Because of the World Order

This comes from I Blame the Patriarchy again. I know I've been referencing a lot of other bloggers lately, but this was an excellent description of the position I've been trying to argue but not really getting across. People tend to get all up in arms if anyone tries to challenge their individual right to do something, but this argument isn't about you. It's bigger than that, but people don't want to hear it. I'm not even saying this is necessarily my own position, but certainly in all good debate, an issue doesn't have to be your own belief to be able to argue it. If not, then you just aren't a competent debater.

The Twistolutionary manifesto argues that anything called “porn,” whether or not it is explicitly violent or BDSM-y or designed to titillate ‘feminists’ vs. sweaty, beer-gutted pervs, exists only to enthrobulate the fetishization of culturally-generated (and, frankly, comically hokey) constructs. It is readily apparent to the visitor from the planet Obstreperon that these constructs include arbitrary standards of physical sexihotness, arch-backed-heavy-eyelidded-ooo-baby body language, penetration worship, dominance and submission, corny fashion accessories, “the art of seduction” et al — and that they have, at their root, everything to do with a paradigm of dominance and nothing to do with actual sex between individuals with equivalent personal sovereignty.

So what’s the big whoop, the empowerful young feminist asks?
Well, in addition to pornography’s negative philosophic value, which anyone possessing even a sliver of sapience can see is reason enough to give it the old stink-eye [1], our world order is predicated on binary sex roles, one of which is privileged and dominant, the other of which is oppressed and submissive. In such a society, where a woman is a member of the oppressed sex class, her performance of sex in a film which is then consumed by paying customers to satisfy their prurience, this is not even remotely a politically neutral act. Porn — gay, straight, bi, live-action, animated, or ‘feminist’ — is the graphic representation of the oppression of the sex class. Until the sex class is liberated from male oppression, porn can be nothing else, no matter how many fun feminists claim it empowerfuls them.

Or, if you prefer, in order for porn to be politically neutral, it can’t be porn. Merely announcing ... that one’s participation in porn, whether as a consumer or as a prostituted woman, is voluntary does not make it so. This is because the women doing the announcing are, and have been since birth, deprived of such privilege as is necessary for them to freely make that choice.

When you’re already oppressed, it is, in fact, impossible to volunteer for oppression. A woman is a member of the sex class whether she “chooses” it or not. This pre-existing condition forms the backdrop to any fun feminist’s conclusion that her compliance with the patriarchal sexbot mandate is voluntary. She may believe otherwise, but her belief does not alter the fact that patriarchy — a social order predicated on an oppression to which she is already subject — is real and in effect and entirely beyond any unrestricted control she may wish to exert and only too glad to welcome her as a team player and sign her up for the rewards program.

The fun feminist confuses “empowerment” with the decision to acquiesce. This is understandable; it’s the one actual choice she has in this game: surrender, or stand and fight. She doesn’t have to be Candida Royalle to recognize that if she chooses the latter all she’ll get for her trouble is ridicule, hostility, suspicion, and the threat of bodily harm.

Whereas the rewards for surrender to male porn culture are not inconsiderable: social acceptance, male approval, little psuedo-privileges that accrue according to the degree of one’s conformity, and of course the enormous relief at not having to fight it anymore. The if-you-can’t-beatem-joinem gambit has enjoyed millennia of popularity for good reason. It gives the appearance of the shortest and easiest route to life’s rich pageant. Too bad that, once they get there, chicks are only eligible for the women’s auxiliary.
1. Porn’s negative philosophic value, in addition to its general assault on T & B (Truth and Beauty) spans the whole of women’s oppression, from Maybelline to rape culture.

A Sex Positive Radical Feminist?

Cablegai, this article is for you. Better than I could have said it.

