Monday Morning Madness
Posted by Michelle Moquin on August 1st, 2016
Good Monday Morning!
From Think Progress:
O’Reilly’s Comments On White House Slaves Echo Actual Slaveowners
On Monday night, Michelle Obama brought the house down at the DNC in Philadelphia with an emotional speech where she illustrated the greatness of America with this line: “Today, I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves.”
That remark prompted Bill O’Reilly to delve into the history of the construction of the White House. But his history lesson he provided his Fox News viewers on Tuesday was like one that would’ve been taught in Richmond in 1850.
After acknowledging that Michelle Obama’s comment was factually correct and providing a bit of the backstory, O’Reilly — a former history teacher — asserted that “Slaves that worked there were well fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802.”
That comment comes around the one minute mark of this video:
Liam Hogan, a historian whose work focuses on slavery, noted on Twitter that O’Reilly’s comments are reminiscent of “how chattel slavery was defended by slave owners and pro-slavery interests.” To cite just one example, a U.S. history primer put together by the Independence Hall Association notes that “defenders of slavery argued that by comparison with the poor of Europe and the workers in the Northern states, that slaves were better cared for. They said that their owners would protect and assist them when they were sick and aged, unlike those who, once fired from their work, were left to fend helplessly for themselves.”
The reality, Hogan added, is that slavery were “treated like livestock.”
Hogan cited comments made by First Lady Abigail Adams in 1800, who wrote that White House slaves were in fact “half fed, and destitute of clothing.”
“What is O’Reilly’s claim of ‘well fed’ and ‘decent lodgings’ based upon?” Hogan wrote. “What are his sources? What is his evidence?”
In an email to ThinkProgress, Hogan said that based on his study of the literature, “I can’t see any basis… to justify a claim of [slaves] being ‘treated well.’ It’s kind of oxymoronic in the context of man as chattel property.”
To illustrate the point, Hogan shared a story about an ad White House architect James Hoban placed for a runaway slave named “Peter” in 1789. Three years later, Peter had apparently been recaptured and was listed as being among the slaves working for Hoban at the White House. Most of the slaves that worked on the White House and Capitol were leased, and it stands to reason that slaves in that circumstance would be treated worse than slaves put to work by masters who owned them. But, as Hogan writes, Peter “was willing to risk life and limb to escape his bondage” — hardly the behavior one would expect from a slave who is being “well fed” and kept in “decent lodgings.”
This isn’t the first time in recent months O’Reilly has expressed skepticism about the legacy of slavery and racism in the U.S. In April, he sent his interviewer to Princeton to say the word “ghetto” to black students in an attempt to make a point about political correctness on college campuses. Suffice it to say it did not go well.
~~~~~~
Readers: Oh, the insensitivity. How easily it is for a white man to justify slavery because he claims they were “well fed and had decent lodgings.”
What’s your opinion? Blog me.
Peace baby.
Lastly, greed over a great story is surfacing from my “loyal”(?) readers. With all this back and forth about who owns what, that appears on my blog, let me reiterate that all material posted on my blog becomes the sole property of my blog. If you want to reserve any proprietary rights don’t post it to my blog. I will prominently display this caveat on my blog from now on to remind those who may have forgotten this notice.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: We all know what this means by now :)
If you love my blog and my writes, please make a donation via PayPal, credit card, or e-check, please click the “Donate” button below. (Please only donations from those readers within the United States. – International readers please see my “Donate” page)
Or if you would like to send a check via snail mail, please make checks payable to “Michelle Moquin”, and send to:
Michelle Moquin PO Box 29235 San Francisco, Ca. 94129
Thank you for your loyal support!
