Not My Problem

I’m really tired of the banning of words. I’m really over the passive aggressive bullshit about trigger warnings from people who use their ultra sensitivity as a club and a way of demonstrating their superiority.

Yeah I grew up poor, working class and bullied.

Yes I have been raped.  On more than one occasion I have had my life threatened by people who had weapons in hand and were quite capable of murdering me.

I have been subjected to slurs and discrimination.

When I have been knocked down I got up again.  I have grieved for my losses and celebrated my personal victories.

In Texas we call that Cowgirling up.  It means getting back on a horse after having been thrown.

Words are not the problem.  Banning words does nothing to change the reality of discrimination.

It is action with out real results.  Sort of like Occupy.

Directionless wankery.

Activist image polishing and brand building, a way of demonstrating one’s political sensitivity creds.

The following is a post that appeared on Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:  http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/not-my-problem.htm

By Susan Callaway, aka Mama Liberty
July 15th, 2014

Not my problem. I’m sure a lot of people would consider that a harsh thing to say, but if you’ll stay with me a bit you should easily see that it is the only real answer to the whole “politically correct” thing sweeping this country and, incidentally, the world.

“You made me mad. You didn’t make me happy. I’m offended.” You can probably add a hundred more such phrases people use to control what you do, say and even what you believe. That’s exactly what happens when a few people can choose any word or object, assign a specific (often NEW and ugly) meaning to it, and then demand that nobody use that word or object because it “makes them feel”… whatever.

Let’s look first at the premise that someone can actually “make” another person FEEL anything. How does that work, exactly? Vulcan mind meld? Is it not a fact that each person simply REACTS to outside stimulus, and the perception of sad, mad, happy, etc. is actually their own response? That response can most certainly be painful, even harmful psychologically in vulnerable people, but the person who supplies the stimulus is not, therefore, actually responsible for the feelings because he/she has no control over what another person perceives or what their response will be. The person with the feelings is actually the responsible person and, to a great extent, chooses the response based on their own beliefs and preferences. History is replete with every kind of race, tribe and ethnic conflict, but none of it can shift true responsibility from the person with the feelings to someone else.

A great many people have lost sight of that fact, and the new privileged classes have managed to politicize their hurt feelings into actual laws, criminalizing the words and actions their feelings and perceptions find objectionable. Criminalization of ordinary words and inanimate objects does not seem like a good path toward a polite and peaceful society. Recent history seems to support the more rational conclusion that attempting to force people to do and say things results in escalating resentment and even hatreds.

But of course, the shoe does not fit at all on the other foot. I think it is clear to most people how many screeds and threats come from the mouths and pens of certain “protected” persons (and those who shill for them) against anyone they perceive as not obeying their demands. Somehow, it is impossible for them to be “racist” or “hateful,” and their written and spoken threats are never seen as damaging to those they say should be caged, murdered or worse.

For some reason, the privileged one believes he/she should be able to dictate how others speak or act, yet totally rejects any limitations on their own behavior. How does that work? If mere words are seriously harmful, why doesn’t that work both ways?

I never have, and never would, deliberately say or do anything intended to harm, insult, demean or harass any other person, always seeking to be courteous and non-threatening. I simply don’t ever intend to have someone else define that for me… especially with threats and violence under color of law. I absolutely refuse to accept any false guilt for speaking my mind, especially when that false guilt is predicated on things my long dead ancestors did, or might have done.

Seems to me that responsibility for “feelings” has to be handed back to the people who actually own it.

 

Regarding “Generation Wars”: some reflections upon reading the recent Jack Halberstam essay

From Whipping Girl:  http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2014/07/regarding-generation-wars-some.html

By Julia Serano
Sunday, July 13, 2014

Jack Halberstam recently published an essay called You Are Triggering me! The Neo-Liberal Rhetoric of Harm, Danger and Trauma, and it’s been making waves on the activist internets over the last week. It felt like a bit of a “kitchen sink” article to me, in that it discussed a plethora of different matters (including Monty Python, historical debates between second- and third-wave feminisms, current controversies surrounding the word “tranny,” the recent proliferation of trigger warnings, supposed connections between expressions of trauma and neoliberalism, safe spaces, “It Gets Better” campaigns, and concerns about millennials being hypersensitive) and attempted to weave them into one nice neat coherent narrative. This narrative could be summarized as follows:

queer & trans culture and politics circa the 1990’s was strong, progressive, and fun!

whereas queer & trans culture and politics circa the 2010’s is frail, conservative, and a killjoy.

While Halberstam’s essay made a few points that are certainly worthy of further exploration and discussion, it also overreached in a number of ways, especially in its attempts to shoehorn a potpourri of recent events and trends into the aforementioned overarching narrative. Some concerns that I have about the essay have been addressed by others here and here and here and here (sorry, original posting of that response was here) and here.

I generally do not respond to every essay that I disagree with on the Internet (as that would be a full time job!). But I wanted to add a few thoughts to this discussion because, while the essay in question is uniquely “Halberstamian” in its style and themes, the overarching narrative that holds the piece together is remarkably similar to the one recently forwarded by Andrea James, and resembles recent comments made by RuPaul. Indeed, it seems as if queer and trans folks who came of age around the 1990’s (ostensibly my generation, give or take a few years) are increasingly invoking this as the “go-to” narrative to explain why a younger generation of queer and trans activists behave the way that they do. And I think that the assumptions that prop up this narrative are in dire need of unpacking.

on having to walk uphill, both ways, in a foot of snow, everyday, on your way to school, back when you used to be a kid

I think that a useful place to start is with the “four Yorkshire men” Monty Python sketch that Halberstam invokes as a metaphor for the “hardship competitions…among the triggered generation” (which is to say, how young people today are supposedly constantly complaining about how hurt and oppressed they are by relatively minor things, such as “a cultural event, a painting, a play, a speech, a casual use of slang, a characterization, a caricature and so on”).