And for the anonymous female poster who commented on the right for women to choose porn, I wasn't necessarily arguing that there was one right choice and choosing porn was the wrong one. I'm at the moment, mostly not anti-porn. But the problem is everyone looks at it as if it's only about individual choice. There are larger and complicated interweaving institutions at play here. Those who have not extensively studied institutions have a tendency to jump in with the "but it's a free country" and "free will" arguments. Anonymous girl (you have to leave some sort of pen name or else I can't keep track of who's who), you esp need to read this part (emphasis mine):

"It starts with the idea that people, even people who as a group are poor and powerless, do what they do voluntarily, so that women who pose for Playboy are there by their own free will. Forget the realities of women's sexual/economic situation. When women express our free will, we spread our legs for a camera.
Implicit here, too, is the idea that a natural physical body exists, prior to its social construction through being viewed, which can be captured and photographed, even or especially, when "attractively posed" -- that's a quote from the Playboy Philosophy. Then we are told that to criticize this is to criticize "ideas," not what is being done either to the women in the magazine or to women in society as a whole. Any critique of what is done is then cast as a moral critique, which, as liberals know, can involve only opinions or ideas, not facts about life. This entire defensive edifice, illogical as it may seem, relies utterly coherently on the five cardinal dimensions of liberalism; individualism, naturalism, voluntarism, idealism, and moralism. I mean: members of groups who have no choice but to live life as members of groups are taken as if they are unique individuals; the social characteristics are then reduced to natural characteristics; preclusion of choices becomes free will; material reality is turned into "ideas about" reality; and concrete positions of power and powerlessness are transformed into relative value judgements, as to which reasonable people can form different but equally valid preferences."

I Never Really Thought of it This Way

It's a very good point. Written about the Virginia Tech killer, Screaming into the Void writes (emphasis mine):

The Virginia Tech shooter had a history of stalking women. Not just following them with starry eyes as the kindly (towards men) patriarchal imagination paints those poor misunderstood stalkers:Notice a pattern with these guys? Hello? Anyone? These serial killers and mass murderers who “suddenly snap” almost invariably have a problem with women. They almost always have a long history of stalking women, accusations of date rape or “domestic” violence (which are finally listed as “unfounded” and dismissed), and glorification of violence notable even for our violence-enamored society, often with a focus on violence done in sexual ways toward women.

But because women don’t matter, because women aren’t seen as people, these warning signs are not taken seriously. The campus police did not move to secure the campus early in the day when he shot the first two people because they blew it off as probably a “domestic” incident of murder/suicide - police shorthand for “He only killed a woman he’d had sex with before, so she’d probably asked for it anyway and of course he isn’t going to hurt any REAL people, just the bitch who pushed him over the edge.” Because they don’t take violence against women seriously, even murder of women, 30 more people were killed. They did track down her boyfriend to question him, but they didn’t lock down the campus in case they were wrong - they assumed a man who shoots his girlfriend isn’t a danger to any real people.

There’s a double mistake in this thinking. First of all, violence against one woman - even if the offender has a past or current relationship with her - should mean the offender is immediately taken to jail. Who cares if she wants to press charges? If someone starts beating up strangers on the street and the police are alerted, the offender goes straight to jail and the charges are sorted out later. Why? Because - and here’s a radical idea - even if she fucked him before, SHE’S STILL A HUMAN BEING WHO DOESN’T DESERVE TO GET BEATEN, RAPED, OR KILLED FOR IT. Secondly, while some men are happy to have just their own personal punching bag/gun target in the form of a woman on whom they perpetrate “intimate violence”, often a man uses women (or other low status humans, like the homeless or prostitutes) as practice before moving on to killing “real people” (like men, or unrelated university students with a career in front of them, or people with jobs, or chaste women who are married to/property of some other man). Even if you don’t take violence against an individual woman seriously, from a law enforcement perspective and a public safety perspective it is FUCKING STUPID to blow off someone who shoots, rapes, or beats his girlfriend as not being a danger to society. Yet law enforcement does this all the time.