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2008-2016
“Though she be but little, she be fierce.” – William Shakespeare Midsummer Night’s Dream
" Politics, god, Life, News, Music, Family, Personal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
August 1st, 2016 at 9:20 am
Honest and Unmerciful: An Open Letter to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone Magazine
Trevor LaFauci March 27, 2016
Hi Matt,
I’ve been a follower of yours for some time now. This past Wednesday, when your boss Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone published his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I knew that you’d have a response in defense of your own personal candidate of choice, Bernie Sanders. To your credit, you were able to respectfully disagree with your boss’ endorsement (the respectful part is key) and lay out the reasons why you feel young people are not fully supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. As a millennial who is supporting Hillary Clinton, I found your reasoning to be so unconvincing, uninformed, and untruthful that I felt compelled to respond to you in an effort to correct the record. As you did in your response piece, I too will do my best to present my argument in an enlightening, yet respectful, tone.
First off, like the majority of journalists covering the election, you grossly exaggerate the support that Bernie Sanders has among millennials. Millennials are not a monolith; we exist across racial, religious, cultural, and ethnic boundaries. To say that Bernie Sanders is “winning under-30 voters by consistently absurd margins” is a gross miscategorization of what the vote totals have said thus far. The truth is that Sanders is doing well with White millennials while he is still struggling to make inroads with people of color. According to South Carolina exit polls, Clinton won 46% of the under-30 vote but 86% of the African-American vote. In Texas, she won 40% of the under-30 vote but 73% of the non-White vote. In Florida, she won 35% of the under-30 vote but 74% of the non-White vote. I know that you tried to defend Sanders’ lack of non-White support by saying he is “making gains” but when you cite the fact that he only lost the non-White vote of Michigan by 30 points what you’re essentially saying is that this is a large segment of the population that Sanders is struggling to connect and, as you fail to realize, is a segment that includes large numbers of millennials within their ranks.
Numbers aside, the next part of your article focused on several critiques of Hillary Clinton you feel millennials are justified in having. Let’s look at some of these, particularly your critique of Hillary Clinton’s Iraq vote. You may be shocked to learn that this vote was not “one of the easiest calls ever” as you implied but was rather a difficult and drawn out decision that every single member of Congress mulled in both an extensive and exhaustive manner. In fact, had you done a little independent research, you would have been able to read the transcript of Hillary Clinton’s speech on the Senate floor in October of 2002 where she calls her vote “probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make.” It was not a slam dunk vote as you implied but rather a complicated one with far-reaching implications. In fact, several progressive icons voted in favor of the bill including then senators Joe Biden, Diane Feinstein, Chris Dodd, and John Kerry. If it was such an easy call, why did so many progressives drop the ball, so to speak?
To answer this, you imply that these Democratic senators didn’t want to appear to be anti-war. However, you have also stated that you don’t personally buy Hillary Clinton’s justification for her vote. What is it about her justification that you find so “ridiculous”? Hillary has called her vote a mistake yet she has also offered insight into why she voted the way she did. At the time, Clinton believed that a yes vote would be a strong piece of leverage that would ensure that the negotiation of weapons inspections between the United Nations and Saddam Hussein would be completed before the United States took further action. In that same speech Clinton said that her vote was not “for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” Clinton, along with 76 other senators trusted George W. Bush to do the right thing and stay true to his word. Unfortunately he did not and the result was America’s worst foreign policy decision since Vietnam. This was not about Democrats “supporting a wrong war” as you implied but instead was about a president accepting the trust placed in him by Congress and then abusing that trust to promote his own personal disastrous agenda.
In addition, you also seem critical of Hillary Clinton’s role as First Lady by implying that she was responsible for her husband’s policies. Last time I checked Matt, a First Lady is supposed to be an advocate for the administration unless you personally believe every First Lady should take on the role of Claire Underwood in House of Cards and use the position to promote her own personal political agenda. However, since you seem to believe that a First Lady is a major policy player let’s take a look at your criticism of her in that role, focusing on the 1994 Crime Bill. Like most Hillary critics, you took aim at her out-of-context quote taken on young African-American men who became known as “super-predators” at the time. If you had done even a tiny bit of research, you would have realized that not only did Clinton use this term a single time but she used it to specifically describe gang members and not all African-American males. The fact that you took this smear as being factual shows that you, like many others in the media, were duped into believing something that simply was not true.
