Red Porn?
I found this post on jezebel.com more amusing than anything else.
Red State Citizens Consume The Most Online Porn In The USA
According to a nationwide study of anonymous online credit card transactions, Americans living in traditionally religious, conservative states consume more online porn than their godless liberal blue state fellow citizens, with Utah leading the way.
Benjamin Edelman, an assistant professor at the Harvard Business School, analyzed anonymous credit card transactions to attempt to find a link between the rise in online porn consumption and division of “red” and “blue” states from a sociological standpoint. “Do consumption patterns of online adult entertainment reveal two separate Americas,” Edelman writes, “Or is the consumption of online adult entertainment widespread, regardless of legal barriers, potential for embarrassment, and even religious conviction?”
Ewan Callaway of New Scientist analyses Edelman’s findings, noting that after Edelman factored in population density and broadband usage, Utah was actually the state with the most online porn subscriptions per 1000 broadband users. Conservative states made up the bulk of the top ten, in terms of porn subscriptions. As Callaway notes, “Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year’s presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.”
Edelman notes a difference in porn preferences between red states and blue states: “Using individual-level data from a Hitwise sample of ten million anony- mized U.S. Internet users, Tancer (2008), finds that adult escort sites are more popular in “blue” states that voted for Kerry in 2004, while visitors from the “red”
states that voted for Bush in 2004 are more likely to visit wife-swapping sites, adult webcams, and sites about voyeurism,” a fairly fascinating insight that could surely be explored further.
Church-going porn subscribers also tended to download less porn on Sundays, as church attendance provided a drop in porn usage. States that banned gay marriage had 11% more porn subscriptions than states that had not banned gay marriage. And, as Callaway notes, “States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage,” bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement “AIDS might be God’s punishment for immoral sexual behaviour.”
Conservative hypocrisy is no surprise: anyone who has watched the Republican party fight off allegations of bathroom sexual encounters, child molestation, and prostitutes has witnessed the “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” philosophy that seems to sweep through the right-wing on a regular basis. Yet Edelman’s research provides evidence of said hypocrisy; those who feel it necessary to judge others on their sexual choices and “morality” seem to have no problem accessing pornography, which many religions view as immoral and wrong.
And yet although the red states tend to view porn more often than blue states, Edelman finds that porn is a fairly purple subject, accessed in each state across the nation: “When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different.”
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: blue, democrat, online, porn, red, republican
Shop Local, Not Amazon!
I’ve been subscribing to a yahoo news alert on the word “feminism” which I thought might generate some articles/blogs, etc. that might interest me. I was wrong. Most of what I received were articles that had nothing actually to do with feminism but that blamed feminism for various societal ills. I hate posting the following because it’s not the kind of information I’d hoped to find with my “feminism” search but, I will say, it makes me all the more enthusiastic at spending all my ‘book money’ at my local Scranton bookstore.
Amazon selling ‘rape simulation game’
By Jess McCabe | 13 February 2009, 11:08
Yeah, you read that right. Amazon was hawking a Japanese-language game, where the gameplay revolves around raping women. The game has now been removed from the site. The Belfast Telegraph reports:
A game that involves the player stalking victims and then raping them in a virtual world is being offered for sale by online retailer Amazon.com, the Belfast Telegraph’s website can reveal.The shocking ‘rape simulator’, Rapelay, is set in Japan and carries a sickening game description on the Amazon website. An MP said last night that he plans to raise the issue in Parliament.
Reviews by gaming websites have expressed horror at the basis for the game.
One website review describes “tears glistening in the young girl’s eyes” as she is attacked in graphic detail.
Players begin the game by stalking a mother on a subway station before violently raping her. They then move on to attack her two daughters described as virgin schoolgirls.
Players are also allowed to enter ‘freeform mode’ where they can rape any woman and get other male game characters to join the attacks.
Pregnancy and abortion are listed as ‘key features’. One review said: “If she does become pregnant you’re supposed to force her to get an abortion, otherwise she gets more and more visibly pregnant each time you have sex.
“If you allow the child to be born then the woman will throw you in front of a train!”