Now personally, I always understood that Monty Python sketch as making fun of how people, as they get older, tend to glorify their own past: imagining the hardships they faced as being especially challenging or severe, thereby allowing them to self-conceptualize themselves as being especially resourceful, righteous, cunning, and perseverant for having survived despite overwhelming odds. And this human tendency has historically enabled older generations to outright dismiss younger generations as being misguided, or especially soft (because “they have it so much easier than we did”), and so on.

The notion that queer and trans people of my generation were somehow stoic and resilient, whereas the younger generation of queer and trans people are a bunch of oversensitive crybabies seems to be quite a stretch. I can attest to the fact that we too complained about how oppressed we were, and we often expressed our hurt feelings in public, and we often became outraged about particular language choices or media depictions that we found problematic. The main difference is that we (in glorifying our own past) tend to believe that the causes that we fought for were righteous and justified, whereas the younger generation’s causes and concerns may seem misguided and frivolous to us.

One blatant example of this sort of hypocrisy can be found in RuPaul, who with one hand dismisses concerns of a younger generation of activists who find the word “tranny” problematic, while with the other hand types angry Tweets at people who use the word “faggot” (which he considers to be a “derogatory slur”). The logic here is totally inconsistent. Such actions only make sense if he (and those who agree with him) privileges political stances taken by his own generational cohort over those taken by a newer generation.

Continue reading at:  http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2014/07/regarding-generation-wars-some.htm

Bombshell Study: America’s Wealthy Even More Obscenely Rich Than Anybody Thought

From Alternet:  http://www.alternet.org/economy/bombshell-study-americas-wealthy-even-more-obscenely-rich-anybody-thought

Wealth inequality in the U.S. is even more astounding than previous statistics showed.

By Lynn Stuart Parramore
July 16, 2014

Just when you think you’ve got a handle on how bad wealth inequality is in America’s Second Gilded Age, researchers find it’s even worse than you imagined.

The European Central Bank has crunched the numbers and it looks like wealth inequality in the U.S. is even more astounding than previous statistics have shown. Of the 10 rich countries the researchers analyzed, America’s wealthy have grabbed the largest portion of the country’s wealth. The most affluent 1 percent is sitting on between 35 percent and 37 percent of the nation’s wealth, according to  a working paper by ECB senior economist Philip Vermeulen. The Federal Reserve figure that has been previously cited had the 1 percent’s share at 34 percent. But actually it looks like that’s a lowball figure.

Economists studying wealth have been dealing with the fact that when you reach the stratosphere, wealth becomes a sort of dark matter. It’s got a huge gravitational pull, but it’s very hard to trace. It likes to hide, and slip over borders and between bank accounts in the blink of an eye. Vermeulen calls the billionaires whose wealth manages to evade researchers the “missing rich.”

Unfortunately for researchers, rich people don’t tend to respond to surveys that aim to study their wealth; some don’t have the time, but undoubtedly many just don’t want anyone getting their mitts on that sensitive information. So researchers have to figure out other ways to track wealth, including the popular Forbes’ billionaires list, which, while not entirely accurate (it misses a lot of people, like dictators whose money derives from the state), at least makes an attempt to shine a light on the wealth amassed by global tycoons.

Vermeulen warns that even what’s been revealed so far doesn’t give the whole picture. “The results clearly indicate that survey wealth estimates are very likely to underestimate wealth at the top.” You heard that right. Even 37 percent is probably not high enough.

In other countries Vermeulen’s report studied, the 1 percent have also been getting a bigger share of the pie, like the Netherlands, whose rich now hold 17 percent of wealth, up from 9 percent. The French and Spanish wealthy have also increased their share by a couple of points.

Continue reading at:  http://www.alternet.org/economy/bombshell-study-americas-wealthy-even-more-obscenely-rich-anybody-thought

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Prison

The Rise of the Non-Working Rich

From Robert Reich:  http://robertreich.org/post/91880951615

By Robert Reich
Tuesday, July 15, 2014

In a new Pew poll, more than three quarters of self-described conservatives believe “poor people have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything.”

In reality, most of America’s poor work hard, often in two or more jobs.

The real non-workers are the wealthy who inherit their fortunes. And their ranks are growing.

In fact, we’re on the cusp of the largest inter-generational wealth transfer in history.

The wealth is coming from those who over the last three decades earned huge amounts on Wall Street, in corporate boardrooms, or as high-tech entrepreneurs.

It’s going to their children, who did nothing except be born into the right family.

The “self-made” man or woman, the symbol of American meritocracy, is disappearing. Six of today’s ten wealthiest Americans are heirs to prominent fortunes. Just six Walmart heirs have more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined (up from 30 percent in 2007).

The U.S. Trust bank just released a poll of Americans with more than $3 million of investable assets.

Nearly three-quarters of those over age 69, and 61 per cent of boomers (between the ages of 50 and 68), were the first in their generation to accumulate significant wealth.

Continue reading at:  http://robertreich.org/post/91880951615

Elizabeth Warren EXPLOSIVE Floor Speech on Hobby Lobby Decision – July 16, 2014

Author of Texas Ex-Gay Plank Tied to Sex Offender

From Bilerico:  http://www.bilerico.com/2014/07/author_of_texas_ex-gay_plank_tied_to_sex_offender.php

Jerry Reiter
July 17, 2014

A sex scandal and cover-up slipped under the radar of the national media last month. News outlets were talking about the Texas GOP voting this month in favor of gay conversion therapy, a widely discredited imitation of real therapy, called “reparative therapy” that promises to “bring out the heterosexual” in gays, but something was amiss beyond the wackiness of the claim itself. I noticed the official party plank had an anonymous author. That gave me a hint there was more to the story.

