May 19, 2012

Fine. Set an example for us. Go. Leave now, and go live in the slums of Calcutta.

"But faced with the choice of continuing to exploit the world's poor, or to join the world's poor, of course we want to preserve our privileged status."

LOL! Take from the poor and give to the rich, so that everyone can be really, really, poor - except for the 1%.

Buh-bye! Have a nice time in Calcutta! Before you go, would you like to buy a bridge? It's a smokin' deal! Call me.



I really hate Third Way 1% globalist propaganda spew with a passion. The fact is, people who have nothing have nothing to help others with.

Wouldn't it be better to overthrow the 1%, strengthen our country and people, and create within manageable boundaries and parameters, a nation based on real equality and a broad sense of human community? And then, when we have something of genuine substance and value to give, promote our egalitarian system to other nations? *Hey, y'all, look what we got. And it really works!

Of course, the Plutocrat globalists would never permit this; and they have the unlimited resources to crush the seeds of democracy before it grows.

Here is an example of what they are doing to Occupy, the activist arm of the 99%, 24/7, all around the world.

May 18, 2012

Thank you so much, Trumad. We see these issues here time after time.

First of all, I want to say that I'm very glad that Men have started their own DU Group, and hope that it will be an effective and productive tool for them to use in working out some the many issues and problems that men are forced to deal with as a gender group within our society.

That said...

Women almost universally acknowledge and honor the fact that men have to deal with enormous unreasonable societal and cultural pressures, just like women have to deal with enormous unreasonable societal and cultural conditions and pressures. It's just that these pressures most often, but not always, have different forms with regard to how they manifest and affect these two distinct groups, respectively.

I am a feminist, and have had many discussions with other feminists, both women and men, regarding the many problems men have to face as males in our society. From this perspective, I believe that I can with reasonable accuracy say that most women generally realize and honor that men have to deal with their own forms of cultural and societal baggage, and sympathize with men about these conditions.

But there seem to be a fairly large number of men who refuse to acknowledge and honor that these (respective) unreasonable pressures and conditions exist for women. They refuse to even acknowledge that women are sexualized.

And frankly, that's just really ignorant or flat out stupid; it's ludicrous in the face of both historical and present day fact.

These men, apparently believe that, somehow, the inequality that women have experienced throughout history magically disappeared at some undefinable point in the distant past, and that the inequality that women experience today is just some figment of our imaginations, and that this perceived inequality is a figment of of the imaginations of many men as well.


Photo: Glinda the Good Witch magically makes
women equal to men in American society,
July 4, 1977.

It is simply not a realistic or credible position. It's silly.

Obstinate Uncle Otis (pdf)

It is totally disingenuous for some men to not acknowledge that patriarchy, a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from, has not been the status quo of judeo- christian based western civilization throughout history and still exists (to a much lesser extent) in the US in the present.

Likewise, it is totally disingenuous for men not to acknowledge the many difficult struggles that women have had to undergo to gain what equality and rights that we have won for ourselves.

The refusal to acknowledge the fact that women do not experience discrimination and inequality in modern society is a manifestation of

Misogyny (play /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. According to feminist theory, misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny has been characterized as a prominent feature of various religions. In addition, many influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

May 16, 2012

We are losing a great Democratic legislator. Progressive, compassionate, insightful, intelligent,

and honest.

A toast, to a man of genuine integrity.


Remember this, old friends?

May 13, 2012

I don't believe that your approach would have been effective

I was trying to foster a discussion and raise awareness of a particular situation, so I used a comparison that would immediately trigger revulsion and shock in order to stimulate thought and hopefully make people understand that neither slur is acceptable.

This was because 3 jurors on a progressive board apparently believed that stereotyping women as dogs was just peachy.

The approach that I used was successful to some extent. It seems to have evoked a lively fairly discussion.

Do you really believe that asking a question in your view of a "meaningful manner" (which I believe is what I effectively did, BTW), in a woman's thread regarding women's rights and women's struggle for equality is going to end up in a way that is positive to both parties? Historically, this does not happen at DU, no matter how much of a "kinder, gentler" approach is used by women attempting to help gain equality at by posting their ideas at DU.

This thread is about equality, and about women's place in the collective consciousness of this culture. Both slurs were already out there, humiliating people, and they got a pass. My use of them as a communication device to draw attention and a parallel was warranted under these opportune circumstances, and was intended as a device to stimulate thought in order to try to change hearts and minds.

