As a guy writing about this, I can only cringe. This post is about bathrooms, obstinance and ignorance-- oh, and penis removal. The focus of this week's wackatude of the week is a member of the school board in Colorado. It seems she's got the Wizard of Oz's Scarecrow deficiency which has led her to making perhaps the most outrageous statement since Michele Bachmann died.
Oh, she didn't die? My bad. I thought with all those stupid remarks attributed to her, if she was still living, she'd had denied them. I guess that's what happens when you're not fully informed.
A Colorado school board member is facing criticism after she said that transgender students would need to be castrated before the student could use the school bathrooms that fit their gender identity.
Talk about holding it in when you need to go.
According to Delta County School Board member Katherine Svenson a person born transgendered should be put under the knife. For what? I understand for religious reasons Jews are snipped in the bud, but now a person's sexuality is the determining factor? And Svenson's not just talking about a little snip from the tip. She wants the entire plumbing removed. What planet are we on?
I'm not sure when we're talking about Delta County. My map says it's in the Grand Junction area of Colorado. Though I know they've voted in some districts to secede, the entire state of Colorado is still part of the US.
“I don’t have a problem if some boys think they are girls, I’m just saying as long as they can impregnate a woman, they’re not going to go in the girls' locker-room,”she [Svenson] said.
Somehow Board Member Svenson isn't aware of her own states laws.
Back in June, Colorado's Civil Rights Division ruled in favor of a transgender students having the right to use the restroom for the gender that they identify as.
Seventeen states, including Colorado and the District of Columbia, now outlaw discrimination against transgendered people.
So, if you're up for some total wackiness, listen to Ms. Svenson defending herself. Close your eyes and you'll think you're hearing the late Congresswoman Bachmann. Oops. Sorry. I did it again. Well, watch this anyway:
Okay, let's get this straight. A 21-year-old Brazilian woman who last year auctioned off her virginity online for a whopping $780,000 now says she wants to sell it again.
Yes, Play It Again, Sam. This sounds outrageous on so many levels, but let's take them one at a time.
You only get one shot at being a virgin or so I've been told. That kind of goes with the definition. But, in the case of Catarina Migliorini, she changed her mind when she met the man who first bought the rights to deflower her and they evidently didn't consummate the act. So, she's still a virgin. Oh what a relief that is.
Wondering how that all went down? The first time she put herself up for auction, a Japanese man, identified only as Natsu beat out competition from 14 other men, mainly from Brazil, but also from India, Australia and the United States. When she met up on the day of the event, she found out that the 53 year old Japanese man wasn't who he said he was. He turned out to be a 21 year old Japanese guy. I guess she was looking for for the "daddy" type so she rejected him. Maybe she secretly suffers from reverse ageism. Or maybe just the fear of the second syllable.
She's not saying how much of the promised consideration (money) if any that she got for refusing to go along with the initial consummation service. But the experience didn't turn her off, totally. She's prepared to go through with the "sacrifice" and this time for sure. Apparently, she's lowered her expectations.
She told the Brazilian showbiz website Pure People that she hopes to bring in at least $680,000. But anyone who's shopped on an line auctions knows, sometimes the prices for an item can rise as the bidding can become heated and the competition stiffens.
Money for sex sounds like prostitution. Is this whole thing legal? If that's the case, why did Craig's list have to shut down it's sex for money section a year or so back? How is that any different? Just the advertising campaign here seems to separate it - maybe if Craig's List had called the ads, Used Virgins for Sale it might have been okay... or maybe I'm simply missing something here.
Actually, she did take the legal considerations under advisement. Further research claims she is planning to "give it up" while flying in an airplane -- the "mile high club" so it's somehow, not illegal? Just think, you not only get the girl, you get to claim her in an exclusive club -- the Mile High Club. Geez, this story just gets better and better.
As covered by The Raw Story:
The young woman, who posed nude next to a pink teddy bear in Playboy magazine, opened her own website to hold a second sale of her virginity to the highest bidder.
“I decided to open my own webpage to auction off my virginity and this time it will be for real. So those interested, men or women, can make their bids,” she said.
Well, I have to hand it to Miss Migliorini, she doesn't care who pops her cherry. She doesn't discriminate based on sex. She's an equal opportunity "f**ker. Now my parting comments are this: I wish this brave entrepreneur all the best -- she keep it safe. And good luck getting the lube past the TSA security.
Sometimes justice gets it right. Other times they get it all wrong. Here's an mind-boggling example of the latter. Now there may be some sticky stuff to this story, but the devil is in the details.
Some 18 years ago, a woman named Norma Esparza, now 39, was a victim of rape. She confessed this to her then boyfriend Gianni Van, though she was afraid to go to the police to make a report for fear she'd be made the victim, as so many women/men before her. Esparza was forced by her boyfriend to identify her accused attacker. They went to a bar where this attack has taken place and she pointed out Gonzalo Ramirez to Van. From there he took justice into his own hands.