Speaking of smears, you’ve also jumped on the bandwagon of criticizing Hillary Clinton over her Goldman Sachs speaking fees, a smear started by Glenn Greenwald over at The Intercept, and you have implied that her accepting these fees is “repugnant” to young people. Here’s some shocking news you might not be aware of: people pay good money to see the best in their respective fields whether it is an athlete, musician, performer, and yes, even politician. Companies like Goldman Sachs are willing to pay top-dollar for someone like Hillary Clinton so that it makes the company look good and makes the employees feel good about themselves. It’s a PR move, plain and simple, and it goes a long way in both the retention as well as potential recruitment of employees. Goldman Sachs is willing to pay top dollar for Hillary Clinton because she has been the most admired woman in the world a record twenty times. She and her husband are top draws on the speaking circuit and they can command top dollar for their work. There is nothing wrong with using the opportunities presented to you to help further your cause. And, despite what you may believe, that cause is not simply lining Hillary Clinton’s own pocket but rather the multitude of charities that she and her husband gave $18 million to over the course of their time on the speaking circuit. If you think someone helping to raise $18 million for charity is “repugnant” then I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Also, you also seem frustrated by what you see as Hillary Clinton’s “flippant attitude” when it comes to her emails. Let’s take a closer look at this, shall we? Because first off, Clinton has never been “flippant” even though she has been repeatedly asked about this issue at debates, town halls, late night shows, and Sunday talk shows. However, after having dealt with the issue for a long time there can be no doubt she is annoyed by the situation. And why shouldn’t she be? Numerous legal experts have stated an indictment is unlikely and it has been a fact since August that none of the emails she sent on her private server were ever marked as ‘classified.’ Clinton has even pointed out that her predecessors Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell also used private email in the exact same role. Had there been any actual concern that there would be legal repercussions for her email server, Joe Biden would have joined the race early on to serve as a potential fallback to a Clinton candidacy.
But let’s give you a practical example of this situation. Let’s pretend, Matt, that you were the designated driver for a Rolling Stone holiday party. You ended up having a few drinks at the party just to be social but you know your limit so you were prepared to stop by the end of the night and take your friends home. Let’s pretend that on the way home, there was a DWI checkpoint and the officer made you get out of the car and take a breathalyzer where you blew a .07. You realize that what you did wasn’t illegal but it also was something that could have been potentially bad. You make a vow going forward to being more careful when driving after having a couple drinks and you finish off the evening by safely taking your friends to their respective dwellings.
However, your next day at the office, your friends who were in your car that night end up telling everybody about what happened. Rumors spread that you tricked a cop, paid him off, or even that you sped away past the security checkpoint a la Grand Theft Auto. People start calling you “Wild Man” and “Matt the Maniac” and folks you’ve never talked to give you a high-five in the corridor. You are even called into Jann Wenner’s office and you have to explain to him what actually happened because he’s concerned you might have a drinking problem. From that point forward, people will come up to you and will ask you if you really did successfully avoid a DWI and, if so, how you did it. Do you think, Matt, that after six months of this happening you might become a little annoyed anytime someone asked you about that particular incident?
I rest my case.
But lastly, Matt, you wrap up your criticism of Hillary Clinton by again repeating the age-old smear that she is untrustworthy. Like everyone else in the mainstream media, Matt, you’ve successfully bought twenty-five years of Republican smears designed to give you this impression. You’re the type of person who assumes Clinton is hiding something in her Goldman Sachs speeches because it seems like something she would do. Yet what you fail to realize is that Clinton has actually been recognized as the most truthful candidate running and is even more truthful than your candidate of choice, Bernie Sanders. I know that’s gotta sting a bit, Matt, but like your peers in the media you have been brain-washed into thinking everything Clinton does or says is somehow manipulative. However, when you look at her actual words and not the false impression you might have of her, you realize she is a knowledgeable candidate with extensive expertise in a number of areas who presents her case to the American people in manageable, realistic goals.