I had been surprised to hear about all the stalking he had done and the judge-ordered mental health treatment, and then that the media and students all kept saying "well that didn't mean he was going to do anything dangerous". WHY NOT? When does it? I thought it seemed unusual that all that was so downplayed. Screaming into the Void makes good points about mass murderers usually having a problem with women. And then her second point how if it had been a stranger he went out and beat up/killed, he would still go to jail without having to "check with the partner" to see if she wants to press charges.

Art as Social Commentary

I've been feeling very pensive lately, thinking lots of existential thoughts, for lack of a better word. In fact, I don't really have a word for how I've been feeling lately because I can't quite put a finger on it. It's quite frustrating.

As an art lover, I did enjoy the description of this piece, which was analyzed from an art and feminist perspective by Revolution is Not a Dinner Party (great name).

I wish the author had sourced it. She has to have studied art on some level to do that kind of analysis. It might be a bit long for everyone to want to read.

The bottom part of her analysis is what I liked--how it fits with her feminist blog. Her writing:

So, why write this tremendously verbose explanation for this picture? Dear Readers, it personifies the horrendous conditions under which women were bartered in a marriage system designed to benefit a patriarchal society. Collectively, these attitudes still remain entrenched in our society.

We need to be responsible for our own survival. As women, we cannot, in good faith, hinge all of our hope for the future upon another person’s care of us. And this needs to be addressed on all levels in our lives, financially, emotionally, physically, we must be learn to care for ourselves with the same dedication we were taught, as women, to care for others.

The woman in the picture didn’t have choice. In the old system, women were property (and still remain so in other parts of the world today!) and distributed to their masters accordingly. Now, we do have choice, and choice is an amazing thing, it provides for the freedom we’ve been craving.

Patriarchy predates Hip-Hop

From Hip-Hop, Misogyny, and the Beats (we hate to love)

Author talks about loving hip-hop but hating the misogyny in it. This is relevant to news lately about Imus, and Russell Simmons' latest comment about suggesting banning certain words from music lyrics.

The comment thread on this is quite good. There are lots of perspectives from all sides. Go read it. Really, do it.

I myself am often torn while dancing heartily to songs with obviously offensive and disgusting messages. I recently saw the video for Beyonce's "Crazy In Love" all the way through, and was appalled at how objectified she seemed. And it was HER VIDEO. I mean, the girl looks good, and coined some new dance moves, but for most of it, she's crawling on the ground, making Maxim-cover-arched-back poses and writhing up on Jay-Z (and the fact that he's her boyfriend makes it seem even trashier). This isn't some rap video no name girl--this is Beyonce. She's a star. And still in her own video, she is reduced to the slut class.

It's about porn again

I am still fascinated by the debate on Porn in the feminist community. This post is more about the subject of rape, which is an area I have strong feelings in as well. I found this great description of why rape may never go away from Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy. I like her because she isn't afraid to say what she really thinks, instead of being the "cheerful feminist" which I find I (and others) sometimes fall into being or thinking I have to be for people to listen to me.

She writes (emphasis mine):

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If women were not systemically oppressed, pornography could not exist. In a post-patriarchal society, free of the degrading paradigm of dominance and submission, pictures of people fucking would have all the prurient allure of a podiatrist appointment. It is the rape-based degradation to which consumers of pornography respond, dum-dum!
But I digress.

The remaining part of my theory is that the populus is so desperately invested in patriarchy that they are unwilling, even in the interest of justice, to part with one of its primary cornerstones: the slut class. Patriarchy depends on the slut class to serve as the receptacle for its pornsick incontinence. A slut class naturally implies a good-girl class, from whose virginal ranks the privileged male selects his unpaid housekeeper/fetus incubator/childcare worker. It naturally follows that if you go around convicting rapists, you diminish the she-was-asking-for-it slut class, which in turn, as distinctions between the two become more and more nebulous, diminishes the good-girl class. See, convicting rapists has the undesirable side effect of making women a bit more human.

