Taggart Romney announced that because President Barack Obama pointed out that his father had lied, he wanted to "take a swing at him".
Well, if he's going to punch every person who called Mitt out for telling lies, he going to punch a heck of a lot of folks. Including his own mother.
When Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts, he ran as pro-choice. On his campaign site it stated, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's.
Below we have the video of his wife informing the American public that her husband is willing to lie his ass off in order to obtain political office. She admits that Mitt will lie about supposedly deeply held beliefs on order to obtain personal power.
So, Tagg, your mom outed your father on television with an even bigger lie than the president did - planning on decking her as well?
Saturday, October 20, 2012
New Understanding of the Word 'Slut'
I must admit to being amazed that in the 21st century we still have to deal with women being called sluts. Seriously, shouldn't we be long past the concept of negatively stereotyping women for participating in sexual activity? Haven't we figured out that it makes no sense to blame one person for the behavior of two?
But then I read something interesting about the linguistic heritage of the word slut. From the 15th through the 18th century the term slut was used to describe a female servant, particularly one who worked in the kitchen. Let that sink in for a moment - a poor woman working as servant in a wealthy man's home. This man either physically assaults or through threat of losing her position forces the woman into sexual intercourse. And the term shifts from describing her work position to blaming her for being a victim of work related sexual harassment.
The thread that stays true in this is that the term says more about the man's role in the situation than it does the woman's. By using the term the man defines himself much more than he will ever define the woman.
But then I read something interesting about the linguistic heritage of the word slut. From the 15th through the 18th century the term slut was used to describe a female servant, particularly one who worked in the kitchen. Let that sink in for a moment - a poor woman working as servant in a wealthy man's home. This man either physically assaults or through threat of losing her position forces the woman into sexual intercourse. And the term shifts from describing her work position to blaming her for being a victim of work related sexual harassment.
The thread that stays true in this is that the term says more about the man's role in the situation than it does the woman's. By using the term the man defines himself much more than he will ever define the woman.
Friday, October 19, 2012
CT Justices: The Default Is Not Yes
Here's a scenario for you - A handicapped man with the mind of a three year old and extremely limited range of movement is severely beaten by an individual who occasionally acts as a caretaker. Can you imagine any jury in this land who would accept the defense that the victim consented to the act? Neither could we.
Well, in Connecticut, a handicapped woman with the exact same limitations I described was raped by her mother's boyfriend and the state's Supreme Court claimed that because she was incapable to say no to the assault, that they had to assume that consent to sex had been given. The individual, Richard Fourtin Jr., was thus set free and will never be held accountable for forcing himself on the handicapped woman.
In the mind's of these, and I use this term loosely, justices, this was an act of sex, not violence and in their mind's, a woman's default is consent, that unless otherwise stated, if a man initiates sex, that as long as she doesn't say no, he's OK.
Rape is an act of violence and power, not an act of love or consensual sex. You do not have to say no before someone strikes you, kicks you or slashes you before it becomes a crime. If you are struck with a billy-club by a mugger, you do not have to prove that you said no before it constitutes an assault.
And since the victim in this case is understood to have the mind of a toddler, this was not a relationship between equals where consent could even be obtained. It's like saying that a three year old child could enter into an adult mature relationship and given consent to sexual intercourse. It's ridiculous and obscene.
Their 18th century attitudes about women, sex and rape have allowed justice to be denied and a rapist to walk the streets of Connecticut.
Well, in Connecticut, a handicapped woman with the exact same limitations I described was raped by her mother's boyfriend and the state's Supreme Court claimed that because she was incapable to say no to the assault, that they had to assume that consent to sex had been given. The individual, Richard Fourtin Jr., was thus set free and will never be held accountable for forcing himself on the handicapped woman.
In the mind's of these, and I use this term loosely, justices, this was an act of sex, not violence and in their mind's, a woman's default is consent, that unless otherwise stated, if a man initiates sex, that as long as she doesn't say no, he's OK.
Rape is an act of violence and power, not an act of love or consensual sex. You do not have to say no before someone strikes you, kicks you or slashes you before it becomes a crime. If you are struck with a billy-club by a mugger, you do not have to prove that you said no before it constitutes an assault.
