WEB WANDERINGS
April 30, 2012
For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master's house as their only source of support.
~Audre Lorde
All the pictures for April 28, 2012 are at this link:
http://thewomankindparty.com/april-28-20121.html
Seattle, Washington Rally - April 28, 2012
Kelli Brethour "I can't believe the same lame 'there there, you're just overreacting' is still getting traction."
It's not political. It's personal.
Wall Photos My feelings exactly! By: Sasha Adams Tarrant
It's not political. It's personal.
Wall Photos My feelings exactly! By: Sasha Adams Tarrant
IMHO: I still can't believe that I haven't heard even a whisper about yesterday's women's nation-wide marches by ANY major news networks. Who the hell is controlling the media? Has anybody heard anything on TV news or in print media? Please let me know if you have at rudyblue02@yahoo.com
Jodi Renee' Thomas March Speech - April 28, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uwtiPa_4Z0
RANT AND RAVE
IMHO: The following e-mail I received just this morning is why I've been pleading for all the Facebook women's organizations to expand beyond Facebook. I don't know how she found me a couple of months ago, but she wrote me asking for information on the Iowa March. I couldn't find any for her and in the process of being very aggressive in trying to obtain this information, among other opinions I was expressing, I wound up being banned from a lot of the Facebook organizing page. And all the links at unitewomen.org went straight back to Facebook. So this woman never did get any information. Here's her letter:
RE: womens' march
I don't think Iowa had one. It seems to me there would be more activity if it weren't a requirement to be a member of some other site in order to participate at We Are Women. I won't join facebook and I have no idea what Disqus is. I'm never able to find the Iowa page after that one time. Google doesn't bring it up. I don't want to be a quitter but there doesn't seem to be any way to participate unless I jump through a bunch of hoops. I don't have the time or patience for it. Maybe that's why Iowa doesn't do anything.
Toni in Iowa USA
I found one picture to post from Iowa. And when you count them up, I didn't get pictures from all that many states, despite my pleas the last few days on Facebook for links to more pictures.
If we confine ourselves to Facebook for the September March on Washington, D.C. and other activist work on Women's Issues in preparation for the November Election, we're not going to reach a lot of women that otherwise might get involved. I tried very hard to create a web site apart from Facebook to provide information about the Marches for women who won't go on Facebook for whatever reason. In early March I created the following page just for the Marches.
http://thewomankindparty.com/april-28-2012.html
Because I'd already been banned from so many Facebook State organizing pages, I make personal pleas on Facebook for more information. Take a look for yourself and see just how little got I got. And I was trying to help WOMEN! I did eventually get more information from various individuals on Facebook, but I never was able to post information on all 50 states. That shouldn't have happened. When you're organizing a March, you want the information out everywhere you can get it whether you like the person or not.
In the last few days I've made pleas on Facebook for March pictures from New York and elsewhere. I haven't received a SINGLE response. As recently as yesterday and the day before, I've made pleas for links to political and woman websites independent from Facebook to put on a womankind links page and I have not received a SINGLE response. I've made pleas for just one woman from each state to join me in creating a State Political page for each and every state giving information on the various candidates. I have not received a SINGLE response. I have recently made pleas for women to join me at two separate yahoo groups to brainstorm, plan, organize further activism regarding women's issues. I have not received a SINGLE response.
If you think you're doing enough simply talking among yourselves on Facebook, you're wrong. You're being almost as limited in your activism as the women chit-chatting on various yahoo social groups, on pogo.com playing games, on hulu.com watching Monk, on love-lorn sites searching for love in all the wrong places. We're all talking the talk on Facebook; now it's time to walk the walk everywhere! Before it's too late. Wake up and smell the truth. Mainstream media and mainstream
AMERICA IS NOT HEARING YOU YET! MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE.
The reality is that in order to reach ALL the women we would like to, we're going to have to get off the Web entirely at some point and get out in the streets. Not all women are fortunate enough to even have computers. We need to organize phone trees, we need to print out posters paid for out of our own pockets for the September March
(see http://thewomankindparty.com/september-march.html)
and hang them everywhere, even the places we normally might not go, like the ghetto and the poor parts of town. We're going to have to connect with other organizations that we might have once thought we would never be in touch with, like the Occupy groups, the gay and lesbian groups, the Women of Color groups, the Senior groups, any group that has women within it's membership. Even the PTA. (Does that still exist?) Check for SOL and OWL groups in your area. That's Slightly Older Lesbians and Older, Wiser Lesbians, and they've already been there and done that. They came out in huge numbers in the early 80's when AIDS first struck our brothers and they did a lot for the guys. It's time now for those guys to return the favor, and many of you already are. But more is needed. How many of you have attended a gay pride parade? They're huge and they happen every year for the Stonewall Anniversary. Contact those organizers and let them help you learn how it's done. Contact PFLAG. Contact local lesbian bars and ask them to help you with fundraisers. Contact MCC Churches in your area. In fact, contact all churches in your area and don't depend on ANY of the above people finding YOU on Facebook. It's not going to happen.
The fact that we're still being ignored by mainstream media scares the hell out of me. We're still not being heard. We're going to have to gather in even larger numbers, work even harder at outreach, push ourselves to get women informed and registered to vote. We cannot afford to be elitist and confine ourselves to Facebook or even just the Internet.
Another sad reality is that many, many women, such as myself, will not have the money or means to get to Washington, D.C. in September. The organizers of that March are hoping for 500,000 women. Given the financial state of so many of us, especially senior and disabled women, if they do reach that number, it won't be representative of the average American woman. I believe strongly that more marches are needed on November 3rd also, just before the Presidential Election, perhaps in four or five major cities so that there will hopefully be one close enough for a large number of women to get to. I could manage a trip to San Francisco. It's amazing how the roads work here in Northern California. A trip to San Francisco is a straight shot down 101 for me; the trip to Sacramento would have meant driving east to Medford, Oregon to Highway 5 and then down to Sacramento, a much longer trip than to San Francisco.
So who is going to organize four or five cities for a March in November? It can't be me. I'm already doing all I can with these pages trying to spread the word. I'm 68 with a bad heart; I'm doing all I can. So somebody is going to have to step up. If no one does, then nothing will happen. And nothing will change. And you, your daughters, your granddaughters will be going to back alleys for abortions, will still be making $.77 for every $1.00 a man makes, will still be second-class citizens, will still be ignored and demeaned by men.
YOU WILL STILL BE CALLED SLUTS AND TREATED LIKE SLUTS AND POSSIBLY DIE YOUNG IF YOU'RE BLACK AND HOMELESS AND IN NEED OF MEDICAL CARE IN A JAIL CELL AND ALL THE WHILE THE RICH WOMEN LIKE ANN ROMNEY WILL CONTINUE TO LIE AND SAY THERE IS NO WAR ON WOMEN.
IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOU WANT?
RE: womens' march
I don't think Iowa had one. It seems to me there would be more activity if it weren't a requirement to be a member of some other site in order to participate at We Are Women. I won't join facebook and I have no idea what Disqus is. I'm never able to find the Iowa page after that one time. Google doesn't bring it up. I don't want to be a quitter but there doesn't seem to be any way to participate unless I jump through a bunch of hoops. I don't have the time or patience for it. Maybe that's why Iowa doesn't do anything.
Toni in Iowa USA
I found one picture to post from Iowa. And when you count them up, I didn't get pictures from all that many states, despite my pleas the last few days on Facebook for links to more pictures.
If we confine ourselves to Facebook for the September March on Washington, D.C. and other activist work on Women's Issues in preparation for the November Election, we're not going to reach a lot of women that otherwise might get involved. I tried very hard to create a web site apart from Facebook to provide information about the Marches for women who won't go on Facebook for whatever reason. In early March I created the following page just for the Marches.
http://thewomankindparty.com/april-28-2012.html
Because I'd already been banned from so many Facebook State organizing pages, I make personal pleas on Facebook for more information. Take a look for yourself and see just how little got I got. And I was trying to help WOMEN! I did eventually get more information from various individuals on Facebook, but I never was able to post information on all 50 states. That shouldn't have happened. When you're organizing a March, you want the information out everywhere you can get it whether you like the person or not.
