libera voce/libera mente

"free voice, free mind"

Friday, November 30, 2007

Suggestions for Men Regarding Conduct in Feminist Spaces

1. Realize it's not all about you. No, really! Shocked? This is because:

Corollary to Rule 1: Feminism is about women. Girls, ladies, females, grrrrlz, womyn, wimmin, whatever you call them, it's about us. It's for us, by us. Not how you feel harmed or threatened by feminism or women, or about how you are oppressed as a man. We know that patriarchy affects all people negatively - but this isn't the space to draw attention to how men suffer. I strongly encourage you to form your own men's group to discuss those issues.

2. Check your privilege. Yes, you have it. We all have different kinds of privilege, but you, as a man, have male privilege. Just because you don't feel privileged doesn't mean you don't have it. Recognizing that you have privilege does not mean that you have never suffered. Being told to check your privilege is not a personal insult or attack. It also doesn't indicate that someone is trying to cop out of an argument or silence anybody - we just get tired of having to explain it constantly. See Rule 6 for more info.

Corollary to Rule 2: There is no such thing as "reverse sexism." Don't even think of trying that one on us. The fact that an individual man can be harmed by an individual woman does not override an entire misogynistic social system.

3. Listen. This would be really nice. Please respect our feelings and our experiences.

Corollary to Rule 3: When in doubt, shut the hell up. If you're not sure you're "getting it" take a step back, resist the urge to hit that "respond" button, and try to think about what women are saying - before you act.

4. Resist the unconscious urge to dominate. It's what you've been programmed to do, but this is not the place for it. See Rule 1 and Corollary. If you find that you're posting more than the rest of the community combined, think about why. If you feel the need to constantly draw attention to your maleness, examine that dynamic - it's often a subconscious method of exercising control.

5. Try not to get defensive. Remember that women expressing frustration with the patriarchy is not a personal attack on you, and there's no need to respond as such. If you do so, you're likely to violate rules 1-5. Remember: If you're feeling attacked by feminism, it's probably a counter-attack.

6. Remember that it's not our job to educate you. Feminist communities shouldn't have to be constantly rehashing "feminism 101" due to the influx of new male members. You can read this, so you can read a book, or if that's too much to ask, you can do internet research. There are lots of ways to learn about basic feminist theory without sidetracking an entire community in the process. If you do the research and still have specific questions, then it's more appropriate to ask people for their opinions - but they still don't "owe" you anything.

7. If people are calling you a troll, there's probably a good reason for it. You don't have to purposefully be trolling to act like one. You can play devil's advocate to your heart's content and then log off the computer and not have to deal with these issues ever again. The rest of us can't do that. This is our reality, and we generally don't appreciate men treating issues that really affect us as some sort of witty intellectual exercise.

8. Don't try to be a knight in shining white armor. So you think you can singlehandedly save feminism with your unqiue insights? Get over yourself. It's extremely unlikely that you've had some brilliant revelation that has eluded us women for ages thanks to the superior intellect of your penis.

9. Women are not a hive mind. Feminism is not The Borg. There is a wide range of diverse experiences and views within feminism. Just because one person on a feminist community agrees with you doesn't mean that we all will. Just because your feminist friend thinks one way doesn't mean we should all be expected to. Wide, sweeping generalizations and assumptions about feminism and women are not likely to win you any points.

Corollary to Rule 9: Do not use your presence or opinions to pit women against each other. Try to refrain from becoming the subject of discussion - that violates Rules 1, 3, and 4. Don't "divide and conquer."

10. Call out other men on sexist behavior. This is the best way to put theory into practice, and is a way to use your male privilege for good! If you're claiming to be a feminist on one board and then laughing when your friends make sexist jokes, we're obviously going to question your sincerity.

11. Understand that just because you call yourself a feminist doesn't mean that you're exempt from these suggestions. So you have an understanding of feminist theory - wonderful. So you want to fight the good fight - great. That doesn't give you the right to then go and ignore all the other suggestions because you "get it" and you're "one of the good ones."

Corollary to Rule 11: Don't identify as feminist so you can get attention from women. It's creepy and pathetic, and usually we can smell it a mile away. It does not become any more appropriate to hit on or make suggestive comments to women in a feminist community simply because you call yourself a feminist, either. This is not the place to look for a date.

12. Don't expect a pat on the back for following these suggestions. And don't whine if you don't feel you're receiving enough credit for acting like a decent human being. You shouldn't be behaving appropriately because you crave our stamp of approval - you should be behaving appropriately because it's the respectful thing to do.


The Myth of Male Power

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Evolutionary Origin of Life Impossible

by Duane Gish, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President Emeritus of ICR

There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, (Addy) Pross has recently admitted that
"The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know."1
Later, concerning the question of the origin of such a molecule, Pross said,
". . . one might facetiously rephrase the question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?"2
That pretty well summarizes the extent of the progress evolutionists have made toward establishing a mechanistic, atheistic scenario for the origin of life after more than half a century of physical, chemical, and geological research. It is possible, however, to derive facts that establish beyond doubt that an evolutionary origin of life on this planet would have been impossible. The origin of life could only have resulted from the action of an intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural universe. There is sufficient space here to describe only a few of the insuperable barriers to an evolutionary origin of life.

1. The absence of the required atmosphere.

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.

2. All forms of raw energy are destructive.

The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source.4 Here evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In his comments on Miller's experiment, D. E. Hull stated that "These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates."5

3. An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an incredible clutter.

Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don't they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don't do that because they know there wouldn't be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.

4. Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules.

It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The same is true of DNA and RNA. To form a protein in a laboratory the chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide reagent). The energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H2O (water). This only happens in a chemistry laboratory or in the cells of living organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in the sky.

5. DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms.

DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that "Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis mine)."6 Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?

What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes. Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA. But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair. The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA's, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.

1. Pross, Addy. 2004. Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism or replication first? Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biospheres 34:308.
2. Ibid., 316.
3. Davidson, C. F. 1965. Geochemical aspects of atomospheric evolution. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 53:1194; Brinkman, R. T., 1969. Dissociation of water vapor and evolution of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res., 74:5355; Clemmey, H., and N. Badham. 1982. Oxygen in the Precambrian atmosphere; an evaluation of the geological evidence. Geology 10:141; Dimroth, E., and M. M. Kimberley. 1976. Precambrian atmospheric oxygen: evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, and iron. Can. J. Earth Sci., 13:1161.
4. Miller, Stanley. 1953. A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions. Science 117:528.
5. Hull, D. E. 1960. Thermodynamics and kinetics of spontaneous generation. Nature 186:693.
6. Wood, R. D., et al. 2001. Human DNA repair genes. Science 291:1284.

