"Watching me from up above"

The title is a line from the Josh Groban song To Where You Are.

Out of respect and waiting and watching how things were going to unfold I had decided to keep quiet about this topic. Then today I recieved the news while I was working earlier today.

Terri Schiavo had passed away today at 9 (or 9:05) AM.

When I first learned of Terri, both sides of her family and their situation, I was on the husband's side. A husband should know what a wife wants. Then I found out the husband was not as loyal as a husband should be. Not only did he have a girlfriend (or "common law wife" as I've heard some people say) he had children, 2 children, with her. Big red flag because, for me, that tells me he has motive and may not be thinking in his ailing wife's best interest. Other things I had learned over the last couple of days had made me gradually side with Terri's parents. Michael Schiavo, to even my boss, seemed and still seems like a heartless bastard.

In response to the government intervening, I'm split. I didn't feel it was right in one aspect, then I think it was right in another aspect. I was suprised to see Jesse Jackson in front of the camera during the last days of Terri. Mel Gibson also had his say in this case.

I don't want feminist groups that say they "speak for all women" to ever open their mouths again. Besides the "Concerned Women for America" (are they feminist?) I didn't hear any other women's groups. You mean to tell me an "evil man" is killing one of your "sisters" and you're not helping her? I hate feminism, but you already know that if you've read some of my previous posts. There was dispute over Terri's wishes, so please don't say it was "her wish".

I don't believe this controversy is going away any time soon. We have opened Pandora's Box and even Hope has escaped.

Rest in Peace, Johnny Cochran

After an extended bout with brain cancer/a brain tumor, Johnny Cochran has died. He was 67.

You will be missed.

Disenfranchisement Disenchantment

We heard it in 2000 with Florida, then we heard it in 2004 with Ohio and now the word is passing through the lips of Democrats in 2005 in Georgia.

It's that word we can't seem to escape. "Disenfranchisement".

I was looking at New Leadership when I tripped over this article about a fight over a bill in Georgia. The bill would make residents who wish to vote in elections to have to present their photo ID (or 4 other types, down from 17 other types) when they do so.

So what's wrong with this?

Some Georgia Democrats compare passing this bill to the returning of JIM CROW LAWS in the South, saying that it "has the potential to disenfranchise poor, elderly and minority people who do not drive, can't work or who otherwise have no means to get proper photo ID."

Hello?! Buses? Taxis? FRIENDS? And I can't tell you how many people I've seen who are disabled (and therefore unable to work) who have a photo ID when I was at WalMart. In Maryland, we have Driver's license photo IDs and State issued photo IDs. I gather every state has these? It'll only disenfranchise people who LET IT.

Why do they act like this is a new idea? In the 2004 election, I had to show my ID when I voted. Big deal. When they said they wanted every vote to count, they weren't kidding. Yes, let's count every imaginary friend, dog, cat, hamster, dead relative and person under multiple aliases while we're at it! Because that's what happens if you don't crack down on voter registration abuse.

I pray that the deciding vote in a presidential (or any) election never comes down to Carl the fish.

It's about time....

...I write that book before my head explodes. These last couple of days hearing news on Nichols in Georgia, Summers at Harvard (yet again) and a blog entry on Michelle Malkin's site are making me want to pick up the pen instead of tapping the keyboard keys.

I think I'll give my first copy to Phyllis Schlafly...nah, scratch that. Maureen Dowd.

Now it's "Back Problems"?

First it was "flu-like symptoms" now it's "serious back problems". Today, Michael Jackson is late to the courtroom a day after facing his accuser. Keeping his word on the serious consequences Jackson would face the next time he didn't show up, the judge in less than an hour, will put in a warrant for Jackson's arrest. If you're keeping up with this trial, willingly or unwillingly, are you getting sick of stuff like this? The man says he's innocent (and I'm not saying he is or he isn't), but stunts like this have to make people and even the jurors think. If I'm screaming my innocence to everyone, I'd make sure I was in the courtroom EVERY DAY. Wheel me in on a gurney if you must, but I'd be there. I understand that this man is probably under a lot of stress, but seeing where he could end up, which is more stressful?

I think the judge's idea of arresting him for the remainder of the trial is a good idea. At least we'll know where he is, how he's doing and we'd know he'd never be late again. Jackson's poor lawyer must be so embarrassed and the jury must be FURIOUS. This is very disrespectful for all parties involved. Jackson needs to realize this trial is serious and that it should not be treated so lightly.


11:56 AM EST: He's on his way. (courtesy of FOX NEWS)
12:19 PM EST: MSNBC's Connected: Coast to Coast has a countdown to "Arrest Warrant" ticker!
12:35 PM EST: Time's up.
12:37 PM EST: He's heeeeeere....


Anyone else noticed how quickly Jackson turned to wave at supporters as he walked into the courthouse? "Serious back problems" my behind...

Silly HOT 97!