Van went on to get revenge for the sexual assault by kidnapping Mr Ramirez and stabbing him to death.
Ms Esparza, from California now living in France, today proclaimed her innocence before she was taken into custody in Orange County.
This story isn't quite that simple, though. Esparza didn't learn until recently that Ramirez had been killed. What she did know was this:
She claims to have been taken by Van to see a bloodied, but alive, Ramirez after which she was threatened with a gun to make her promise to stay silent.
Van told her they had released Ramirez but Esparza learned when she was interviewed by police weeks later that he had been killed
She claims to have been taken by Van to see a bloodied, but alive, Ramirez after which she was threatened with a gun to make her promise to stay silent.
Van told her they had released Ramirez but Esparza learned when she was interviewed by police weeks later that he had been killed, Mr Mancillas (Esparza's current husband) said.
After this she was pressured to marry Van so she could not be bound to testify against him.
She fled to Europe where her education continued until she got her doctorate and became a professor. She stayed in Europe to teach, got divorced from Mr.Van and since married. She's now the mother of a four year old daughter.
Things seemed to be fine until she returned to the US for a visit recently. Upon entering, she was arrested and charged with manslaughter.
The mother-of-one has now been jailed after rejecting a manslaughter plea deal offered by prosecutors who allege she encouraged the murder of Ramirez by pointing him out to Van at a Santa Ana bar 18 years ago.
This just seems to be the story of an innocent victim who's life has gone from bad to very bad to even worse. But is this her fault or the fault of the system that makes reporting a crime such a horrific ordeal?
Ms. Esparza should have taken the risks and probable humiliation that millions are made to endure and reported this degrading crimes. But she didn't. She merely pointed him out to her boyfriend and believed he and some friends had beaten him for his crime and he was let go. She didn't give her boyfriend an order, a gun or knife and dispatch him to the ultimate revenge. This wasn't an episode of Dexter.
Murder is wrong. Period. But arresting the victim for identifying the alleged rapist, then accusing her of complicity in his murder is not the way to improve the already sagging confidence any victim of any crime has in police and their procedures. The accused rapist deserved his opportunity to defend himself in court -- not to be a murder victim based on deranged vigilantes. But if we want this kind of thing to stop, maybe it's time to look at why women, and to be fair, men, are reluctant to report such heinous crimes.
Well, it seems there's straight porn, there's gay porn, there's interracial porn, there's bi-sexual porn, there's sado-masochistic porn, there's good porn, bad porn, soft porn, hard porn, illegal porn and now we've got a new one to add to the list. Feminist porn.
Yup, that's right. In these days of relaxed or eased restrictions on allowing people to be who and what they are, there's progression in the porn industry as well. For a while, there was something referred to as "porn for women." It seems that's now been replaced.
As people such as James Deen have pointed out, claiming that women need specially-made pornography just because of their gender seems to lump all women's sexuality together. Feminist porn, on the other hand, sounds like something we could get on board with.
Well, it seems you can't get much more authoritative in the porno business than star, James Deen. I'm not a prude. I've done my homework. I know who he is. But I'm not so sure I know what he means by feminist porn. So, I turned to that bastion of all things women, Cosmo:
Feminist pornographers are committed to gender equality and social justice. Feminist porn is ethically produced porn, which means that performers are paid a fair wage and they are treated with care and respect; their consent, safety, and well-being are critical, and what they bring to the production is valued. Feminist porn explores ideas about desire, beauty, pleasure, and power through alternative representations, aesthetics, and filmmaking styles. Feminist porn seeks to empower the performers who make it and the people who watch it.
Feminist pornographer and sex educator Tristan Taormino (love her name, BTW) sums it all up:
Feminist porn isn't "porn for women" at all -- just ethically-made pornography that shows women enjoying themselves.
Now with that kind of endorsement, I'm going to go check out some viewing for me and my wife but I'm going to look to make sure it's got the Feminist Porn Seal of Approval.
Gosh, I wonder what that icon looks like?
The Grand Outdated Party. Yes, the familiar GOP.
Just look at them. Decaying echoes of a long time ago. Their hero has been dead for nearly ten years and who last held the reins some 24 years ago. Since then they haven't been able to find anyone to aspire to be. Like Moses, they'll be wandering in the desert for 40 years, the time it'll take for all first hand knowledgeable people of 'the Gipper' to have passed on.
And who was Ronald Reagan? A fair actor, destructive governor, and a criminal president -- Iran Contra and Arms for Hostages, lest you forget. Funny how these grey dinosaurs only remember Ronnie as that doting mannequin who ruled for 8 years. Eight years where our public services eroded as quickly as our infrastructure. Where the lead adviser to the president, was his wife's astrologer, Joan Quigley.