The Creation-Evolution Debate: Historical Perspectives (George H. Shriver Lecture Series in Religion in American History)

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

How It All Works

symbol of prosperityConsumer spending makes up 70% of the U.S. economy, and 50% of all retail profits occur at Christmastime. That's what keeps the whole thing going economically. Those who make it through the dark-and-depressing Winter-solstice holidays, drunken revelry New Year's Eve is the reward. That's when the next generation is conceived, keeping the whole thing going biologically (October 5th being the most common U.S. birthday).

Toward the Winter Solstice: New Poems

Oprah's Choice

'I choose presidents, too.'Just as she tells the nation what to read, and makes bestsellers of her choices, she may very well help pick the next president.

She had a choice this time between picking a woman or a black to become the first president in either category. She went with her race.

Based on competence and ability, of course.

Oprah Winfrey: "I Don't Believe In Failure" (African-American Biography Library)

Monday, November 26, 2007

The Bush-Clinton Era

Historians no doubt will refer to the political period we're now enduring as The Bush-Clinton Era.

Prescott Bush served as Republican Senator for Connecticut from 1952-1963. But the official start of this Era might be considered the ascendancy of George H. W. Bush (Bush 41) as vice-president in 1980, he also served as the member of the United States House of Representatives for the 7th district of Texas from 1967 to 1971. This marked the beginnings of his rise to prominence nationally: United States Ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973), Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1973–1974), Chief of the United States Liaison Office in the People's Republic of China (1974–1976), and Director of Central Intelligence (1976–1977).

On the Clinton side of things, Bill Clinton ran for the House of Representatives in 1974, but lost to the incumbent. In 1976, Clinton was elected Attorney General of Arkansas without opposition in the general election. In 1978, he was elected Governor of Arkansas for the first time. Voted out, he reclaimed his old job and kept it for another 10 years. He served as Chair of the National Governors Association from 1986 to 1987.

George W. Bush ran the state of Texas as governor from 1994 until 2000 (elected through to 2002). His brother Jeb Bush did the same in Florida from 1998-2006.

We have eight years of Bill Clinton as president from 1992-2000, followed by two terms of George W. Bush (Bush 43).

Now Hillary Rodham Clinton, First Lady 1993-2000, and two-term Senator from New York seeks to extend the Bush-Clinton Era by retaking the White House for herself and her husband (who would be First Gentleman, one assumes).

What happens after that? Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush continue to be the face of major charitable giving? Jeb Bush for president? Bill Clinton becomes an elder statesmen in the Senate? Future generations?

The Bushes : Portrait of a Dynasty
A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years

The Problem With Polls

The problem with polls at this point in the campaign for president, especially this year is that . .

1) They are national--this fight will be state-by-state.

2) No actual voting has yet to take place--the political landscape is littered with supposed front-runners brought low by the ballot box.

3) The primaries are so re-arranged, and bunched up, this year that all bets are off--the political pundits you see predicting this and that now will likely look very foolish when the pinball game begins.

Public Opinion

Her Greatest Asset(s)

future First Gentleman?
It should come as no shock to anyone who really knows how the world works that the greatest asset for the only female candidate for president (and a distinctly feminist one at that) is her man--and his men.

At least she's smart enough to know she must win first, then she can promote diversity all she wants; something Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry missed to their peril. Ads

The new series of television ads from such as this one found at . .

. . is both funny, intelligent, and refreshingly truthful about male-female relations.

A turning point?

What We Need: The Social-Action Pyramid

What this country needs in order to maintain an enlightened direction guided by wisdom toward highest moral ideals, can be described as a social-action pyramid, one made up of five levels, each critical to the formation of the next:

First Level: Awake and Aware

Some portion of the population must be awake and aware of what is happening in the world and around them.

Second Level: Actively Observing

Some portion of the population must be actively observing what is happening around them politically and socially.

Third Level: Interpreting

Some portion of the population must be able to interpret what is happening in an historical context (at least), thereby predicting where things might go.

Fourth Level: Expressing

Some portion of the population must be expressing their interpretations and concerns, possibly posing potential remedies.

Fifth Level: Action

Some portion of the population must be doing something about it all, addressing underlying causes and guiding us toward a better world.

The number of those in each of these categories varies by historical era and geographical location, but each is critical to keeping us from going off a cliff. The exact number needed at each level varies, too, but suffice it to say that in the United States at this moment, we have too few. The trick comes in increasing the number in each area, then continuing to elevate some from lower to higher levels.

The number ultimately reaching the top point is not likely to be large at any time, and may not need to be. In fact, when it reaches a high portion of Society you have revolution. Best to guide the nation well along the way to avoid that cataclysmic eventuality.

From a World of Madness to a World of Sanity: Guides for Action

Marriage is a three-ring circus . .

The engagement ring.

The wedding ring.

The suffering.

The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work: A Practical Guide from the Country's Foremost Relationship Expert

Wednesday, November 21, 2007


"Oxygen's hit true crime series Snapped profiles the fascinating cases of women accused of murder."
That's how they describe their show on the webpage itself.

That the Oh! homepage is all decked out in purple rimming screeching videos of women on talk shows edged up against such commands as "Take the Love, American Style Quiz Now!" should be no great surprise.

And we've long gotten over the prime sexism of a network dedicated to one gender or another. Maybe the women need a dedicated television network, who really knows.

What is a touch surprising is that they would trumpet all the bad girls who murder people. Of course they call the cases "fascinating", and these women are only "accused" (enough to damn any man, of course).

Unless you consider that women, especially those in the anti-male Women's Movement, want to catch up in every category, good or bad. So what if smoking kills you? "We demand the right to kill ourselves smoking!" So what if cursing is ugly and sends you to Hell. "We demand the right to go to Hell cursing!" So what if fighting in combat is a grisly, miserable thing. "We demand the right to be brutalized at the front line!" So what if the work-a-day career world is a grind. "We demand to right to be equally as unhappy as the male working stiffs!"

So why wouldn't they want to show they have an equal number of murderesses? Of course they would, they want equality in all areas.

There's also a tendency on the part of females to brag about their bad side: being bitches. You'll see it on the t-shirts and bumper stickers. They proudly assert their right to be ball-busting beasts. Why not brag about being murderesses, too?

Of course, these are only women who have "snapped". When a male commits murder he does it out of wanton evil, because he's a brutal savage to begin with without any redeeming features. But, for a woman to commit murder she must snap emotionally (or, perhaps, spiritually).

Unfortunately for the shows producers, the murderesses they typically portray show no remorse, no madness. They show not the slightest compunction regarding taking the life of another in the most gruesome ways.
"Oxygen Media is a 24-hour cable television network on a mission to bring women (and the men who love them) the edgiest, most innovative entertainment on television. With innovative shows from such diverse talents as Carsey-Werner-Mandabach and Banyan Productions (Trading Spaces), Oxygen airs more original series and specials than any other women's network. Founded in 1998, the network is independently owned and is currently available in over 74 million households. Oxygen Media also owns and operates"

Female Serial Killers: How and Why Women Become Monsters

Aaron 755, Steroids 762
Steroids 762, Baseball 0
Bonds 762, Feds 763

Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal that Rocked Professional Sports

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Direct Correlation

What makes me think that the list of America's most dangerous cities, recently tauted in City Crime Rankings, 14th Edition put out by CQ Press, to wit . .

