick accessories a story that will never be told.

best of all:

Spreademism.com

spread'emism (spread-them-ism), n. 1. the misleading idea that women can fuck and get fucked into political, academic and social equality with men via prostitution and pornography

Contact me at spreademism(at)yahoo.com

****

So, just so we're clear: "laughing like a super villain," "cerebral wank," and "fisking"=abusive pornsick male language, clearly the mark of a Bad Person, no matter what the context.

"spread'emism," "disposable dick accessories," "hot, bi-sexee, willing to suck and fuck anything for money," "wet their penises with womens' holes," and "cum-hungry bi-sexee hoes" = perfectly reasonable language from someone who purports to loathe that sort of language and everything it represents. Certainly not at all offensive or misogynist or abusive, no matter what the context. And, good for all occasions! It's the professional way! It's the FEMINIST way.

Hokey-dokey then.

ETA: Dear Laurelin. You seem rather confused. Let me clear a bit more up for you, since we're talking:

"Silencing" is not, in fact, "making fun of people who are making utter asses of themselves without any help at all, to wit, throwing a tantrum and backing out of a planned debate at the last moment because she can't control the terms."

Silencing would be more, oh, say, threatening to post a porn performer's pictures "without the eye strips" (hi, Stormy!) or, I don't know, back to the case at hand for a moment, trying to strong-arm said conference organizers into disinviting the porn performer in question first.

You are, however, correct about this bit, to wit, that it is neither "silencing" nor "censorship":

when someone refuses to publish your comments on their blog, in their own personal space.

the same as having one’s actions critiqued by feminists. the critique itself presents no barrier to your continuing to act.

being asked to take responsibility for one’s own words.

...although, you know, I get the impression your and my ideas of what means "critique" are also not from the same page or possibly even the same library. Nonetheless. Saying ignorant-ass crap about other peoples' sexuality and lives and then refusing to engage them when they challenge your "critique," in your own space or even in o for example at a public debate? No, that's not "silencing." It is, however, disingenuous, and, frankly, kind of pathetic.

also, wrt this, per your guest poster?

"What to do when a woman who says she’s happy in prostitution says, “Take me, for example” when you know if you actually do take her as her own example by quoting her own words and deeds she will complain, “How dare you make an example of me?”

see, no; "please talk to me directly like a human being" is NOT the same thing as "please gank one of my quotes out of context and use it as your sigline," nor indeed "please raid my personal blog for bits that you find damning and indicative of my general ill character and/or unfitness to make my own decisions, statistical improbability, lack of trustworthiness, what you will, and drag it all over several of the most high profile feminist blogs, STILL without deigning to engage me like a person."

also also, "fisking" is, once again, not what lewd pronsick males fantasize about doing to hapless radical Victorian damsels feminists with an airport metal detector;

and the London Underground is not a political movement.

Please do let me know if there's anything else I can clear up for you.

kisses!

Dude, seriously, though: is the moon in "Show Your Ass," or what?

Just, it's been kind of an -interesting- week or so, you know?

Quote of the day, 4/19/08

Gloucester: They do me wrong, and I will not endure it!
Who is it that complains unto the king
That I (forsooth) am stern and love them not?
By holy Paul, they love his Grace but lightly
That fill his ears with such dissentious rumors.
Because I cannot flatter and look fair,
Smile in men's faces, smooth, deceive, and cog,
Duck with French nods and apish courtesy
I must be held a rancorous enemy.
Cannot a plain man live and think no harm,
But thus his simple truth must be abused
With silken, sly, insinuating Jacks?

...I cannot tell: the world is grown so bad
That wrens make prey where eagles dare not perch.
Since every Jack became a gentleman,
There's many a gentle person made a Jack.

...I would to God my heart were flint like Edward's,
Or Edward's soft and pitiful like mine:
I am too childish-foolish for this world.

--some Patriarch writing about some other Patriarchs, don't worry about it, nothing to do with you, really, you're golden.

-nod smile back away slowly-, part ___

Uh, Renegade has the scoop. I'll just, um, be over here. Too. Um, wow.

"Can YOU say 'malignant paranoia,' gyns and soon-to-be-extinct-pyrsyns? I knew you could!! Can you say, 'armed compound?'..."

Seriously, it's a terrific example of the fascist/totalitarian narrative.