The intention of the OP was to face this issue head on and communicate directly, honestly, and effectively. However...

When having a discussion about racism, homophobia, and sexism, it is almost impossible to engage in open debate in a way that is positive to both parties, because the homophobia, racism, or sexism that exists within the subconscious of those who harbor these characteristics inevitably results in their desperate defense(s) of their subconscious prejudice(s).

The aforementioned "desperate defense(s)" often take the form of an oppressor trying to derail the primary issue of a discussion by attempting to set up a strawman argument, because they are frustrated and/because they cannot logically refute the ethical position of the oppressed minority.

It's often much like debating with a conservative. Their beliefs are so deeply rooted in their self-identity that they find it extremely difficult to change when presented with logical information that is contrary to their deeply rooted beliefs.

It usually takes an honest, thorough and profound self-examination of their personal consciousness/subconscious for a racist, homophobe, or sexist to entirely rid themselves of these negative characteristics. Most times they don't understand how these things even got there, because "this is the way it has always been", and "the way things are".

Sometimes, in order to change, we need to honestly examine ourselves and our motivations from outside the box.

Some catalyst is often necessary to trigger self examination.

A primary intent of this OP and resultung thread is to trigger thought that might provide that catalyst for change.

To help some folks to evolve.

May 10, 2012

Great post. This is very important.

I believe that there is a huge difference between "religious" people who have a genuine understanding of love, who I would call spiritual, and not religious, and those that blindly follow some religious dogma written in a book that they use as justification for the boiling hatred that arises from the fear, confusion, shallowness, and corruption of their essential consciousness. These latter selectively use scriptural verse that they believe supports and jusitifies the seething rage of hatred that exists in the darkness of their being, and thereby justifies the unwarranted harm, pain, and destruction that they wantonly inflict upon innocent others in the name of their particular "deity".

They totally disregard other scriptural verse that is contrary to their need to justify, express, and manifest their demented hatred.

I know some wonderful tolerant, loving, giving, sincere people who practice a faith. Awesome folks, very...Loving. They are also horrified by those who use religion as a means to manifest evil and hatred.

And then there are the demented, deluded authoritarian fundamentalists, whose entire existence revolves around their hatred of others. These are very sad, and dangerous creatures. They are without genuine, effective conscience, and if not restricted by reasonable laws, they would ruthlessly take control, through violent means, over those of us who believe in being tolerant of others, and have a "live and let live" attitude towards others.

Reasonable laws are the only way that we can ethically contain these unfortunate people from causing wanton destruction upon individuals and/or societies, because they are completely intolerant of people they view as different from themselves, and do not consider or recognize the fact that harmless, innocent others have a natural right to be different from them.

So, I totally agree with you, cleanhippie.

"

Believers on the left who say "I do this because of my religious views" empower those on the right who say "I do this because of my religious views." Only by taking the common view of "because its the right thing to do" and removing religion completely from the equation will progress be made.

"Religion is not something upon which policy or public values should ever be based on, because by doing so, it legitimizes those that also use religion to oppress and vilify."

Separation of Church and State is crucial to the recognition and preservation of human rights and justice in our society, and we should do everything in our power to insure that Church and State remain completely separate.

Religion has brought unparalleled and unfathomable death, destruction, and psychological and emotional torment to millions of completely innocent human beings throughout history, and continues to do so today.

The widespead, unwarranted, immoral persecution of LGBT persons throughout the world is a crystal clear current illustration of the great harm that religious people cause to innocent human beings.

And this is why we all must insist that religious people be prevented, by law, from being able to harm LGBT folks, or any other innocent group of people, in any way.

Because, in their religious zeal fueled by their crippling fear and burning hatred, they will work diligently and relentlessly to cause harm to LGBT persons, or any other group that they choose to hate, and this could even eventually turn into genocide under certain circumstances, if these insane people are not called out and firmly held in check by law. It has happened all too often in the past.

They have no remorse, because they believe that the harm that they so righteously and gleefully inflict upon others is the will of their god. They can justify any harm they do to others by writing it off as "god's will". After all, it says so right there in the book, in the particular chapter and verse they have selected to justify their mean lttle selves.

Right now they are using the system to harm us, as exemplified by the recent passage of the fascist amendment in North Carolina, legitimizing the unwarranted oppression of LGBT persons by the religious.

We need to call upon our Federal Government to stop this insanity. The LGBT community is basically defenseless as a minority struggling to withstand the onslaught of hate rained down upon us by this insane, hostile, religious majority that exists in many states.