Most Dangerous Cities

1) Detroit, MI
2) St. Louis, MO
3) Flint, MI
4) Oakland, CA
5) Camden, NJ
6) Birmingham, AL
7) North Charleston, SC
8) Memphis, TN
9) Richmond, CA
10)Cleveland, OH

. . correlates with the cities with the highest proportional black population?

In fact, a smattering of (unverified) data suggest that . .

Blacks are 82% of population in Detroit
Blacks are 51% of population in St. Louis
Blacks are 53% of population in Flint
Blacks are 53% of population in Camden
Blacks are 74% of population in Birmingham
Blacks are 61% of population in Memphis
Blacks are 51% of of population in Cleveland

It doesn't seem to be the whole story, as some towns that made the top ten don't have a majority black population, and some towns that do didn't make the list (the rankings of which rely heavily on a private assessment of danger).

Considering other rankings, though, and the general tendencies, you might have to say we have an ethnic crime problem in the U.S. more than just a general crime problem. I recall an article a few years ago in The Economist saying that if you eliminate non-white statistics (meaning Hispanic and black, at least), the New York City murder rate can be likened to that of Europe.

The Economist gave itself the permission to speak the truth on this important matter, and without getting to the underlying truth about a problem no solution is possible.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Raped Celebrities

"Die Hard" star Bruce Willis has apparently been a favorite of the ladies for a long time. The 52-year-old actor and ex-husband of Demi Moore lost his innocence at age 14, when he was a bellboy at a Holiday Inn. Symons says Willis' first sexual experience was with a "gorgeous chick" in the laundry room of the hotel.

(A woman who rapes a 14-year-old boy in a hotel laundry room is no lady.)

It seems that former "James Bond" actor Sean Connery was always a ladies man. Symons reveals that the 77-year-old lost his virginity uncommonly early — at the alarmingly young age of 8. But, as Symons quotes, Connery "can't recall with whom."

(Can't remember, or protecting someone? A "ladies man" at 8?)

Comedian Richard Pryor, who died in 2005, was married seven times to five different women; Symons says he was seduced by a 7-year-old girl and lost his virginity at the age of 5.

(No comment.)

River Phoenix's 23 years of life were plagued with drug problems and depression. The actor hinted in interviews that he had been abused by members of the Children of God, a religious cult he belonged to as a young child. Symons says Phoenix was sexually abused while in the cult, saying that he was encouraged to experiment with "God's gift of sex" at the shocking age of 4.

(At least something is "shocking".)

Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood, 77, started pleasing the ladies early in life. The "Dirty Harry" and "Unforgiven" star lost his virginity to a "friendly neighbor" at age 14, according to Symons. It's no wonder he remains one of the industry's lasting sex symbols.
(Again, a woman who rapes 14-year boys is no lady. Because he was raped at 14 "it's no wonder he remains one of the industry's lasting sex symbols"?)

Funk and R&B star Ike Turner started his notorious relationship with the female gender early. Symons reveals in his book that Turner lost his virginity at age 6 "with a middle-aged next-door neighbor named Miss Boozie." After that, Turner married four times and had a roller-coaster relationship with R&B legend Tina Turner.
(Think this one through yourselves, or see comments above for assistance.)

SOURCE: ABC News "Leading Lads Who Lost It Early" by Mitchell Symons.

(Lost what, their chance at a normal life? By having "it" taken from them by an older woman? Shouldn't it be "Leading Lads Who Had It Stolen from Them"?)

Thursday, November 15, 2007

As the Holidays Approach

If you plan on doing any online shopping why not do it through Amazon.

They have good prices, free shipping, and sell just about everything under the sun. Sometimes they give associate sites like mine special offers that might be hard to find elsewhere.

If you click the link above, or search for something below, or click on anything that says Amazonat my site . .

. . revenues accrue to the site, but it costs you nothing more.

You'll be helping support something useful by just going about your daily business.

Boys the Victimized Sex

One day last September, there were two back-to-back events in adjacent rooms at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. "Beyond the 'Gender Wars,'" a symposium organized by the American Association of University Women (AAUW), was followed by a rejoinder from the Independent Women's Forum (IWF), "The XY Files: The Truth Is Out There...About the Differences Between Boys and Girls." Each event largely followed a predictable script. On the AAUW side, there was verbiage about "gender, race, and class" and hand-wringing about the "conservative backlash"; despite an occasional nod to innate sex differences, "gender equity" was pointedly defined as "equal outcomes." On the IWF side, there were affirmations of vive la différence and warnings about the perils of trying to engineer androgyny; despite some acknowledgment that there are not only differences between the sexes but much overlap, the old-fashioned wisdom about men and women was treated as timeless truth. And yet both discussions shared one major theme: the suddenly hot issue of boys-to be more specific, boys as the victimized sex in American education and culture.

Just a few years ago, of course, girls were the ones whose victimization by sexist schools and a male-dominated society was proclaimed on the front pages of newspapers and lamented in editorials, thanks largely to widely publicized reports released by the AAUW in the early 1990s. It was probably only a matter of time before somebody asked, "But what about boys?" By the end of the decade, headlines like "How Boys Lost Out to Girl Power" began to crop up in the media, and boys-in-crisis books began to hit the shelves.

But as the two National Press Club panels underscored, two contrasting arguments are being made on behalf of boys. In one room, there was sympathy for boys who yearn to be gentle, nurturing, and openly emotional but live in a society that labels such qualities "sissy"; in the other, there was sympathy for boys who want only to be boys but live in a society that labels their natural qualities aggressive and patriarchal. Harvard psychiatrist William Pollack, author of the 1999 bestseller Real Boys : Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood, believes boys are suffering because our culture traps them in the rigid codes of traditional manhood. American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, author of the controversial new volume The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, believes boys are suffering because our culture seeks to "feminize" them and devalues manhood. (Guess which of them spoke on which panel.) One camp wants to reform masculinity, the other to restore it; one seeks to rescue boys from patriarchy, the other from feminism.

Both sides, however, agree that something is rotten in the state of boyhood. Real Boys opens with the assertion that boys, including many who seem to be doing fine, are "in serious trouble" and "in a desperate crisis." Pollack and other gender reformers paint the typical American boy as an emotional cripple, if not a walking time bomb ready to explode into a school massacre. The shooters of Littleton and Jonesboro, Pollack has said, are merely "the tip of the iceberg."