And it is that last part, Matt, where your criticism of Hillary Clinton falls flat. Your entire premise is that Hillary Clinton is part of a corrupt system and is “part of the problem” as you yourself stated. Yet the only reason you see her as being part of the problem is that you are too dense to see beyond what you believe to be true. You perceive her to be untrustworthy and so you and a multitude of so-called “journalists” pursue this narrative without any reservations. You’ve fallen victim to a classic strategical trap where opponents of a political candidate turn that candidate’s greatest strength into a weakness. Those that know Hillary Clinton personally will tell you she is one of the most trustworthy individuals they have ever met. Ask Jon Favreau who wrote of his experiences working beside her in the Obama Administration. Favreau tells of an honest and open person, doing her best on a daily basis to try and help to leave a positive impact in this world.
But you can’t see that, Matt, because it doesn’t fit your worldview. You see Hillary Clinton as being part of a system you see as inherently corrupt. What you fail to see is that she has been fighting against this system for forty-five years. From enforcing school integration in the south to fighting for health care reform in the mid-1990s to helping pass legislation that got 7 million children health insurance to being a co-sponsor of the Dream Act in the Senate to becoming a worldwide inspiration for women in saying that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights,” Hillary Clinton has been a voice for the voiceless. This is not a person who is “part of the problem” as you claim, Matt, but rather the only person who can be part of the solution that helps keep an extreme Republican out of the White House in 2016. You were correct in your article when you said that millennials were thinking about Hillary Clinton. However, their thinking, much like your own, is not based on facts but rather a false narrative constructed solely to discredit a leading presidential candidate.
If you were a true journalist, Matt, you’d be able to tell the difference.
Sincerely,
Trevor LaFauci
August 1st, 2016 at 12:04 pm
On late Friday afternoon, President Obama signed the sham Stabenow-Roberts GMO-Labeling bill (S. 764) which will allow, among many other things, companies to use QR codes instead of clear GMO labels on a food product’s packaging.
This bill is so discriminatory and so poorly written that it potentially violates several amendments of the Constitution. Additionally, it puts the integrity of the organic seal in real jeopardy.
What is arguably the most troubling aspect of this bill is that while almost every single organic consumer organization fought this bill, the organic industry’s leading trade organization praised the bill and lobbied for it to pass.
Here are the key points to understand, in terms of analyzing the bill, what this means for the organic industry, and where we go from here.
THE BILL IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Polls consistently show that 90% of Americans want GMOs to be labeled. This is irrefutable. See here, here, and here.
Yet, the bill, which does not mandate the full and easy disclosure of GMOs, easily passed through both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
This goes completely against what the American public wants. The American public wants clear GMO-labels on packaging, but politicians voted to protect major chemical and biotech corporations instead.
When President Obama pledged to label GMOs while campaigning in 2007, there is no chance that he would have found QR codes or 1-800 numbers to be acceptable alternatives.
Yet, to no one’s surprise, the President has turned his back on the organic community again, something that he has done for eight straight years. Not only did he sign this bill but his administration has rubber-stamped every new GMO application, including genetically-engineered salmon.
THE BILL POTENTIALLY VIOLATES SEVERAL AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION
According to Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety, “this is worst written bill I have seen in all of my time in Washington, D.C. There are so many flaws in this bill that it potentially violates several amendments of the Constitution.”
Perhaps, most obviously, the bill seems to be a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, as it would allow corporations to use QR codes instead of clear packaging on labels. Since nearly 100 million Americans, predominantly the elderly and low-income population, do not have smartphones, the bill is discriminatory and does not treat all citizens equal.
NO ENFORCEMENT, INTERPRETATION IS A SERIOUS CONCERN
Aside from the fact that the bill preempts any state’s food and seed labeling laws, including Vermont’s GMO-labeling law, it also does not have to go into effect for another two years, and there is zero penalty for non-compliance.
Yet, arguably, the largest concern is that so much of the bill is open to interpretation and will ultimately be decided by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Key issues to be determined:
– Will genetic engineering technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9, which does not insert foreign DNA but simply rearranges existing genetic code, be forced to be labeled?
– Will food products that use certain genetically-modified ingredients, such as oils or high-fructose corn syrup, not have to be labeled at all?