Most of the descriptions and screenshots of the game are too graphic for publication here.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Tags: amazon, feminism, japan, rape, scranton
I need to see Margaret Cho and Amanda Palmer live. While I’m wasting so much time being angry about the look-at-me-lesbian phenomenon among straight women in bars everywhere when this song comes on, they’re doing this. It’s quite racy and vulgar yet totally fabulous. And, the ending made my day.
Filed under: Gen Y, Media | 2 Comments
Tags: amanda palmer, i kissed a girl, katy perry, margaret cho, prop 8
Article of the Day
I’m reposting this because it’s really good examination of the flaws of the last eight years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011402791.html?sub=new
10 Take Aways From the Bush Years
By Bob Woodward
Sunday, January 18, 2009; B01
There’s actually a lot that President-elect Barack Obama can learn from the troubled presidency of George W. Bush. Over the past eight years, I have interviewed President Bush for nearly 11 hours, spent hundreds of hours with his administration’s key players and reviewed thousands of pages of documents and notes. That produced four books, totaling 1,727 pages, that amount to a very long case study in presidential decision-making, and there are plenty of morals to the story. Presidents live in the unfinished business of their predecessors, and Bush casts a giant shadow on the Obama presidency with two incomplete wars and a monumental financial and economic crisis. Here are 10 lessons that Obama and his team should take away from the Bush experience.
1. Presidents set the tone. Don’t be passive or tolerate virulent divisions.
In the fall of 2002, Bush witnessed a startling face-off between National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the White House Situation Room after Rumsfeld had briefed the National Security Council on the Iraq war plan. Rice wanted to hold on to a copy of the Pentagon briefing slides, code-named Polo Step. “You won’t be needing that,” Rumsfeld said, reaching across the table and snatching the Top Secret packet away from Rice — in front of the president. “I’ll let you two work it out,” Bush said, then turned and walked out. Rice had to send an aide to the Pentagon to get a bootlegged copy from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Bush should never have put up with Rumsfeld’s power play. Instead of a team of rivals, Bush wound up with a team of back-stabbers with long-running, poisonous disagreements about foreign policy fundamentals.
2. The president must insist that everyone speak out loud in front of the others, even — or especially — when there are vehement disagreements.
During the same critical period, Vice President Cheney was urging Secretary of State Colin Powell to consider seriously the possibility that Iraq might be connected to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Powell found the case worse than ridiculous and scornfully concluded that Cheney had what Powell termed a “fever.” (In private, Powell used to call the Pentagon policy shop run by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith, who shared Cheney’s burning interest in supposed ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq, a “Gestapo office.”)
Powell was right to conclude that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden did not work together. But Cheney and Powell did not have this crucial debate in front of the president — even though such a discussion might have undermined one key reason for war. Cheney provided private advice to the president, but he was rarely asked to argue with others and test his case. After the invasion, Cheney had a celebratory dinner with some aides and friends. “Colin always had major reservations about what we were trying to do,” Cheney told the group as they toasted Bush and laughed at Powell. This sort of derision undermined the administration’s unity of purpose — and suggests the nasty tone that can emerge when open debate is stifled by long-running feuds and personal hostility.
3. A president must do the homework to master the fundamental ideas and concepts behind his policies.
The president should not micromanage, but understanding the ramifications of his positions cannot be outsourced to anyone.
For example, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq in 2004-07, concluded that President Bush lacked a basic grasp of what the Iraq war was about. Casey believed that Bush, who kept asking for enemy body counts, saw the war as a conventional battle, rather than the counterinsurgency campaign to win over the Iraqi population that it was. “We cannot kill our way to victory in Iraq,” Gen. David Petraeus said later. In May 2008, Bush insisted to me that he, of all people, knew all too well what the war was about.