1) Our People are oppressed by The Enemy, who are demonic

2) We have no power, the Evil Empire rules over all

3) but Tomorrow Belongs To Us

4) meanwhile, we must root out the impure among us.

oh, p.s., lady: I'm a Jew, and you are emphatically on the -wrong end- of that little Godwinism there. please to shut the fuck up and go away now kthxbai

"Women suck. Call your mother."

Natalia has a post up fisking some Russian Orthodox Christian writer/misogynist ass-stain. Thanks for sharing, Natalia.

I was just saying: it is true that we don't grow 'em quite like that over here; or at least such voices don't take quite that tone on the public stage.

The 8th of March is, in these present times, referred to as a “women’s day…”

So, we celebrate the woman, because she is woman. This has nothing to do with some sort of feminine goodness, which is, in any case, impossible, since there is no such thing. If a woman is capable of having any good qualities they are the same as the good qualities of a man, but weaker and less developed, because a woman’s nature is more severely compromised by sin.

Generally, these days, ime, even our most noisome fundamentalist fuckwits don't take quite this line, at least on that public a platform; it tends to be more, "nonono, the difference between the sexes as well as between masculinity and femininity (which is totally the same thing) is beautiful and natural, no one is saying women are INFERIOR, woman was made to be man's helpmeet but also vice versa, it's totally romantic to be half a person so that your 'other half' can complement you in such profound ways as wearing a different hairstyle, doing the laundry or fixing the engine, going to work or staying home, penetrating or receiving, etc. Oh, and those roles can never, ever change, even when they do."

For one thing, they can't really afford to go on too much about the inferiority of womens' nature; besides the fact that a lot of their (female) base would eat them alive, it tends to sort of put a crimp in the whole "gay marriage is the biggest threat to our civilization ev0r." Why? Well, you take that attitude too far and the next thing you know, some men might start to get ideas. Who wants to remain joined in matrimony to an inferior being when he could be with his fellow man? --ooh, unless the U.S. Religious Right decides that Teh Gay is the lesser of two ev0ls and starts encouraging gay marriage as a way to crush feminism! Totally possible! Likely, even. Maybe some putative leftist and/or feminist should make a timely, satiric movie about it, that'll help matters.

actually, I've no idea, but I was delighted to stumble across this evidence that I was correct: teh Gay Marriage IS directly threatening to straight marriage precisely because people who otherwise would have stayed in their hetero partnerships might, without the threat of stigmatization and loss of legal rights and privileges, actually leave to go be with a member of the same sex:

It may come as a surprise to many people, but homosexual unions often have a more direct impact on heterosexual marriages than one would think. For example, the Boston Globe reported June 29, 2003, that "nearly 40 percent" of the 5,700 homosexual couples who have entered into "civil unions" in Vermont "have had a previous heterosexual marriage."

Of course, it could be argued that many of those marriages may have ended long before a spouse found their current homosexual partner. And some may assume that no opposite-sex spouse would want to remain married to someone with same-sex attractions. Nevertheless, the popular myth that a homosexual orientation is fixed at birth and unchangeable may have blinded us to the fact that many supposed "homosexuals" have, in fact, had perfectly functional heterosexual marriages. And as Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby points out, "In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable."

...you see.

But, anyway. So meanwhile, over in what remains of the Ev0l Empire, I guess, there's this other doofus who's spouting delightful insights like this:

I have to admit: the natural qualities of woman - for example, the ability to give birth, or, even more so, the ability to be a mother, raise children, and so on - may, perhaps, deserve respect and even admiration, though not in the form of a holiday. But this isn’t what we are talking about anyway; we would then celebrate Mother’s Day, or something along the same lines. Oh no, we are talking about the feminine in its most basic form. We are, factually, admiring the qualities of the feminine soul and body of the lowest, most sinful caliber. Female breasts, genitals, the womb - this is what we worship when we worship “woman.”

...and we certainly can't have THAT.

and then:

Women are given flowers, and the givers know well that a flower is a plant’s genital organ, opening up to be fertilized. A flower is a symbol of tempting lust. This is actually why having little flowers on your balconies is a sin, an innocent-seeming bouquet is an honest symbol of orgiastic sin, of group sex, and any interest or delight one might take in flowers is therefore sinful.