I contacted the local Dallas reporter who wrote the original story about the plank. He kept his word to the Republican delegate to not reveal the man’s name, but inadvertently he gave me a few tiny clues. And I followed them, like bread crumbs, leading me down a path that led me to something shocking. It would involve an arrest for child pornography, multiple sexual assaults, and a kind of cover-up because, if the world knew the background of the author of the reparative therapy plank and the true-crime story of the reparative therapist who “cured” him, it could destroy any shred of credibility their cause had.

First, I found a fake (last) name, a connection to a “Jeremy Joel” with a website, Joel 2:25. I recognized that the title was from a bible verse, but I was shocked to see the verse was about a great locust invasion. Was he calling gay people locusts? In time I would find out it would be a better description of Jeremy’s reparative therapist, a man who is currently on probation for sexual assaults.

Jeremy could not release his real last name, Schwab, for a number of reasons, because he had been lying on video about how long he had been in reparative therapy, how long he had been living an openly gay life and a string of contradictory claims about his life, but most of all because of his own written statements in praise of a registered sex offender, Christopher Joe Austin, who had been his reparative therapist in Irving, a suburb of Dallas. Jeremy Schwab had gone to Austin weekly for five years, from 2002 to 2007, but had to stop when the reparative therapist was arrested on child porn charges and sexual assault.

Continue reading at:  http://www.bilerico.com/2014/07/author_of_texas_ex-gay_plank_tied_to_sex_offender.php

Economic Populism at Heart of Emerging Debate Among Democrats

From Common Dreams:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/07/11-0

by Robert Borosage

Over at The Washington Post, the usually sensible Greg Sargent endorses the notion that divisions among Democrats are “mostly trumped up.” The tension between the Wall Street wing of the party and the Warren (as in Elizabeth) wing is an overblown fiction of a press corps desperate for some action.

It’s true that the prior divisions on social issues have dissipated, as liberals have swept the field. Obama’s halting attempts to wean the US from its foreign wars have garnered widespread support. And on economics, Sargent argues that Democrats “largely agree on the menu of policy responses to the economic problems faced by poor, working and middle class Americans — a higher minimum wage, universal pre-K, higher taxes on the wealthy to fund a stronger safety net, job creation and job training — whatever the broader rhetorical umbrella is being used.” Even Hillary says she agrees with Thomas Piketty that extreme inequality is a “threat” to our democracy.

There are differences on how aggressively to go after the big banks or whether to expand Social Security, Sargent admits, and a debate underway about “whether to push the Democratic Party in a more populist direction,” which he declines to define. But generally, he argues, there’s broad agreement that Hillary or any Democratic candidate will run on.

All of this is true except the conclusion. There is a broad agreement on what might be called a “populist lite” agenda — one that has been put forth repeatedly by Obama and frustrated by Republican obstruction. And the reforms — from the minimum wage to universal pre-K — are important and will make a difference.

But it strikes me as bizarre to suggest that there is no serious debate among Democrats when the National Education Association, the largest teachers union in the country and a key power in Democratic circles, has just called for the resignation of Obama’s education secretary. Democratic House and Senate leaders refuse to allow even a vote on fast-track trade authority sought by the president, and a majority of the Democratic caucus lines up against Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. Progressives in both houses demand bold action on jobs, on taxing and investing that the president resists. Democrats revolt against the White House desire to trim Social Security benefits.

In fact, there is a fundamental debate brewing in the party, grounded on very different perspectives that lead in significantly different directions.

On one side are the passive voice populists, which include both Clintons and Obama. They argue that our Gilded Age inequality is the product of technology and globalization, as if these were autonomous forces like the weather. The effects — a declining middle class, stagnant wages, spreading misery — can be ameliorated by sensible policies, like the agenda Sargent ticks off. Most of all, Americans need to make certain the next generation gets better education and training so they can better compete in the global marketplace. Universal preschool is a first step to that. But the largest thrust — driven by the party’s deep pocket donors — is an assault on teacher’s unions and public schools, investment in charters, public and private, and a focus on high-stakes testing to measure teacher and school performance.

Continue reading at:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/07/11-0

There’s a fitness tracker for vaginas. Quantifying your life has gone too far

From The Guardian UK:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/14/fitness-tracker-vagina-quantified-life

Biofeedback is great … right up until you use it to get positive feedback from everyone you know


theguardian.com, Monday 14 July 2014

The other night, a friend told me that he was trying to spend more time taking cabs. This surprised me, because I happen to know this friend has a Fitbit, and that he’s rather proud of how far he’s walked under its watchful electronic eye. (I’m being polite: you never just “happen to know” that a friend has a Fitbit because they tell you on social media.)

The Fitbit – if you’ve somehow managed to avoid this – is a little dingus that records how many steps you take in a day and allows you to compete with your friends for the most steps or to post the results to social media. Aficionados will happily march aimlessly up and down the hallway if it means narrowly edging out the next competitor on their leaderboard.

So why was a step-counting devotee actively trying to walk less? “Look,” he told me, “not all my shoes are comfortable. Some of them are really nice. If I walk too far in nice shoes, my feet hurt. So, I’m trying to take cabs.”

It might be the first time I’ve heard a Fitbit user say something akin to “I’m not going to walk more right now, because I don’t want to.”