4. Presidents need to draw people out and make sure that bad news makes it to the Oval Office.
On June 18, 2003, before real trouble had developed in Iraq, retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the first official to head the Iraqi reconstruction effort, warned Rumsfeld that disbanding the Iraqi army and purging too many former Baath Party loyalists had been “tragic” mistakes. But in an Oval Office meeting with Bush later that day, none of this came up, and Garner reported to a pleased president that, in 70 meetings with Iraqis, they had always said, “God bless Mr. George Bush.” Bush should have asked Garner whether he had any worries — perhaps even kicking Rumsfeld out of the Oval Office and saying something like, “Jay, you were there. I insist on the ground truth. Don’t hold anything back.”
Bush sometimes assumed that he knew his aides’ private views without asking them one-on-one. He made probably the most important decision of his presidency — whether to invade Iraq — without directly asking either Powell, Rumsfeld or Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet for their bottom-line recommendations. (Instead of consulting his own father, former president George H.W. Bush, who had gone to war in 1991 to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait, the younger Bush told me that he had appealed to a “higher father” for strength.)
5. Presidents need to foster a culture of skepticism and doubt.
During a December 2003 interview with Bush, I read him a quote from his closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, about the experience of receiving letters from family members of slain soldiers who had written that they hated him. “And don’t believe anyone who tells you when they receive letters like that, they don’t suffer any doubt,” Blair had said.
“Yeah,” Bush replied. “I haven’t suffered doubt.”
“Is that right?” I asked. “Not at all?”
“No,” he said.
Presidents and generals don’t have to live on doubt. But they should learn to love it. “You should not be the parrot on the secretary’s shoulder,” said Marine Gen. James Jones, Obama’s incoming national security adviser, to his old friend Gen. Peter Pace, who was then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — a group Jones thought had been “systematically emasculated by Rumsfeld.” Doubt is not the enemy of good policy; it can help leaders evaluate alternatives, handle big decisions and later make course corrections if necessary.
6. Presidents get contradictory data, and they need a rigorous way to sort it out.
In 2004-06, the CIA was reporting that Iraq was getting more violent and less stable. By mid-2006, Bush’s own NSC deputy for Iraq, Meghan O’Sullivan, had a blunt assessment of conditions in Baghdad: “It’s hell, Mr. President.” But the Pentagon remained optimistic and reported that a strategy of drawing down U.S. troops and turning security over to the Iraqis would end in “self-reliance” in 2009. As best I could discover, the president never insisted that the contradiction between “hell” and “self-reliance” be resolved.
7. Presidents must tell the public the hard truth, even if that means delivering very bad news.
For years after the Iraq invasion, Bush consistently offered upbeat public assessments. That went well beyond the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner that he admitted last Monday had been a mistake. “Absolutely, we’re winning,” the president said during an October 2006 news conference. “We’re winning.” His confident remarks came during one of the lowest points of the war, at a time when anyone with a TV screen knew that the war was going badly. On Feb. 5, 2005, as he was moving up from his first-term role as Rice’s deputy to become national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley had offered a private, confidential assessment of the problems of Bush’s Iraq-dominated first term. “I give us a B-minus for policy development,” he said, “and a D-minus for policy execution.” The president later told me that he knew that the Iraq “strategy wasn’t working.” So how could the United States be winning a war with a failing strategy?
After 9/11, Bush spoke forthrightly about a war on terror that might last a generation and include other attacks on the U.S. homeland. That straight talk marked the period of Bush’s greatest leadership and highest popularity. A president is strong when he is the voice of realism.
8. Righteous motives are not enough for effective policy.
“I believe we have a duty to free people,” Bush told me in late 2003. I believe that he truly wanted to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq. In preparing his second inaugural address in 2005, for example, Bush told his chief speechwriter, Michael Gerson, “The future of America and the security of America depends on the spread of liberty.” That got the idealistic Gerson so pumped that he set out to produce the foreign policy equivalent of Albert Einstein’s unified field theory of the universe — a 17-minute inaugural address in which the president said that his goal was nothing less than “the ending of tyranny in our world.”
But this high purpose often blinded Bush and his aides to the consequences of this mad dash to democracy. In 2005, for example, Bush and his war cabinet spent much of their time promoting free elections in Iraq — which wound up highlighting the isolation of the minority Sunnis and setting the stage for the raging sectarian violence of 2006.