In the last few days I've made pleas on Facebook for March pictures from New York and elsewhere. I haven't received a SINGLE response. As recently as yesterday and the day before, I've made pleas for links to political and woman websites independent from Facebook to put on a womankind links page and I have not received a SINGLE response. I've made pleas for just one woman from each state to join me in creating a State Political page for each and every state giving information on the various candidates. I have not received a SINGLE response. I have recently made pleas for women to join me at two separate yahoo groups to brainstorm, plan, organize further activism regarding women's issues. I have not received a SINGLE response.
If you think you're doing enough simply talking among yourselves on Facebook, you're wrong. You're being almost as limited in your activism as the women chit-chatting on various yahoo social groups, on pogo.com playing games, on hulu.com watching Monk, on love-lorn sites searching for love in all the wrong places. We're all talking the talk on Facebook; now it's time to walk the walk everywhere! Before it's too late. Wake up and smell the truth. Mainstream media and mainstream
AMERICA IS NOT HEARING YOU YET! MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE.
The reality is that in order to reach ALL the women we would like to, we're going to have to get off the Web entirely at some point and get out in the streets. Not all women are fortunate enough to even have computers. We need to organize phone trees, we need to print out posters paid for out of our own pockets for the September March
(see http://thewomankindparty.com/september-march.html)
and hang them everywhere, even the places we normally might not go, like the ghetto and the poor parts of town. We're going to have to connect with other organizations that we might have once thought we would never be in touch with, like the Occupy groups, the gay and lesbian groups, the Women of Color groups, the Senior groups, any group that has women within it's membership. Even the PTA. (Does that still exist?) Check for SOL and OWL groups in your area. That's Slightly Older Lesbians and Older, Wiser Lesbians, and they've already been there and done that. They came out in huge numbers in the early 80's when AIDS first struck our brothers and they did a lot for the guys. It's time now for those guys to return the favor, and many of you already are. But more is needed. How many of you have attended a gay pride parade? They're huge and they happen every year for the Stonewall Anniversary. Contact those organizers and let them help you learn how it's done. Contact PFLAG. Contact local lesbian bars and ask them to help you with fundraisers. Contact MCC Churches in your area. In fact, contact all churches in your area and don't depend on ANY of the above people finding YOU on Facebook. It's not going to happen.
The fact that we're still being ignored by mainstream media scares the hell out of me. We're still not being heard. We're going to have to gather in even larger numbers, work even harder at outreach, push ourselves to get women informed and registered to vote. We cannot afford to be elitist and confine ourselves to Facebook or even just the Internet.
Another sad reality is that many, many women, such as myself, will not have the money or means to get to Washington, D.C. in September. The organizers of that March are hoping for 500,000 women. Given the financial state of so many of us, especially senior and disabled women, if they do reach that number, it won't be representative of the average American woman. I believe strongly that more marches are needed on November 3rd also, just before the Presidential Election, perhaps in four or five major cities so that there will hopefully be one close enough for a large number of women to get to. I could manage a trip to San Francisco. It's amazing how the roads work here in Northern California. A trip to San Francisco is a straight shot down 101 for me; the trip to Sacramento would have meant driving east to Medford, Oregon to Highway 5 and then down to Sacramento, a much longer trip than to San Francisco.
So who is going to organize four or five cities for a March in November? It can't be me. I'm already doing all I can with these pages trying to spread the word. I'm 68 with a bad heart; I'm doing all I can. So somebody is going to have to step up. If no one does, then nothing will happen. And nothing will change. And you, your daughters, your granddaughters will be going to back alleys for abortions, will still be making $.77 for every $1.00 a man makes, will still be second-class citizens, will still be ignored and demeaned by men.
YOU WILL STILL BE CALLED SLUTS AND TREATED LIKE SLUTS AND POSSIBLY DIE YOUNG IF YOU'RE BLACK AND HOMELESS AND IN NEED OF MEDICAL CARE IN A JAIL CELL AND ALL THE WHILE THE RICH WOMEN LIKE ANN ROMNEY WILL CONTINUE TO LIE AND SAY THERE IS NO WAR ON WOMEN.
IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOU WANT?
APRIL 28, 2012 YOUTUBE VIDEOS
We Are Women rally and march - Denver, CO - April 28, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCZGncgK6zQ&feature=player_embedded
We Are Women rally and march - Crowd Signs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x7BHVDSvUE&feature=relmfu
Herdon Katz updated his status: "Colorado We Are Women March and Rally -- 2 Hours Long, but incredibly inspiring! (Gets better as it goes!)
We Are Women March Missouri 4.28.12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6x5XF4NCV0&feature=related
Why We March? United Against The War on Women Los Angeles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMcOk06WTiE&feature=related
Against War on Women Rally: The March..Los Angeles 4/28/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TGV-UpkxGE&feature=related
Sarah Silverman Performs, Marches in Against War on Women Rally in Los Angeles 4/28/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py0FaW_HjzU&feature=relmfu
Zach Galifianakis makes surprise visit: Against War on Women Rally in Los Angeles 4/28/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNES-wfoScE&feature=relmfu
Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
By: Jason Easley
April 29, 2012
By: Jason Easley
April 29, 2012
Republicans tried to target Rachel Maddow in their war on women, but Maddow made history by calling out the GOP’s condescending misogyny on Meet The Press.
Transcript:
RACHEL MADDOW: Policy. It should be about policy. And all of our best debates are always about policy. And it should be about policy that affects women specifically. The Romney campaign wants to talk about women and the economy. Women in this country still make 77 cents on the dollar for what men make. So if–
ALEX CASTELLANOS: Not exactly.
RACHEL MADDOW: Women don’t make less than men?
ALEX CASTELLANOS: Actually, if you start looking at the numbers, Rachel, there are lots of reasons for that.
RACHEL MADDOW: Wait, wait. No.
ALEX CASTELLANOS: Well, first of all, we–
RACHEL MADDOW: Don’t tell me what the reasons are. Do women make less than men for the same work?
ALEX CASTELLANOS: Actually–
ALEX CASTELLANOS: –because.
RACHEL MADDOW: No? (LAUGH) Okay. No.
ALEX CASTELLANOS: Well, for example--
ALEX CASTELLANOS: –men work an average of 44 hours a week. Women work 41 hours a week. Men go into professions like engineering, science and math that earn more. Women want more flexibility–
RACHEL MADDOW: Listen, this is not a math is hard type of conversation.
ALEX CASTELLANOS: No, no. Yes, it is, actually.
RACHEL MADDOW: No, it isn’t.
ALEX CASTELLANOS: We’re having to look–
RACHEL MADDOW: No, listen–
DAVID GREGORY: All right, let Rachel–
RACHEL MADDOW: Right now women are making 77 cents–
ALEX CASTELLANOS: And litigated–
RACHEL MADDOW: –on the dollar for what men are making, so–
ALEX CASTELLANOS: Well, that’s not true.
RACHEL MADDOW:–so–
ALEX CASTELLANOS: If so every–
DAVID GREGORY: All right, let Rachel make her point.
ALEX CASTELLANOS: –greedy businessman in America would hire only women, save 25% and be hugely profitable.
RACHEL MADDOW: I feel like this is actually–
ALEX CASTELLANOS: That’s it.
RACHEL MADDOW: –and it’s weird that you’re interrupting me and not letting me make my point, because we get along so well. So let me make my point.
ALEX CASTELLANOS: I will.
RACHEL MADDOW: But it is important, I think, the interruption is important, I think, because now we know, at least from both of your perspectives that women are not faring worse than men in the economy. That women aren’t getting paid less for equal work. I think that’s a serious difference in factual understanding of the world.