Peace, Love, Light, Freedom, Health, Happiness, and Equality to all.

(If some of what I have written here seems harsh, well, I wrote it that way in the hope that any religious bigot who might read this would recognize themselves in the descriptions of the deadly monster, and upon reflection would have a change of heart, and work on becoming a reasonable, tolerant human being)

May 10, 2012

You know, I really am glad that the Prez is personally in favor of marriage equality.

But this states rights thing, it's no good.

A minority, especially one like our LGBT minority that has experienced centuries of institutionalized bigotry against it, should not be subject to the whims of a majority culture that has already been persecuting LGBT persons for centuries. We're sitting ducks for the bigots that infest most states.

President Obama has unquestionably, hands down, been the most LGBT friendly President in history by a country mile. And this was only one term. Given this trajectory, it seems probable that we may finally be recognized as first class citizens with legally protected equal rights by the end of his second term.

Two of the fascist justices on the SCOTUS are in their mid-70's. Scalia is 76, and Kennedy is 75. With any luck, one or both will be forced to leave the bench due to natural causes during Obama's 2nd term. (If I were a praying woman, I'd be on me knees nightly asking for these natural causes to occur). If just one of them goes, we get a SCOTUS majority, 5-4. If both of them go, we hit the jackpot, a 6 liberals to 3 conservatives bench. Justice Ginsburg is 79. I suspect she may retire soon, paving the way for Obama to appoint her replacement. Justice Breyer is 73, and may wish to retire by the end of Obama's second term.

Theoretically, we could have a 6-3 bench at the end of Obama's 2nd term. As a bonus, 5 of these liberal justices could be under 60 yrs old when Obama's 2nd term ends if he wisely appoints younger talent. And Justice Sotomayor would be 61. This would give us a SCOTUS majority for many years, barring tragedy.

The point is, the importance of obtaining a liberal majority in the SCOTUS sometime during Obama's 2nd term, with regard to our situation, cannot be overstated.

With a SCOTUS majority and a Democratic President, the odds of our winning the rights lottery during Obama's 2nd term are extremely good. Another Dem President and a SCOTUS majority in 2016 puts a lock on our rights forever.

So, these scenarios are one way we can overcome the states rights problem we now face. But we must re-elect Obama, despite the misgivings many of us have had, and then hope that nature acts in our interests with regard to SCOTUS.

So the moral of this tale is, if Obama is not re-elected, we are totally fucked. If he is re-elected, we could be impervious to legalized bigotry forever.

End of story.

Meh.

May 9, 2012

How about this:

"Thank you, Robin, for your kind introduction.

I have something to say to you all here, words that should not ever have been necessary for a Commander-in-Chief of the United States to speak. Unfortunately, circumstances have compelled me to come before you, the people of this nation, in the name of human decency, justice, and equality.

Before I begin, I would like to reiterate a statement made by the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a statement I hold dear to my heart, and I say it here, as it were my own:

"I say to you today my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: - 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"

"With this idea in my heart and mind, I, Barack Obama, in accordance with my duty as President of the United States of America, on this ninth day of May, in the year of 2012, proclaim that all persons whose equal human rights are not recognized within any State or designated part of a State, shall be then, thenceforward, be legally entitled, in the name of human decency, and protected by dictates and force of law, allowed to employ and enjoy their fully deserved human rights; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, in any efforts they may make in the exercise of their actual freedom.

Now, therefore I, Barack Obama, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons whose Constitutional rights and protections have been previously denied them in and by any state, are now entitled to full equal rights, and any abridgment of such rights by any state, whether or not said state has legislated to deny any of its citizens their justly deserved equal rights, is committing a crime against the People of the United States of America, in the entirety of that body.

I hereby declare that any and all state enacted legislation that now, or in the future, restricts or may restrict the equal rights of any citizen and or group of citizens solely based on their sexual or gender orientation, is now and forever moot, and hereby illegal, under auspices of the Constitution of the United States.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, even upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed to an Executive Presidential Order, declaring that every single citizen of the United States shall forthwith enjoy the same unequivocal human rights that any and all United States citizens are legally entitled to, under the protection of the Federal Government as authorized by the Constitution of the United States.

Thank you all for your kind attention. I hope you all have a wonderful day. I plan to."

(Apologies for this plagiarism of your wonderful Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln)

May 5, 2012

This is a very recent development in the scope of the overall history of

humankind.