9. Presidents must insist on strategic thinking.
Only the president (and perhaps the national security adviser) can prod a reactive bureaucracy to think about where the administration should be in one, two or four years. Then detailed, step-by-step tactical plans must be devised to try to get there. It’s easy for an administration to become consumed with putting out brush fires, which often requires presidential involvement. (Ask Obama how much time he’s been spending on the Gaza war.) But a president will probably be judged by the success of his long-range plans, not his daily crisis management.
For example, in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the quality of the planning for combat operations ranged from adequate to strong, but far too little attention was devoted to what might come after the fall of the Taliban and the Baath Party. Some critical strategic decisions — to disband the Iraqi army, force Baathists out of government and abolish an initial Iraqi government council — were made on the ground in Iraq, without the involvement of the NSC and the president.
Obama would do well to remember the example of a young Democratic president who was willing to make long-range plans. Bill Clinton began his presidency in 1993 after having promised to cut the federal deficit in half in four years. The initial plan looked shaky, and Clinton took a lot of heat for more than a year. But he and his team stuck to their basic strategy of cutting federal spending and raising taxes, which laid a major part of the foundation of the economic boom of the Clinton era. It was classic strategic planning, showing a willingness to pay a short-term price for the sort of long-term gains that go down in the history books.
10. The president should embrace transparency. Some version of the behind-the-scenes story of what happened in his White House will always make it out to the public — and everyone will be better off if that version is as accurate as possible.
On March 8, 2008, Hadley made an extraordinary remark about how difficult it has proven to understand the real way Bush made decisions. “He will talk with great authority and assertiveness,” Hadley said. ” ‘This is what we’re going to do.’ And he won’t mean it. Because he will not have gone through the considered process where he finally is prepared to say, ‘I’ve decided.’ And if you write all those things down and historians get them, [they] say, ‘Well, he decided on this day to do such and such.’ It’s not true. It’s not history. It’s a fact, but it’s a misleading fact.”
Presidents should beware of such “misleading facts.” They should run an internal, candid process of debate and discussion with key advisers that will make sense when it surfaces later. This sort of inside account will be told, at least in part, during the presidency. But the best obtainable version will emerge more slowly, over time, and become history.
Bob Woodward is an associate editor of The Washington Post and the author of four books on President Bush: “Bush at War,” “Plan of Attack,” “State of Denial” and “The War Within.” Evelyn Duffy contributed to this article.
Filed under: Article of the Day, Lists, Modern War, Obama | Leave a Comment
Tags: bob woodward, bush, bush years, iraq, military, Obama, washington post
Barack, We’re Holding You to It.
I’m pretty sure that getting rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is one of the most important GLBT issues of today. A lot of people might think that it only affects military people but I definitely don’t agree. I was pretty shocked in my years in the military with how much gay hate speech is permissible in the military. I’ve heard anti-gay slurs used many a time by high ranking people who hold a lot of power over a lot of people. Besides the effect this has on the GLBT community within the military (affectionately called by many the “secret service”), it really validates hate speech on a much more wide reaching level. If Obama overturns “don’t ask, don’t tell”, I’m sure it will have a wide ranging affect on all of America. Let’s hold Barack Obama to his promise.
Obama Will End “Don’t Ask” Policy, Aide Says
Wednesday 14 January 2009
by: Matthew B. Stannard, The San Francisco Chronicle
President-elect Obama will end “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for homosexuals serving in the military, according to a spokesman. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst / Getty Images)
President Obama will end the 15-year-old “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that has prevented homosexual and bisexual men and women from serving openly within the U.S. military, a spokesman for the president-elect said.
Obama said during the campaign that he opposed the policy, but since his election in November he has made statements that have been interpreted as backpedaling. On Friday, however, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, responding on the transition team’s Web site to a Michigan resident who asked if the new administration planned to get rid of the policy, said:
“You don’t hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it’s ‘Yes.’ “
The little-noticed response, made in a video posted on change.gov, made barely a ripple outside blogs focused on the gay community, but that’s not surprising, said those who have been pushing to overturn the ban. Not only was Obama’s position expected, they said, but support for reviewing or repealing the policy has grown markedly in recent years, including some from unexpected quarters.