But given that some of us believe that women are getting paid less than men for doing the same work, there is something called the Fair Pay Act. There was a court ruling that said the statute of limitations, if you’re getting paid less than a man, if you’re subject to discrimination, starts before you know that discrimination is happening, effectively cutting off your recourse to the courts. You didn’t know you were being discriminated against. You can’t go.
The first law passed by this administration is the Fair Pay Act. To remedy that court ruling. The Mitt Romney campaign put you out as a surrogate to shore up people’s feelings about this issue after they could not say whether or not Mitt Romney would have signed that bill. You’re supposed to make us feel better about it. You voted against the Fair Pay Act. It’s not about–whether or not you have a female surrogate. It’s about policy and whether or not you want to fix some of the structural discrimination that women really do face that Republicans don’t believe is happening.
DAVID GREGORY: It’s policy is the argument.
ALEX CASTELLANOS: It’s policy. And I love how passionate you are. I wish you are as right about what you’re saying as you are passionate about it. I really do.
RACHEL MADDOW: That’s really condescending.
ALEX CASTELLANOS: For example– no.
RACHEL MADDOW: I mean this is a stylistic issue.
ALEX CASTELLANOS: I’ll tell you what–
RACHEL MADDOW: My passion on this issue–
ALEX CASTELLANOS: Here’s a fact–
RACHEL MADDOW:–is actually me making a factual argument–
Rachel Maddow was correct. The interruption by Castellanos was significant, because Republicans don’t want to talk about the war on women. They have adopted the same position towards the rights of women that they long ago adopted towards issues like poverty and racism. It doesn’t exist. Castellanos was trying to muddy the waters with funny math designed to deny the fact that women earn less than men. Women who work full time earn 77% of what men do. Until today, that fact was not in dispute.
Castellanos tried to use different factors to claim that the wage gap doesn’t exist, but even when all factors are taken into account, 41% of the wage gap is unexplained. This means that when a man and a woman have the same background, are doing the same job, and are working the same hours, women still make less money than men.
For Alex Castellanos the argument was a matter of political strategy. His goal was to make some people believe that there is cause for question on the existence of the pay gap. (You may also recognize this strategy as the exact same course the right has pursued on climate change).
Castellanos’s behavior towards Maddow proved that the Republican Party has declared war on women. By watching the video, you can see his condescending tone directed at Maddow. When he said that he appreciated her passion, but that she was wrong, he was trying to portray her as an irrational woman who was being guided by her emotions.
The fact that Alex Castellanos thought he had the right to demean Dr. Rachel Maddow’s intellect because she is a woman demonstrates that the Republican Party’s war on women goes deeper than politics and policy. In their hearts, they truly believe that women aren’t equal to men.
It was enraging and embarrassing to watch Rachel Maddow get treated that way on national television. It is even more embarrassing to think that most men, including myself, have behaved that way at one time or another towards a woman. (The good news is that men can learn, grow, and change if they really want to.)
The Republican war on women is a political affirmation of misogyny. The Republican message to men is vote for us to reclaim your rightful place of superiority. You don’t have to change. Women are beneath you. Let’s keep them in their place. We can stop progress. Sadly, there is a group of men in this country who find the prospect of codified misogyny both attractive and exciting.
The goal was to put Rachel Maddow in her place, and to stop the “hysteria” from the “girls” who don’t understand that because men say so there is no war on women and pay gap.
When Rachel Maddow called out Alex Castellanos’s misogyny on Meet The Press it was an historic moment in the push back against the war on women. I can’t remember another woman in the media standing up and calling out the condescending behavior of the right wing champions of the war on women. The mainstream media, except for MSNBC, has mostly ignored the war on women. Much like the Republican Party, the media has acted like it does not exist. (They still haven't talked about the Marches yesterday as far as I know.)
Republicans are afraid. They don’t want the country to know about their anti-woman agenda, and they would love nothing more than to discredit one of the primary national watchdogs of their behavior, Rachel Maddow.
But this is bigger than Rachel Maddow on Meet The Press. This is a civil rights issue that impacts all Americans regardless of gender. There are no men’s issues, or women’s issues. There are American issues, and we all must stand together to reject the agenda of discrimination and inequality being perpetuated on us by the Republican Party under the guise of a war on women.
Because this isn’t a war on women, it’s a war on us all. [VIDEO]
How Conservatives Think - TYT Nation - Adam Strange
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXGO5p6hjws&feature=share
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXGO5p6hjws&feature=share
Obama Skewers Senate Republicans for Blocking the Buffett Rule
By: Jason Easley, April 16, 2012
After Senate Republicans blocked the Buffett Rule, President Obama took them to task and continued riding a wave of fairness towards reelection.
After only one Republicans voted with Democrats in favor of the Buffett Rule, President Obama said in a statement,
Tonight, Senate Republicans voted to block the Buffett Rule, choosing once again to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few Americans at the expense of the middle class.
The Buffett Rule is common sense. At a time when we have significant deficits to close and serious investments to make to strengthen our economy, we simply cannot afford to keep spending money on tax cuts that the wealthiest Americans don’t need and didn’t ask for. But it’s also about basic fairness—it’s just plain wrong that millions of middle-class Americans pay a higher share of their income in taxes than some millionaires and billionaires. America prospers when we’re all in it together and everyone has the opportunity to succeed.
One of the fundamental challenges of our time is building an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. And I will continue to push Congress to take steps to not only restore economic security for the middle class and those trying to reach the middle class, but also to create an economy that’s built to last.
The only Republican who voted with Democrats in favor of moving the bill forward was Susan Collins of Maine. All other Republicans, including those who are in close contests to keep their seats like Scott Brown, voted against increasing taxes on those who make over a million dollars per year.How big of a political loser is the Republicans continued protection of the rich? According to a new CNN poll, 72% of those surveyed support the Buffett Rule. What should be frightening for Republicans is that the support for the Buffett Rule has increased by 12 points in the last three days. The more President Obama talks about fairness, the more support grows for his proposals.
Senate Republicans are almost making this too easy for President Obama. If they really wanted to improve Mitt Romney’s chances in November, they would pass the Buffett Rule. Instead, Republicans have decided to nominate a man who is walking billboard for why the nation needs the Buffett Rule, and highlight his deficiency by voting against the Buffett Rule. They have chosen a guy who was born on third and thinks he hit a triple to run against a president whose whole message is centered on fairness for every American.
The Senate vote not only hurts the Republican Party, but it also puts the spotlight back on the fact that the GOP has a nominee who has no clue how regular Americans live and the challenges they face. Obama has the upper hand in this election because he has the message. Fairness is the kind of simple common sense messaging that resonates well with voters and wins elections in November.
While Mitt Romney is still trying to explain where his 2011 tax return is, Barack Obama is marching towards reelection.
By: Jason Easley, April 16, 2012
After Senate Republicans blocked the Buffett Rule, President Obama took them to task and continued riding a wave of fairness towards reelection.
After only one Republicans voted with Democrats in favor of the Buffett Rule, President Obama said in a statement,
Tonight, Senate Republicans voted to block the Buffett Rule, choosing once again to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest few Americans at the expense of the middle class.
The Buffett Rule is common sense. At a time when we have significant deficits to close and serious investments to make to strengthen our economy, we simply cannot afford to keep spending money on tax cuts that the wealthiest Americans don’t need and didn’t ask for. But it’s also about basic fairness—it’s just plain wrong that millions of middle-class Americans pay a higher share of their income in taxes than some millionaires and billionaires. America prospers when we’re all in it together and everyone has the opportunity to succeed.
One of the fundamental challenges of our time is building an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. And I will continue to push Congress to take steps to not only restore economic security for the middle class and those trying to reach the middle class, but also to create an economy that’s built to last.