Gender Gap

The most tangible and effectively documented cause of concern is male academic underachievement:

* Girls make up 57 percent of straight-A students; boys make up 57 percent of high school dropouts.

* In 1998, 48 percent of girls but only 40 percent of boys graduating from high school had completed the courses in English, social studies, science, math, and foreign languages recommended as a minimum by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. (In 1987 there was no such gender gap, though only 18 percent of students met these requirements.) According to the National Center for Education Statistics, high school girls now outnumber boys in upper-level courses in algebra, chemistry, and biology; physics is the only subject in which males are still a majority.

* On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests in 1996, 17-year-old girls, on average, outscored boys by 14 points in reading and 17 points in writing (on a scale of 0 to 500). While boys did better on the math and science tests, it was by margins of five and eight points, respectively.

* Women account for 56 percent of college enrollment in America. This is not due simply, as some feminists claim, to older women going back to school; among 1997 high school graduates, 64 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls went on to college. Female college freshmen are also more likely than men to get a degree in four years.


Girls Rule

Perhaps the social changes of the past three decades have made young women more self-assured and eager to use their new opportunities, while leaving many men unnerved and confused about what's expected of them. It may also be that boys, particularly those from low-income families, often become alienated from school early-both because their slower developmental timetable causes them to fall behind girls and because school is a "feminized" environment with mostly female authority figures and boy-unfriendly rules that emphasize being quiet and sitting still.

Some teachers may be prejudiced against boys, regarding them as little brutes or rascals. In a 1990 survey commissioned by the AAUW, children were asked whom teachers considered smarter and liked better; the vast majority of boys and girls alike said "girls." Journalist Kathleen Parker recalls that her son, now a teenager, had a grade school teacher who openly said she liked girls more and singled out boys for verbal abuse-such as telling a student who had his feet up on the desk, "Put your feet down; I don't want to look at your genitalia."

Traditional schoolmarmish distaste for unruly young males may be amplified by modern gender politics. Some educators clearly see boys as budding sexists and predators in need of re-education. Some classrooms become forums for diatribes about the sins of white males, and some boys may be hit with absurd charges of misconduct-such as Jonathan Prevette, the Lexington, North Carolina, first-grader punished with a one-day suspension in 1996 for kissing a girl on the cheek.

"If you listen to 10- or 11-year-old boys, you will hear that school is not a very happy place for them," says Bret Burkholder, a counselor at Pierce College in Puyallup, Washington, who also works with younger boys as a baseball coach. "It's a place where they're consistently made to feel stupid, where girls can walk around in T-shirts that say 'Girls rule, boys drool,' but if a boy makes a negative comment about girls he'll have the book thrown at him."


Clash of the Stereotypes


More boys flounder in school (and, as Sommers acknowledges, more of them reach the highest levels of excellence, from the best test scores to top rankings in prestigious law schools). But it's important to put things in perspective. Boys are twice as likely as girls to be shunted into special education with labels that may involve a high degree of subjectivity or even bias, but we are talking about a fairly small proportion of all children. About 7 percent of boys and 3 percent of girls are classified as learning disabled, 1.5 percent of boys and 1.1 percent of girls as mentally retarded; just over 1 percent of boys and fewer than half as many girls are diagnosed with severe emotional disturbances.


Monolithic Manhood

Stereotypes and exaggerations fly just as freely when it comes to the larger debate about how boys should be raised in an age of sexual equality. Gender reformers like Pollack and his Harvard colleague Carol Gilligan, the psychologist and professor of gender studies who pioneered the notion of girls' failing self-esteem in the 1980s before turning her attention to boys, lament that patriarchal norms force boys to separate prematurely from their families, especially their mothers, and to deny their pain, sadness, vulnerability, and fear. As a result, Pollack argues, boys disconnect from their true selves and go into a kind of emotional deep freeze, or even become bullies to prove their manhood.

Real Boys is full of "gender straitjacket" horror stories in which boys barely out of diapers are called "wimps" and told to "act like a man" (usually by fathers) when they are scared or upset. Pollack's dismay is understandable, but how many American fathers really act out such John Wayne parodies? The generalizations are especially shaky since most of Pollack's conclusions seem to be based on troubled boys in his clinical practice. While he occasionally tempers his melodramatic claims, observing that "many, if not most, boys maintain an inner wellspring of emotional connectedness," this does little to change the bleak overall picture.


Male Achievement Initiatives

While boys may not be a "second sex," there are clearly distinct educational problems that disproportionately affect male students. Surely it makes sense to look at these problems and consider some gender-specific solutions. Yet such efforts have been virtually nonexistent, largely, no doubt, because they are seen as politically incorrect. In November 1999, Goucher College in Baltimore held a conference called "Fewer Men on Campus: A Puzzle for Liberal-Arts Colleges and Universities." While the event was ostensibly free of any anti-feminist stridency, it drew hostile barbs from the AAUW and warnings about a "backlash" against women's gains from the American Council on Education's Office of Women in Higher Education. (ACE has no special office addressing the issues of men, the new minority on college campuses.) Government efforts to advance "gender equity" in education remain focused solely on inequities allegedly holding back girls and women.


Single-sex education, whose popularity for girls surged after the girl crisis hysteria of the early 1990s-leading to the somewhat controversial opening of an all-girl public charter school in New York in 1996 and a sister school in Chicago last fall-deserves more consideration for boys as well. True, there are few reliable data on how children fare in single-sex vs. coed classrooms; if single-sex schools often do better, it may be because they are the product of a conscious effort to create a more academically oriented, more orderly, more individually focused learning environment.

Nonetheless, single-sex schooling may be the best option for some boys and girls, not necessarily because the sexes are so radically different but because some teenagers learn best without the distracting presence of the other sex. Susan Harter and other researchers have found that the fear of looking stupid in front of opposite-sex classmates is a major deterrent to speaking in class for boys and girls alike. Boys in particular may try to impress girls by acting "cool" or goofy. Counterintuitively, many education experts believe that all-boy classrooms may also allow boys to show their gentle side-pursue interests in art or poetry, discuss the emotions of literary characters-without the fear of appearing "girly."


From Reason Magazine "Where the Boys Are: Is America shortchanging male children?" by Cathy Young, February 2001 Print Edition

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

No Integrity

The American Heritage College Dictionary defines integrity as, "1. Steadfast adherence to a strict ethical code." The Encarta World English Dictionary defines integrity as, "1. Possession of firm principles: the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards."

When judges [who are trained through STOP grants funded by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)] address domestic violence according to a gender feminist paradigm, instead of constitutional law, they are grossly lacking in integrity.

On page 18 in his book, The Tyranny of Tolerance Judge Robert H. Dierker, Jr. writes:
For every ill perceived by the gender and justice commissions, they demand special "training" of judges and lawyers. Such training was a thinly veiled effort to reeducate judges and lawyers to toe the femifascist line in every case, but especially in domestic violence, sexual assault and similar cases. Judges were to "encourage" prosecutors to pursue rape cases to trial, regardless of the merits of the case - and regardless of the proper role of the judge as neutral arbiter in an adversary system.