The end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” might not happen immediately, several critics of the policy said. Although they appreciate clarity from Obama on the issue, they anticipate that the demands of the economy and two wars are likely to trump a speedy policy reversal.
“The question isn’t if we do it, and the question isn’t when we do it, it’s how we do it,” said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, whose 2006 bill to repeal the ban earned broad support among Democrats in Congress but did not move forward in the face of a near-certain veto by President Bush.
“I’m going to reintroduce the bill in the next few weeks,” Tauscher said. “We’ve got the American people behind us.”
Changing Attitudes
An ABC poll in July found that three-quarters of Americans supported allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military compared to 44 percent of Americans who expressed the same support in 1993, when President Bill Clinton approved “don’t ask, don’t tell” as what he called an “honorable compromise” that nevertheless bitterly disappointed his supporters in the gay community.
Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., both of whom backed the 1993 policy, recently called for it to be re-evaluated. John Shalikashvili, who followed Powell as chairman, has called for its repeal, as has former Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr, an opponent of gay rights and legal protections for gays. In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Barr disparaged the policy as wasting money and talent.
The current leaders of the military, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have neither supported nor opposed ending the policy in recent comments, saying pointedly that Congress and the president make the laws; the military follows them.
Recently, the main active support for “don’t ask, don’t tell” has come from the nonprofit Center for Military Readiness, whose founder, Elaine Donnelly, and other officers did not respond to requests for comment.
Donnelly has argued that ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military would devastate unit cohesion and morale by ordering heterosexual troops into “forced cohabitation” with openly gay and lesbian troops. But critics of the policy say society has changed since “don’t ask, don’t tell” was implemented to address similar concerns.
“We had a decade in the 1990s where people came out, and people came to know that their sisters and their mothers and their colleagues and their children and their friends were gay,” said Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow with the Palm Center at UC Santa Barbara, which conducts research on sexual minorities in the military.
“Familiarity breeds tolerance and even acceptance.”
More recent years have seen high-profile discharges of gay Arabic linguists and other troops whose military jobs were deemed essential in Iraq, Afghanistan and the “war on terror” – dismissals that struck many people as inexplicable, said sociologist Melissa Embser-Herbert, author of “The U.S. Military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy: A Reference Handbook.”
“We know of gay, lesbian, bisexual veterans who have served in combat theater, and I think that’s also a big piece of it,” she said. “It’s a much harder sell to the general public that that person who died or lost a leg didn’t deserve to be serving their country.”
The military also has experienced a shift in attitudes, according to a number of studies. A 2006 Zogby International poll found military members who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan to be split on the issue, with about a quarter saying gays should be able to serve openly and a bit more than a third saying they should not.
But about a quarter of respondents said they knew a gay person already serving in the military, and a large majority of those – about two-thirds – said the presence of a gay person in their unit made no impact on their personal or their unit’s morale. Three-quarters said they would have joined the military even if gays were permitted to serve openly.
A more recent, if unscientific, readership survey by the Military Times group of newspapers reported that about 58 percent of active-duty respondents opposed repealing the ban, a number that was cited in some media accounts as reflecting broad military opposition to a change.
But the newspapers that conducted the poll warned that their readers were not a perfect mirror of the military – they were more likely to be older, male, careerists, officers and politically conservative. In that context, sociologist Embser-Herbert said, it is remarkable that the level of opposition was not higher, because it is the younger, enlisted troops who are more likely to favor allowing gays to serve openly.
“Will and Grace” generation
“It’s the ‘Will and Grace’ generation,” she said. “They’ve grown up seeing gay people on TV and having friends in 10th-grade come out.”
In the 1980s, when John Caldera was a Navy hospital corpsman, “don’t ask, don’t tell” was not yet policy, but was practice. Caldera, a gay man now a member of the San Francisco Veterans Commission, recalled how any sailor whose medical problem was diagnosed as HIV would be sequestered in a ward to await the inevitable investigation of presumed homosexuality and likely discharge.
