By Carrie Johnson
Sept. 1, 2011
The Obama Justice Department has been taking a more aggressive approach against people who block access to abortion clinics, using a 1994 law to bring cases in greater numbers than its predecessor.
The numbers are most stark when it comes to civil lawsuits, which seek to create buffer zones around clinic entrances for people who have blocked access in the past. Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, the Justice Department’s civil rights division has filed eight civil cases since the start of the Obama administration. That’s a big increase over the George W. Bush years, when one case was filed in eight years.
“There’s been a substantial difference between this administration and the one immediately prior,” says Ellen Gertzog, director of security for Planned Parenthood. “From where we sit, there’s currently much greater willingness to carefully assess incidents when they occur and to proceed with legal action when appropriate.”
Over the past two years, the Justice Department and FBI have been meeting with abortion-rights groups and medical providers all over the country to explain their work and talk about a federal task force designed to prevent violence against doctors and women seeking abortions.
The National Abortion Federation, which tracks violent incidents, says major violence is down since the 2009 murder of abortion doctor George Tiller. The man who killed Tiller has been convicted, and a federal grand jury is investigating the conduct of his alleged accomplices.
But Sharon Levin, a vice president at the National Abortion Federation, says there are still some signs of trouble, including two incidents this summer involving Molotov cocktails and the arrest of a man who told police he wanted to shoot two abortion doctors in Wisconsin.
by Dana Lane Taylor
August 31, 2011
Reposted with Permission
You can’t make this stuff up.
People assigned male at birth who express themselves in a feminine manner on a part-time basis constitute one vital component of that gender diversity. it is just as valid as transsexualism
Just as valid as transsexualism. Really! What the hell does that mean? Does Joelle suffer from transsexualism?
If Transsexual Separatists want nothing to do with the “Transgender Borg” and want off the “Transgender Reservation” (but ironically enough can’t seem to stay away from us to let us know their militant views), so be it. The Transgender Movement, Cross-Dressers included, will go on all the better without your bitterness, divisiveness and me-me-me theatrics.
Earth to Joelle. I am going to pimp slap you, fool! Do you realize that we have been colonized? Do you understand that “transgender” was created to “erase” transsexuals? Did you not see the interview of Yvonne Cook-Riley? Are YOU a woman who was born transsexual or are you just a full time crossdresser? I will do some research later to see how many articles you have published about “women’s rights”. It seems the TeeGee zoo only cares about the rights of men who like to wear women’s clothing.
Attention feminists! Joelle is trying to to help men break from the shackles of a patriarchal society. Yes, you can’t make this shit up.
Cross-Dressers help to liberate men from the shackles of patriarchal masculinity. Feminism has gone a long way to liberate women and men in this society. But it is incomplete because men are still so heavily policed from cradle to grave based on their placement in the category “male.”
Joelle’s outlook on men who target women as a fetish. WOMEN’S RIGHTS!!!
Because the fetish community is also part of our community—deal with it! Now let me be clear: not all Cross-Dressers consider their activity a fetish (in fact most probably don’t) and some receive sexual gratification from cross-dressing and some don’t. But here’s the thing: I stand in complete support of Cross-Dressers who do so solely or primarily for sexual gratification.
I just can’t continue. Go read this piece of crap yourselves if you want. THIS is transgender. THIS is what transgender rights means. To minimize women’s rights, minimize the transsexual condition, so that men can jerk off in women’s panties. WAY TO GO JOELLE! Joelle fully supports “women’s rights” as long as they are just part-time women.
Again, “Transgender” is the transgender communities’ worst enemy.
Joelle Ruby Ryan, would you be willing to stand in front of lawmakers when a law is being passed for transgender and transsexual protections that include public accommodations and give that speech? Would you? Ask Monica Roberts, Toni D’Orsay, Monica Helms and all of the other transgender leadership if they would want you speaking for the transgender community. They won’t be able to answer yes. Why? Because unlike you, they refuse to acknowledge this stuff. Why? Because society would tell you to go fuck yourself.
Dana Lane Taylor
Be sure to visit TS/IS Liberation
From Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/01-13
This Labor Day, as union membership falls to a mere seven percent of private sector workers and bargaining and political clout shrink to match, two roads diverge for American labor. One is to attempt to find a niche within an economic-political system that is ever more shaped by short-term greed and is therefore ever more unsustainable economically, socially, and environmentally. The other is to align with the long-term interest of workers in transforming that system to provide for a sustainable future for the planet and its people. Organized labor will have a better future if it chooses the second road.