You know, if I were a little more on the ball this morning, I might dip a querulous toe into the argument that society will never stand for the eradication of rape. Such success as capitalism enjoys is largely based on the wide availability of unpaid domestic labor created out of the sex class. Which sex class could not exist if women were not rapeable. Can you dig it? The global economy would collapse without rape.

Yet another study telling us what educated people already know about abstinence-only education

Even though the first sentence doesn't really go with the rest of the article, and isn't backed up anywhere (strange), here's another study that says that abstinence-only sex education doesn't delay sexual activity. It's a rather short article by the Richmond Times-Dispatch which I wish would have been longer and more detailed, but here you go.

On a separate note, Brickweekly.com is actually a lot more fun to read than the actual newspaper (and I rarely say that because I love actually holding a newspaper. I think all papers should be the size/specs of Style Weekly and Brick because they are much easier to hold and read. ) As a foodie, I also love all of Brick's food/drink articles.

How Porn functions in society

Haven't posted lately, so sorry. Been a bit busy.

A friend sent me a link to this article, which is a history of porn and how it functions in society currently. It's a very long article, but well worth a good skim. The good bits are down at the bottom, including this part, which I thought was quite good (but you kinda have to read the rest to really get it):

The power of art is that it lets us see, in someone else’s work, an idea that we dimly formed but lacked the skill to realise or convey, and in this way makes us feel less alone. Pornography as we conceive of it today, however, does the opposite. It isn’t art, cannot be openly admired or discussed, serves only to convince us of our isolation...

As a feminist, I have been interested lately by the debate of those feminists who are vehemently anti-porn and those who are advocating a free for all of it and sex workers, prostitution, etc. I think that gets into a different, though related area, including all those other sex related institutions.

I can see where anti-porn feminists are coming from (and so does the author of this article, but he also has some critiques). The problem is, as Porn functions now in society, it is hidden, dirty, embarrassing, shameful, and perhaps, gasp, am I going to say it, unregulated. The regulate it and everything will be fine argument about prostitution is one that gets me up on my soapbox to disagree with because it is just not that simple.

No time for more commentary right now, but you, readers, please discuss.

EDIT: Oh, and hey look, one of my blog friendlies has a post and a good comment discussion going on about some potential porn/obscene material censorship in the UK.

Military women in Iraq getting raped by their fellow US soldiers

Thanks to West of Shockoe for the heads up about this:

Sexual assault of female US soldiers by their male colleagues in Iraq is a widely known problem, reports Salon.com. Comprehensive statistics on the sexual assault of female soldiers in Iraq have not been collected, but early numbers revealed a problem so bad that former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered a task force in 2004 to investigate. The military's definition of sexual assault includes "rape; nonconsensual sodomy; unwanted inappropriate sexual contact or fondling; or attempts to commit these acts." Salon.com article

"The knife wasn't for the Iraqis," she told me. "It was for the guys on my own side."

I am so outraged at this! This is truly a case of "if you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention." It makes it very hard to go on living a mundane, everyday life when injustices like this are happening within our own military. As if the military doesn't have enough bad image to deal with right now. They're not doing a so great job at making us support them with stuff like this.

I've got to say I'm not surprised that this kind of hush-hush and suppression of detractors or tattletales happens in the military because isn't that always how it's been for a long time? An individual doesn't have independent thought--you work as a unit. The military still has lots of "good ole boys club" in its blood. I would think that it'd be very hard to stand up and have integrity as just one of the cogs in the system. As with any institution, if you don't have any power or status, you don't have the ability to effect change.

Not having been in their shoes, it's easy for me and others to say "Well how come the women aren't saying anything?" You can't know how you'd react in that situation until it really happens, especially with the stigma of sexual assault, and how restrictive the military is. As one of the women said:

Jennifer Spranger, 23, who was deployed at the beginning of the war with the Military Police to build and guard Camp Bucca, a prison camp for Iraqis, had a similar experience. "My team leader offered me up to $250 for a hand job. He would always make sure that we were out alone together at the beginning, and he wouldn't stop pressuring me for sex. If somebody did that to my daughter I'd want to kill the guy. But you can't fit in if you make waves about it. You rat somebody out, you're screwed. You're gonna be a loner until they eventually push you out."