“The policy … should have never been created,” he said. “With this new administration, I look for the light at the end of the tunnel.”
Today, Caldera is one of several gay veterans in American Legion District 8 in San Francisco whose commander, Michael Gerold, a veteran injured in a firefight in Afghanistan, appointed an openly gay veteran as district finance officer without hesitation.
“He’s an Iraq-Afghanistan veteran. It’s just not an issue. Core competencies and leadership, that’s what I need,” he said. “I don’t give a darn about the rest.”
Another legion officer, Matt Shea, chief of staff of American Legion Post 911, recalled deploying to Iraq with a friend and fellow squad leader who later came out to him.
“It’s about competence, about being able to do your job. He was a better leader than most, took care of his guys better than most I’d seen,” said Shea. “Who … cares? Seriously.”
————————————————————————————————–
Some resources:
http://aver.us/aver/
American Veterans for Equal Rights
Filed under: Activism/Advocacy, Media, Modern War, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: barack obama, don't ask don't tell, gay rights, glbt, lgbt, military, secret service
I’ve been wanting for some time to write about my experience in Iraq and some thoughts I have about the Iraqi women. I’d like to say that I’d met Iraqi women. I didn’t. In fact, not one Iraqi woman worked on the base where I was stationed. There must have been at least 500 Iraqi men. My Iraqi interpeter, Zek, told me that when the war began, women who tried to come onto the base were harrassed and had rocks thrown at them. Your average Iraqi male wasn’t throwing the rocks. Extremists who had become emboldened by the chaotic state of the country, had.
I was a contracting officer in Iraq. Basically, I purchased goods and services from Iraqi businesses (as well as ordering from the US and other countries). Remember a few years back when you heard the stories of the $500 toilet seat or taxpayer money being used to purchase plasma tv’s for the commander’s tent? I’m that girl. I spent 12 hours a day hanging out with Iraqi businessmen and laborers and negotiating deals.
Don’t let anyone tell you that the Iraqis aren’t an educated and cultured people. Some of my Iraqi friends knew more about American military history than I do. Then again, most of the world’s people who aren’t lucky enough to be Americans pay pretty close attention to what we’re up to; especially our military.
Zek told me that his little girl and his wife were spending their days holed up in their house. He risked his life coming to the base everyday for work, he got the groceries, went to the bank and anything else that needed to be done. She used to work but it was too dangerous now. He was killed less than a year after I left. I often think about his wife and daughter. I wonder how they survive. Things may have changed a lot since 2004 and maybe she can now run all those errands herself. I guess she doesn’t have a choice.
I wonder how long it will take for women to gain back the liberties they once enjoyed in Iraq. Liberty may sound like an odd word choice considering we constantly hear about how oppressed the Iraqi people were under Saddam Hussein. And, they certainly were in any number of ways. But, let’s face it, when someone goes from having a job and an income to being a prisoner in their own home, they’ve lost a significant liberty.
I found this terrific article today which inspired this post. It’s about the recent death of Nahla Hussein Al-Shaly, a women’s rights activist in Iraq. I think everyone should read it. I think more articles like this should be written.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/86322
Also, here’s the link to Baghdad Burning, one of the most important pieces of documentation on the war that not nearly enough people know about it. Riverbend is a young, Iraqi woman who blogged (at great risk, I’m sure) about her experience of living under occupation. She stopped blogging in 2007 when her family fled to Syria and no one knows what happened to her. Her blog has also been published in book form in two parts by the Feminist Press.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.feministpress.org/Book/index.cfm?GCOI=55861100869560
Filed under: Activism/Advocacy, Books, Modern War | Leave a Comment
Tags: baghdad burning, feminist press, iraq war, iraqi women, military, Nahla Hussein Al-Shaly, riverbend
War Games?
US Army Recruiting at the Mall With Video Games
Friday 09 January 2009
Philadelphia – The U.S. Army, struggling to ensure it has enough manpower as it fights wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is wooing young Americans with video games, Google maps and simulated attacks on enemy positions from an Apache helicopter.