– What will the threshold be for products labeled as “Non-GMO”? In order for a product to currently receive the Non-GMO Project verification, it cannot contain more than 0.9% of GMOs. Finding something that is 100% GMO-free is nearly impossible because of widespread contamination.
– What exactly does the definition of “bio-engineered” mean?
The bill also calls for S. 764 to be “harmonized” with the Organic Food Production Act. What does this mean exactly? It is very uncertain but it is definitely not good at all.
BETRAYAL BY THE ORGANIC TRADE ASSOCIATION
In March, a federal GMO-labeling bill was rejected in the Senate. Somehow, this nearly identical bill, S. 764, just got approved a few weeks ago.
What happened between March and July?
According to Andrew Kimbrell, the support of the bill by the Organic Trade Association (OTA), who has numerous industrial food companies as members, was responsible for between 10-20 Senators changing their minds about this bill. Once passed, Laura Batcha, the OTA’s CEO, and Melissa Hughes, President of OTA’s board of directors and an executive at Organic Valley, praised the bill.
Yet, OTA’s support of this bill flies in the face of extreme opposition of the bill by almost every single organic consumer non-profit organization.
Andrew Kimbrell, who has been fighting to protect organic for more than 30 years, did not mince words when asked about the OTA.
“The OTA leadership bears a tremendous responsibility for this, and they betrayed the whole food movement. The problem is that when the OTA talks with Senators and takes a position supporting a bill, those Senators think that the OTA is speaking for the entire organic business sector and for all organic consumers. When in fact it was only a very small cadre at the top of the OTA who went rogue and decided this. Neither the OTA Board nor its members voted on this, and most were not even aware of what the upper echelon of OTA was doing. And the vast majority of organic farmer and consumer organizations vehemently opposed the DARK Act.”
“This action by OTA leadership also brings up the legitimate question of whether the industrial food companies, who now own organic, see organic as a threat to their mostly industrial products and, therefore, are using the OTA to fundamentally undermine organic. They can’t crush organic openly. But will they continue to try and change organic to fit their industrial practices rather than change their industrial practices to fit organic. “
One of the reasons that the OTA praised this bill was because the words “Non-GMO”can now be put on the labels of USDA certified organic products.
But what happens down the road if organic products are found to have very high levels of GMO-contamination, yet these products contain the label “Non-GMO” on the outside of the packaging? And what happens if the Secretary of Agriculture declares that CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing technology can be used in organic?
These two things could very well happen, thanks to this new GMO-labeling bill, which the OTA pushed for. The integrity of organic will suffer tremendously and might never be viewed in the same light again.
Through its actions, the OTA, the most influential organic lobbying group in Washington, D.C., has made it very clear that it does not represent the best interests of organic consumers. And as someone who lives and breathes organic, I cannot tell you how distressing this is.
It goes without saying that members of the OTA ought to be asking themselves A LOT of very hard questions right now.
LAWSUITS WILL BE COMING
A few days ago, Food Democracy Now! sent out an email saying that it would be filing a lawsuit to block this bill. Similarly, the Center for Food Safety told me over the weekend that it would be filing a lawsuit by mid-August. I have yet to receive an answer if these two organizations would be filing together or separately.
Despite the betrayal of the OTA and the passage of this bill, Andrew Kimbrell remains optimistic.
“The good news is that food labeling has brought the community together in a way that I never anticipated. We have hundreds of groups sticking together and an enormous grass roots movement. It has been remarkable.”
August 1st, 2016 at 3:18 pm
It’s not just Trump but also his supporters who seem to have come out of nowhere, expressing in large numbers ideas far more extreme than anything that has risen to such popularity in recent memory. In South Carolina, a CBS News exit poll found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States. APPP poll found that a third of Trump voters support banning gays and lesbians from the country. Twenty percent said Lincoln shouldn’t have freed the slaves.
These aren’t traditional Republican values. They correlate more directly with authoritarianism. Authoritarians prioritize social order and hierarchies, which bring a sense of control to a chaotic world. Challenges to that order — diversity, influx of outsiders, breakdown of the old order — are experienced as personally threatening because they risk upending the status quo order they equate with basic security.