...If you can smell a rose, this means you won’t be too disgusted to smell the unmentionable body parts of a woman - because this, at its essence, is the same thing.

*

My African violets keep dying on me. I thought all this meant was that they're kind of not the hardiest of flowers, and/or that I don't have much of a green thumb. It would now appear, however, that I am in deep shit. (makes mental note to call ob/gyn and/or botanist at earliest convenience)

It also rather delicious that this...person, who is virulently opposed to the former Soviet regime under which he grew up, understandably, no doubt, has the same morbid suspicion of roses as did the militant CP hardliners who told Orwell that growing roses was 'bourgeois' and thus suspect.

...oh, please read Natalia's fisk of the whole thing, I can't possibly do it justice. Hell, I can't even read the original (alas).

Just, one more bit, possibly my favorite:

If you want to spend this day as a human being, and not as a lustful animal, call your elderly mother, or, better yet, grandmother. If you believe, if only a little bit, remind them of how short life is and of that eternity that awaits for us beyond the threshold, of the terrible God’s Judgment, and of how what we must do and how we should live, to have hope in His mercy to us.

I have to confess, I was relieved at the follow-up part about how the reason you're calling is to remind Mom/Grandma that she's probably going to hell, and this is why you didn't buy her any flowers, so as to avoid leading her into further perdition.

Because, this sentence, by itself alone?

If you want to spend this day as a human being, and not as a lustful animal, call your elderly mother, or, better yet, grandmother.

...you know, there are some places you just don't even want to go.

"Sweetie. Your Freudian slip is showing. Actually, it's puddled around your ankles. Bless."

the call is coming from inside the house.

Tom Cruise is from head Org and he's here to help.

We are the authorities on, getting people off drugs, we are the authorities on the mind. We are the authorities on improving conditions. Crimanon, we can rehabilitate criminals. Way to happiness, we can bring peace, ahh, uhh, and unite cultures...that...you know, whatever, it's like: We're here to help.

on edit: the Compleat Suppresive Parody video page.

there is is again goddamit

that odd noise i mentioned a few weeks back, which, can't tell if it's a TV or the heater or...what. in the bedroom.

i mean...-if- it's a ha'ant or suchlike, it's a rather monotonous and specifically located one.

what it sounds like, is: someone reading a newscast, endlessly, from moderately far away. on a kazoo. is what it sounds like.

gremlins

Is there an "uncanny valley" for sounds?

Because, there's a distinctly -odd-...something...that's only audible in the bedroom, these last couple of nights. At first I was convinced that someone was playing the TV or the radio, because it sounded just enough like the rising and falling patterns of speech, with appropriate pauses, but--maddeningly!--just low enough to not be able to make out what was being said, or even what language.

Then I tried to figure out where it might be coming from, since at four in the morning it was getting a bit old. So I tracked it to where I -thought- it was coming out of--sure enough, someone on the floor above playing what sounded like the news in a foreign language, loud enough to be heard through the front door. I knocked and asked her politely to turn it down. She apologized and did. I went back home. No change.

So then I figure it must be the pipes or the radiator, after all. It's wintertime, or nearly, old buildings make a lot of weird sounds as they creak into warmth.

Except...I can hear the pipes. It's -not- the same sounds. They're going right now. They don't sound like that. And, I never hear that particular sound in the rest of the apartment, or during the daytime, like now. Only in the bedroom. At night. In the dark.

i'm sure it's nothing really

And no, it is not a steady pound-pounding coming from somewhere beneath the floorboards.
I'm fine.

That yellow wallpaper's really got to go, though.

...and macros. Thanks, R Mildred!!

SRSLY.




hee hee hee

on edit: what the hell, i did one too:

This also makes me giggle, alas:

dammit, kactus.

Did y'all know lesbians have a special "clear-eyed gaze?" Neither did I. I must've missed that in the Official Coming Out Package. Well, it's my own fault. After having so many pencil-stab-related-injuries from reading, uh, Certain People and Places, I'm just grateful my eyeballs function at all. Damn, though. The things you learn.

"Fanny, you're looking a little bloodshot today. Have you been thinking about cock again? Tsk. Tsk."

And yet more! House passes bill targeting "Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act;" What Does It All Mean, Dear?

These guys think: nothing good..

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

First let’s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.

The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda...

...

