spiritgirl316

Today, I was coming out of the school bookstore. I had forgotten (if I ever knew) that today O.J. Simpson was to be sentenced today. It was a far cry from 13 years ago when everybody and their mother knew when the verdict was coming down. Today, students where walking around the union oblivious. The big flat screen T.V. was going unwatched. Being the news junkie that I am, I only noticed what was on by happenstance. I saw O.J. Simpson about to be sentenced to who knows how many years with a feeling of "Whatever". Before I left the TV, a student in the Physicial Therapy program came up and sat down. She saw the verdict coming down too and she said, "I hate to say it but he got what he deserved." "My reply was why do you hate to say it, it's true?" She's 10 years younger than me so I am certain she doesn't remember the drama after the verdict 13 years ago. Then it hit me, the reason no one at school was interested in the verdict was because some of them where small children when the first verdict came down. But more importantly, they don't carry the same racial baggage that even people of my generation hold. The racial subtext that existed for people my age 13 years ago means nothing to them.

This young lady who sat next to me is white, and while our conversation intially started based upon the fact that we were the ONLY two people watching the news in the student union, it quickly transferred to other topics. By the end of our conversation we realized that we were raised in towns that are about 1 hour from each other in Ohio. Both our fathers worked in the automobile industry in Ohio. We talked about how the rural areas near our small towns have turned into crystal meth central and the friends that we have lost due to this epidemic. We talked about our plane tickets home and which airports we were flying into for Christmas.

Our conversation had nothing to do with deep racial divide of the case. She wasn't looking at me as her enemy and I wasn't looking at her as mine (unlike 13 years ago). There was no need to talk about how the response the black community 13 years ago had nothing to do with O.J. and everything to do with rage of centuries of being mistreated by the judicial system (Hence the reason for no outcry now from the black community regarding O.J. It was never about him to begin with.) I am certain that any mention of Rodney King to this young lady would have been more related to his current stint on VH1's Celebrity Rehab than with him being a victim of a vicious police attack. So the correlation between the Rodney King verdict and the O.J. Verdict wouldn't have mattered to her. She proably doesn't remember the L.A. Riots or the fact that the original O.J. trial was so all consuming that network television had a huge drop in ratings for soap operas because people were watching Court T.V. Bronco chases, the creation of the terms "N-word" and race card is something for which she has no reference. Her reference points include the fact that we (as a nation) elected the first Black President.

Our conversation ended with us finally exchanging names and shaking hands, at the end of the conversation. I went to the library and she went on with her lunch. Totally uneventful. What a difference 13 years makes!!!

O.K. where to start. During the Presidential campaign, I went to Barack Obama's board on IMDB to support my guy. When the campaign was over, I didn't expect to go there much. However, the night of the campaign simultaneously coincided with the horrible Prop 8 vote. Then suddenly the neocons, who were against Obama, were now victoriously celebrating Yes on Prop 8. The threads, while I disagreed with them, seemed relatively harmless. The titles were, "The people have spoken", "I am glad Prop 8" passed, etc. Then when I opened the threads (prepared to give my two cents) I noticed that these threads contained some of the worst hate speech regarding gays. At first, I tried to (like I usually do) present my perspective without attacking. THEN, the threads got more evil. At least five seperate neocons started posting things like gays were pedophiles. NAMBLA was brought up. Then one posted something and the other neocons started to agree and I felt like I needed to take a stand. This poster said, well if gays are allowed to get married then whats to stop 1) Siblings from marrying siblings 2) People marrying the dead 3)NAMBLA from having rights and adults marrying children 4) Polgamy. Again, I tried to be civil. As ridiculous as these four points are, I first stated that they had nothing to do with gay marriage and why most of these things (with the exception of Polygamy) didn't have a snowball's chance of being legalized. My work was done. But NO!!! People started ignoring the reasoning of my post and saying to the original poster, "you hit the nail on the head". WHAT?!!!! It was crazy that the original poster said these things and even crazier that people were agreeing with this crap. I became red with anger.

Then the F-word (not the sex act) was being thrown around. One poster said, I am not homophobic. A phobia means fear I don't fear gays, I just dislike them. So I posted the definition of homophobia from the dictionary. It is both the fear AND dislike of gays. Then another poster made no bones about it. He/she said, "I have deep contempt for gays". That did it for me. I snapped.

So to make this long, long story a little bit shorter, I decided to spam the board attacking homophobes. I came up with the most ridiculous posts against homophobes and spammed the board. In the middle of my spamming, I went to the Gale Harold Board on IMDB to rally the troops to join me. No body came because they believed me to be acting childish (which I was, so they were right). I just can't understand how seemingly different posters can make posts in different threads all coming to the same crazy ass conclusions. Can someone please explain this to me? To blatantly say WITH NO SHAME that you hate a group of people that you don't know simply because you don't agree with who they are. For it to go unchallenged was too much for me to take.