The Fitbit may have been the first tracker of its kind to go really big – though pedometers have been around for a while – but it has certainly many cousins. There are devices to track your sleep patterns (though Fitbits will do this as well), to keep an eye on your posture, to monitor your dog’s activity levels, to analyze the fuel efficiency of your car or tweet your weight.

Perhaps emboldened by this profusion of interest in data, last month a company called Mark One launched the Vessyl, a cup that analyzes the nutritional content of anything you put in it and tracks your sugar, caffeine, and water consumption. And the KGoal, touted as a “Fitbit for your vagina”, is currently crowdfunding on Kickstarter. The latter device looks like a silicone hand grenade and is designed to record your progress as you do kegels, the exercise for pelvic floor muscles that women do to improve childbirth, continence and – most importantly, in my opinion – sexual pleasure. To emphasize that benefit, the KGoal even vibrates when you’re doing your exercises right.

Like the Fitbit, these newest health trackers don’t come cheap; the Vessyl has a $99 promotional price and you can preorder a KGoal for $125, though the projected retail prices are $199 and $175, respectively. But, hey, how much is too much to spend to know that you’re drinking a soda or clenching your vag?

This stuff all sounds a bit silly, but I’m not enough of a curmudgeon to truly bemoan our national data fixation. It’s often easier to understand what to do with data than to evaluate how you feel, and devices that can quantify your walking or blood pressure or vaginal strength let you take advantage of that. If spending $199 on a cup or $175 on a vagina grenade is the shortcut you need to generate and pay attention to your caloric intake and pelvic floor muscles, for instance, then godspeed.

Plus, human brains respond directly to feedback about bodily functions: watching your heartbeat tracked on a monitor, for instance, gives you the ability to consciously slow them down with uncanny ease, through which you can eventually develop into a coping strategy for anxiety attacks and manage anger.

Having access to biofeedback – real-time data about your body’s functioning – has been shown to help people manage migraines, high blood pressure and even epileptic seizures. It is a powerful enough phenomenon that L Ron Hubbard essentially based a whole religion on it: Scientology’s e-meter is a biofeedback device. And, in the 1940s, Dr Arnold Kegel invented a biofeedback device to help woman improve their pelvic floor muscle exercises and manage urinary control – an obvious precursor to the kGoal, and the very origin of the term “kegels”.

But the pitfall of data devices – and the external sharing of information that they encourage or require – is that they hijack your reward pathways. Instead of walking because it makes you feel good, or because it gets you out in the air or (my personal favorite reason) because sometimes there is bonkers stuff to see in between point A and point B, you walk in order to improve your stats. This sometimes means you walk even if it’s a bad idea – if your shoes hurt, if you’re not feeling well, if it’s dangerously hot, if you’re running late – because doing otherwise will mean a black mark on your record. Your stats will slide, and your stats (and the ability to brag about them on social media) are your reward.

One friend tells me that, when her office did a step-counting competition, she was initially distressed because she couldn’t adjust the pedometer’s minimum “success” condition below 10,000 steps: she has fibromyalgia and isn’t always up for that much walking every day. But, chastened by her colleagues’ successes, she ended up trying valiantly to make the daily minimum – and subsequently spent at least one day per weekend asleep for most of the day, and had to take extra medication for pain in her legs and feet.

Continue reading at:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/14/fitness-tracker-vagina-quantified-life

Dept. of Defense: Chelsea Manning May Begin Transition in Prison

From The Advocate:  http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/07/18/dept-defense-chelsea-manning-may-begin-transition-prison

Nearly a year after her lawyer put in a request to begin hormone replacement therapy, it appears that the Department of Defense has agreed to treat Chelsea Manning.

BY Parker Marie Molloy
July 18 2014

WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning has been approved to begin receiving hormone replacement therapy while serving her 35-year prison sentence at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., the Associated Press reports.

This comes two months after an unidentified Pentagon source told the AP that Manning might be transferred out of military custody to be placed into a civilian prison for treatment and directly follows the Bureau of Prisons’ rejection of that Army request.

In lieu of transferring Manning from the all-male military facility to a civilian prison, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel reportedly signed off on a plan that will allow Manning to receive “rudimentary” treatment for her diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

Although the specific treatment to be provided was not detailed, Manning’s attorney, David Coombs, told the AP he is optimistic that such care will include hormone replacement therapy, widely recognized as a standard course of treatment to begin facilitating a gender transition and part of best practices for providing health care to transgender people.

“It has been almost a year since we first filed our request for adequate medical care,” Coombs told the AP. “I am hopeful that when the Army says it will start a ‘rudimentary level’ of treatment that this means hormone replacement therapy.”

Continue reading at:  http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/07/18/dept-defense-chelsea-manning-may-begin-transition-prison

Friday Night Fun and Culture: Elaine Stritch (February 2, 1925 – July 17, 2014)

California farms are sucking up enough groundwater to put Rhode Island 17 feet under

From Grist:  http://grist.org/food/california-farms-are-sucking-up-enough-groundwater-to-put-rhode-island-17-feet-under/

By
16 Jul 2014

California, the producer of nearly half of the nation’s fruits, veggies, and nuts, plus export crops – four-fifths of the world’s almonds, for example – is entering its third driest year on record. Nearly 80 percent of the state is experiencing “extreme” or “exceptional” drought. In addition to affecting agricultural production the drought will cost the state billions of dollars, thousands of jobs, and a whole lot of groundwater, according to a new report prepared for the California Department of Food and Agriculture by scientists at UC-Davis. The authors used current water data, agricultural models, satellite data, and other methods to predict the economic and environmental toll of the drought through 2016.