The bill, btw, was sponsored by a "rank and file" Democrat, Jane Harman. Apparently this is the first of the 38 bills she's sponsored which has made it out of committee. The one before this was a bill to get the President to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo.

I dunno what she/they were thinking. One wonders if perhaps someone finally took the "hey, all this focus on the evil Islamofascists and no one's doing jack about groups like Operation Rescue" seriously and, things being what they are, this is what became of it in committee. One ponders that something this vague could, like so much else thrown at us by Fearless Leaders recently, be dangerously unConstitutional and target a number of undeserving innocents and be completely toothless toward finding and stopping actual dangerous groups at the same time; or if indeed the whole thing mostly translates to "put in circular file, needs further study," or what.

One then considers that technically, HUAC was a "committee."

One is feeling sort of overwhelmed by information/panic overload alternating with everyone's apparent apathy/cluelessness at the moment. One has misplaced one's tinfoil hat and has an eye on one's passport. One wants to go home. Wherever that is.

h/t Lisa Harney.

Oh for FUCK's sake, that's IT.

Via Oh No a WoC PhD: guess who's coming to SoCal and playing Savior? that's wight, wabbit: Blackwater! Yes, THAT Blackwater!

Amidst the burning wild fires, devistated California residents sit in FEMA - State coordinated evacuation facilities and drink water and eat food without fear of it running out or being shot trying to get to higher ground. Though the blaze has hit million dollar homes and modest homes alike, the power of race and class in California as a whole has always insured that the state is well cared for in times of disaster. (This does not mean that supplies are well or fairly distributed, as anyone who lived through some of the crisis in the 80s will well remember.)

One thing that California and New Orleans do have in common however, is that Blackwater is ready to “rescue.” In fact, Blackwater has been lobbying to get into San Diego to start their own “border training camp” to privatize border patrolling for years in Congress. All though they have the go ahead from the company from whom they bought the land and the support of many conservative Californians, the fires in the same region may usher in the perfect way to circumvent the opposition.

Using their “credentials” as established “peace keepers” in New Orleans during and after the disaster, they can enter SoCal as aid workers and then, just like NOLA, never leave.

That's just too fucking close to home for me. I grew up in SoCal, I went to college in San Diego, I'm way too familiar with the various numbnuts who want to "seal the border." Bad enough worrying about if my family's in the way of the actual fires (they weren't this time, thankfully). Now you're talking about bringing a fucking fundie neocon mercenary armed compound for the purposes of institutionalized xenophobia and incipient fascism? Oh bitch NO. That's it. Time to wake up. I don't know exactly what that means at this point, but that's IT. NO.

update: oh! it just keeps getting better! via brownfemipower,

Chicago Public Schools is allowing the military to run four of its public schools.


This is apparently "drawing a mixed reaction." According to NPR.

What the fuck does it take?

Why?

am i gets this comment?

Anonymous said...

NerdRoom@WAKEUP.com

Many Nerds won't be returning. Some old timers I remember from last year, people like Trenchcoat Mafia, Silk Dragon Shirt, probably won't be coming back next year.
Spamming blogs I put their names up, immortalizing them, if only until the blog owner erases everything::::
1. Trenchcoat Mafia
2. Silk Dragon Shirt
3. Piano Case Coffin
4. The Distinguished English Gentleman
5. The Haggard English Gentleman
6. Beta Nerd, and of course
7. Rosie The Transsexual
Rosie's original name was just Rosie, due to his rosie cheeks. They shared he has a high level of knowledge, a tactic the gods employ to create a false sense of security. This of course is the segment which they dump so many transsexuals into.
I too enjoy irony, and therefore Rosie has now become Rosie The Transsexual.
Who else has a nickname in the NerdRoom?

I'd like to remind you many of the people in the NerdRoom are good men. I hope this is reflected in what they are allowed to learn and the progress they're allowed to make.
I'd also like to remind you their predecessors, REAL nerds from a generation ago who fill the computer swap meet, are WONDERFUL men, and since I likely won't be going again I want to remember them as well.

Actually the comparison of the two is a testiment to the devolution of society which will be used as justification for the Apocalypse:::
Today's nerds are NOT wonderful men. They grew up with the internet and many consider pornography as an acceptable vice. They gamble freely, enjoy evil imagry in video games and engage in sexual pursuits their predicessors never did.
This issue is a microcosim of our deterioration.