The reason for the rant will be evident shortly. The man who is still the Republican gold standard is a man who they wouldn't even let into the party today. He signed the immigrant amnesty bill. He raised various taxes 11 times. So much for the Grover Norquist pledged Republican.
During the Reagan years, the real glue and backbone in that family was Nancy. And during the last two years of her husband's administration, he wasn't well enough to govern. Nancy ran the show, and a good argument could be made that she actually was the first woman president of the United States.
So when I look at this video, I celebrate the strength of women politicians all over the world. And I lament how the GOP can turn their back half of our population. Actually, if you throw in Blacks, Latinos, Asians, the poor, the elderly, and immigrants, the GOP represents the interests of very few. Continuing in the direction they're going the GOP will become the G-O-N-E.
The future of both parties is in the video below. This thought provoking piece shows you how out of touch the Republicans really are. Look at all of the perceived GOP contenders for President. Not one woman. Look at the Democrats, two of the three main considerations, Clinton and Warren, are outstanding women.
When you look back 24 years for your last hero, what's that say about your future? Think about it, GOP when you watch the this:
Don't forget to follow me on Twitter: @Linzack
Picking up where Laffy left off yesterday in her great post Fed Up Dems...
If I knew what women want, I'd be a kazillionaire because I'd write a book about it and rake in the dough. The truth is I have no idea what women want. I know this because I'm married to a wonderful woman. And just when I think I've got it figured out, I'm told I'm wrong, asked what was I possibly thinking and then met with a silent shake of the head. My male, married buddies tell me I'm lucky that it's just a silent shake of the head.
So building on a platform of I'm no expert, I do know some things. I know that women want and deserve the right to self-determination, just like the guys. They don't want to be treated differently -- just fairly. And I don't have any argument against that.
But the Republicans do. Their mostly white, older men composite seems to feel that women are inferior mentally and emotionally, that they're not capable of rational decisions -- even with it comes to their own bodies and health issues. More of them think along the legitimate rape lines than in rational scientific reasoning. And those genteel, Southern Gentlemen who demurely dismiss women with their cloak of protecting them from themselves, "those sweet little souls. They are so lovely, aren't they -- like a field of violets or Lady Slippers, swaying in a warm, summer's night." And all the while the Lindsay Grahams spew their charming tripe, their mind is busy with the melodic refrains of "Dixie."
In the wake of Roe v Wade, individual states, feeling the decision of the SCOTUS was wrong, have set out to correct this injustice. They've taken a clearly decided issue and are chipping away at the rights determined by the highest court in our land. That's the conservative, right-wing way.
Finally, after assault on assault at the state's level, accelerated in every red state with a Republican-led legislation, women's rights and protections are being circumvented or even stricken. This has got to stop.
Well, the slow moving but well-intentioned Democrats in Congress have finally had enough. They've gone from being a sleeping giant to a forceful vociferous champion of women. Release the Kraken-- Sen. Richard Blumenthal. HuffPo reports:
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) will introduce the Women's Health Protection Act of 2013, joined by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Reps. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), Judy Chu (D-Calif.) and Lois Frankel (D-Fla.). The bill would prohibit states from passing so-called Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, which impose strict and cost-prohibitive building standards on abortion clinics, require women seeking abortions to have ultrasounds, and create other barriers to abortion access.
Looks like good ol' Connecticut Senator Blumenthal's gonna be gettin' sometin' sometin' from Mrs. Senator B when he goes home on his next break. And you know what, he deserves it. My only criticism is why this took so long. The last pro-active abortion legislation to pass through the Senate was in 1994, with the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. That made it a federal crime to block or harass patients or doctors who entered or exited abortion clinics.
When Republicans don't like something, they propose a bill and there's immediate discussion, press coverage and oftentimes votes. In the case of Obamacare, 42 votes. Of course that's the House and they're led by government shutdown fever and Republican leader, Speaker John Blunder.
Blumenthal's bill wouldn't automatically overturn states' existing anti-abortion laws, but because federal law trumps state law, it would provide a means to challenge them in court. The bill would direct judges to consider certain factors in determining whether a restriction is legal, such as whether it interferes with a doctor's good-faith medical judgment, or whether it's likely to interfere with or delay women's access to abortion.
This bill will surely pass the Senate. In the House, it'll probably never even come to a vote. But when the 2014 elections come around, you can add that to the Democrats long list of things the Republicans did -- stopping immigration reform, shutting down the government, restricting women's rights, repressing voters rights, obstructing qualified presidential appointees to the bench, pushing for war with Iran, and so many others. I'll need another blog just to continue the list. And like my wife, I make lists.
The Political Carnival T-Shirt
Modeled by @suzannegypsy
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below:
Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.