Its been a long time coming. Since the birth of the plowed field and domesticated beast, women have been regarded as property, along with other less significant parts of society. As hunters and gathers women worked side by side with men as equal members of the tribe. If she was a good hunter, she hunted and if she knew where the good foliage was, she gathered. No gender specific tasks barring child birth/nursing were necessary to maintain the tribes status quo. It wasn't until private property and lineage decisions demanded that all things be given personal value, during that time the first woman (probably) reluctantly decided to relinquish her own freedom and enter into one of the oldest social contracts ever. You provide food and protection and I'll give you a healthy heir.
Fast forward to any point in history you want and the story is the same, some guy thinks by way of winning some genetic crap shoot being born male, he is superior to women by natural selection. Its evolutionary social programming at its finest, and for the first time we are going to conduct a very telling experiment in attempts to undo this programming. Defense Sec. Panetta just changed the rules of combat allowing women for the first time to officially be on the front line in battle. This is where the experiment gets going. Not about some inferior female fighters, or distracted men in battle. Its all about sex.
To start, a 2011 Newsweek article says, an American service woman is more likely to be sexually assaulted by a fellow soldier than killed in battle, and that was written during two wars. Right now in the news at Lockland Air Force Base 796 cases of sexual misconduct were reported, and we know all these types of cases never get reported. So this is still a percent of actual cases. Generally it comes down to abuse of power, but in some cases like Gen. Petraeus it's just a sense of entitlement. Whatever you chalk it up to, Military life seems to be a breeding ground for sexual wrong doing. The Defense Dept. knows this and commissioned a task force to write a pretty paper about it. http://www.sapr.mil/index.php/annual-reports
So what does that have to do with hunter gatherers. When viewed as equals with shared sacrifices and common responsibilities, humans generally treat each other with respect. But like in the Stanford University prison exercise students given more power abused those with less, unprovoked and unmercifully. http://www.prisonexp.org/ Possibly giving women the opportunity to serve along side men in battle will cause women to be seen in their original form as equal humans, not as objects to be possessed, objectified, abused and thrown away. Not since we came in from our natural surroundings to gated gardens and hand plowed fields have women had the rights and respect they deserve. Hopefully the Armed Forces are thinking by leveling the battlefield so to speak, and by giving the female soldiers an opportunity to embrace all of the comradery that comes from staring death in the face and surviving it. Through strength, superior training and teamwork. The person you live through that with you probably wont rape nor will instructors look to intimidate with stars and bars. Hopefully it paints a more respected portrait of the female soldier and gives us new light to see women in all together.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Sunday, December 9, 2012
What's more personal than Suicide?
I don't really know what this says about me but I couldn't care less about the Royal Family. Kate's baby, The Queen mother, Buckingham whatever it's all the same to me. Aren't we here specifically not to lust over the Monarchy across the pond. If hearing about Kate's royal vomit wasn't enough, add suicide to the mix and you've got a story that's made for the likes of Rebekah Brooks' News Corp.
So a couple of radio guys call Kate's hospital posing as the actual Queen of England to nurse A, the hospitals only line of defense against unauthorized personnel. Clearly frazzled, and showing proper respect to her majesty she puts the seemingly obvious impostor through to nurse B, who spills the beans. Successful prank til nurse A goes and kills herself. Now people are saying the Dj's are responsible, for what? A guy catches his girlfriend in bed with another man, goes out and promptly commits suicide. Did his girlfriend commit a crime? A boss fires her employee, he walks outside and kills himself. Is she, or the company responsible? No. BofA forecloses on a home, the owner commits suicide is BofA at fault, well... yes but not in court. More responsible for the family's loss than the Dj's. In this case it's her fellow nurses and doctors that surely berated her for such a monumental blunder. Especially due to the poor impression.
One little discussed angle are the royals themselves. This could be a warning sign to all other commoners under the employ of her majesty the Queen. Do your part to preserve our dignity or meet the gallows, or a murder staged as a suicide. It makes the same point without the calling card of a public square. There has to be more info to come, or maybe not. This is the Royal family and the message has been received, exploit our privacy and feel our wrath.
No Radio personnel should be fired or even reprimanded for this. Now the police are getting involved and hopefully they put as much into the investigation of the radio stations role in this, as the co-workers who shared nurse A's final conversations and interactions. They are directly responsible for the state of mind that led this woman to take her own life. A personal decision by the way.
So a couple of radio guys call Kate's hospital posing as the actual Queen of England to nurse A, the hospitals only line of defense against unauthorized personnel. Clearly frazzled, and showing proper respect to her majesty she puts the seemingly obvious impostor through to nurse B, who spills the beans. Successful prank til nurse A goes and kills herself. Now people are saying the Dj's are responsible, for what? A guy catches his girlfriend in bed with another man, goes out and promptly commits suicide. Did his girlfriend commit a crime? A boss fires her employee, he walks outside and kills himself. Is she, or the company responsible? No. BofA forecloses on a home, the owner commits suicide is BofA at fault, well... yes but not in court. More responsible for the family's loss than the Dj's. In this case it's her fellow nurses and doctors that surely berated her for such a monumental blunder. Especially due to the poor impression.