Here are four key takeaways:

  • The drought will cost the state $2.2 billion this year: Of these losses, $810 million will come from lower crop revenues, $203 million will come from livestock and dairy losses, and $454 million will come from the cost of pumping additional groundwater. Up to 17,100 seasonal and part-time jobs will be lost.
  • California is experiencing the “greatest absolute reduction in water availability” ever seen: In a normal year, about one-third of California’s irrigation water is drawn from wells that tap into the groundwater supply. The rest is “surface water” from streams, rivers, and reservoirs. This year, the state is losing about one-third of its surface water supply. The hardest hit area is the Central Valley, a normally fertile inland region. Because groundwater isn’t as easily pumped in the Valley as it is on the coasts, and the Colorado River supplies aren’t as accessible as they are in the south, the Valley has lost 410,000 acres to fallowing, an area about 10 times the size of Washington, D.C.
  • Farmers are pumping enough groundwater to immerse Rhode Island in 17 feet of it: To make up for the loss of surface water, farmers are pumping 62 percent more groundwater than usual. They are projected to pump 13 million acre-feet this year, enough to put Rhode Island 17 feet under.

Continue reading at:  http://grist.org/food/california-farms-are-sucking-up-enough-groundwater-to-put-rhode-island-17-feet-under/

 

California Braces for the Worst: El Niño May Be Too Little, Too Late to Save It From Drought

From Alternet:  http://www.alternet.org/water/california-braces-worst-el-nino-may-be-too-little-too-late-save-it-drought

The Golden State issues statewide water restrictions as it prepares for the worst shortage in its history.

By Cliff Weathers
July 16, 2014

California has imposed statewide water-use regulations for the first time as its three-year drought worsens. Yesterday, state regulators approved stringent new measures limiting outdoor water, which include $500 fines for using an outdoor hose without a shut-off nozzle.

Meanwhile, hopes that the drought would break by autumn have been tempered. The National Weather Service’s Climate Prediction Center downplayed the help that El Niño may bring to the drought-plagued West in its monthly report of Pacific Ocean weather patterns. While the Center is still projecting that sea surface temperatures will be warmer than usual—a phenomenon known as El Niño—it is now saying that the effect will be only “weak to moderate.”

The forecast strength of the El Niño was downgraded because Pacific Ocean temperatures near the International Date Line have not continued to rise since earlier this year when they were well above average. While strong El Niño weat​h​er patterns usually create more rain for California, weaker El Niños typically don’t bring more rains to the region.

The Center said that there is a 70% chance El Niño will develop by the end of the summer, and an 80% chance that one will develop by the early winter.

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology concurred with U.S. climate forecasts in a press release  yesterday. It further suggests that El Niño has been effictively counteracted by the arrival of cooler water.

All of California is under drought conditions and will likely remain that way through autumn. Reservoirs are precariously low in many places. The nation’s largest reservoir, Lake Mead in Nevada, is now at an all-time low.

It is the first time in 15 years that the entire state suffers from a water shortage. The U.S. Drought Monitor, a government-funded weekly map of drought conditions, says that the entire state now suffers from conditions ranging from “abnormally dry” to “exceptional drought.” Heavy-population centers all suffer from “extreme drought” or “exceptional drought.”

El Niño refers to a recurring weather pattern that develops in the southern Pacific near South America. Usually, scientists can predict El Niño a few months before it occurs. Researchers say it can spark droughts in Australia and increase rain and floods in parts of the U.S. and South America. Land areas bordering the Pacific Ocean are the most affected. El niño is Spanish for “the boy” and the capitalized term El Niño refers to the infant Jesus, because periodic warming in the Pacific near South America usually begins near Christmas. The most recent occurrences of El Niño were in 2006 and 2009.

Continue reading at:  http://www.alternet.org/water/california-braces-worst-el-nino-may-be-too-little-too-late-save-it-drought

California court backs Christian university’s expulsion of transgender student for ‘fraud’

I really don’t understand why any TS/TG or LGB person would ever go to a “religious” school.  Hell I don’t know why any self respecting woman would buy into the bullshit put forth by the Bible thumping bigots/misogynists.

There is no god.  There are only a bunch of manipulative power hungry scumbags peddling superstition and lies in order to further their own quest for power over people.

No fucking god, no fucking masters.

From Raw Story:  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/16/california-court-backs-christian-universitys-expulsion-of-transgender-student-for-fraud/

By David Ferguson
Wednesday, July 16, 2014

A California judge ruled Tuesday that a private Southern Baptist college was within its rights to expel a transgender student who applied to the school as female, but only as regards the school’s private courses. The student was found to have been discriminated against with regards to the college’s public facilities.

According to the Global Christian Post, the college was ordered to pay the student’s court fees and award her $4,000 in damages for denying her access to the public facilities.

Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask ruled in favor of California Baptist University, a private, Christian college in four of five claims against it by 27-year-old Domaine Javier, a nursing student who was expelled from the school in 2011. The school claimed that Javier had engaged in “fraud” by applying as a woman, although she has identified as female from childhood.

In her ruling, Trask wrote that California Baptist University is a private religious institution and can therefore impose its own strictures on students and faculty regarding sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The undisputed facts establish, as a matter of law, that for its on-campus educational activities, CBU is not a ‘business establishment,’” wrote Trask, and therefore is not covered under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits all forms of discrimination in businesses and public institutions.