And since the victim in this case is understood to have the mind of a toddler, this was not a relationship between equals where consent could even be obtained. It's like saying that a three year old child could enter into an adult mature relationship and given consent to sexual intercourse. It's ridiculous and obscene.
Their 18th century attitudes about women, sex and rape have allowed justice to be denied and a rapist to walk the streets of Connecticut.
Paul Ryan and His Left-Handed Irishmen
It was refreshing to finally hear Paul Ryan say something truthful.
At a recent Naples fundraiser, the brain trust of the GOP told his acolytes that “Now it’s a war on women; tomorrow it’s going to be a war on left-handed Irishmen or something like that,”
Mr. Ryan, I appreciate that you recognize that the extreme conservatives has made it their business to systematically attack women's rights to vote, their right to control their own bodies, to deny them protection against physical and sexual violence and the right to fair pay. I appreciate that you understand that when you attack a group physically, legislatively, and economically, that yes, you have declared war on that group. I'm glad that you acknowledge members of the GOP leadership have attempted to suggest that women are not merely less than men but not even human, in an attempt to excuse the Party's treatment of them.
Yes, there is a war on women, a war being waged by the conservatives. But, here's the flaw in Paul Ryan's logic:
We women are full fledged citizens with the same rights as our male counterparts. We have the same right to full control over our own bodies and private medical decisions as men do. We are not chattel whose reproductive decisions are handed off from relatives, spouses, employers or even rapists. Women have the right to equal protection from physical and sexual assault as any male citizen. Our gender should have no effect on our having the right to have the same pay for the same work and same seniority. We women have the constitutional right to have a say in our representation which the conservatives do not have the authority to strip away.
And since, according to the 2011 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as of 2009, there are, in fact, 307 million citizens of this country who are women, we are not, as Ryan would suggest, a rarity living outside of this country. We are the majority and we most definitely live in this country.
Thus, treating us with anything less than full respect at any time but especially at election time and expecting it to be beneficial to your political career is as counting on winning the American election based on the votes of left-handed Irishmen.
At a recent Naples fundraiser, the brain trust of the GOP told his acolytes that “Now it’s a war on women; tomorrow it’s going to be a war on left-handed Irishmen or something like that,”
Mr. Ryan, I appreciate that you recognize that the extreme conservatives has made it their business to systematically attack women's rights to vote, their right to control their own bodies, to deny them protection against physical and sexual violence and the right to fair pay. I appreciate that you understand that when you attack a group physically, legislatively, and economically, that yes, you have declared war on that group. I'm glad that you acknowledge members of the GOP leadership have attempted to suggest that women are not merely less than men but not even human, in an attempt to excuse the Party's treatment of them.
Yes, there is a war on women, a war being waged by the conservatives. But, here's the flaw in Paul Ryan's logic:
We women are full fledged citizens with the same rights as our male counterparts. We have the same right to full control over our own bodies and private medical decisions as men do. We are not chattel whose reproductive decisions are handed off from relatives, spouses, employers or even rapists. Women have the right to equal protection from physical and sexual assault as any male citizen. Our gender should have no effect on our having the right to have the same pay for the same work and same seniority. We women have the constitutional right to have a say in our representation which the conservatives do not have the authority to strip away.
And since, according to the 2011 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as of 2009, there are, in fact, 307 million citizens of this country who are women, we are not, as Ryan would suggest, a rarity living outside of this country. We are the majority and we most definitely live in this country.
Thus, treating us with anything less than full respect at any time but especially at election time and expecting it to be beneficial to your political career is as counting on winning the American election based on the votes of left-handed Irishmen.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Moral Relativism and Political Expediency: Another Day in American Politics
After years of claiming that there's only one way to righteousness, the reverend Billy Graham, decided to be more open and accepting as he informed former Mormon bishop, Mitt Romney, that his religion which states that good Mormon men become gods is not longer considered a cult.
And why would he do this after years of stating that it was?
Because as long as evangelicals were uncomfortable with voting for a man who believes that not only are there multiple gods but that he himself can become a god, they weren't likely to be able to beat the man who has been a practicing Christian all his adult life...yeah, the black guy talking about helping the poor, not judging people by their sexuality and rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars'.
No word on whether the LDS Church would return the favor and rescind their teaching about all other existing Christian creeds being an abomination in G-d's sight. ( Times and Seasons 3 (11): 748–49 )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)