Labor has always had two hearts beating within a single breast – one representing a particular group of workers, the other responding to the wider needs of working people as a whole. But now unions can only protect their members by championing the interests of all working people.
The Tea Party is intent on wiping out collective bargaining in the public sector. Corporations are wiping out what is left of it in the private sector. Faced with these assaults, labor will inevitably be tempted to hunker down and defend the immediate interests of its remaining members. But that will just accelerate its decline.
The Wisconsin demonstrations and sit-ins supporting labor rights show that labor can win broad public support when it is perceived as fighting for broad public interests, rather than the “special interests” of one union or group of workers.
The broad public interest that ordinary Americans truly seek is sustainability. Even those who are misled into believing that government budget deficits are the greatest threat to our future are motivated by a concern to put that future on a sustainable basis.
Our greed-driven society is economically unsustainable – witness the renewed catastrophe of the global economy. It is socially unsustainable – witness the destruction of the middle class and the polarization of rich and poor worldwide. And it is environmentally unsustainable – witness the melting of the Arctic, the rise in sea levels, and the unprecedented increase in extreme weather events caused by our failure to halt climate change.
Continue reading at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/01-13
Ever notice how citing Virginia Prince as the coiner of the term “Transgender” causes the members of both Transgender Inc and the Transgender Borg to go into fits of twisted syntactical word salad as they try to argue that the Prince of many names didn’t actually coin the word.
The reality is that transgender is just another word for transvestite. Prince was constantly coining terms to replace transvestite and transvestism. Femmephile. He coined the concept of “gender expression”.
Transgender had nothing to do with Stonewall. The people Transgender Inc and the Borg claim were either drag queens or transsexual. I feel safe in saying this as I know the level of homophobia present in Tri-Ess and the other heterosexual transvestite organizations.
I can equally safely say there weren’t transgender people at the Compton Cafeteria Riot but there were drag queens and transsexuals.
I remember reading Darrell G Raynor’s strange little book A Year Among the Girls about heterosexual transvestites and Casa Suzanna way back in the 1960s and thinking, “This is freaking bizarre. These people are freaks.”
The whole idea of heterosexual transvestism seemed totally odd to me as an emerging transsexual. I didn’t have a problem with drag queens. While getting a sex change operation seemed pretty impossible in 1967, involving places like Casablanca and all, being a drag queen with a hip boy friend seem doable.
I associated sex identity with sexuality at that point and there were enough young men who made my heart go pitta-pat for me to see living as a woman and having a boyfriend as plan B.
I left home later that year. Was more or less told to get out.
I went to San Francisco because I had heard that there were places there where a person with transsexualism could find support.
I found them and doctors who made what I had thought nearly impossible just months before easily doable.
I also discovered transsexuals had next to nothing in common with drag queens, even with the drag queens who lived full time as women.
I heard the nasty comments about the genitals of post-SRS women. Things like, “Mutilated man”, “Dead hole.”. Today’s transgender Borg think they are some how being creative or thinking for themselves when they come up with these slurs but they are in fact simply repeating shit that the queens and transvestites of the 1960s and early 1970s said.
The following is part of the history of the Transgender Borg and Transgender Inc you will not hear from Christan Williams or anyone else who would rather present revisionist history that makes it appear as though the Transgender as Umbrella movement had its roots in the drag queens of the Gay and Lesbian Movement or in the early Transsexual Movement.
Transgender as umbrella has its roots in the heterosexual transvestite movement, many of whom later came out as transsexual and perpetuated their own mythology as to how it was impossible to like women or have been married and gotten SRS even though Dr. B.’s book mentioned people who had been heterosexually married prior to coming out. As did one of the earliest memoirs, The Roberta Cowell Story. She got SRS in 1952 shortly before Christine.
From The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/garden/07trann.html?pagewanted=2
THERE was a pilot and a businessman, an accountant, a librarian and a pharmacologist. There was a newspaper publisher, and a court translator. By day, they were the men in the gray flannel suits, but on the weekends, they were Felicity, Cynthia, Gail, Sandy, Fiona, Virginia and Susanna. It was the dawn of the 1960’s, yet they wore their late 50’s fashions with awkward pride: the white gloves, the demure dresses and low heels, the stiff wigs. Many were married with children, or soon would be. In those pre-Judith Butler, pre-Phil Donahue days, when gender was more tightly tethered to biology, these men’s “gender migrations,” or “gender dysphoria,” as the sociologists began to call cross-dressing, might cost them their marriages, their jobs, their freedom.