Continue reading at:  http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/16/california-court-backs-christian-universitys-expulsion-of-transgender-student-for-fraud/

The sports ‘honey shot’ plays into the idea that the centre stage is for men

From The Guardian UK:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/09/sports-honey-shot-objectifying-images

Objectifying images of spectators imply that only men like sport, and that all men like pictures of lightly dressed women


theguardian.com, Wednesday 9 July 2014

It is known as “the honey shot” and we all know it well. Some delay is occurring in the (usually) sporting activity which is the main television event. We switch to a camera showing a section of the audience – a section carefully selected. There she is, front centre, a pretty young girl. Occasionally she is wearing very little. Occasionally there’s more than one – the much sought after “double honey shot”. Sometimes she will jump up and wave at the camera with excitement. Sometimes a lascivious voiceover will remark on her charms. And now back to the action.

It was pioneered by Andy Sidaris in the 1980s, an American football director for ABC. Originally it confined itself to leering shots of cheerleaders. Soon it spread to other sports, to showing “pretty young things” among spectators, players’ girlfriends, now even to music events. Anyone who watched coverage of the Glastonbury festival will have seen it. The shot’s aesthetic is almost always unabashedly pornographic. Sidaris went on to direct third-rate sexploitation movies involving former centrefolds. Some of his efforts can be seen in the Girls, Guns and G-strings DVD set.

I’m not going to pretend I have never admired someone beautiful. I’m not going to say that during Wimbledon I have not looked at a player’s legs and thought thoughts that do not belong in the national press. But when watching a sporting event, the athlete’s almost superhuman fitness, their shape and definition, the fact that they are physically extraordinary, is very much part of the natural admiration we have for sportspeople. I don’t see how shots of a player’s beautiful girlfriend – between every point, it feels like sometimes – add to that.

To me, the explanation is simpler and grossly offensive. It is this: only men like sport. All men also like “birds”. Let’s throw some “birds” in with their sport. And if you’re thinking it is all rather innocent and not objectification, consider that some (almost without exception) middle-aged, male director is sitting in a control room somewhere, scanning shots of the crowd, until he chances upon one and thinks “Phwoar! Yeah. Let’s show her.”

This is the flip side of John Inverdale commenting on Marion Bartoli’s looks just after she won the world’s biggest tennis event. We hand-wring about certain sports not attracting bigger female audiences, while tailoring them for men only – actually tailoring them for a lowest common denominator, a cipher in a director’s mind of what a man of his age and sexual mindset might want.

Recently, when I voiced my displeasure on social media about this practice, I got the full range of excuses. They included the perennial, “Why did she dress like that and wave at the camera if she didn’t want to be objectified?” Well, many reasons, actually. People find great joy in video evidence that they were at a big sporting event. They tend to wave to their family back home, not to your groin. Also, it was 35C in Brazil that day. Is the assumption that any woman wearing something light obviously wants to be ogled not a distant cousin of the “she asked for it” defence? In any case, that some women choose to pose for page three doesn’t make it any less objectifying or exploitative in the eyes of others.

Continue reading at:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/09/sports-honey-shot-objectifying-images

The Union vs. Corporate Showdown Has Officially Begun

From Common Dreams:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/07/11

by Shamus Cooke

The attack on the U.S. labor movement just sharpened with the Harris vs. Quinn Supreme Court decision, aimed at the heart of concentrated union power — public sector unions. When you add in the Obama-led assault on public school teachers unions and the Koch brother-funded “Right to Work” laws, the labor movement appears to be facing imminent ruin.

At the same time, however, a powerful counter-force has emerged: the union movement has won significant victories around the fight for $15 minimum wage in Seattle and Los Angeles, and is poised to win in San Francisco where the strongest measure yet is headed for the November ballot. These wins and prospective wins have sent shock waves through the country, showing what’s possible if unions and community groups take the initiative and focus on inspiring demands that resonate through the broader community.

The 2012 the Chicago teachers’ strike set an equally powerful example for unions, which has been studied by unionists across the country. Chicago teachers re-taught the labor movement the importance of the strike and the prerequisite internal democratic organization of union members. Once organized internally, members rallied community groups and the broader population over popular demands like stopping school closures.

These advances for unions in the face of intensifying corporate attacks are forcing labor relations to a crescendo. Organized labor has, at long last, realized that fighting back is their only salvation. The tension inherent in this dynamic is volatile, and will inevitably explode as corporations relentlessly attempt to boost profits at the expense of workers’ wages and benefits.

The above examples of labor’s involvement in the ‘Fight for $15’ and the Chicago teachers’ strike encapsulates all that unions need to do to re-gain their lost status as organizations that represent the broader working class, as they did to a significant extent in the 1930s, the 1940s, and the 1950s. The strategy is simple: workers inside unions need to be organized and inspired sufficiently to be able to strike, if necessary, while simultaneously fighting for demands for the broader community, like the $15 minimum wage.

Unions do not need flashy gimmicks or to re-invent the wheel. Of course, technological advances must be used while new demands and creative forms of protest should be experimented with, but Twitter and Facebook cannot replace face-to-face organizing and collective action, only complement it.

For years union leaders convinced themselves that “strikes don’t work,” based on the many that were misled and then lost. Instead union leaders searched in vain for labor’s equivalent to the philosopher’s stone, that magic “something” that would save the labor movement if only it were discovered. Since nothing “new” was discovered, in practice union leaders resorted to making backroom concessionary deals with politicians and corporations, and labor’s power slid further into the mire.

And while many unions seem intent on breaking out of this organizational-political straitjacket, others seem suicidally comfortable repeating the same failed tactics.