And there's more to that. Fellow soldiers thinking you're a traitor because you've reported a rape, no women counselors, no way to report anonymously. It makes me want to cry.

And then there's the classic typecasting as listed here:

"There are only three kinds of female the men let you be in the military: a bitch, a ho or a dyke."

This is all relevant to recent events as well, because any time my seemingly liberal, progressive-thinking friends claim that "women are equal already," my answer to that is always one word: "RAPE". As long as rape happens in the scale and quantity that it does, all over the world, but especially in developed nations, women are not equal. This is also related to an ongoing discussion I've been having with some people, and had with some friends at an art reception the other night about sex workers/prostitution/porn and whether that was an act of oppression or not. More posts about that later.

Hate Crimes Legislation

In Detroit last week, 72-year-old Andrew Anthos was riding on a city bus and was asked by a fellow passenger if he was gay. The passenger then followed Mr. Anthos off the bus and attacked him with a metal pipe. Mr. Anthos died from his injuries Friday night and according to media reports, police are continuing the investigation without any solid leads.

Take action today to make sure that Congress passes comprehensive hate crimes legislation this session. Fill out the form below to tell your Representative to become an original cosponsor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act that will soon be introduced in the House.

This legislation is a common sense, anti-bias crime measure which brings our nation's laws into the 21st century and is strongly supported by religious organizations, civil rights organizations and law enforcement officials. It is also widely supported by the American public.

You can go to the Human Rights Campaign Website to take action.

On a related note, I recently read this report at work and was so overcome with sadness I had to take a moment to compose myself. "50 Under 30: Masculinity and the War on America's Youth". Click on the big image on the bottom left of the screen to download the report. It details all the hate crime killings that have happened simply because of one's gender expression, and not even necessarily because of their sexual orientation.

From the report: Few of us realize just how many young people are dying violently each year simply because they don't fit someone's ideal for masculinity and femininity. Yet if federal law mandated the FBI to track genderbased hate crimes, they would outweigh every other category except race.

give what you wish? does that work?

As someone who likes economics and social experiments and wants to run a coffee shop I had to share with you what I just read about this at this Richmond Business Blog:

At this coffee shop, the java is free

Freakonomics has a running commentary

I haven't had time to read it all yet but think it's an interesting concept. Share what you think with me!

I agree with what this commenter said:

From Freakonomics: 06 Feb 2007 at 10:12 pm # psteinx
...I agree with the other posters that these situations, when I’ve encountered them, make me uncomfortable. I would probably be inclined to overpay because I don’t want to feel like a cheapskate/freeloader, but I’d also be uncomfortable overpaying. Just tell me how much you want for your coffee. Let me feel happy when I feel like I’m getting a bargain, and let me choose another cafe if I feel I’m being overcharged.

Another aspect to this that makes me uncomfortable is the idea that everyone will likely be paying a different price. It reminds me of going on an airplane, where you never know whether you’re a chump or not without spending far more time than I prefer to in comparing prices…

Celebrate Marriage Week

I'm not sure how I feel about this yet


CELEBRATE MARRIAGE WEEK in Richmond

Yet another blow to us single folk on Vday week. Ha.

On one hand, strong families=good
I think the idea of teaching responsible fatherhood, actions and consequences, and healthy relationships is good.

On the other, this is of course only saying heterosexual families are good, and that marriage is the ideal (which I'm not sure is something we should be saying). I think yes, it probably is a good idea for a strong family, but I think it's rather...arrogant, self righteous, offensive? to be saying marriage is the only ideal.