So the GOP has been replaced by the Authoritarian Party. If the Democrats go in the direction they should, they’ll offer the alternative — a true Democratic Party that stands against authoritarianism and for American democracy. -Robert Reich
August 1st, 2016 at 3:20 pm
Only 9 percent of Americans chose Trump or Clinton as nominees to be president of the United States, according to a great pictograph by the Times (below). Here’s how the Times arrived a the figure:
1. The United States is home to 324 million people. 103 million of them are children, noncitizens or ineligible felons, and they do not have the right to vote.
2. 88 million eligible adults do not vote at all, even in general elections.
3. An additional 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year, but will most likely vote in the general election.
4. The remaining 60 million people voted in the primaries: about 30 million each for Republicans and Democrats. But half of the primary voters chose other candidates.
5. Just 14 percent of eligible adults — 9 percent of the whole nation — voted for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton.
August 1st, 2016 at 3:56 pm
Anonymous#2, read Cherry#1, to learn how to fashion a credible argument. Your statement: “Here are the key points to understand, in terms of analyzing the bill, what this means for the organic industry, and where we go from here.
THE BILL IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE”
Not quite I would say because the bill was written by the Monsanto people along with their bought and paid for Republican controlled Congress. Since the “AMERICAN PEOPLE” you are referring to are the ones who elected those bought and paid for republicans.
August 1st, 2016 at 4:05 pm
Anonymous#2, read Cherry#1, to learn how to fashion a credible argument. Your statement: “Here are the key points to understand, in terms of analyzing the bill, what this means for the organic industry, and where we go from here.
THE BILL IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE”
Not quite I would say because the bill was written by the Monsanto people along with their bought and paid for Republican controlled Congress. Since the “AMERICAN PEOPLE” you are referring to are the ones who elected those bought and paid for republicans.
If you wish to argue that you didn’t, I would argue that since enough of you either didn’t register to vote or stayed home during the mid-term election as to give the republicans control of the Congress.
To now complain or blame Obama for having to work with a Congress that can pass any bill they wish over his veto. I think he did the best he could by getting for the FIRST time in this country’s history a listing on foods that say it contains a GMO.
As usual those like you who can’t maintain the effort to keep the bought and paid for republicans out of Congress look to blame anyone available for your lack of commitment.
Obama said don’t boo, vote. That applies to your angry critique of President Obama signing the “sham” Stabenow-Roberts GMO-Labeling bill (S. 764)
The actual “sham” is your pretense that the “AMERICAN PEOPLE” were not directly responsible for that bill. Don’t bitch, vote.
August 1st, 2016 at 4:15 pm
You Cant Make This Shit Up#4, and that means what? The only thing that matters is the people that DO vote. If Hilary loses, then pointless diatribes like the one posted by Anonymous#2, wishing for “lawsuits” will be all the rage.
The same pointless thought that went into that argument is lost on the fact that if the republicans win they will appoint judges that will make “Citizens United” look like minor damage to the right to self government by the people.
Those judges will rule against any case that goes contrary to the interest of their employers.
No, “you can’t make this shit up,” if you get out and vote you can take back your country from these bought and paid for politicians. You can give your POTUS a Congress she can work with.
August 1st, 2016 at 4:31 pm
To the republicans PC means not Politically Correct, it means Party and Color. That’s what republicans vote for. They are snickering as they claim “Country First.”
Hence they get what they voted for when those republican congressmen sell out to the highest bidder while proudly proclaiming “Country First.”
This is the same bunch of voters who supported the lying McCain screaming “Country First” while choosing Palin to be his running mate knowing how badly he was placing the welfare of the nation should she have to replace him.
He like his supporters were in it to win the White House and fuck the country. How short a reach from accepting a VP candidate that you know isn’t qualified to be POTUS to accepting presidential candidate that you know isn’t qualified to be POTUS?
Not much according to the republicans.
August 1st, 2016 at 4:49 pm
I was watching Pence making a statement when asked about Trump’s comments about the Khan family. She was being booed and when Pence said to the lady “I want to honor your son’s service to the country. Looking at the audience, I noticed that many not only did not applaud, they were outright hostile to his remark.