I somehow ended up on an email list from the PUMAs. I don't know how. Anyway, I decided to post on their site. Currently, my post is awaiting moderation. I doubt that they will post what I have to say. That said, I thought I would share with you all..

PUMAs:

First let me say, up until January of 2008, I was a supporter of Hillary Clinton. So I do understand your perspective.

Palin is anti-abortion. My father worked as an orderly in a Catholic hospital at a time BEFORE Roe vs. Wade. Growing up as a child he used to tell me the stories. Just because abortions were illegal did not stop women from having them. He told me of women of less privilege and means coming into the hospital with hangers and catheters hanging out of their bodies from botched abortions. Meanwhile, women of privilege came to the hospital for a "D & C" or went on vacation to visit an "aunt". Women of privilege always fair better than others. This brings me to my next point.

You behavior typifies what is wrong with the women's movement. You do not want equality for all women. You want equality for yourselves and damn the rest of us. The women's movement is largely run by middle to upper-class white women, who have no interest in the issues that face the poor and women of color. Think about what you are doing! Your sophomoric pontification about a woman not becoming the Democratic nominee has driven you to the point that you are willing to help a candidate that has no interest in women's issues. McCain voted AGAINST equal pay for equal work...something our mothers fought and continue to fight for. McCain is AGAINST a woman's right to chose. Women of privilege, like many of you, will always be able to get an abortion. But what about women who are not educated or who are poor?

While you are upset that Hillary will not be President this year, you have not even thought about the fact that women of color have yet to have the experience of being first lady of this country. What about the racist attacks that the GOP has made against Michelle Obama? Michelle, like Hillary, is an accomplished woman. She graduated from Harvard law school. Yet, I don't see nearly the indignation from you about how Michelle has been treated. On the other hand, I remember how Hillary was treated in 1992 when Bill first ran. She was also attacked. The difference is, when Hillary was attacked, the women's movement was quite vocal about how it was wrong. Does Michelle not deserve the same courtesy? As Sojourner Truth once said, "Ain't I A Woman?" Is Michelle not a woman? She is an accomplished woman and mother at that.

If McCain is elected the people that will be most hurt are poor women and women of color. It is poor women (and many middle class women) that will carry the brunt of not having health care for themselves and their children. It is poor women and women of color that will be affected by not having equal pay for equal work. It is poor single women that do not have husbands or nanny’s to care for their children that will be affected by a lack of increase in minimum wage. It is poor women and women of color that will be most affected by our declining education system. See they can't afford to send their children to private schools. It is poor women and women of color that will be most effected by losing control over their bodies if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

You don't give a damn about us. You never did. It is people like you PUMAs that told Ida B. Wells that she could not be a part of the suffrage movement because the inclusion of black women in the movement would bring up the issue of voting disenfranchisement of all blacks. When the women's movement was started, as bell hooks so eloquently stated in "Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center", it focused on white women of privilege. Many of the women of that time, held on to the same covert prejudices that their white counterparts held. Yes, they believed that blacks should drink from the same drinking fountains and use the same toilets, but you never really considered us equals. Many of you still believe that.

What you don't realize is that you are weakening the women's movement. If you could only take a more inclusive approach, you would have more women of lower economic classes and women of color to join your ranks.

Why am I not surprised by you PUMAs? You come from the same stock that was short-sighted in the suffrage movement and was short-sighted in the beginning of the women's movement. And you are short-sighted now.

At the beginning of this post, I mentioned that I was a supporter of Hillary until January of this year. It was after January that I noticed that Hillary was neglecting the votes of women of color. First, she downplayed the importance of South Carolina. Then Geraldine Ferraro opened her mouth and exposed the women's movement for what it is. Like Harriet Christian at the Democratic Rules Committee, Geraldine's issue was not that Hillary was losing to a man. It was that she was losing to a BLACK man. Harriet Christian stated at the rules committee that Hillary was passed up for an "inadequate BLACK man". Why couldn't she have said "inadequate man"? She exposed herself and she exposed many of you.

Like so many of your foremothers, you only support people of color if we are beneath you. That was Geraldine Ferraro's issue. That was Harriet Christian's issue. And that is the issue of most of you on this board. You complain about the "Good ol' Boys", but you want to be a part of their club and carry their same philosophy of exclusion and power. I know you well. I worked with you in Corporate America for over 10 years.