On page 19 Judge Dierker makes it clear, "At its core, the femifascist agenda is based on its hatred for men."

Kudos to Judge Dierker for his honesty, integrity, and courage. Sadly, in America's judiciary today, Judge Dierker is the exception, not the rule.

When America's judiciary functions with as little integrity as it does today in the area of domestic violence law, the entire legal system reeks with a foul stench of rottenness wafting in from that area of tyrannical injustice.

Good feminazi, or femifascist, judges (soldiers) who acquiesce to evil injustice clearly know they are acquiescing to evil injustice. "Just being a good soldier” was not an acceptable defense for the Nazi war criminals tried in Nuremberg after WWII and it should not be accepted as an excuse for improper behavior from America's judiciary today. America clearly has a constitution that takes precedence over the corrupt requirements of VAWA, offering a path to justice for all who come before the courts, if judges would but follow American constitutional law.

Even if there were no constitution, every American judge today should know, as was known in the Nazi era, "There is a law above the law." In other words, something as obviously corrupt and tyrannically unjust as VAWA should not be enforced by anyone "adhering to high moral principles or professional standards."

"Feminist Trained Judges Lack Integrity" 11/13/2007 by Ray Blumhorst.

Thursday, November 08, 2007

The Racial Slur Database

Women in Psychology

From: *****@***.net
Subject: RE: your book prohibited from...
Date: November 6, 2007 1:15:55PM PST

Dear Dr. Farrell,

I have been prohibited from quoting your book in a University of Massachusetts classroom. The class is titled, Women in Psychology. The class actually teaches feminism. The class was told that your book is a compilation of lies, and your theories do not deserve to be addressed. Furthermore, I may not cite your book in any research papers.

I wrote you to ask your advice on how to handle this situation. You have undoubtedly come across this before. I would hope you could share a few ideas on how I could handle myself in such a hostile environment.

Thank you
Mark A*****n

Please feel free to distribute this so that the universities have an alternative to men-as-oppressors feminism.

From a post on Men's Issues Online by Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

Brava! A First.

As Remembrance Day approaches, the media's wartime love affair with our troops serves as an ironic reminder of how rarely in the fourth estate one sees sympathetic editorial treatment of manhood. Most of the year, men -- not as individuals but as representative of their sex --are far more likely to be portrayed negatively: as control freaks, perverts and in general people to fear. Only for a brief annual pre-Nov. 11 interlude do we ever see glowing tributes to the traditional male virtues of honour, gallantry, steadfastness, stoicism, brotherhood and chivalry.

Indeed, an alien visitor to our shores this week might conclude men are the cherished apple of Canada's eye. In its current issue, Maclean's magazine features poignant "Last Letters from Kandahar" from those who died in combat. Then there's artist Richard John-son's Kandahar Journal, serialized in the National Post: eloquent pen-and-ink tributes to military rank and file. And Globe columnist and sometime war correspondent Christie Blatchford just published Fifteen Days: Stories of Bravery, Friendship, Life and Death from Inside the New Canadian Army, a paean to soldierly virtues. Let that visitor extend his stay until after Remembrance Day, however, and he will see the "lace curtain" once again descend on a positive portrayal of manliness.

Coincidentally, a short, but substantive new book called Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men? offers compelling and timely proof of widespread media disdain for men. The volume is formatted as a debate. The affirmative is upheld by the doyen of the men's rights' movement, and the only activist actually making a living from his best-selling books and lectures, Warren Farrell; and the negative by James P. Sterba, professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.

Farrell wins. Sterba puts up a game fight, but, amongst other weaknesses, he cherry-picks issues, privileges theory over reality, bases a pivotal argument on at least one extremely misleading (unreferenced) "statistic" on Canadian contested custody results, ascribes gay partner violence to cultural bias against homosexuality (a wholly speculative and unworthy gambit, similar to the bogus "black rage" defence) and fails to mount a persuasive challenge on the media bias question.

By contrast, Farrell reveals an intellectual grasp of the broader themes of atavistic sexual role-playing and the true meaning of "powerlessness" (even in democracies, only men are conscripted for combat; women are never conscripted to breed). He commands respect as a principled former women's movement darling who bucked the feminist party line at considerable personal cost.

In his youth, Farrell spent three years on the board of the feminist-oriented U.S. National Organization for Women, wrote a book on the "liberated man" and for years wholeheartedly upheld the feminist credo in countless publications and public appearances. But once he included men's perspectives in his public statements the applause died, and he was effectively excommunicated by the media.

Farrell's anecdotes are telling. As long as he wrote from a feminist perspective, "the New York Times published everything I wrote. Once I began questioning the feminist perspective, they published nothing." He was a guest on the Today Show three times as a feminist, but was never invited back after his conversion. A media consultant told Farrell he was never invited even on to Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect because "they wanted a male chauvinist [whom] they could make look like a fool."

If you're seeking an educational shortcut on the subject, this reader-friendly book illuminates the impasse between feminists and embattled men in a civil and collaborative way. Both Farrell and Sterba would like to see the gender wars subside into a co-operative, reciprocally beneficial "gender transition movement," and so should we all in the interest of a healthier social order.

As Remembrance Day annually reminds us, war is the least attractive method for resolving group hostilities. If a truce between the sexes is to be achieved, the public's sympathy must be engaged bilaterally. The media must recognize its culpability here, and reform their demonstrable ideological partisanship, which encourages misandry amongst women and social tension in general.

Soldiers aren't a breed apart. They are ordinary men exploiting specifically male strengths to meet extraordinary challenges. Most men are the friends, not the enemies, of women and children. The media have helped ordinary women "take back the night" for decades. It is time that the equivalent struggle of ordinary men to "take back the knight" was accorded the engaged and respectful public attention men and boys deserve.
© National Post 2007. "An Embattled Champion Of Male Values" by Barbara Kay, Special to the National Post, Wednesday, November 07, 2007.

Black Female Empowerment

Two mid-level female D.C. government employees used phony paperwork to collect more than $16 million from illegal tax refunds, avoiding detection for at least three years while issuing more than 40 checks cashed by friends and family members in on the scam.

By day, Harriette Walters and Diane Gustus worked at the District's Office of Tax and Revenue. In their free time, prosecutors said, they worked with others to raid the city's treasury to stock up on luxury items including fancy cars, homes, furs, precious jewelry, designer handbags and clothing. Walters alone spent more than $1.4 million at Neiman Marcus.

Authorities called it the largest theft ever uncovered in local government in the Washington area.