Even less responded positively when Pence said “we honor Capt. Khan and we honor his family.” We have a well organized sick slice of american racists in this country masquerading as pious patriots.
August 1st, 2016 at 4:52 pm
You Cant Make This Shit Up#3, thank you for your post. I hope many will take it to heart.
August 1st, 2016 at 5:28 pm
MaQin, so glad to provide you with some laughs…
I’m off traveling a bit so I’ll make this comment addressed to all of the religious commenters from yesterday.
Firstly, I luv how you presume I live based on YOUR belief system where a heaven exists in the clouds and all kabillion of your passed on peeps vie for seating at the right hand of a ‘father’ … And that there’s a ‘hell’ with flames and everything…
Look…If a thing requires indoctrination, and requires you to fear it and REQUIRES you to love it and that it is the irrefutable truth, and you will be punished accordingly if that’s not your truth, then sorry my friends but it’s also likely to be … a lie. But enjoy your mythology if it gets you through your day.
Organized religions were created by and galvanized by the writings of men. And I have presumed that they did that to provide a controlled atmosphere for us females since I was about 6 when I began to question some things and got the ‘have faith and behave how God/Jesus say to or you’ll go to hell’ rap..I found Santa Claus to be a more reasonable story…
and so I live in a universe that is big enough for you to do your thing but please don’t inflict your beliefs on me. I’m not religious, I’m into the connection of mind/body/spirit & collective consciousness and if you want to be gobsmacked and claim me godless … Well, I’ve been accused of much worst things ; )
I still send luv to you though bc I do not live in fear. Or fear of retribution, that’s man made verbiage to keep you in line. And…I play by a stronger code of personal conduct rules made up by me than many religious people I know.
Luv, Zen Lill
August 1st, 2016 at 5:41 pm
Oh and about Bill Oreilly < he's another windbag, he wouldn't last 1 day on a chain gang let alone as a overworked slave under any conditions. I luv when people rationalize vulgar behavior with something like … 'at least it was…' You always know a pile of bs is coming after that kind of opening and no one in the faux audience would question its authenticity be issue then they'd have to investigate what really went on and blow the lid off this lovely narrative of good food and lodging (I bet not) ~ ZL
August 1st, 2016 at 6:08 pm
And no time to research name/# of that God taking a mans rib to create pussy…do you have proof that it didn’t happen the other way around? Since the books are written by men, that also sounds like a tall tale and PS Q: how do you know when a man has little game (or whatever he’s named his angry inch)? A: when he makes incredible low energy base statements like that.
Trust me on this, men with swagger (and a dagger to go with it) do not have any need to belittle their partners like that.
If I’ve offended anyone by not being as Zen as usual, apologies but the profound illogical reseasoning of someone who spoke like this just requires a talking to…same goes for people who think we are going to burn in hell for making women realize that they’re important (hello, wth?! Value yourselves and if your men don’t still do it anyway…please? That’s my wish for all of you)
~ZL and I will step off my soapbox and go for a walk now.
August 2nd, 2016 at 6:30 am
Zen Lill#11, I’m muslim, hence I am by definition I am a follower of islam. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a prisoner of islam. I believe as you have described, but unlike you to practice your belief would be fatal to me.
August 2nd, 2016 at 6:34 am
Zen Lill#11, this is the first time I have risked posting to this blog. You description of religion is a life we female Persians live daily. I too would like to live believe as freely as you do.
I know that will probably not be in my lifetime. I am 24 years old. I dream of escaping to Europe or America that is as close to heaven as I dare believe. Thanks for your post. It gives me hope.
August 2nd, 2016 at 6:35 am
Zen Lill#11, beautifully written.
August 2nd, 2016 at 6:37 am
Zen Lill#11, If Allah was a woman, she would speak on the subject of religion as you have. It was powerful and inspiring.