Continue reading at:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/07/11

The GOP self-destruction is complete: millennials officially hate conservatives

From The Guardian:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/14/gop-self-destruction-millennials-conservatives-backlash

The backlash machine has finally backfired with a generation that cringes at old people yelling at gay clouds


theguardian.com, Monday 14 July 2014

Conservatives are stuck in a perpetual outrage loop. The reappearance of Todd Akin, the horror-movie villain immortality of Sarah Palin, the unseemly celebration of the Hobby Lobby decision – these all speak to a chorus of “la-la-la-can’t-hear-you” loud enough to drown out the voice of an entire generation. Late last week, the Reason Foundation released the results of a poll about that generation, the millennials; its signature finding was the confirmation of a mass abandonment of social conservatism and the GOP. This comes at a time when the conservative movement is increasingly synonymous with mean-spirited, prank-like and combative activism and self-important grand gestures. The millennial generation has repeatedly defined itself as the most socially tolerant of the modern era, but one thing it really can’t stand is drama.

Republicans were already destined for piecemeal decimation due to the declining numbers of their core constituency. But they don’t just have a demographic problem anymore; they have stylistic one. The conservative strategy of outrage upon outrage upon outrage bumps up against the policy preferences and the attitudes of millennials in perfect discord.

We all can recognize the right’s tendency to respond to backlash with more “lash” (Akin didn’t disappear, he doubled down on “legitimate rape”), but it seems to have gained speed with the age of social media and candidate tracking. The Tea Party’s resistance to the leavening effect of establishment mores and political professionals has been a particularly effective accelerant. Palin’s ability to put anything on the internet without any intermediary has rendered her as reckless as any tween with a SnapChat account. Akin’s whiny denouncement of Washington insiders is likely to make him more credible with a certain kind of base voter. The midterms are, as we speak, producing another round of Fox News celebrities, whether or not they win their races: the Eric Cantor-vanquishing David Brat, Mississippi’s Chris McDaniel and the hog-castrating mini-Palin, Jodi Ernst of Iowa.

The fire-with-fire attitude of hardline conservatives has its roots in the petulant cultural defensiveness adopted by the GOP – especially the Christian right – during the culture wars of the 90s. Their siege mentality bred an attitude toward liberals that saw every instance of social liberalization as proof of their own apocalyptic predictions and conspiracy theories. Gay marriage will lead to acceptance of beastiality and pedophilia. “Socialized medicine” will lead to the euthanizing Grandma. Access to birth control will lead to orgies in the streets.

Continue reading at:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/14/gop-self-destruction-millennials-conservatives-backlash

Debi Jackson reading “That’s Good Enough”

Mom Jailed for Sending 9-Year-Old Daughter to the Park

WTF?  I grew up in 1950s small town Northeast USA.  At 8 and 9 I was free to run in the fields, go to movies or the library by myself, ride my bicycle all over town and go fishing and swimming by myself.

We are severely damaging our children with this hyper vigilance/ hyper protective smothering.

Of course the mother is black and our racist police/prison industrial state has criminalized that and does anything in its power to get people of color into the system.

From Alternet:  http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/mom-jailed-sending-9-year-old-daughter-park

She’s being charged with a felony for letting her daughter play in the park alone while she was at work.

By Tana Ganeva
July 14, 2014

A South Carolina woman, who failed to use the income she makes working at McDonald’s to hire a nanny, let her 9-year-old daughter go to the park by herself while she was at work…in the middle of the day! To face, all alone, such dangers as the other children playing in the park and their parents.

Some of those parents reported her and now our criminal justice system is on it, making everything better by jailing the mother and putting her daughter in the custody of the Department of Social Services. According to Reason, Debra Harrell’s daughter spent part of the summer playing on a laptop at McDonald’s, but asked to go to the park when the laptop was stolen. Her mom apparently gave her a cell phone and sent her to a well-attended park and playground. A few days later, an adult noticed that she was there alone and called the police. Harrell was arrested and charged with unlawful conduct towards a child, a felony in South Carolina.

As  notes, local news reports of the incident are not friendly to Harrell, flashing her mugshot on the screen while the reporter intones, “It’s an afternoon of fun in the water at Summerfield Park in North Augusta… but investigators say it wasn’t enjoyable for one little girl.” (There doesn’t appear to be follow up coverage of how enjoyable it was for the girl to have her mom publicly shamed on TV for abandoning her). The news segment goes on to interview parents around the park who speculate about the horrors that could have befallen the girl. “what if a man would have came and just snatched her because you have all kinds of trucks that come up in here so you really don’t know.”
Skenazy, who runs the blog Free Range Kids and stirred up controversy a few years back for letting her 9-year-old son ride the New York subway alone, points out that anxieties about the dangers faced by children are not supported by actual crime rates.

Continue reading at:  http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/mom-jailed-sending-9-year-old-daughter-park

You Are Triggering me! The Neo-Liberal Rhetoric of Harm, Danger and Trauma

From BullyBloggers:  http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/you-are-triggering-me-the-neo-liberal-rhetoric-of-harm-danger-and-trauma/

by Jack Halberstam
July 5, 2014

I was watching Monty Python’s The Life of Brian from 1979 recently, a hilarious rewriting of the life and death of Christ, and I realized how outrageous most of the jokes from the film would seem today. In fact, the film, with its religious satire and scenes of Christ and the thieves singing on the cross, would never make it into cinemas now. The Life of Brian was certainly received as controversial in its own day but when censors tried to repress the film in several different countries, The Monty Python crew used their florid sense of humor to their advantage. So, when the film was banned in a few places, they gave it a tagline of: “So funny it was banned in Norway!”