The only Republican who voted with Democrats in favor of moving the bill forward was Susan Collins of Maine. All other Republicans, including those who are in close contests to keep their seats like Scott Brown, voted against increasing taxes on those who make over a million dollars per year.How big of a political loser is the Republicans continued protection of the rich? According to a new CNN poll, 72% of those surveyed support the Buffett Rule. What should be frightening for Republicans is that the support for the Buffett Rule has increased by 12 points in the last three days. The more President Obama talks about fairness, the more support grows for his proposals.
Senate Republicans are almost making this too easy for President Obama. If they really wanted to improve Mitt Romney’s chances in November, they would pass the Buffett Rule. Instead, Republicans have decided to nominate a man who is walking billboard for why the nation needs the Buffett Rule, and highlight his deficiency by voting against the Buffett Rule. They have chosen a guy who was born on third and thinks he hit a triple to run against a president whose whole message is centered on fairness for every American.
The Senate vote not only hurts the Republican Party, but it also puts the spotlight back on the fact that the GOP has a nominee who has no clue how regular Americans live and the challenges they face. Obama has the upper hand in this election because he has the message. Fairness is the kind of simple common sense messaging that resonates well with voters and wins elections in November.
While Mitt Romney is still trying to explain where his 2011 tax return is, Barack Obama is marching towards reelection.
Obama’s Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy,
Could Imperil Reelection Hopes, Experts Say
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In the first term in office, President Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the previous eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.
New polls indicate that millions of Americans are put off by the President’s unorthodox verbal tic, which has Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opens his mouth.
Mr. Obama’s decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements, as well as his insistence on the correct pronunciation of the word “nuclear,” has harmed his reelection hopes among millions of voters who find his unusual speaking style unfamiliar and bizarre.
According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, after eight years of George W. Bush many Americans find it “alienating” to have a President who speaks English as if it were his first language.
“Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement,” says Mr. Logsdon. “If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist.”
The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, on Election Day the public may find itself saying, “Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate – we get it, stop showing off.”
Elsewhere, consumers who believed that Nutella was nutritious have won a $3.05 million lawsuit, the highest award ever paid to morons.
Get a free subscription to the Borowitz Report here.
Could Imperil Reelection Hopes, Experts Say
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In the first term in office, President Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the previous eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.
New polls indicate that millions of Americans are put off by the President’s unorthodox verbal tic, which has Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opens his mouth.
Mr. Obama’s decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements, as well as his insistence on the correct pronunciation of the word “nuclear,” has harmed his reelection hopes among millions of voters who find his unusual speaking style unfamiliar and bizarre.
According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, after eight years of George W. Bush many Americans find it “alienating” to have a President who speaks English as if it were his first language.
“Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement,” says Mr. Logsdon. “If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist.”
The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, on Election Day the public may find itself saying, “Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate – we get it, stop showing off.”
Elsewhere, consumers who believed that Nutella was nutritious have won a $3.05 million lawsuit, the highest award ever paid to morons.
Get a free subscription to the Borowitz Report here.
C-SPAN: President Obama at the 2012 White House Correspondents' Dinner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=6IoVSbjmTZs
C-SPAN: Jimmy Kimmel at the 2012 White House Correspondents' Dinner http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=DcqYFPRyyp8
I'm Moving to Arizona!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17bfFzLQc7g&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Feminist Advocacy and Social Media (or How We Achieved Critical Mass)
This is a guest post by Echo Zen. Echo is a feminist filmmaker and women’s health advocate who works to educate communities and families about health, sexuality and respect. His goal is to someday honour his peers by becoming a champion for reproductive justice, through his work as an educator and filmmaker. In his spare time he bakes pasta, reads children’s books and designs puppets from household objects.
A friend and I were talking a few nights ago. The topic of conversation was mundane – something about sports cars and middle-aged men. She ended the conversation with, “Alright, I’d better go. I need to take my whore pills before I go to bed.”
Whore pills. Slang for birth control. My friend doesn’t talk much about contraception, but she heard about “whore pills” via Facebook, through friends posting about the Arizona bill which would have allowed employers to fire employees for using birth control for non-medical reasons. The feminist blogosphere called out this obvious attempt to punish slutty slut-sluts for using “whore pills” – and I guess the name stuck.
That’s how social media has changed feminism since a decade ago. Social media is how SlutWalk satellites across the world have organised themselves from the grassroots up, without visible leadership or top-down direction. It is how we make ourselves heard when traditional media outlets ignore our voices. And it gives us a common vernacular for discussing the countless attacks on women’s bodies taking place across America as we speak. So when friends joke to us about taking their whore pills and dedicating them to Rush Limbaugh, we know exactly what they’re talking about.
Today it seems like commonsense that social media is the key to uniting communities in the fight for equality. But none of the activists who began launching the first feminist blogs back in 2003 knew this. Heck, I work as a social media consultant, and as recently as 2011 when my mates were using Facebook to organise the first SlutWalk rallies in the U.S., I had serious doubts about social media’s ability to effect real feminist change.
The problem wasn’t a lack of young feminists using social media to make their voices heard – the old canard that young women are too complacent to take leadership in today’s feminist movement is a patented falsehood. The problem was our voices weren’t reaching other young women who needed to hear us. They heard us, but dismissed us as hysterical little ladies when we warned that anti-women extremists were organising to criminalise our contraception, repeal domestic violence laws, and strip away funding for rape survivors.
Maybe they thought the misogynists on Capitol Hill would be content with simply outlawing abortion and gay marriage. That’s a mistake the traditional media have consistently made in failing to illuminate the true motives behind the opposition’s frenzied efforts to strip women of their reproductive, sexual and human rights. They claim it’s about “limited government,” “personal responsibility,” and “promoting a culture of life.” But anyone with a lick of feminist experience knows the opposition has zero concern for life, and a fanatical obsession with endangering, punishing and murdering women who refuse to subordinate themselves to the opposition’s 1950s doctrine of sexual modesty – as if modesty will keep rapists from raping people, or prevent misogynists from assaulting their partners.
Getting U.S. media to reframe the narrative, though, has been a fruitless endeavour. As individuals speaking in isolation, we’re easy to dismiss as isolated cranks – which is why women’s groups have historically had to rely on marches and rallies to raise the visibility and critical mass necessary to force media to cover our issues. This wasn’t easy, or cheap. They required ongoing leadership and material support, and since both were always in limited supply, our capacity for messaging was limited as well.
Social media has long been championed as an alternative channel, a solution to the traditional media’s filter on our views. The blogosphere and communities we’ve formed since the early 2000s are testament to that. But though we increased our visibility, we still lacked the critical mass to issue truly rapid, networked responses to attacks on our rights, because not enough people were listening… until now.
In hindsight there was nothing we could have done to get more people to listen. The consultant in me should have known – nobody listens until they feel something in their life is under attack. Let me reiterate: In politics, nobody listens, ever, unless they feel they’re under attack. The first feminist bloggers founded their blogs because they saw the attacks coming, and happening. They were ready.
And so, with other feminists who came of age over the years, we laid down the infrastructure. And as the war on women reached a frenzied peak in 2011, women finally realised their so-called “representatives” truly believe the greatest threat to America isn’t corruption or income inequality, but ratherhealthy, independent, sexually active women. As women began listening and looking for allies, they found the infrastructure we had in place to empower their voices, to initiate dialogue and to raise awareness. Critical mass had arrived.
It’s through our ability to network and educate each other that women today understand these attacks are hardly isolated, but part of a decades-long campaign to strip women of their constitutionally protected civil rights. This has become painfully obvious as states like Colorado, Kansas and Oklahomamove to outlaw birth control pills through laws defining fertilised eggs as people, as other states repeal their laws against domestic abuse on the grounds that they’re a waste of tax dollars, and as lawmakers in the Senate refuse to reauthorise the Violence Against Women Act, claiming the law is “a slush fund for the feminist lobby,” and that it provides too much protection for women.