The org that runs it was originally started by churches, and that always makes me a bit wary of their intentions. I wonder if that's bad. I like a firm separation between church and state.

Hrm. Thoughts, readers?

i blame the patriarchy

I just came across this blog, http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/ and wanted to share it with my readers. This is its about me:

I Blame The Patriarchy exists to advance the radical feminist views of Twisty Faster, a gentleman farmer and spinster aunt eating dinner in Austin, Texas. I Blame The Patriarchy is intended for advanced patriarchy-blamers. It is not a feminist primer. See Patriarchy-Blaming The Twisty Way for details.

I dig that it isn't trying to be middle of the road. Part of discussions about social justice involve points of view that aren't on the fence, and that not everyone will agree with. I admire anyone who is willing to say what they think without trying to compromise. As one who thinks taking your husband's last name at marriage is a completely patriarchal and identity stealing practice, I like where this blog is going.

VA as compared to other states

From ConnectRichmond: REPORT OF THE WEEK. The 2007 report Virginia Compared to the Other States National Rankings, includes data on income, unemployment, salary of school teachers and more: http://jlarc.state.va.us/Reports/Rpt347.pdf

Virginia is doing well in lots of areas, including having the top Bond ratings.

Delaware (my home state) kicked butt in a ton of other areas as well. They also have the second largest foreign-born population growth. Odd.

Starbucks in the Forbidden City

I was just reading an article in the Wall Street Journal about a web crusade started by one Chinese blogger, to remove the Starbucks that sits in China's Forbidden City. I am trying to find a link to the article, but the WSJ doesn't allow free reading online, and this article is from Jan 19th. It's times like this where I miss being a college student and having free access to all those great search engines like Lexis Nexis. Let me see what I can find for you.

The point was, it was interesting that one person's personal opinion became a national agenda.

Tony Ip, the China general manager of WPP Group PLC's G2 Relationship Marketing (that title is long and unnecessary here) said, "When bloggers get a chance to talk to the CEO of Starbucks, they will want to show their power. Then an individual consumer's point of view can become a public agenda."

That last sentence there is really striking. That's incredibly empowering and scary at the same time. The article notes that China is a country with the second most Internet users, after the US. I didn't know that. How startling. The author of the blog said, "Blogging is giving ordinary grassroots Chinese people a chance to express themselves." Which is true. But if bloggers are getting up in arms about a coffee shop, imagine the power they might have if they actually put it to a better use, like for some social justice issues. And they are young bloggers (The Chinese man was 29), so perhaps the hope for generation next to care about issues like globalization and consumerism still exist. The blogger says he is a regular Starbucks customer and his goal was not to drum up anti-American sentiment:

"This became an issue because Starbucks is a symbol of Western popular culture," he says. "The question is, how do we absorb and embrace the Western world without losing our own identity. This is an issue that everybody is thinking about. I just happened to write about it."

What do you all think about this?

student documentary films at UR on Wed

Related social justice event for any interested:

The Civic Engagement House of the University of Richmond invites you to attend a free screening of four student documentary films on Wednesday, Jan. 24 at 7 p.m. in the Brown Alley Room of Weinstein Hall. The films to be shown are:
- Cross Over Ministries: Improving Health Care in the Latino Community
- Homelessness: It Could Be You
- Not Just Sticks and Bricks: Affordable Housing in Richmond
- Youth, Violence and Gangs

Please join us to learn more about these important social issues and show your support for the student filmmakers. A brief reception will follow the screenings at 8:30 p.m. For directions or parking information please email tara.sulzen@richmond.edu

now you get taunted just for being male

SAN FRANCISCO - Members of an all-male singing group from Yale University say they were taunted with anti-gay slurs, attacked and beaten after singing "The Star Stangled Banner" at a New Year's Eve party in San Francisco.

So now they're gay just beccause they're in an all-male singing group? Jeez. Or they just targeted the ones that "looked" gay? And in SAN FRANCISCO, for crying out loud.