Raids yesterday, conducted by at least 100 law enforcement officials, turned up a $160,000 Bentley in the garage of Walters's brother Richard Walters and designer purses and shoes bearing the labels of Chanel, Louis Vuitton and Hermes at Harriette Walters's home, law enforcement officials said. Authorities also found records tying Walters to the purchase of a $26,000 handbag, but the purse itself did not turn up.

The average amount for the refund checks generated in the scam was a staggering $388,000, and the losses amounted to several million a year, authorities said. The average alone would constitute an extremely high tax bill, not to speak of a refund, for all but the largest D.C. property owners. In all of fiscal 2007, for example, the office refunded a total of $20.7 million in real property taxes.

Walters, 51, whose extended family is from the Virgin Islands, had been the manager of the D.C. Real Property Tax Administration Adjustments Unit since 2004. She had worked in the D.C. government since 1981. Gustus, 54, was a program specialist in the office. Sources said the women had a reputation for lavishing their co-workers with gifts from time to time.

The refund checks would be made out to sham companies controlled by Walters's relatives and friends or to legitimate companies or law firms but with Walters's friends listed as the purported co-payees. Some of the cash was sent to a money exchange institution in the Dominican Republic. In the United States, Walters and Turnbull had help from an assistant manager at a Bank of America branch in Baltimore.

The plot began to unravel in July, after an employee at a SunTrust branch in Bowie raised concerns.

The scandal marks another embarrassment for the city. Former Washington Teachers' Union president Barbara Bullock is serving a nine-year prison sentence for her part in bilking the union of almost $5 million. An auction of her $800,000 in designer purses and other goods, seized by the FBI, is set for this weekend.

SOURCE: D.C. Tax Workers Charged In Scam: 2 Accused of Taking $16 Million Worth Of Illegal Refunds by Carol D. Leonnig, Clarence Williams and David Nakamura, Washington Post Staff Writers, Thursday, November 8, 2007.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Oil Is Cheap

Oil is cheap.

Consider that at $100 a barrel oil is only $2.38 a gallon (and 24 cents a cup).

Consider that with $3 a gallon gasoline the U.S. economy keeps bubbling along.

Consider that even with a major war occurring in a major oil-producing state, a related war ongoing in a nearby country, nuclear threats from a neighboring major oil-producer, and massive growth in oil demand from two enormous and rapidly growing economies--i.e., India and China--oil price still has yet to hit the high achieved in 1980 from a simple oil embargo.

Consider that 75% of the world's crude oil is consumed by countries outside the U.S. in a price denominated in dollars, a currency which has recently lost half its value.

Consider that a good chunk of the world consumes oil at favored prices, provided for them by a nationalized oil company, e.g., those China, Russia, India, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Isn't this the crux of the problem? So much of the world's oil is being consumed at prices below what the market would set. If oil were no longer cheap for these favored customers wouldn't it become less dear for the rest of us?

Rigged: The True Story of an Ivy League Kid Who Changed the World of Oil, from Wall Street to Dubai

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Love Is Blind

(Reuters) The Hong Kong woman who blinded her boyfriend in one eye in a fight six years ago has been jailed for jabbing a chopstick into his other eye, a newspaper has reported. Last November, Po Shiu-fong, 58, accused long-time boyfriend Kwok Wai-ming, 49, of having an affair, the South China Morning Post reported. During the row, Po stabbed a plastic chopstick into his left eye, which she had already blinded six years ago when she poked it with her finger.
"Po became hysterical when she saw the wound and mopped it with a towel. The pair then went to bed. The next morning they had another argument in which she grabbed a chopstick and stabbed Kwok's right eye."
Two days later, he sought medical treatment and filed a police report against Po, whom he had dated since 1993. The paper said he didn't report the attack six years ago, telling the court his silence was "a love sacrifice". Kwok lost 10 to 20 per cent vision in his right eye, the paper said. Po was jailed for six months on Tuesday. "If I forgive her, God would not forgive me," the paper quoted Kwok as saying. "No matter what, nothing could compensate for the loss of my eye."

Murderous Visit

An Albemarle judge has certified an attempted murder charge for Phyllis Spangler, the 51-year-old woman who was arrested two months ago for assaulting her 94-year-old mother. Spangler appeared in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on October 22 for an incident that occurred on August 28 at The Laurels of Charlottesville, a retirement home where her mother, Pearl Powell, was staying. Spangler's case is being sent to a grand jury in December, and if Spangler is indicted, the case will go to the Albemarle County Circuit Court for trial.

Phyllis Spangler is alleged to have attempted to kill her mother in The Laurels retirement home for financial reasons.

On the night of August 28, employees of The Laurels heard noises coming from Powell's room. According to county Police Lieutenant John Teixeira, they entered to find Spangler sitting suspiciously close to her mother, with what looked to be her hand over her nose and mouth. Powell had bruises on her nose and face, and authorities at the hospital reported an assault to the police. Spangler was arrested that night and is being held in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Jail.

Her lawyer, David Heilberg, insists that Spangler was intoxicated and that the attack could not have been premeditated. Because of this and a lack of criminal history, he requested bond on Monday. The judge denied it, but Spangler has a bond hearing scheduled for next week. "Intoxication is not a legal defense to any element of a crime in Virginia, except in a proper case for the element of premeditation in first-degree murder," says Heilberg.

Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Rick Moore insists that the motive behind the assault was financial, according to reports in The Daily Progress. Spangler allegedly had the option of either removing her mother from The Laurels or putting her house up for sale after Powell's Medicaid payments ran out and the bills were not paid.

If Spangler is convicted, she faces up to 10 years in jail.

C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to

Monkey Arms

Click below for an article about Scott Parazynski who fixed the ripped solar panel on the ISS:

The commanders of the ISS and Space Shuttle are women; a fact much-touted in the media. But the dangerous job fell to a man.

Also nice is the comment by the Shuttle commander about Parazynski having "monkey arms." Perhaps a bit innocuous, but imagine a male commander saying something equivalent about a female astronaut.

From a post on Men's Issues Online

Domestic Abuse Law Unconstitutional

America's Founding Father's would be rolling over in their graves if they knew the kind of misandrist, inhuman laws that are being used to violate the rights of supposedly free, American men today.

Gender feminist legislators, activist judges and others have eroded the constitutional and human rights of many American men with a variety of politically correct laws and rulings over the past few decades, but none appears to me to be more onerous than the despicably misandrist Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

VAWA has been trampling the human rights of innocent men for over a decade now, with violations of due process, such as restraining orders issued without the opportunity for the accused to face his accuser, or offer evidence in his defense. Additionally, when men are violently attacked by their wives or girlfriends, they are routinely denied shelter services that are readily available to women. This violates many a man’s right to equal protection under law.