That’s why, in many ways, the hashtag is mightier than the sword. In 2011, we caught a glimpse of the ability of activists to organise rapid, networked responses to attacks on our sexuality. The first SlutWalk was held in Toronto, and soon spread worldwide through grassroots efforts of advocates on the ground – all without visible leadership or top-down direction. Now, four months into 2012, we’ve seen how our capacity for rapid, networked responses to misogyny has truly matured. When Susan G. Komen banned funding to Planned Parenthood in January, the social media response was so massive that Komen reversed course just four days later. And when one radio host attacked a young, articulate law student as a prostitute for testifying about her friend’s need for life-saving contraception in February, the networked reaction resulted in a virtual exodus of advertisers willing to sleep in bed with a public misogynist.
That’s what we’ve achieved with no visible leadership or budget. We broke through the traditional media’s filter and made our voices heard.
Success follows when awareness translates into action – and Komen and Limbaugh are but a taste of our capacity to translate awareness into action. The old joke is that the world’s supposed to end in 2012 anyway, according to the Mayan calendar. Of course, folks of Mayan descent understand this is bollocks, that 2012 merely signals the start of a new era. I do know this year marks the most active mobilisation of women I’ve ever seen in defence of our rights as human beings. This is our era. This is our time.
-Echo Zen | Adviser
Voices for Planned Parenthood
youtube.com/user/echozenuk
This is a guest post by Echo Zen. Echo is a feminist filmmaker and women’s health advocate who works to educate communities and families about health, sexuality and respect. His goal is to someday honour his peers by becoming a champion for reproductive justice, through his work as an educator and filmmaker. In his spare time he bakes pasta, reads children’s books and designs puppets from household objects.
A friend and I were talking a few nights ago. The topic of conversation was mundane – something about sports cars and middle-aged men. She ended the conversation with, “Alright, I’d better go. I need to take my whore pills before I go to bed.”
Whore pills. Slang for birth control. My friend doesn’t talk much about contraception, but she heard about “whore pills” via Facebook, through friends posting about the Arizona bill which would have allowed employers to fire employees for using birth control for non-medical reasons. The feminist blogosphere called out this obvious attempt to punish slutty slut-sluts for using “whore pills” – and I guess the name stuck.
That’s how social media has changed feminism since a decade ago. Social media is how SlutWalk satellites across the world have organised themselves from the grassroots up, without visible leadership or top-down direction. It is how we make ourselves heard when traditional media outlets ignore our voices. And it gives us a common vernacular for discussing the countless attacks on women’s bodies taking place across America as we speak. So when friends joke to us about taking their whore pills and dedicating them to Rush Limbaugh, we know exactly what they’re talking about.
Today it seems like commonsense that social media is the key to uniting communities in the fight for equality. But none of the activists who began launching the first feminist blogs back in 2003 knew this. Heck, I work as a social media consultant, and as recently as 2011 when my mates were using Facebook to organise the first SlutWalk rallies in the U.S., I had serious doubts about social media’s ability to effect real feminist change.
The problem wasn’t a lack of young feminists using social media to make their voices heard – the old canard that young women are too complacent to take leadership in today’s feminist movement is a patented falsehood. The problem was our voices weren’t reaching other young women who needed to hear us. They heard us, but dismissed us as hysterical little ladies when we warned that anti-women extremists were organising to criminalise our contraception, repeal domestic violence laws, and strip away funding for rape survivors.
Maybe they thought the misogynists on Capitol Hill would be content with simply outlawing abortion and gay marriage. That’s a mistake the traditional media have consistently made in failing to illuminate the true motives behind the opposition’s frenzied efforts to strip women of their reproductive, sexual and human rights. They claim it’s about “limited government,” “personal responsibility,” and “promoting a culture of life.” But anyone with a lick of feminist experience knows the opposition has zero concern for life, and a fanatical obsession with endangering, punishing and murdering women who refuse to subordinate themselves to the opposition’s 1950s doctrine of sexual modesty – as if modesty will keep rapists from raping people, or prevent misogynists from assaulting their partners.
Getting U.S. media to reframe the narrative, though, has been a fruitless endeavour. As individuals speaking in isolation, we’re easy to dismiss as isolated cranks – which is why women’s groups have historically had to rely on marches and rallies to raise the visibility and critical mass necessary to force media to cover our issues. This wasn’t easy, or cheap. They required ongoing leadership and material support, and since both were always in limited supply, our capacity for messaging was limited as well.
Social media has long been championed as an alternative channel, a solution to the traditional media’s filter on our views. The blogosphere and communities we’ve formed since the early 2000s are testament to that. But though we increased our visibility, we still lacked the critical mass to issue truly rapid, networked responses to attacks on our rights, because not enough people were listening… until now.
In hindsight there was nothing we could have done to get more people to listen. The consultant in me should have known – nobody listens until they feel something in their life is under attack. Let me reiterate: In politics, nobody listens, ever, unless they feel they’re under attack. The first feminist bloggers founded their blogs because they saw the attacks coming, and happening. They were ready.
And so, with other feminists who came of age over the years, we laid down the infrastructure. And as the war on women reached a frenzied peak in 2011, women finally realised their so-called “representatives” truly believe the greatest threat to America isn’t corruption or income inequality, but ratherhealthy, independent, sexually active women. As women began listening and looking for allies, they found the infrastructure we had in place to empower their voices, to initiate dialogue and to raise awareness. Critical mass had arrived.
It’s through our ability to network and educate each other that women today understand these attacks are hardly isolated, but part of a decades-long campaign to strip women of their constitutionally protected civil rights. This has become painfully obvious as states like Colorado, Kansas and Oklahomamove to outlaw birth control pills through laws defining fertilised eggs as people, as other states repeal their laws against domestic abuse on the grounds that they’re a waste of tax dollars, and as lawmakers in the Senate refuse to reauthorise the Violence Against Women Act, claiming the law is “a slush fund for the feminist lobby,” and that it provides too much protection for women.
That’s why, in many ways, the hashtag is mightier than the sword. In 2011, we caught a glimpse of the ability of activists to organise rapid, networked responses to attacks on our sexuality. The first SlutWalk was held in Toronto, and soon spread worldwide through grassroots efforts of advocates on the ground – all without visible leadership or top-down direction. Now, four months into 2012, we’ve seen how our capacity for rapid, networked responses to misogyny has truly matured. When Susan G. Komen banned funding to Planned Parenthood in January, the social media response was so massive that Komen reversed course just four days later. And when one radio host attacked a young, articulate law student as a prostitute for testifying about her friend’s need for life-saving contraception in February, the networked reaction resulted in a virtual exodus of advertisers willing to sleep in bed with a public misogynist.
That’s what we’ve achieved with no visible leadership or budget. We broke through the traditional media’s filter and made our voices heard.
Success follows when awareness translates into action – and Komen and Limbaugh are but a taste of our capacity to translate awareness into action. The old joke is that the world’s supposed to end in 2012 anyway, according to the Mayan calendar. Of course, folks of Mayan descent understand this is bollocks, that 2012 merely signals the start of a new era. I do know this year marks the most active mobilisation of women I’ve ever seen in defence of our rights as human beings. This is our era. This is our time.
-Echo Zen | Adviser
Voices for Planned Parenthood
youtube.com/user/echozenuk
Margot Magowan
SATURDAY, APRIL 28, 2012
Women’s rights are not a ‘cultural’ issue
Yesterday I blogged about a teacher at a Catholic school, Emily Herx, who was fired because she got IVF treatments. I received several comments that because of freedom of religion, the church can fire Herx if it wants to.
That argument doesn’t hold; it’s based on the idea that human rights for women are not important. Too many Americans believe that women’s rights are a “cultural” issue and not a political one.
If the Catholic Church “believed” that African-Americans could not be teachers or that adults should have sex with children, the American government would call that illegal. Freedom of religion does not give a religious institution the mandate to violate basic human rights.