One little discussed angle are the royals themselves. This could be a warning sign to all other commoners under the employ of her majesty the Queen. Do your part to preserve our dignity or meet the gallows, or a murder staged as a suicide. It makes the same point without the calling card of a public square. There has to be more info to come, or maybe not. This is the Royal family and the message has been received, exploit our privacy and feel our wrath.
No Radio personnel should be fired or even reprimanded for this. Now the police are getting involved and hopefully they put as much into the investigation of the radio stations role in this, as the co-workers who shared nurse A's final conversations and interactions. They are directly responsible for the state of mind that led this woman to take her own life. A personal decision by the way.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Mandate: A free pass to what exactly?
It seems some of our politicians haven't come to grips with the fact that we're living in a new era. An era where you can't hide behind your empty words or strategically chosen speaking engagements. It's time for one of these political party's to get a wake up call. I wont be holding my breath for the GOP to embrace the reality that America is moving on with or without them. It's the Democrats that I fully expect to get too comfortable with this victory, which was almost as much about not electing Romney as it was about electing Obama.
Don't get me wrong, Obama has a healthy list of accomplishments But that doesn't give him a pass to violate rights just because the rights aren't yours. Or are they? Under this administration minorities still get longer sentences for equal crimes. What about drone strikes, enhanced wire taps, indefinite detention of citizens, multiple war deployments without adequate medical attention. That's not Bush stuff, those are all issues Obama addressed.
The Dems think their victory gives them some philosophical breathing room. But the vote was a victory for the people against a vision for America we didn't want, not a Democratic power grab. Progressives must know that an Obama style Patriot Act is still the Patriot Act. Americans decided not to relinquish more freedoms for the illusion of safety. But what tools do the people have against a two term President coming off of an Election win, and his highest approval rating since 09. There is no lobbyist for the people.
Don't let him forget that we see what he does. When he does his Presidential twitter town hall meetings ask him about drones. Maybe some mainstream press will start asking him serious questions about killing citizens... after the Inauguration. Until then people can't loose sight of what they've always known, these people are politicians they use words to make money playing games with our lives. It shouldn't be a breath of fresh air when our rights are upheld by one. Our work isn't done. The same way people used the power of information to inform themselves about the possibilities of a GOP win and acted to stop it, is the way people need to be vigilant about the Obama led American governmental machine playing its part in keeping some of the institutions alive that limit our rights as citizens to freedom and equality.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
You speak softly..Now use the stick already !
When in recent history has speaking softly and carrying a big stick actually been effective? Isn't it all prefaced on being prepared to use it? Sure, during the birth of the statement some unassuming guy, carrying some head bashing club might seem mysteriously dangerous. It is the quiet ones you have to worry about, right. But now history is common knowledge, so if you've used that stick or carry it just for show, it will be known. The humility strategy is evolving.
Obama's debate performance is a perfect example of speak softly. But without evidence of his willingness to use the proverbial stick, his soft spoken demeanor doesn't command the same respect. The fight many wish to see from Obama but rarely do is sometimes explained away as not wanting to seem like the angry black guy or some sort of professorial authoritarian. People want somebody that'll stand up and fight for our common goals. And the truth is people will say those things, they already do. At this point one could argue that standing up would be more understandable than intimidating to Americans. And less contrived than always taking the high road.
Romney actively controlled the tempo and the tone of the event. He overpowered the moderator who in my opinion seemed outdated and unfamiliar with the type of information the public has and needed answers to. In the face of that reality, Obama can't only speak of philosophical differences and vague references to programs and issues we already know he stands for. Without evidence of standing up in this forum, for himself or things he believes in, Obama comes off as a quiet guy with a big stick who's afraid to use it. That's how Romney treated him. Romney: You don't like my facts, so what. What are you going to do about it? Obama: Hope somebody notices it?
Obama's debate performance is a perfect example of speak softly. But without evidence of his willingness to use the proverbial stick, his soft spoken demeanor doesn't command the same respect. The fight many wish to see from Obama but rarely do is sometimes explained away as not wanting to seem like the angry black guy or some sort of professorial authoritarian. People want somebody that'll stand up and fight for our common goals. And the truth is people will say those things, they already do. At this point one could argue that standing up would be more understandable than intimidating to Americans. And less contrived than always taking the high road.