When not suspending morning show hosts or hosting events that end in shoot outs, HOT 97 gets slap happy. If you watched Hannity & Colmes last night or the night before you got to see a video of HOT 97's newest cheap thrill. Smackfest! Yes, a contest where two women exchange blows to the face like one of them stole their man. The louder the smack, the greater your chances at winning a cash prize. A representative from HOT 97 defended the event saying that people have always done "silly" things to win money. Silly? "Silly" is sitting in a dunking booth in only a light t-shirt and shorts in the freezing cold waiting for someone to hit the target so you can plummet into freezing cold water. "Silly" is puckering up to a new car for 15+ hours to win it. Causing harm to one's face and body is not silly. Would you call an event where contestants give each other the biggest black eye to win cash prizes "silly"? HOT 97 has gotten past "silly" in my book.

They've just gotten plain "dumb".

It's not just a "Girl Problem"

I walked by a flyer yesterday in my college’s Fine Arts Department which made me a little angry. The ad requested the help of artists who were interested in submitting artwork to raise domestic abuse against women, children and families awareness. I know that domestic violence does happen to women and children, but as I pointed out to my old ceramics teacher, it happens to men too (I guess that’s the "family" part). She agreed with me, knowing an old college roommate who abused her own boyfriend. But like many people, she didn’t believe it until she saw it.

Times have changed. Women can no longer be looked at as damsels in distress or innocent beings. We are no longer just the receivers of abuse. We can be the givers of it too. It’s the dirty little secret a lot of women’s groups don’t want you to know and refuse to acknowledge. Women today are just as likely as their male counterparts to abuse their significant others. Having trouble believing some women abuse their men? Here are 123 documented cases. But of course that’s only 123. How can such a percieved petite damsel abuse a strong, towering man? While most men use their hands to abuse, women use guns, knives and other weaponry among other things.

It’s not a "new phenomenon." Some women did not just wake a week ago and say, "hey, I’m going to abuse my man today." It’s been happening for years. Just like a lot of women, a lot of men do not report abuse by the hands of their significant other. Some men feel ashamed and others feel that they will not be taken seriously if they do report the abuse. Some abused men stay in abusive relationships for the same reasons some abused women stay. They think that one day their abusers will have a change of heart and stop. Others because they don’t want to leave their children with an abusive parent. At least if a woman wants to leave she has a plethora of shelters to go to. Men have very limited if at all choices, many shelters that house abused women rejecting them because they are the "enemy".

Domestic violence laws (and acts such as the Violence Against Women Act or VAWA) paint all men as abusers and all women as abused. But both men and women can be abusers and both men and women can be the abused. It’s not always a man (and it has never been always a man) who raises his hand to a fearful woman. The opposite is true too. Men can be abused. It’s not a laughing matter and it is not something to overlook just because it isn’t "popular thought". Abused men need laws and acts passed on their behalf too. They need people and establishments to go to who take them seriously.

Last October, my pastor handed out purple ribbons for the congregation to wear. Along with a lot of other things, October is "Domestic Violence Awareness Month." While many people wore their ribbons for the women and children victims of domestic violence, I wore it not for the women victims or the child victims, but for the men victims.

It’s time to uncover our ears, our mouths and our eyes. It’s not just a "Girl Problem".


Links worth mention:
http://www.batteredmen.com/index.htm
http://www.dvmen.org
http://www.safe4all.org
http://www.batteredmenshelpline.org

"Massa" George?

Sunday past I got into a discussion about President Bush with my friends. While the president is still not on the top of my A list, I feel there are some things he has done that are worth commending. My friends, however, only seemed to want to see Bush as evil incarnate, bringing up all the bad things and belittling the good. Iraqi elections? Who cares, there were no WMDs. Meeting with black pastors who were concerned with their communities? Those pastors must have ulterior motives since they were meeting with him. As they sat there and talked about George Bush like he was the ultimate evil, one of my friends said two things that show me she doesn’t research things for herself, goes by word of mouth (however messed up it may be) and makes me question her knowledge of our kind of government. The first thing was that Bush wants to bring back the draft. I remember this fiasco during the Bush and Kerry debates. Bush wants to bring back the draft no more than Kerry did. The second thing she said blew me away on so many levels. I heard from a co-worker of mine that my friend is not the only one who says and believes this.

"Bush wants to bring back slavery."

Huh? He wants to what? I don’t...get...it. And even if he did, how? Not only do we have an amendment banning slavery, the American people would never allow it (unless we were under some serious mass hypnotism). Last time I checked we didn’t have a dictatorship. He’s been in office for 4 years. He’s in for another 4. He’s had some time to do it if he wanted. He hasn’t and he won’t. He can’t. Also, it seems a bit hypocritical for someone to want freedom in one country, but slavery in his own. Let’s not forget that not all slaves were black (and not all black slaves were from Africa), so if George Bush were to bring back slavery, it would be trouble for everybody.

"Massa" George? Not likely. Not ever.