As I wrote yesterday:
In 2010, Herx learned that she suffered from a medical condition that caused infertility. At that time, she told her principal she needed time off for IVF treatment. Her request was granted and the principal allegedly told Herx: “You are in my prayers.”…
Herx is claiming sex discrimination and disabilities discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and requesting lost wages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and compensation for her mental anguish and emotional distress.
Just like infertility, pregnancy is also medical condition. Women have all kinds of serious health complications from ectoptic pregnancies to hemorrhaging. Contraception is preventative health care. Women’s bodies are different than men’s bodies and have different medical needs. To deny women health care based on those differences is to deny women a basic human right. It’s sex discrimination, and it is appalling that this kind of abuse is tolerated in America.
When I was in college, Apartheid was the government of South Africa. Every day, there were protests against South Africa’s racist government in our campus quad. At the same time, I was taking a sociology class where we learned that cliterodectomies were performed in some countries in Africa. I was taught in my class that to condemn that procedure was wrong; it was to enforce my Western beliefs on another country. It was in this way that I was taught the concept of “relative ethics.” It took me years after my “education” to recover from that kind of teaching, to be able to say that cliterodectomies are wrong, wherever and whenever they happen.
The Taliban is gender apartheid. But the first time I ever heard about the horrible gender crimes supported by that government was not in a campus quad or even a sociology class, but in the back pages of Newsweek, where the celebrity news is. In the Nineties, I read that Mavis Leno, Jay Leno’s wife, was trying to raise funds and awareness to help women under the Taliban rule. At that time, I was a producer for a talk radio station. I brought the article to the host of the show and asked him to talk about it on air. “Have you heard about this?” I said. He responded that our show was local, that no one in the Bay Area would care about the Taliban. “How is it relevant to our lives?” he asked.
Of course, the Taliban became relevant to Americans on 9/11. I don’t believe that a country, even ours, can isolate itself from that kind of hatred and violation of human rights, as much as we try our best to ignore them unless a celebrity happens to host a fundraiser.
In 2009, Pulitzer Prize winning journalists Nicolas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn published Half the Sky, a book that documented sex trafficking, acid burnings, poverty, and lack of access to healthcare for women all around the world. The thesis of Half the Sky is that the world is losing its most valuable resource: women. The writers argue that in the nineteenth century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the twentieth century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. That in this century, our century, the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for global gender equality.
I was certain that after the publication of Half the Sky and the media that the book initially received, Americans would finally get that demanding full human rights for women is essential to our survival as a human race, that human rights for women is not a cultural issue. But right now in America, in 2012, we’re fighting over contraception? In our Presidential election? For Americans not to allow all women access to contraception and to basic health care is a human rights violation. Until our government stops seeing women’s rights as a cultural issue, how can we ask the rest of the world to?
Maybe this all goes back to what my professor was trying to teach me in Sociology 101: Americans are hypocrites.
Reel Girl is now on Facebook. Click here to join.
Women’s rights are not a ‘cultural’ issue
Yesterday I blogged about a teacher at a Catholic school, Emily Herx, who was fired because she got IVF treatments. I received several comments that because of freedom of religion, the church can fire Herx if it wants to.
That argument doesn’t hold; it’s based on the idea that human rights for women are not important. Too many Americans believe that women’s rights are a “cultural” issue and not a political one.
If the Catholic Church “believed” that African-Americans could not be teachers or that adults should have sex with children, the American government would call that illegal. Freedom of religion does not give a religious institution the mandate to violate basic human rights.
As I wrote yesterday:
In 2010, Herx learned that she suffered from a medical condition that caused infertility. At that time, she told her principal she needed time off for IVF treatment. Her request was granted and the principal allegedly told Herx: “You are in my prayers.”…
Herx is claiming sex discrimination and disabilities discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and requesting lost wages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and compensation for her mental anguish and emotional distress.
Just like infertility, pregnancy is also medical condition. Women have all kinds of serious health complications from ectoptic pregnancies to hemorrhaging. Contraception is preventative health care. Women’s bodies are different than men’s bodies and have different medical needs. To deny women health care based on those differences is to deny women a basic human right. It’s sex discrimination, and it is appalling that this kind of abuse is tolerated in America.
When I was in college, Apartheid was the government of South Africa. Every day, there were protests against South Africa’s racist government in our campus quad. At the same time, I was taking a sociology class where we learned that cliterodectomies were performed in some countries in Africa. I was taught in my class that to condemn that procedure was wrong; it was to enforce my Western beliefs on another country. It was in this way that I was taught the concept of “relative ethics.” It took me years after my “education” to recover from that kind of teaching, to be able to say that cliterodectomies are wrong, wherever and whenever they happen.
The Taliban is gender apartheid. But the first time I ever heard about the horrible gender crimes supported by that government was not in a campus quad or even a sociology class, but in the back pages of Newsweek, where the celebrity news is. In the Nineties, I read that Mavis Leno, Jay Leno’s wife, was trying to raise funds and awareness to help women under the Taliban rule. At that time, I was a producer for a talk radio station. I brought the article to the host of the show and asked him to talk about it on air. “Have you heard about this?” I said. He responded that our show was local, that no one in the Bay Area would care about the Taliban. “How is it relevant to our lives?” he asked.
Of course, the Taliban became relevant to Americans on 9/11. I don’t believe that a country, even ours, can isolate itself from that kind of hatred and violation of human rights, as much as we try our best to ignore them unless a celebrity happens to host a fundraiser.
In 2009, Pulitzer Prize winning journalists Nicolas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn published Half the Sky, a book that documented sex trafficking, acid burnings, poverty, and lack of access to healthcare for women all around the world. The thesis of Half the Sky is that the world is losing its most valuable resource: women. The writers argue that in the nineteenth century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the twentieth century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. That in this century, our century, the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for global gender equality.
I was certain that after the publication of Half the Sky and the media that the book initially received, Americans would finally get that demanding full human rights for women is essential to our survival as a human race, that human rights for women is not a cultural issue. But right now in America, in 2012, we’re fighting over contraception? In our Presidential election? For Americans not to allow all women access to contraception and to basic health care is a human rights violation. Until our government stops seeing women’s rights as a cultural issue, how can we ask the rest of the world to?
Maybe this all goes back to what my professor was trying to teach me in Sociology 101: Americans are hypocrites.
Reel Girl is now on Facebook. Click here to join.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Rush Limbaugh Thinks I'm A Slut - A Thank You Letter
Rush Limbaugh Thinks I'm A Slut - A Thank You Letter
Dear Rush,
I never had any idea that when I wrote my Open letter To Rush Limbaugh from a Liberal Slut that I would be asked to contribute to two liberal, political websites, including the popular Addicting Info AND be asked to be the Spokeswoman for Rock The Slut Vote! I had the honor and privelage to attend the War On Women rally in Sacramento on April 28, and gave a speech...mentioning YOU!
Ever since the Bush Administration stole the 2000 election, I've followed politics and considered myself to be an armchair activist. I've made phone calls on behalf of politicians, I've talked with my friends and made political posts on Facebook and Twitter but that was the extent of it.
THEN, you opened that enormous mouth of yours and went off on Sandra Fluke. Your big mouth really pissed off a lot of women. UniteWomen.org was, in part started as a result of your ignorance and Rock The Slue Vote was definitely a direct result of your blatant hatred of smart women.
It's hard to decide how to feel about you, and I speak for many here. So many men and women think your hate speech is offensive and you should be removed from the airwaves. But if it wasn't for you, perhaps this fight against the War On Women wouldn't have become such a big deal.
My wise grandmother always said "You can't argue with ignorance." I believe she was right. But you CAN fight it and make sure that every woman votes this next election. I will do everything I can to make sure every hideous thing you say is reported on. I may not be Rachel Maddow but I do have a platform now, thanks to you! :) And it's growing everyday!