August 2nd, 2016 at 6:44 am
Zen Lill#11, I am a Catholic raised among Anglicans who find so many reasons to dis Catholicism. I am 49, and believed I was immune from anyone shaking my faith. You have done that with elegance.
“Organized religions were created by and galvanized by the writings of men. And I have presumed that they did that to provide a controlled atmosphere for us females….” Zen Lill
Incredibly accurate! I will be controlled no more.
August 2nd, 2016 at 6:48 am
Zen Lill(11-13). You go girl! That was awesome.
August 2nd, 2016 at 6:52 am
Zen Lill#12, I agree. My father just went berserk because I objected to O’Reilly’s spill. He was screaming that O’Reilly has written many best sellers along historical lines and he wouldn’t risk his reputation as a historian by making up something about a bunch of nigger slaves.
I showed him your #13 post. He looked as if he had shit his pant. The look was worth GOLD. Thank you.
August 2nd, 2016 at 6:55 am
Zen Lill please don’t get off your “soap box.” It is were you belong up there defending women as the outstanding Girlz you are. Sweden will soon have a Girlz charter with your name on it.
August 2nd, 2016 at 7:05 am
Zen Lill, I’ve been a devout Roman Catholic for 63 years. In Como, Italy, it seems we just take for granted our religion and that god is a man.
You have stirred in me my childhood reservations about a male god telling me to behave while allowing my brothers and other males plenty of leeway to live their lives in comfort.
I too would now rather believe in Santa Clause, it makes just as much sense that that man would know if I were good or bad as one in the sky.
I have copied and place your #11, in my diary so that at my death my children will know exactly when I became liberated from this religious garbage.
August 2nd, 2016 at 7:09 am
Zen Lill, all the women of Japan should read your #11. We live in a male dominated society. Religion prevails to benefit men here also.
I also agree with your thoughts in #12. Men who have nothing but their maleness to justify their arrogance are the worst for this planet.
August 2nd, 2016 at 7:31 am
My husband is black and he went ballistic listening to O’reilly. I showed him your #13 post and he said. Well if Zen Lill feels that way…..
It calmed him down. As a white woman married to a black man I can offer little understanding to what our children that cannot pass as white have to endure at the hands of racists.
I have 4. One is as white as I am, the other 3 take after their father. I love them equally and so does he. But we both know the angst is different and their dispositions often reflect their environmental experiences. They are all grown and 2 have families of their own.
This election means a lot to them. They don’t want their children to experience the life of racism they have. Although all are professionals making more than a million a year, they still experience the slights that hurt then to their core.
Their father taught them to restrain their emotions and succeed despite the obstacles white America placed before them. But I sense that they see their sibling who can pass a white man as confirmation of white privilege.
He didn’t have to work as hard at school and he has sky rocked to the pinnacles of the financial industry. Their sister had to work more than twice as hard to get the opportunity to use her educational talents to show what she is capable of.
When she made her first million, she called me and cried because, she knew that but for the color of her skin she would have added several zeros to that figure. She often smiles and says, “mom if I had been the one who could pass, we’d be billionaires by now. I believe her. She’s worth at least $300, million and she is only 29. She is my only daughter, my oldest and the one who is the closest to me.
You and Michelle remind me of her. So much belief in yourselves and you save enough to lend some to those who desperately need it.
Thank you.
Claudia
August 2nd, 2016 at 7:33 am
I am arab. I am a slave to islam, one who lives in terror that she will be discovered as a non believer. I follow this blog because I get solace from the posts of women here who are not afraid to express themselves.
Zen Lill, your posts today were beautiful.
August 2nd, 2016 at 7:35 am
Tôi yêu blog này. Cảm ơn bạn Zen Lill.
August 2nd, 2016 at 7:41 am
Reminds me of the Miss Teen America pageant. The five runners up were all white and the winner had used the “N” word often on her twitter feed for years.
When call out about it, she pulled, a that was then but I am a better person for it now. I see that from your #13 post Zen Lill. It is just another O’Reilly type excuse for their racism that is a wink to the other racist on how to deal with those that call them out on their actions.
This white girl stands with you. I will smile with my republican family while I vote a straight democratic ticket.