Departing from the recruiting environment of metal tables and uniformed soldiers in a drab military building, the Army has invested $12 million in a facility that looks like a cross between a hotel lobby and a video arcade.
The U.S. Army Experience Center at the Franklin Mills shopping mall in northeast Philadelphia has 60 personal computers loaded with military video games, 19 Xbox 360 video game controllers and a series of interactive screens describing military bases and career options in great detail.
Potential recruits can hang out on couches and listen to rock music that fills the space.
The center is the first of its kind and opened in August as part of a two-year experiment. So far, it has signed up 33 full-time soldiers and five reservists – roughly matching the performance of five traditional recruiting centers it replaced.
The U.S. military says it has been meeting or exceeding its recruiting and retention goals, with 185,000 men and women entering active-duty military service in the fiscal year that ended on September 30 – the highest number since 2003.
Defense officials say the recession and rising unemployment were likely to boost recruiting.
The Philadelphia center lures recruits with a separate room for prospective soldiers to “fire” from a real Humvee on enemy encampments projected on a 15-foot (4.5 meters) tall battleground scenario that also has deafening sound effects.
In another room, those inclined to attack from above can join helicopter raids in which enemy soldiers emerge from hide-outs to be felled by automatic gunfire rattling from a simulator modeled on an Apache or Blackhawk helicopter.
The Army is not simply looking for new recruits, said First Sgt. Randy Jennings, who runs the center. It also aims to dispel misperceptions about Army life.
“We want them to know that being in the Army isn’t just about carrying weapons and busting down doors,” said Jennings, who wears slacks and a polo shirt rather than a uniform. About 80 percent of soldiers are not involved in direct combat roles, he said.
Glamorizing War?
Jesse Hamilton, a former Army staff sergeant who served in Iraq in 2005 and 2006, said the use of video games glamorized war and misled potential recruits, calling it “very deceiving and very far from realistic.”
“You can’t simulate the loss when you see people getting killed,” said Hamilton, who left the Army after his Iraq tour and is now a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War.
“It’s not very likely you are going to get into a firefight,” he said. “The only way to simulate the heat is holding a blow dryer to your face.”
The center is an experiment in boosting urban recruitment, which has traditionally lagged behind that of rural areas.
Eddie Abuali, 20, who was waiting to take an Army aptitude test, said he felt more comfortable in the center than he would in a traditional recruiting office. “It’s a more relaxed environment,” said Abuali, who plans to join the Army when he graduates from college. “You don’t feel like you are being pressured.”
Project manager Maj. Larry Dillard said recruitment was more difficult about two years ago when the United States was struggling in Iraq and jobs at home were easier to get.
“Now the news coming out of Iraq is better and we are in an economic downturn. It will be easier,” he said.
——-
(Editing by Michelle Nichols and Daniel Trotta.)
Filed under: Activism/Advocacy, Gen Y, Media, Modern War | Leave a Comment
Tags: anti-war, iraq, iraq veterans against the war, military, philadelphia, recruitment, truthout.org, video games
Ann Coulter, You Win.
You’ve been on my mind more often than not the last few days. I know you’re not worth it and I’m not even sure that you mean the things you say. You’re Rush Limbaugh with blond hair and long legs and it’s ok for me to say this because you’ve used it to sell every one of your books and made a shitload of money. The highest paid conservative book whore ever.
Last week, I was obsessing over Katy Perry and that stupid song that glamourizes drunk girls making out in public for guys while trivializing the whole thing (you don’t want to be at Southside Lanes when that song comes on, trust me). Though that all seems minor compared to Ann Coulter blaming all of the ills of American society on it’s single moms.
I did this domestic violence advocacy training a few years back. We made a list of all the barrier/reasons why women don’t leave their abusive husbands when they really should. This is off the top of my head but it was something like this.
1. Religion.
2. Money. Duh.
3. Fear of losing custody of their kids.
2. Felling like they can protect their kids more if they are in the house when daddy spends time with them rather than unsupervised visitation.