Here's the thing Rush, by calling Fluke a slut, you have called millions of women sluts. And SLUTS VOTE! Feminazi's have enjoyed freedom for decades and there's NO WAY IN HELL your faithful followers like John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell and all the rest of you blowhards will succeed in taking what we EARNED away from us (and never should have HAD to fight for in the place)! There's just no way.
Men love contraception. We all know if men could get pregnant, abortions would be legal, free and at every Walmart across this country. Smart men love women who are independent and can take care of themselves. It's only the oppressors like you who wish to take women back to when they had no real voice. This War On Women is also a War On Men who have a BRAIN! Just because you guys say there's no War On Women (after you started it) doesn't mean we're buying it. Go sell that malarkey to the Village Idiot! Typical modern day GOP tactic. LIE, LIE, LIE! Your sheep might buy it but not the rest of us.
Keep saying derogatory things about strong, successful women. It's helping our cause, more than anything else. Your hate speech is really a terrible thing but it gives us more power and we take it, wear it as a badge of honor and thank you very, very much!!!!! You started a new-found sisterhood of women!!!!!!
On behalf of elitist, liberal sluts all over this nation, THANK YOU!!!!
Man, I feel like a WOMAN!
Sincerely,
Kimberley A. Johnson
I never had any idea that when I wrote my Open letter To Rush Limbaugh from a Liberal Slut that I would be asked to contribute to two liberal, political websites, including the popular Addicting Info AND be asked to be the Spokeswoman for Rock The Slut Vote! I had the honor and privelage to attend the War On Women rally in Sacramento on April 28, and gave a speech...mentioning YOU!
Ever since the Bush Administration stole the 2000 election, I've followed politics and considered myself to be an armchair activist. I've made phone calls on behalf of politicians, I've talked with my friends and made political posts on Facebook and Twitter but that was the extent of it.
THEN, you opened that enormous mouth of yours and went off on Sandra Fluke. Your big mouth really pissed off a lot of women. UniteWomen.org was, in part started as a result of your ignorance and Rock The Slue Vote was definitely a direct result of your blatant hatred of smart women.
It's hard to decide how to feel about you, and I speak for many here. So many men and women think your hate speech is offensive and you should be removed from the airwaves. But if it wasn't for you, perhaps this fight against the War On Women wouldn't have become such a big deal.
My wise grandmother always said "You can't argue with ignorance." I believe she was right. But you CAN fight it and make sure that every woman votes this next election. I will do everything I can to make sure every hideous thing you say is reported on. I may not be Rachel Maddow but I do have a platform now, thanks to you! :) And it's growing everyday!
Here's the thing Rush, by calling Fluke a slut, you have called millions of women sluts. And SLUTS VOTE! Feminazi's have enjoyed freedom for decades and there's NO WAY IN HELL your faithful followers like John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell and all the rest of you blowhards will succeed in taking what we EARNED away from us (and never should have HAD to fight for in the place)! There's just no way.
Men love contraception. We all know if men could get pregnant, abortions would be legal, free and at every Walmart across this country. Smart men love women who are independent and can take care of themselves. It's only the oppressors like you who wish to take women back to when they had no real voice. This War On Women is also a War On Men who have a BRAIN! Just because you guys say there's no War On Women (after you started it) doesn't mean we're buying it. Go sell that malarkey to the Village Idiot! Typical modern day GOP tactic. LIE, LIE, LIE! Your sheep might buy it but not the rest of us.
Keep saying derogatory things about strong, successful women. It's helping our cause, more than anything else. Your hate speech is really a terrible thing but it gives us more power and we take it, wear it as a badge of honor and thank you very, very much!!!!! You started a new-found sisterhood of women!!!!!!
On behalf of elitist, liberal sluts all over this nation, THANK YOU!!!!
Man, I feel like a WOMAN!
Sincerely,
Kimberley A. Johnson
Shania Twain - Man! I Feel Like A Woman
THE VOICES OF AMERICA'S WOMEN
Ivy Jo Cochran
Ivy Jo Cochran shared James Van Praagh's status update. "When we walk the path of others instead of ourselves, we are like sheep wandering mindlessly. Choose the path that's right for you."
Ivy Jo Cochran shared Pagan Liberal's status update:
Dear Cats, when I say to move, it means go someplace else, not switch positions with each other so there are still two of you in the way.
The dishes with the paw print are yours and contain your food. The other dishes are mine and contain my food. Please note, placing a paw print in the middle of my plate and food does not stake a claim for it becoming your food and dish, nor do I find that aesthetically pleasing in the slightest.
The stairway was not designed by NASCAR and is not a racetrack. Beating me to the bottom is not the object. Tripping me doesn’t help, because I can fall faster than you can run.
I cannot buy anything bigger than a king size bed. I am very sorry about this. Do not think I will continue to sleep on the couch with custom t shirts to ensure your comfort. Look at videos of other cats sleeping; they can actually curl up in a ball. It is not necessary to sleep perpendicular to each other stretched out to the fullest extent possible. I also know that sticking tails straight out and having tongues hanging out the other end to maximize space used is nothing but sarcasm.
My compact discs are not miniature Frisbees.
For the last time, there is not a secret exit from the bathroom. If by some miracle I beat you there and manage to get the door shut, it is not necessary to claw, whine, meow, and try to turn the knob, or get your paw under the edge and try to pull the door open. I must exit through the same door I entered. In addition, I have been using bathrooms for years — feline attendance is not mandatory or helpful.
The proper order is kiss me, and then go smell the other cats’ back end. I cannot stress this enough.
To pacify you I have posted the following message on our front door…
Rules for non-pet owners who visit and like to complain about our pets:
1. They live here. You don’t.
2. If you don’t want their hair on your custom t shirts, stay off the furniture. (That’s why they call it “fur”-niture)
3. I like my pets a lot better than I like most people.
4. To you, it’s an animal. To me, he / she is an adopted son / daughter who is short, hairy, walks on all fours and doesn’t speak clearly.
5. Cats are better than kids. They eat less, don’t ask for money all the time, are easier to train, usually come when called, never drive your car, don’t hang out with drug-using friends, don’t smoke or drink, don’t worry about buying the latest fashions, don’t wear your custom t shirts, don’t need a gazillion dollars for college, and won’t get pregnant because they’ve been “fixed
Ivy Jo Cochran shared a link: "Yep!"
Gadfly Granny
(Marcia Fields Reimers)
Gadfly Granny "Lest we forget... another young life lost in a wasteful and useless war... when will we ever learn?"
Wall Photos SPC Manuel J. Vasquez.
By: 172 Infantry Brigade, Blackhawks
Wall Photos SPC Manuel J. Vasquez.
By: 172 Infantry Brigade, Blackhawks
Me, at the Capitol in Sacramento before the Rally
SUNDAY, APRIL 29, 2012
Unite Against the War on Women Speech... Sacramento Capitol
We are at a pivotal point in the history of women – right here, right now.
I believe that each person here has a family member with stories similar to those you will be hearing today… Stories from your mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers… deeply personal stories that need to be heard.
While many may reveal painful secrets that most families would like to keep private, they need to be told. They need to be told so they are not repeated, because if we do not stop this insidious War on Women… our rights will be pushed back more than 40 years.
My Grand Mother was adopted on April 7, 1890… she was left on the doorstep of the Browns in Marin County, wrapped in a blanket and placed in a laundry basket. The Browns had no other children and were fairly well off, so they adopted this baby girl and named her Ethel Minerva Brown. It was obvious that this infant was left by some woman, or some young girl that was either unmarried, or unable to care for her, or already had too many children.
But my story begins back in 1944, after my older brother was born… because I was born in December of 1945 after my father had had a vasectomy.
It was a time when mainly men were in charge of birth control, through the use of prophylactics and vasectomies, although vasectomies were not prevalent until the late 50’s and early 60’s. Think about it, men practicing birth control, what a novel idea that is today, and nobody questioned them about it… no government interference, just make the appointment and spend the next 3 days with an icepack, and if they’re smart they do it during football season so they can lay on the couch, drink beer and eat chips.