How many of you, deny racism even exists? If Barack Obama had claimed incessantly that he was losing because he was black after mismanaging a quarter of a billion dollar campaign, how many of you would have denied this and claimed he was whining. Yet, you allow Hillary to not take responsibility for her own shortcomings and cry sexism? Yes there was sexism in the campaign. I am not denying that. What I am pointing out is that it is hypocritical for you to claim victim hood, when you and one of your own (Geraldine Ferraro) showed no respect for people based upon race. In emails that have recently come to light, Hillary, the wife of “the first black President”, was told by Mark Penn to paint Obama as not having truly American roots. Black people are Americans!!!!

I learned in college and I am learning now that if the women's movement is still run by people like you PUMAs. It has no place for me. And yes, I am a woman, a black woman, who would like to see the movement clean up its act.

I loved that speech. She did a great job. Props to her.

Hillary did not address the South Carolina crowd and I am VERY disappointed. She has to know that she just dissed the folks in South Carolina and it may hurt her in the general election. She gave her concession speech in TENESSEE. BILL CLINTON spoke BEFORE she did after her defeat. She gave her initial concession (if you can all it that in a cold press statement) and left South Carolina before the votes were even counted. What the hell was she thinking?!!! It was ungracious and gave the illusion of being a spoiled sport.

This move might be interpreted as saying, "Well we are writing the black folks off, cuz they have to come back to the democratic party in November anyway." That is why too many black folks stay home in general elections, because they feel that the democratic party takes us for granted. This is so ungracious and unwise. Are her and Bill trying to throw this thing? Is the fix in? The dems have not won a Southern state since 1996!!! Perhaps being gracious in defeat in the primary can help in the general election. There are people in South Carolina of all races that are going to remember this. The number of votes that Obama got alone was more than the number of people that voted in the entire primary in 2004. If the democratic candidate could get this kind of enthusiasm and votes in the general election they may win in South Carolina. She should have stayed in South Carolina to give her concession speech. This was disgusting.

Also she needs to reel Bill in. When he spoke BEFORE her, his entire speech was..."During MY Presidency I did this or that"..."My Presidential Library"...."My Presidential Office in Harlem"... "OH BY THE WAY HILLARY HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH ALL OF THIS." Guess what?!!! Bill you are not running for President. I really wish you were, but you aren't. You are not campaigning for a 3rd and 4th Bill Clinton term. I am really disappointed by this.

Heath Ledger had the potential to be one of the best actors of his time. This is so sad, but we are very grateful for Brokeback Mountain.

When I woke up on Thursday morning, I was very upset to turn on the news and see that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. Every since I was in college (she was Prime Minister of Pakistan at the time) I was impressed with her. Aside from being devastatingly beautiful, she was smart and passionate about her country. She had a courage beyond courage. For the only women's studies class I ever took, I wrote an essay about her. For a woman to ascend to the top political position of her country, when said country had a patriarchal view of women was a astonishing. I, being in my late teens and early 20's, was intrigued by her for that reason alone. Then to learn that her father was hanged and her brothers were assassinated just floored me. Despite all of this, Bhutto had a loyal, passionate commitment and shear devotion, to her country. I told another friend in cyberspace that I see correlations between the intentions and life of Robert Kennedy and that of Bhutto.

Both Kennedy and Bhutto where of noble and well to-do upbringings, yet that had a concern for the poor. It was their intent to improve the lives of the poor. They both had an unwaving devotion to bring some peace to the world in precarious times. Kennedy was looking for an end to Vietnam and Bhuto was looking to bring stability to the Islamic world. "Equality for all" summarized their campaign slogans. Unfortunately, their respective countries never got an opportunity to see what impact they would have had not only on the country, but also on the world because they were both assassinated.

The life of Benazir Bhutto brings up for me a lot of questions and concerns:
1. America's foreign policy: It is believed that Bin Laden is in Pakistan. We have become so buddy, buddy with Musarraf that we were not in a position to really stand with Bhutto when she returned. It is believed that Bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan. and we have given that country's leadership over 10 billion dollars with little results. However, these foreign policy gaff's are not just isolated with Pakistan. Perhaps if we weren't fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq, we could have kept an eye on Afganistan AND Pakistan. The Taliban has had a resurgence in both countries. And while I am at it, let's talk about Saudi Arabia, the country where Bin Laden is from and where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from...Yet they are our allies. Then we have this arrogant policy of not wanting to have diplomacy, discussion and discourse with our opposition. Iran comes to mind regarding this. With Bhutto gone we are in a very precarious position. It makes me wonder if hanging, pregnant and dangling chads along with the intervention of the supreme court had not occurred where would we be now?