And so they kept their feminine selves hidden, except for weekends at Casa Susanna, a slightly run-down bungalow camp in Hunter, N.Y., that was the only place where they could feel at home.
Decades later, when Robert Swope, a gentle punk rocker turned furniture dealer, came across their pictures — a hundred or so snapshots and three photo albums in a box at the 26th Street flea market in Manhattan — he knew nothing about their stories, or Casa Susanna, beyond the obvious: here was a group of men dressed as women, beautiful and homely, posing with gravity, happiness and in some cases outright joy. They were playing cards, eating dinner, having a laugh. They didn’t look campy, like drag queens vamping it up as Diana Ross or Cher; they looked like small-town parishioners, like the lady next door, or your aunt in Connecticut.
Mr. Swope was stunned by the pictures and moved by the mysterious world they revealed. He and his partner, Michel Hurst, gathered them into a book, “Casa Susanna,” which was published by Powerhouse Books in 2005 and reissued last spring, and which became an instant sensation, predictably, in the worlds of fashion and design. Paul Smith stores sold it, as did the SoHo design store and gallery Moss, which made a Christmas diorama of a hundred copies last year. Last month, you might have seen it in the hands of a child-size mannequin in the Marc Jacobs store on Bleecker Street.
Casa Susanna was owned by Susanna herself — the court translator, otherwise known as Tito Valenti — and Valenti’s wife, Marie, who conveniently ran a wig store on Fifth Avenue and was happy to provide makeover lessons and to cook for the weekend guests. It was a place of cultivated normalcy, where Felicity, Cynthia, Gail, Fiona and the others were free to indulge their radical urges to play Scrabble in a dress, trade makeup tips or walk in heels in the light of day.
“These men had one foot in the mainstream and the other in the margins,” Mr. Hill said the other day. “I’m fascinated by that position and their paradox, which is that the strict gender roles of the time were both the source of their anxiety and pain, and also the key to escaping that pain.”
“It was the most remarkable release of pressure, and it meant the world to me then,” he said. “I’d grown up in a very conventional family. I had the desire to marry, to have the house, the car, the dog. And I eventually did. But at that point there were all these conflicting desires that had no focal points. I didn’t know where I fit.”
Sandy remembers one weekend sharing a cabin with another man and his girlfriend. “She obviously accepted the situation with him for better or worse,” Sandy began. “Anyway, I didn’t get dressed until later in the day, and when I did, the girlfriend was just coming down the stairs. ‘Oh my,’ she said, ‘you certainly have made a change. I have to tell you, I much preferred the person who got out of the car.’ And with that she reached under my dress and groped me. She said, ‘It’s a shame to have all that locked up in there.’ In one sense, it was titillating, in another, depressing. And yet in another way, it put a finger on the issue.”
Complete article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/garden/07trann.html?pagewanted=2
In spite of what the identity politics folks would have you believe, being African American doesn’t make Obama a progressive. But for some folks his being African American is the most important aspect of his being, and that goes for some of his die hard supporters as much as it does for the racists who hate him because he is black.
I voted for Obama. That was because he was supposedly a Democrat. He’s a DINO and because I’m a Yellow Dog Democrat I’ll probably have to vote for him again. But he won’t get a dime from me.
To me he is an African American George W. Bush. He models himself after Reagan, arguably one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had. He is a worse corporate toady than Clinton and has totally sold out the working class to Wall Street.
When this country needed another FDR or even LBJ we wound up stuck with George Bush 3.0, the African American version.
President Barack Obama Friday announced that he would overrule the Environmental Protection Agency’s controversial anti-smog regulations. Business leaders and Republicans had voiced strong objections to the new smog standards, and they count Obama’s decision as a victory.
Obama cited a desire to avoid costly regulations as his reason for telling EPA Director Lisa Jackson to withdraw the smog rule.
Depending on how strict the standards were, the new smog rules were estimated to cost between $19 billion and $90 billion, according to Forbes.
“I want to be clear: my commitment and the commitment of my administration to protecting public health and the environment is unwavering,” Obama said in a statement sent by the White House. “I will continue to stand with the hardworking men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution.”
The rule will be reconsidered in 2013, Obama said, and it was pointless to pay for regulations that would be so soon up for redrafting.
Last week, Obama was chided by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) for the number of governmental regulations under consideration as well as the amount of regulations with costs exceeding $1 billion.