Romney actively controlled the tempo and the tone of the event. He overpowered the moderator who in my opinion seemed outdated and unfamiliar with the type of information the public has and needed answers to. In the face of that reality, Obama can't only speak of philosophical differences and vague references to programs and issues we already know he stands for. Without evidence of standing up in this forum, for himself or things he believes in, Obama comes off as a quiet guy with a big stick who's afraid to use it. That's how Romney treated him. Romney: You don't like my facts, so what. What are you going to do about it? Obama: Hope somebody notices it?
Thursday, September 6, 2012
SF Mayor Ed Lee drives away the youth vote.
After the wave wave of power gained by the GOP in the Mid-Term elections, and the election of Barack Obama the emphasis placed on voting, from both sides is at an all time high. The outreach to gain the inner-city youth vote to match the enthusiasm of the republican base is more than important it's a difference maker. But how do you get young people to engage when overwhelmingly the impression is, no matter who's in office the general conditions where they live doesn't change. The average young adult doesn't vote for deficit reduction or medicare, they expect tangible change in their everyday lives. Realistic or not.
But democracy is slow, and immediate positive changes are few and far between. The logical school of thought is, I more than my vote is more consequential to the direction of my everyday life. We get some comfort when a person is in office that looks like we do, or seems to support our values but that isn't always what it seems. Case in point San Francisco mayor Ed Lee.
Lee, a Civil Lawyer. The first Chinese American Mayor of San Francisco and a Democrat. And though government is always larger than one man. One could reasonably expect our most basic fundamental rights not be infringed upon. Especially by someone who litigates civil issues. So when Ed Lee proclaimed his admiration of New York's stop and frisk program, to the point where implementation was an option. The justification of non participation begins to rear its ugly head. The implied logic that states regardless of the person or party, the important will still stand on the backs of those deemed less significant.
How could it be viewed any other way. A person makes his career fighting for civility seeks to implement one of the most unproven cruelly un-just laws in recent history. Off the wall for some, and par for the course for those seeking an argument to justify forgoing their right to participate. Way to rally the base Mayor Ed Lee, only you did it in the wrong direction.
But democracy is slow, and immediate positive changes are few and far between. The logical school of thought is, I more than my vote is more consequential to the direction of my everyday life. We get some comfort when a person is in office that looks like we do, or seems to support our values but that isn't always what it seems. Case in point San Francisco mayor Ed Lee.
Lee, a Civil Lawyer. The first Chinese American Mayor of San Francisco and a Democrat. And though government is always larger than one man. One could reasonably expect our most basic fundamental rights not be infringed upon. Especially by someone who litigates civil issues. So when Ed Lee proclaimed his admiration of New York's stop and frisk program, to the point where implementation was an option. The justification of non participation begins to rear its ugly head. The implied logic that states regardless of the person or party, the important will still stand on the backs of those deemed less significant.
How could it be viewed any other way. A person makes his career fighting for civility seeks to implement one of the most unproven cruelly un-just laws in recent history. Off the wall for some, and par for the course for those seeking an argument to justify forgoing their right to participate. Way to rally the base Mayor Ed Lee, only you did it in the wrong direction.
Equally stopped and frisked
Ever wonder why we still hear about the Aurora shooting, but we hear nothing about those cops that were shot in Louisiana by that separatist grouphttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/terry-smith-6-other-suspects-linked-sovereign-citizens_n_1806598.html. Or anymore about the guy that shot those Sikhs in Michigan http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0806/Sikh-temple-shooting-renews-fears-over-white-supremacist-groups-video. Did we ever hear anything about the guy that put the bomb in the path of the MLK day parade in Washington State http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/mar/09/announcement-expected-break-through-mlk-bomb-probe/
. Is it because the Aurora shooting is a safer subject. The act seems so abstract and random, rendering all commentary speculation because clearly the shooter has mental issues and left no clear motive why. Whats leftover becomes a debate on gun control, although important, it all but excuses the shooter and whatever drove him to commit his deranged act. There could be thousands of people on the verge of walking his path, but we will never know because our analysis in on gun control not the individual who commits the act. The Temple shooting and the other two noted cases are different animals all together. These crimes were committed by separatists and supremacists with clear visions and motives of what they thought should be done. With more facts in these cases it seems a reasonable discussion can be had on how these feelings are being nurtured and acted upon. So why no discussion? In order to properly discuss these types of crimes, the subject of racism why it exists and how it recruits needs to be placed on the table.
Generally speaking race is a tabu subject for mainstream news, it's usually reserved for special reports or lower rated minority centric shows. The mainstream speaks of racially tinged comments or dog whistles, but subtle slurs should get the same attention as the guy who wears the I hate N-words shirt with the confederate flag on the back. In some ways the under-coverage of these organised hate groups lends them some sort of warped justification that by not exposing them it's some kind of cry for help from the masses.