Police said they arrived and found about 20 people fighting in the street. They interviewed some of the participants but let them go after taking their names.

WHAT!? No one was arrested? Taken in for questioning for a HATE CRIME? What the hell?

Minimum wage

House passes the minimum wage increase... From CNN.com

Tackling a top priority, House Democrats pushed a $2.10 an hour increase in the federal minimum wage toward passage Wednesday, calling it only a partial restoration of purchasing power for America's lowest-paid workers.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said passing the boost "is simply a matter of doing what's right, what's just, and what's fair. If the minimum wage had been adjusted with the cost of living on an annual basis since 1968, a minimum wage worker would not be making $5.15, not be making $7.25, would be making $9.05," he said.

While I think this is great, I do worry about repercussions from businesses, what with the now higher payroll costs. This also will be bad for my job, bc the companies we work with pay our students minimum wage, with a 50 cent increase each summer (3). It's a lot easier to sell a 16 year old to a company at $5.15/hour. I'm pretty sure the raise will make it harder for us to find business sponsors for internships. Drat.

I also don't understand why this has to be such a partisan thing. Bush is supportive, which surprises me. I can see how big business is going to freak and say, AGHH, it's expensive, etc, but better paid workers mean a better economy, less strain on gov't programs, more stable households, and all sorts of good things, that aren't partisan. I really hate that concept. Partisan. It's become a dirty word. To be behind things that your party supports. It has taken to being considered a synonym for divisive. Let's look up the meaning, shall we?...

par·ti·san –noun
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

Synonyms 1. See follower. 3. biased, prejudiced.

Wow, that's interesting. I had the definition in my mind not to really mean that. I was thinking it meant just an adherent to a cause, which it does say, but the definition also emphasizes the "biased" part. Hrm.



Somewhat unrelated conversation I had on IM with a friend:

me: is anyone else annoyed at newspapers and online news' sites' attempts to include "technology" in their articles by putting video links to everything?
friend: u dont like the video?
me: I don't want to watch a video. i want to read about it. it's faster to read. and when i'm at work, i can't watch the video usually anyway
friend: some ppl dont like to read
me: i'm usually subject to a commercial first too
friend: because they cant!
me: dumbing down of america

Al Gore as President on SNL

This is kind of on topic, related to the Global Warming and all the talk of Al Gore, but how could I have missed this hillarious opening of Al Gore hosting SNL and pretending to be President and speaking of the state of the nation?

He's really quite good on the show.

global warming

I just noticed this post from The Richmond Democrat today about the movie "The Inconvenient Truth", which I have not yet seen, but coincidentally saw previews for on a DVD I rented this weekend, which made me want to go out and rent it. RD says about the movie: Gore has framed the debate and from this point forward experts on both sides will be working to support or refute Gore's thesis.

I liked that in the previews for the movie, Al Gore says, "This is not a political issue" which I completely agree on. We all have to live on this Earth. All of us should care what happens to it, in our lifetimes or later.

This is also relevant given all the coverage given to global warming this weekend with the 60 and 70 degree weather. It seemed like every channel I turned on was discussing this (and I did watch a fair bit of the Weather Channel). The consensus seems to be that one or two warm days or months are not enough to cry global warming, but the fact is, is that the Earth's core temperature has been rising steadily for a long time, especially in the last 50 years or so (or longer?). I feel another "End of the World" movie coming up based on global warming. I'm surprised we haven't had a "Deadly Hurricane" or "Tsunami" movie, but I suppose it's too soon after them to do that yet. Remember all the fuss when "World Trade Center" came out? That was also one of the previews of the movie I rented, and now I want to see it.

One of RD's commenters noted:
The Sunday Supper Club will be having a public viewing of this film in the very near future. See their website:sundaysupperclub.org.
Though it appears that group is based out of Fauquier County, VA (I'm not even sure where that is).

They also have a page of links of other organizations dedicated to peace and justice. Will need to go check those out soon.