5. More women are murdered once they leave an abusive relationship than while in the abusive relationship.
Today my mind was racing with all kinds of hypothetical situations: the woman who escaped her home in the middle of the night…its her first day in the shelter…her kids are running around and asking “where’s daddy”…she turns on the tv in the shelter living room and has to hear Anne Coulter say that all of societies problems can be traced back to single motherhood. I don’t think I’m being too hypothetical considering there are a whole lot of women in shelters and this interview ran on a major network. For anyone who has ever done any type of domestic violence advocacy (and, really, who hasn’t at least on a personal level), the hardest part is getting the abused person to feel safe enough to leave (and for good reason- see #5 above).
Ann, you suck.
——
Not that any women I know would buy into her bullshit. But, people are buying those books.
I know she’s just being inflammatory to sell books. I know she’s talking about the breakdown of the nuclear family in America, the idea that people really don’t spend enough time parenting their kids. I still think she’s just shitty.
Filed under: Activism/Advocacy, Gen Y, Media | Leave a Comment
Tags: ann coulter, domestic violence, feminism, katy perry, popular culture, rush limbaugh
Ann Coulter, Leave My Mom Alone!
I hate giving any space to this woman but, at the same time, want everyone to know just how F’d up her ideas are…so here ya go!
“We could wipe out chronic poverty in America tomorrow if women could just manage to get married before having children — and to stay married after having children,” Coulter writes in the book.
She told Lauer, “We know that children raised without fathers are filling up the prisons,” and accused the mainstream media and Hollywood of glorifying single mothers instead of condemning them.
Lauer said that Coulter’s critics accuse her of blunting her own points with sweeping generalizations and language dripping with venom, prompting outrage rather than thought. As an example, he took her statement that almost all of the problems in American society are due to children born to single mothers.
“That’s not outrageous, that’s a fact,” Coulter replied. “What I said is absolutely true. Any societal problem is the result of single motherhood.”
Filed under: Media, Rants | Leave a Comment
Sigh…..Thank God She’s A Whore!
I had a very inspiring conversation with a friend today. I will leave the details out in order to protect the woman who is the unwitting subject of this post. A women went into a bar the other day (yeah, I’m framing it like a bad joke on purpose). The bar was known as the local dive and this is important. The woman is sitting there enjoying her drink when she becomes aware of another woman being dragged out of the bar like a ragdoll. This woman immediately jumps up and follows the two out of the bar. Though it was a packed bar, only one man gets up and attempted to get in the middle of it. This man’s presence diffuses the situation and the perpetrator runs away. My friend takes the woman home with her where she immediately calls for help and hopes for a legal resolution to what just happened.
That’s all I’m gonna say about that because to say anything further might endanger said woman. But, this is a perfect segway to talking about the event in more general terms.
First, I have to ask you about what you thought about my story so far. When I informed you that is was a “local dive” did that inform how you processed the rest of the story? I mean, if I had said it was “the local It Bar” would you have felt any differently about what followed? I’m seriously asking you this.
I’m not gonna go any further into this story because I don’t think I can without seriously jeapordising the anonymity of the woman who is the subject of this post. I will say that it made me think of another recent news story in my local area.
I don’t think any of us can forget hearing about the woman who was murdered and had her body thrown in pieces on the side of the road. They found her body in several brown bags and a serial killer was thought to be within our midst. Women were terrified. Several days later her identity was found. She was a prostitute, a whore, possibly a drug addict. She was on the down and out. A woman without a proper home. I felt a strong wind that day. The collective sigh of relief that said “sigh….thank god she’s a whore” That means we are not threatened; that means it couldn’t happen to me; I can go on living as I do.” I felt that way too, for a second or two.
Then, I realize that the whore is that terrified woman inside all of us. The collective consciousness that says “you can’t do that” or “you have to behave this way”. The murder of a “whore” effects all of us in a very personal way. More to follow…
Filed under: Activism/Advocacy | Leave a Comment
Tags: domestic violence, feminism
Recent Entries
Categories
- Activism/Advocacy (5)
- Article of the Day (1)
- Books (1)
- Gen Y (3)
- Lists (1)
- Media (5)
- Modern War (4)
- Obama (1)
- Rants (1)
- Uncategorized (3)