If properly covered how could profiling not be an option or topic of discussion. There's a database of these guys. Why aren't militia types stopped and frisked? Tim McVeigh, that MLK bomber and the guys that shot those cops aren't criminals, they're terrorists. What percent of citizens sympathize with these guys, without meaningful discussion we'll never know. With no applicable spin and the ongoing culture of new racists the best option is silence and hope it all goes away.
. Is it because the Aurora shooting is a safer subject. The act seems so abstract and random, rendering all commentary speculation because clearly the shooter has mental issues and left no clear motive why. Whats leftover becomes a debate on gun control, although important, it all but excuses the shooter and whatever drove him to commit his deranged act. There could be thousands of people on the verge of walking his path, but we will never know because our analysis in on gun control not the individual who commits the act. The Temple shooting and the other two noted cases are different animals all together. These crimes were committed by separatists and supremacists with clear visions and motives of what they thought should be done. With more facts in these cases it seems a reasonable discussion can be had on how these feelings are being nurtured and acted upon. So why no discussion? In order to properly discuss these types of crimes, the subject of racism why it exists and how it recruits needs to be placed on the table.
Generally speaking race is a tabu subject for mainstream news, it's usually reserved for special reports or lower rated minority centric shows. The mainstream speaks of racially tinged comments or dog whistles, but subtle slurs should get the same attention as the guy who wears the I hate N-words shirt with the confederate flag on the back. In some ways the under-coverage of these organised hate groups lends them some sort of warped justification that by not exposing them it's some kind of cry for help from the masses.
If properly covered how could profiling not be an option or topic of discussion. There's a database of these guys. Why aren't militia types stopped and frisked? Tim McVeigh, that MLK bomber and the guys that shot those cops aren't criminals, they're terrorists. What percent of citizens sympathize with these guys, without meaningful discussion we'll never know. With no applicable spin and the ongoing culture of new racists the best option is silence and hope it all goes away.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
The wheel of Oppression
The Chic-Filet controversy defines the differences between blacks and gays in their fight for civil rights in America. Neither plight is less important than the other, yet they are fundamentally different. When business owners wanted to refuse service to blacks the task was simple, don't let them in. If they complained, they would use violent tactics, and frame it as part of the blacks inherent violent nature. Then use the perception, as justification for not letting them in in the first place.
Gays on the other hand make it harder for transparent discrimination, because unless ones sexuality is volunteered, gays can successfully assimilate into society, using silence as their weapon. A weapon unavailable to blacks in their struggle. So public love for chicken was used to express hate for gays, and as a rallying cry to eliminate their rights. It's better than beatings and fire hoses but the goal is still the same. The kiss in was ridiculous and are as effective today as marching for justice.
So how now do we fight for our rights. Women, Gays, Hispanics and Blacks all have bounties on their rights in one way or another, and oddly enough by the same common enemy of individual freedoms. Separate we are the minorities able to be attacked on multiple fronts whenever their grip is threatened. But those four groups together become a clear majority, and are far more powerful than the regressive minds that look to retain the control they had before we realized the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Who will become the progressive Braveheart, and unite the clans against a common foe. Are our groups so egocentric that we can't see beyond our own path. Hate crimes, vaginal probes, self deportation, all acts that bolster GOP support. Not until the the progressive wheel of oppression randomly assigns the plight of one group to the other will we feel each others pain. Gay guys get internal ultrasound, blacks get deported, how about a constitutional ban on Hispanic marriage. And women forced to prove citizenship after being randomly stopped and frisked. Maybe then we will respect the causes that effect so many of our friends and neighbors. Until then we all stand divided, and one by one we will surely fall.
Gays on the other hand make it harder for transparent discrimination, because unless ones sexuality is volunteered, gays can successfully assimilate into society, using silence as their weapon. A weapon unavailable to blacks in their struggle. So public love for chicken was used to express hate for gays, and as a rallying cry to eliminate their rights. It's better than beatings and fire hoses but the goal is still the same. The kiss in was ridiculous and are as effective today as marching for justice.
So how now do we fight for our rights. Women, Gays, Hispanics and Blacks all have bounties on their rights in one way or another, and oddly enough by the same common enemy of individual freedoms. Separate we are the minorities able to be attacked on multiple fronts whenever their grip is threatened. But those four groups together become a clear majority, and are far more powerful than the regressive minds that look to retain the control they had before we realized the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Who will become the progressive Braveheart, and unite the clans against a common foe. Are our groups so egocentric that we can't see beyond our own path. Hate crimes, vaginal probes, self deportation, all acts that bolster GOP support. Not until the the progressive wheel of oppression randomly assigns the plight of one group to the other will we feel each others pain. Gay guys get internal ultrasound, blacks get deported, how about a constitutional ban on Hispanic marriage. And women forced to prove citizenship after being randomly stopped and frisked. Maybe then we will respect the causes that effect so many of our friends and neighbors. Until then we all stand divided, and one by one we will surely fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)