Now it’s 1960 and my mom is pregnant with #6 … she’s now 44 years old and completely devastated by the news. She asked her OB GYN about an abortion because at her age the chance of this baby being born with one or more birth defects was much greater. She was told that abortion was illegal and that her life was not at risk, so in desperation my mom took all of prescription medications she could find in the house and stumbled off of the hill behind our house. She wasn’t hurt, but she had a bad case of poison oak and was out cold for 3 days, but I guess her mental well-being wasn’t a consideration. My youngest brother was born in May of 1961, and yes, my father had another vasectomy.
Then in 1963 I got pregnant in the back seat of a 58 Ford, on Prom Night, in my senior year of H.S… it was the first time I’d ever had intercourse… Did I mention my last name was Fields… they called us the fertile Fields.
Back in 1963 you had two choices… get married or go back East to a home for unwed mothers and give your baby up for adoption… being a SINGLE MOM was not acceptable… so, given the CHOICE, I got married. Dennis was born in January of 1964 and because my husband was Catholic we practiced the RHYTHM METHOD, and Jeff was born in January of 1965. Then came the PILL and Colt was born in 1971. I switched to an intrauterine device called the DALCON SHIELD, but in 1976 found out I was pregnant again… right in the middle of running for city council… BUT, THIS TIME WAS DIFFERENT… My Doctor asked me what I wanted to do with the pregnancy… MY GOD… A CHOICE… I looked him square in the eye and said…”This must be my Girl, because God wouldn’t be that cruel.” I CHOSE to have a forth child, and her name is Eden… Eden is 35 now, with 3 children of her own.
Me, at the Capitol in Sacramento before the Rally
While the right wing pundits like to refer to us as pro-abortion...we are all in fact anti-abortion... I don’t know of a single woman that’s anxious and excited about having to undergo any medical procedure, let alone an abortion. What we are is PRO-CHOICE which is where the problem lies... Some people in Government, and certain Religious groups and yes, mostly men... think they know what is best for women and women’s reproductive rights. They are passing legislation many states to restrict a woman’s right to her own reproductive HEALTH choices, AND WE CAN’T LET THAT HAPPEN!
When Darrell Issa, (I’m ashamed to say he’s from CA) denied Sandra Fluke the right to speak at his congressional hearing, but had no problem picking 5 men to discuss a woman’s use of contraception… he unwittingly ignited a firestorm of protest culminating in this event, an event which is being duplicated in every capitol all across America.
In 50 states in 2011 there were over 1,100 bills introduced affecting women’s health provisions and reproductive rights – 135 have been signed into law.
38 states so far in 2012 are pushing for 450 new pieces of legislation – ALL aimed at restricting access or denying existing benefits of reproductive coverage and rights.
Wisconsin, Tennessee, Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, Iowa, Arizona, and New Hampshire have all voted to either defund Planned Parenthood, ban abortions after 18 weeks, establish personhood laws, ban coverage for contraception, redefine rape, or require unnecessary and sometimes invasive ultrasounds.
AND… for the first time we are hearing about opposition to the
Re-authorization of VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT.
Make no mistake about it... THERE IS A WAR ON WOMEN, and it is being waged mostly by MEN in the REPUBLICAN party because they want more control over women, and they have been systematically, passing laws that take away rights we have had for over 40 years, and they are doing it one state at a time.
A few years ago, right out there on the sidewalk a man was picketing with one of those horrendous signs of an aborted fetus, and he asked me for my support… BIG MISTAKE… After taking him to task for protesting something that is none damn business, I asked him this:
HOW MANY CHILDREN HAVE YOU ADOPTED from mothers that have chosen life, but are putting their babies up for adoption?
HOW MANY FOSTER CHILDREN ARE YOU RAISING from children taken away from parents that are unable to care for them or have abused them?
That’s right… these people PRETEND to be pro-life, when in fact they are PRO-CONTROL… they don’t give a damn about children AFTER they’re born… What the HELL… they don’t even want to see us breastfeed our babies in public… they only care aboutCONTROL, and CONTROLLING A WOMAN’S CHOICE. And this issue doesn’t just affect us women… it affects men and families as well. When a woman makes just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes, and has to pay up to 30% more for health care services, it affects that families ability to provide decent housing, food, education, etc…
This WAR ON WOMEN screws you men too… think about it…
1. BIRTH CONTROL helps men have MORE SEX… with less anxiety.
2. With birth control spacing out pregnancies, you have a healthier spouse and healthier kids.
3. The ECONOMIC BENEFIT… approx. $300,000 to raise a child to 18, that doesn’t include the cost of college.
NOW THAT’S A LOT OF BIG SCREEN TV’S, ROUNDS OF GOLF, AND FAMILY VACATIONS IN HAWAII.
BUT…
THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE PAST STRUGGLES OF WOMEN …
THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE SYSTEMATIC EFFORTS TO DISMANTLE ROE V WADE
THIS IS NOT ABOUT RUSH LIMBAUGH OR DARRELL ISSA, OR THE GOP
THIS IS ABOUT US…THIS IS ABOUT WOMENTHIS IS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF WOMEN
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT… the GOP has a TARGET… a PRIZE that they seek… they are after FULL and COMPLETE CONTROL over the SUPREME COURT, and that is why they are so DESPARATE to regain the White House... if they are allowed to appoint more ultra conservative Judges then they will be able to CONTROL WOMEN for decades to come.
WE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN...
WE MUST SHOW THEM THAT….
WE are sick and tired of the status quo.
WE are NOT PAWNS to be manipulated by men.
WE will NOT go quietly.WE will NOT roll over.
WE will NOT comply.
WE will NOT sit down.
WE will NOT shut up.
WE will NOT submit.
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO GO BACKWARDS IN TIME...
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE OUR DAUGHTERS AND GRANDDAUGHTERS SUFFER THE INJUSTICES SO MANY OF US HAVE FOUGHT SO HARD AGAINST.
WE CANNOT GO BACK... NOT NOW… NOT EVER…
WE MUST STAND UP FOR OURSELVES,
WE MUST STAND UP FOR ALL WOMEN,
WE MUST SET AN EXAMPLE FOR OPPRESSED WOMEN EVERYWHERE, BECAUSE IF WE DON’T ... THEN WHO WILL?
YES, We are at a pivotal point in the history of women – right here, right now.
And on November 6th WE have a MISSION… a MISSION to VOTE.
A MISSION TO VOTE FOR CANDIDATES THAT SUPPORT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO MAKE HER OWN REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES
A MISSION IS TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW.
A MISSION to restore the RIGHTS of ALL Women, ALL ACROSS AMERICA.
WE are CITIZENS of THESE United States …
We are EQUAL and we WILL PREVAIL !
Posted by Marcia Reimers at 1:27 PM
IMHO: Above looks like how I feel right now. Not a hint of the marches yesterday on national news that I've heard of. What, the marches never happened? Ah, it was just a bunch of women feeling their oats?
What war on women? Of course women make as much money as men, and men don't care what Rachel Maddow says.
Diane Brown "How many remember this reading? It was a part of every COMET session."
"COMET stands for Corpsmember Orientation Motivation Education Training. Something I used to teach new CCC recruits, not the celestial object crossing the sky or one of the critters pulling Santa's sleigh!"
MAXINE SAYS:
BLUE SAYS:
And I am angry tonight. Not a word about all the marches on National News as far as I've seen yet. I guess I'm angry because I'm scared. Who is controlling the media today? Why isn't the War on Women being talked about by every woman on TV? They can't all be getting paid off to keep quiet, can they? Are their jobs being threatened to keep them quiet? Can they really still the voices of the hundreds and perhaps thousands of women who marched yesterday? This media silence is eerie! It's like we didn't exist yesterday. I don't like the feeling of being invisible. For the first time in my life, I truly understand what Ralph Ellison was talking about in "The Invisible Man". What is happening here?