For most of human existence, this was not the case.

The Lenni Lenape, Iroquois, Lakota, Cheyenne, Crow, Cree, Dineh, Apache, etc. peoples of this continent were certainly not paying any rent for their hogan, mandan, or tipi spots at the State Park, trailer park, or gated community.

The "Other species pay with their lives which seems a greater price to pay than a few bucks"concept expressed earlier in this thread totally cracks me up. No offense intended.

Are the mule deer, the carp, and the ravens paying with their lives, instead of paying rent? LOL!

Has grandmother box turtle, recently encountered in Pennsylvania with a human's initials carved into her shell, carved there by a foolish child several decades ago, been paying the price of her life for her existence?

No. Of course not. She has lived a free life, and paid no land payments or rent, as any sensible upstanding turtle would.

Turtle With Boy’s Initials Turns Up Alive 47 Years Later

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2012/05/04/turtle-with-boys-initials-turns-up-47-years-later-alive/

The wise person who is the originator of some of the white man's religions, understood this very well:

"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?"

Well, in reality, we're probably not worth any more than our avian sisters and brothers, but we are at least equal to them, I suppose.

All my relations.

/i]

May 4, 2012

I have a little story about Adam.

Somewhere around 15 years ago, my band was the house band for awhile at a legendary club at the base of a famous snowboarding mountain up in Washington St. Adam was a snowboarder, and was at one of our shows. He came up to me during a break between sets, and asked if he could use our bass player's bass and play some until we returned from break. I said, sure, and our bass player said it was ok, and we were all delighted to have a Beastie Boy jam on our stage during our break. Then he got up on stage with someone I didn't know, and I allowed this person to use my guitar.

Unfortunately, they were shit faced drunk out of their minds, and proceeded to play an astounding cacophony of sounds far removed from anything that might be recognized as music by other human beings. This went on for maybe 15 minutes in front of a pretty drunk but gracious crowd, and past the time when it was time for us to start our next set.

Finally the club owner, a crusty local business woman I'd known for several years, gets up from her bar stool and comes over to me, her trademark long brown More cigarette dangling from her lips, and looks me in the eyes and says, "Honey...that's your stage. and you need to get them off of it right fucking now".

It took me several attempts to get them to stumble off the stage, but I finally succeeded, much to their drunken displeasure.

Anyway, I had the unforgettable dubious honor of throwing a Beastie Boy off my stage.

Bon voyage, Adam. Sorry about that.

May 4, 2012

So then, at this point, it appears that Occupy is our only active hope

for freedom, democracy, and opportunity, in the US. The only hope the 99% has for constructively and progressively increasing their opportunities in the future.

There are some issues with this piece because it presents a narrow "absolute truth" with no source citations or significant descriptions of historical conditions, and may be a biased and duplicitous attempt at justifying the takeover of the Democratic party by the DLC/1%. But if that is the case, it actually backfires.

The article does paint an accurate picture of the impossibility of significant constructive change being enacted through the political/legislative process.

It fully supports the widely held Occupy position of remaining apolitical, because the political process is irrevocably broken, due to the fact that it is totally owned by the 1%, and operates solely in their interest. Furthermore, there are no political/legislative means for the 99% to ever wrest control of the process from the 1% in the future.

It's totally lose-lose for We the People. Voting is little more than an annual chance to say "hooray for our side, hooray for our guy" while politicians in both parties continue to operate in the in the interests of their 1% owners. Any honest, well meaning Democrats are totally handcuffed by the system.

This sucks.

The "hard cold truth" is that when you (the Democratic Party) sell your soul to the devil (the 1%), you become the slave of the devil. The devil owns you from that point forward, and there's no going back. You sign in blood and you take the money, and you're damned to hell forever.

And then the bank takes the farm anyway.

A hopeless lose-lose situation.

It's always just better to stand up for what is right, and to do what is right, and figure out an honest way to win without selling your soul for false promises from the 1% devil. You cannot gamble with the devil and expect to beat the devil at his own game. He owns the house, and the game is always rigged, and he's watching your every move.

I am not advocating not voting, because there are some good Democrats, and there are no good republicans at all.

At least if Democrats are in office, we will have a slower, more comfortable ride down the highway to hell, and can maintain a glimmer of hope that Occupy can beat the 1% devil by not buying what he's selling.

From my POV, that's the best we can hope for.

May Day in the media

http://occupycentral.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/your-inbox-occupied-may-day-in-the-media/