Under Jim Crow laws in some racist states, black people were treated "separate, but equal." In reality, the treatment was often less than “equal.” When it comes to domestic violence services and shelter in America today, men certainly are “separated” from the services and shelter that women routinely get, but the “equal” part, sadly is completely nonexistent. Even though men are 36% to 50% of domestic violence victims, the government doesn't feel compelled to spend one dime on men, of the billions it spends on domestic violence. America under the VAWA has become a mockery of itself with special privileges being allocated to a certain select (privileged) class - women. Yes, under VAWA, male victims of domestic violence and their children are treated worse than if Jim Crow type language toward men were written into it.

The list of unconstitutional offenses under VAWA goes on, but you get the idea.
The racism in America of decades ago has been replaced with a new, progressive prejudice of the new millennium that targets all males for sexist discrimination, unequal protection and outright abuse at the hands of a group of Americans known as gender feminists. They have seized control of vital government functions so that their vile prejudices and corruption take on the imprimatur of state.

Nevertheless, there is no disguising what this group is. All dressed up in their fancy new acronyms and politically correct sounding jargon, they are nothing more than a thinly veiled resurrection of past hate movements the world has seen.

Our Founding Fathers were careful to craft a constitution that could be used to protect the rights of all the people equally. What could be more dangerous to a vile group of femi-supremacists as misandrist and intolerant of men as gender feminists?

11/05/2007 by Ray Blumhorst

Blow-Out Month

October was Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and the theme was "It's Time to Tell the Truth about Domestic Violence." And this year 10 organizations came together to assure the truth would ring loud and clear throughout the land.

During October these groups arranged for 1 gigantic billboard, did 2 days of lobbying, released 3 reports, participated in 4 rallies, issued 6 press releases, fostered the publication of 9 editorials, distributed information via flyers and displays 9 times, published 18 letters to the editor, and stimulated 22 articles and interviews.

During the course of the campaign Fox News 2 in Detroit aired a segment on October 22 titled, "Men Also Suffer from Domestic Violence."

The Christian Science Monitor (and many other newspapers) published letters to the editor on male victims:

The blogosphere was buzzing, as well:

* Carol Lloyd - What's so Funny about Abusive Girlfriends?

* Chris Norris - Women Who Hit Men:

* Abusive Girlfriends:

To read a complete list of the activities of all the participating groups and activities, go to:

Thanks to all who participated in Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and who made sure the truth got out.

Date of RADAR Release: November 6, 2007

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence.

Monday, November 05, 2007

Affirmative Action Presidency

Many American women are excited about Democrat Hillary Clinton's ground-breaking bid for the White House, but feminists warn she can't count on them just because she's a woman.

They said tens of millions of women are more concerned about selecting a candidate who best addresses their top issues and are scrutinizing the former first lady in this light.

"Being a woman in and of itself is not sufficient to gain broad-based support," Faye Wattleton, head of the Center for the Advancement of Women, said. "We're not doing affirmative action in terms of the presidency."

While Hillary's gender is "an added attraction," it is not enough reason alone, added Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a co-founder of Ms. Magazine.

The New York senator seeking the Democratic nomination for the November 2008 election won support from women last week at her alma mater, Wellesley College, where she spoke of facing "the all-boys club of presidential politics" days after Democratic rivals took aim at her at a debate.

Wellesley student Edlyn Yuen, 20, said she found Clinton inspiring. "It definitely boosts your confidence, especially when you see her holding her own in the debates."

But some feminists object to Clinton's decision to stay with her unfaithful husband, former President Bill Clinton, and others argue she fails as a role model by riding his coattails. And while Clinton supports women's issues such as equal pay, abortion rights and family leave, some don't think her stance is strong enough.


"It's unfortunate that there's not a greater field of candidates to choose from who are women," said Kelsey Henson, 20, another student at the prestigious liberal arts college where Clinton graduated in 1969.

The National Organization for Women has endorsed her candidacy, said NOW President Kim Gandy.
"Our priority is to have a feminist in the White House. If that feminist happens to be a woman, then we may have reached nirvana."
She said Clinton believed in the social, political and economic equality of women and had "lived it."

"There is not a candidate running for president who can point to, as she can, a lifetime of working for the betterment of women and children," she said.

But others warn that sending a woman to the White House could backfire. "It's ultimately a trap," feminist Lisa Jervis wrote in LiP, a magazine of radical politics.

"Women who do nothing to enact feminist policies will be elected and backlash will flourish," she wrote. "I can hear the refrain now: 'They've finally gotten a woman in the White House, so why are feminists still whining about equal pay?"

Sarah Harris, 36, who watched Clinton speak last Thursday, said she was still thinking.

"I sometimes feel like I might vote for her just because she is a woman. So that's why I'm here, maybe, to find out why I don't want to, to try to decipher between the myth and the reality," said Harris, who bought her infant daughter a Clinton T-shirt that said: "I can be president too" and "Glass ceilings are made to be broken."

Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited, "Feminists weigh vote for Clinton" by Ellen Wulfhorst, November 5, 2007.

Sunday, November 04, 2007

Marriage is good for men, women, children--and society

June 16, 2003

Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage
by Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes
Backgrounder #1662

Marriage is good for men, women, children--and society. Because of
this simple fact, President George W. Bush has proposed a new pilot
program to promote healthy marriage. Despite demonstrated evidence
in every major social policy area of the need to rebuild a strong
and healthy culture of marriage, President Bush's new marriage
initiative is still opposed by the extreme wing of feminism that
sees no good in marriage or in unity between men and women, and
between mothers and fathers.

Moderate, mainstream feminists have long rejected this animus
against marriage; the vast majority of such feminists either are
married or intend to marry. Mainstream feminists are focused on a
worthy concern: removing obstacles to the advancement of women in
all walks of life.

Radical feminists, however, while embracing this mainstream goal--
even hiding behind it--go much further: They seek to undermine the
nuclear family of married father, mother, and children, which they
label the "patriarchal family." As feminist leader Betty Friedan has
warned, this anti-marriage agenda places radical feminists
profoundly at odds with the family aspirations of mainstream
feminists and most other American women.

Although radical feminists often claim that their opposition to the
President's healthy marriage initiative is a matter of efficiency or
program details, it is in fact rooted in a long-term philosophical
hostility to the institution of marriage itself. The Washington Post
underscored this point in an April 2002 editorial, stating that the
unwarranted animosity to the President's policy grew out
of "reflexive hostility" and the "tired ideology" of "the feminist
left."2 Decision-makers in Congress should not allow the badly
needed initiative to strengthen healthy marriage to be blocked by
organizations, such as the NOW Legal Defense Fund, that are still
wedded to the "tired ideology" of the radical feminist past.

The Washington Post editorial found "something puzzling about the
reflexive hostility" to the President's proposal. This paper
unravels much of this puzzle by reviewing major statements made by
radical feminist leaders about marriage over the past three decades.
Congress should review these radical feminist views on marriage,
reject their influence, and uphold legislation that seeks to
increase stable, healthy marriage--a better solution for men and
women who are parents of children. Congress should never forget that
it is children who suffer most when an anti-marriage agenda triumphs.