Humor, in fact, in general, depends upon the unexpected (“No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”); repetition to the point of hilarity “you can have eggs, bacon and spam; spam, eggs, spam and sausage; or spam, spam, spam and spam!”); silliness, non-sequitors, caricature and an anarchic blend of the serious and the satirical. And, humor is something that feminists in particular, but radical politics in general, are accused of lacking. Recent controversies within queer communities around language, slang, satirical or ironic representation and perceptions of harm or offensive have created much controversy with very little humor recently, leading to demands for bans, censorship and name changes.

Debates among people who share utopian goals, in fact, are nothing new. I remember coming out in the 1970s and 1980s into a world of cultural feminism and lesbian separatism. Hardly an event would go by back then without someone feeling violated, hurt, traumatized by someone’s poorly phrased question, another person’s bad word choice or even just the hint of perfume in the room. People with various kinds of fatigue, easily activated allergies, poorly managed trauma were constantly holding up proceedings to shout in loud voices about how bad they felt because someone had said, smoked, or sprayed something near them that had fouled up their breathing room. Others made adjustments, curbed their use of deodorant, tried to avoid patriarchal language, thought before they spoke, held each other, cried, moped, and ultimately disintegrated into a messy, unappealing morass of weepy, hypo-allergic, psychosomatic, anti-sex, anti-fun, anti-porn, pro-drama, pro-processing post-political subjects.

Political times change and as the 1980s gave way to the 1990s, as weepy white lady feminism gave way to reveal a multi-racial, poststructuralist, intersectional feminism of much longer provenance, people began to laugh, loosened up, people got over themselves and began to talk and recognize that the enemy was not among us but embedded within new, rapacious economic systems. Needless to say, for women of color feminisms, the stakes have always been higher and identity politics always have played out differently. But, in the 1990s, books on neoliberalism, postmodernism, gender performativity and racial capital turned the focus away from the wounded self and we found our enemies and, as we spoke out and observed that neoliberal forms of capitalism were covering over economic exploitation with language of freedom and liberation, it seemed as if we had given up wounded selves for new formulations of multitudes, collectivities, collaborations, and projects less centered upon individuals and their woes. Of course, I am flattening out all kinds of historical and cultural variations within multiple histories of feminism, queerness and social movements. But I am willing to do so in order to make a point here about the re-emergence of a rhetoric of harm and trauma that casts all social difference in terms of hurt feelings and that divides up politically allied subjects into hierarchies of woundedness.

At this point, we should recall the “four Yorkshire men” skit from Monty Python where the four old friends reminisce about their deprived childhoods – one says “we used to live in a tiny old tumbledown house…” the next counters with “house!? You were lucky to live in a house. We used to live in a room…” And the third jumps in with: “room? You were lucky to have a room, we used to have to live in a corridor.” The fourth now completes the cycle: “A corridor! We dreamed of living in a corridor!” These hardship competitions, but without the humor, are set pieces among the triggered generation and indeed, I rarely go to a conference, festival or gathering anymore without a protest erupting about a mode of representation that triggered someone somewhere. And as people “call each other out” to a chorus of finger snapping, we seem to be rapidly losing all sense of perspective and instead of building alliances, we are dismantling hard fought for coalitions.

Much of the recent discourse of offense and harm has focused on language, slang and naming. For example, controversies erupted in the last few months over the name of a longstanding nightclub in San Francisco: “Trannyshack,” and arguments ensued about whether the word “tranny” should ever be used. These debates led some people to distraction, and legendary queer performer, Justin Vivian Bond, posted an open letter on her Facebook page telling readers and fans in no uncertain terms that she is “angered by this trifling bullshit.” Bond reminded readers that many people are “delighted to be trannies” and not delighted to be shamed into silence by the “word police.” Bond and others have also referred to the queer custom of re-appropriating terms of abuse and turning them into affectionate terms of endearment. When we obliterate terms like “tranny” in the quest for respectability and assimilation, we actually feed back into the very ideologies that produce the homo and trans phobia in the first place! In The Life of Brian, Brian finally refuses to participate in the anti-Semitism that causes his mother to call him a “roman.” In a brave “coming out” speech, he says: “I’m not a roman mum, I’m a kike, a yid, a heebie, a hook-nose, I’m kosher mum, I’m a Red Sea pedestrian, and proud of it!

And now for something completely different…The controversy about the term “tranny” is not a singular occurrence; such tussles have become a rather predictable and regular part of all kinds of conferences and meetings. Indeed, it is becoming difficult to speak, to perform, to offer up work nowadays without someone, somewhere claiming to feel hurt, or re-traumatized by a cultural event, a painting, a play, a speech, a casual use of slang, a characterization, a caricature and so on whether or not the “damaging” speech/characterization occurs within a complex aesthetic work. At one conference, a play that foregrounded the mutilation of the female body in the 17th century was cast as trans-phobic and became the occasion for multiple public meetings to discuss the damage it wreaked upon trans people present at the performance. Another piece at this performance conference that featured a “fortune teller” character was accused of orientalist stereotyping. At another event I attended that focused on queer masculinities, the organizers were accused of marginalizing queer femininities. And a class I was teaching recently featured a young person who reported feeling worried about potentially “triggering” a transgender student by using incorrect pronouns in relation to a third student who did not seem bothered by it! Another student told me recently that she had been “triggered” in a class on colonialism by the showing of The Battle of Algiers. In many of these cases offended groups demand apologies, and promises are made that future enactments of this or that theater piece will cut out the offensive parts; or, as in the case of “Trannyshack,” the name of the club was changed.

Continue reading at:  http://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/you-are-triggering-me-the-neo-liberal-rhetoric-of-harm-danger-and-trauma/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 158 other followers