2. Women in government leadership: As Americans we often look down on other countries as somehow being prmitive or backwards. We Americans have the answer and the rest of the world should follow us. The statement is often made that women in America are the most liberated in the world. While I am gratful and happy to live in the U.S., I have to question how it is that we have NEVER had a female president. Many other countries, some of whom have cultures that are quite patriarchal and oppressive to women, have had female leaders. Golda Meir was the leader of Israel back in the late 60's and early 70's. Indira Ghandi was PM for India during the 60's, 70's and 80's. Benazir Bhutto was PM in the 90's in Pakistan. Not only did these women ascend to leadership in countries that have a partiarchial mentality, two of the three did this during the Women's Rights Movement of the 70's. Then we have our neighbors and allies...Margaret Thatcher was PM for Britain and Kim Campbell was PM of Canada. My point is, if we are so advanced, why haven't we had a female President? Do we indeed have the right to be so arrogant? If Hillary does become President, she will have done so 30 to 40 years after other countries in the modern world.

3. American apathy: Given all of the issues we face here and abroad, I don't understand American apathy. I was taken aback when I was in the bank (where there are TV's everywhere playing the news) on Friday and a woman around my age (in her thirties) said, "I can't stand to watch the news...they get a story and hang on to it...why are they making such a big deal about this women's death." I was shocked!!! Once again, showing that we are so contained with ourselves that too many of us don't realize that we are a part of a larger world. And what goes on in that larger world impacts us. Then again, our own government has gotten away with lying to us time and time again on domestic issues...tapping our phones...demolishing our civil liberties...outing CIA agents...causing an unnecessary war...firing federal attorney's and the list goes on. Yet, there is not an outcry. The woman in the bank stated that she rarely watches the news. I suppose if news items are not encapsulated into soundbites they are of no use. Perhaps that is why we are not demanding better foreign AND domestic policies from our government? Maybe we are just so ill-informed that we don't know what to demand?

I wish we had a person running for President right now with the charisma and passion mirroring that of a Benazir Bhutto. However, as the saying goes, 'when the student is ready a teacher will appear'. Perhaps we just aren't ready?

I will support any Dem that wins the nomination. At this point and time, I think that Obama is too green. It shows in the debates and he is not as savvy as Clinton. My fear is that he wil win the nomination because that is what the Republicans want. Many people think that the Republicans want Hillary to win because they feel that they can beat her. I feel that way about Obama. To me, it is a trap. Would I like to live in a country where there is a President that happens to be black? Absolutely!!! Do I think it is Obama's time now? No!!!! The Republicans are afraid of Hillary in my opinion.

To me, we have serious issues that need to be addressed. The Supreme Court being one of the biggest. If we allow a Republican to win in 2008, they will most likely pick at least two Supreme Court Justices. Thomas and Scalia are not going anywhere anytime soon. They are relatively young. Roberts and Alito have just been appointed and are young. So they are not going anywhere. Ginsberg has had several illnesses (God help me, I sound like Pat Robertson) and expressed her desire to retire. Souter has expressed that he would like to retire. If we loose those two we will be in trouble. Hell, we already are in trouble.

As for Hillary...I wouldn't mind having the Hillary of 1993 versus the one of 2007. She is a little too close to big business for my liking. That said, she would be better than any Republican. Biden and Edwards say a lot of things that I like. The problem, in Biden's case, is that he is too honest. For some reason, the American people do not like the truth. He says what he thinks and that doesn't go over too well. Edwards has a lot of great things to say, but his candidacy is eclipsed by the excitment of having the first viable woman and the first viable African-American running for President. Like Elizabeth Edwards said, "The white guy is kinda boring to the media."

So all in all, I hope that the American public looks more than five minutes ahead of themselves. I would like to get a Dem nominee that can win. It is imperative that we get a Dem that win. The Supreme Court will effect us for decades. Additionally, health care, immigration, trade policies, taxation are critical issues that need to be addressed. As Hillary said, at this point, we can't afford to have a President learning as she/he goes along.

It goes without saying that I would like Dennis Kucinich to win, but I think I will have more luck believing that "W" will see the error of his ways, apologize to the nation AND make corrections.

Also, my guess is that when Hillary wins, Biden will be Secretary of State and Wesley Clark will be the Secretary of Defense. I think those are good fits for that. Richardson may also be Secretary of State. I like him too.

Huckabee scares me. Immigration is going to be the Red Herring and he will exploit it. He also has this "folksy" talk that Americans like. We seem to want to have leaders that are as dumb as we are in general.

I think that I may actually use my live journal and start making posts. There is a lot of great discussion to go on. We have a presidential election coming up that has direct bearing on the Supreme Court for the next several decades. A lot of domestic issues are at stake, such as health care, education, trade agreements, and immigration. So I would like for the discussion to begin. I am an insomniac, so I think I will find this more stimulating than counting sheep. LOL!!!