Saturday, November 03, 2007

Just One of the Guys

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama, the only black candidate for president, accused rival Hillary Clinton on Friday of hiding behind her gender after she was pummeled in a debate with sixmale candidates.

"I am assuming and I hope that Sen. Clinton wants to be treated like everybody else," the Illinois senator said in an interview with NBC's "Today Show."

"When we had a debate back in Iowa awhile back, we spent I think the first 15 minutes of the debate hitting me on various foreign policy issues. And I didn't come out and say: 'Look, I'm being hit on because I look different from the rest of the folks on the stage'," he said.

"I assumed it was because there were real policy differences there, and I think that has to be the attitude that all of us take. We're not running for the president of the city council. We're running for the presidency of the United States."

He was speaking a day after New York Sen. Clinton -- the only woman running for president -- urged women voters to rally behind her against "the boys club of presidential politics."

Obama and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who are both trailing Clinton in polls by a wide margin, attacked the former first lady's honesty, leadership and ability to win the November 2008 election in a Tuesday night debate.

Obama noted on Friday that Clinton is widely viewed as a tough figure in national politics.

"So it doesn't make sense for her, after having run that way for eight months, the first time that people start challenging her point of view, that suddenly she backs off and says: 'Don't pick on me'," he said.

"That is not obviously how we would expect her to operate if she were president."

Friday, November 02, 2007

Now Start Telling the Truth

Arrest Made in Oprah Abuse Scandal

by Gina Serpe

Oprah Winfrey's justice has proven swift.

Two weeks after the talk-show maven hightailed it to her eponymous Leadership Academy for Girls amid accusations of employee abuse toward students, a former dormitory matron at the school has been formally arrested by South African police.

Police Superintendent Lunge Dlamini said that a 27-year-old woman, who had been working in the residence halls of the all-girl school, was arrested Thursday after seven students submitted statements alleging assault and various abuse at the hands of the employee.

"Several charges including alleged assault, indecent assault, criminal injury and soliciting underage girls to perform indecent acts are being investigated against her," Dlamini said in a statement.

Police did not release her name.

The woman, who was collared by the department's Family Violence, Child Protection and Sexual Offenses Unit, is being held in police custody and is expected to appear in Sebokeng Magistrate's Court, just outside Johannesburg, on Monday. Winfrey's academy is located near the capital, in Henley-on-Klip.

The arrest is the latest chapter in school sex-abuse saga. Winfrey immediately fired the woman and suspended the school's principal with pay to ensure an impartial investigation.

The allegations surfaced only after one of the pupils ran away from the school, apparently because she could no longer tolerate the abuse.

According to reports, the dorm patron had been accused of fondling one girl and being physically and verbally abusive to several others, including grabbing them around the neck, beating them and hurling them against a wall.

The talk-show host, who personally selected all the students for the $46 million state-of-the-art school when it opened in January, twice visited the campus in the wake of the scandal and even brought in U.S. investigators to help South African authorities. The detectives turned over their findings to the police within the past week.

Winfrey has subsequently given students, whom she refers to as "my daughters," her private phone number, email and snail-mail address so that they can contact her at any time with concerns of any nature. According to NBC News, Winfrey is also handing out cell phones to every student in the school in order to better facilitate contact.

Copyright 2007 E! Entertainment Television, Inc. All rights reserved.

Making Its Rounds: Please Verify!

A little history lesson. If you don't know the answer make your best guess.

Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.

Who said it?

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We) ...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Scroll down for answers


(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Be afraid, Be very afraid!!

The Death of Literature

HALTOM CITY, Texas: A school superintendent will apologize and instructors will receive cultural sensitivity training after a teacher repeatedly used a racial slur during a lesson meant to prepare students to read Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."

Ibrahim Mohamed, 17, was the only black student in the Richland High School English class last week in which students were supposed to discuss hurtful statements and how context can affect a word's meaning. The word "nigger," frequently referred to as the "N-word" because of its painful history and association with slavery, was listed along with other emotionally charged words on the chalkboard.

The teacher "badgered" Mohamed after denying his request to remove the slur from the chalkboard or change it to the "N-word," and she continued to say the word during class, said his mother, Tunya Mohamed. The teen said that he felt singled out when the teacher asked whether the word offended him and that she told him, "'It hurts, doesn't it?'"

The lesson was supposed to prepare students to read the 1884 Mark Twain novel, which includes the slur. It is part of a new curriculum designed to put such words in proper historic context and was not meant to be offensive, Birdville school district officials said.

Birdville Superintendent Stephen Waddell agreed to issue a written apology to the teen and his family and arrange sensitivity training for faculty, said Thomas Muhammad, spokesman of a group called Coalition to Stop the N-Word.

The district in suburban Fort Worth has allowed Mohamed to enroll in a different English class. Officials have since removed the book from the class, but his parents say they will request its removal from the district's curriculum.

"Texas school official to apologize after racial slur used in 'Huckleberry Finn' lesson" The Associated Press, Thursday, November 1, 2007

Police Hunt for Woman Teacher Who Fled With Boy

Authorities are searching for a female teacher from Nebraska who they say kidnapped a 13-year-old former middle school student with whom she had a relationship.

"Right now, there's a warrant we got for the arrest of Kelsey Peterson for kidnapping, child abuse and contributing to the delinquency of a minor," said Paul Schwarz, a criminal investigator for the Lexington, Neb., Police Department, to ABC News.

The parents of Fernando Rodriguez reported their son missing Saturday after he was last seen late Thursday. A warrant for Peterson's arrest was issued after investigators filed an affidavit indicating that the woman had an ongoing relationship with Rodriguez that could be traced to her job at the Lexington Middle School.

Peterson, 25, has been on administrative leave from her sixth-grade teaching and basketball coaching positions because of her relationship with Rodriguez, Schwarz said.

In the five days since the pair were last seen, they've been tracked to Denver and then closer to home in Nebraska. They have also been in touch with their respective families, Schwarz said. "Right now, both families have been very cooperative, " he said.

While the boy may not be in any immediate physical harm, authorities remain anxious to return him to his family.

"We do have some concerns because she's restraining his freedoms," Schwarz said. "Our largest concern at this point is that they're going to continue to evade police and continue whatever type of relationship they have."

It's unclear whether the relationship between the two is sexual in nature, but police confirmed that the teacher and student had exchanged several letters in the last year.

Authorities have issued a nationwide bulletin asking authorities to keep an eye out for Peterson's white 2006 Pontiac G-6. Hopefully, Schwarz said, the search will come to a rapid close with the boy's safe return.

"It's just a matter of them running out of cash," he said, "and when they're down on their luck, they'll come back."

By DAVID SCHOETZ, Oct. 31, 2007