Posts Tagged ‘violence reactions

24
Oct
11

Into the Abyss…

I have actually managed not to post anything on the Occupy Movement. Until now.

I agree with some of it, I disagree with a lot of it. The reality is, those pushing for a full socialism, claiming that they will occupy until they get one, are just delusional. The merits or problems of an absolute socialism aside, it just won’t work here. Period. There will always be those who feel like they are owed something for nothing. There will always be those who feel they have some sort of inherent worth above others. It just won’t work. Period.

What do I agree with? Pay your workers more, you freaking assholes. Waltons. Yeah, you. Pay your workers a living wage. Offer them decent benefits, pull the mass of people employed by YOU out of the bracket of the working poor. You take over small town America and then drag it through the dirt. You take people’s businesses and then offer them a minimum wage job, saying that you are providing a service, building community. Bullshit. Your are thieves and liars. Have fun in your ivory tower.

Now, what brought on this rant? The fine and not so fine folks of The Conservative Tree House. Some of them have been interesting and informative, others have been hateful for no known reason, except that I struck a cord with respectful but socially liberal dialogue. Shame on me.

Yeah, I’m a bit bitter about some of them today. That I would be labeled as having an agenda for being polite, pisses me off. Newsflash: I’m generally speaking a polite person and have to be pushed pretty far to retaliate. Secondly, that anyone would stand up and feel sorry for Gaddafi strikes me as nothing short of hatred toward millions of Libyans. Sure, he killed, maimed, and stole, but he was a nice guy. Whatever.

And the coup de grace…They seem to want their religion in their government. I get this from a number of posts (read through and come to your own conclusion). But don’t let Islam into anyone’s government. That’s not right. You can’t have an Islamic state. You can have a Christian one, but NOOOOOOOO…No, you can’t have an Islamic state. Not acceptable.

Well, that lovely rant aside, I close today with a stock AP photo and a quote from one of the most marvelous Occupiers of the Tree…

“Revolts aren’t calm.
They happen when diplomacy and discussion have failed.
It is a pressure cooker of violence and anger. It is a cataclysmic upheaval of decades of frustration and repression. It is animalistic and degrading. There is no more human compassion in anything of this sort. It is horrifically cruel. When any society has been pushed to it’s bearable limits, these are the repercussions.

There is no way to contain the explosive backlash. You have to let it burn out.

This is the burn.”

25
Feb
11

fairness for all?

I have a great many thoughts (and rants) running around inside my tiny little brain at the moment, but I will try (TRY) to focus on what I came here to write about without rambling too much.

Last night was the first of this round of public forums on the Fairness Ordinance. I was concerned that it would get a bit ugly and, despite my desire to bring some who are a bit younger, because of that potential for nastiness, I did not. I must say, I’m rather glad I didn’t. That people can be so heartless and selfish based on their own bigotry, but hide behind their faith, really busts my buttons.

Reasons offered by said bigots for not passing an ordinance:
1) It is unfair to offer “special” protections for other people.

Yes, it is. However this is not the case here. Not “special” protections, but equal ones. These folks have no problem with the protections they enjoy as women, “people of faith”, people of color, disabled, etc. However, offering those same protections to others is “unconstitutional”. I am quite honestly still unsure how that works, but that was the argument.

2) Anti-discrimination legislation is “thought policing”.

If someone wants to spout hateful speech, that is protected by the US Constitution. Uh…No it isn’t. One person’s rights end where another’s begin. One can’t spout evil, hateful things and think that it is protected. How about I stand in the street in front of someone’s home and scream vicious, hurtful things about the individuals in that home. Can they call the police? You betcha. One’s legal protections of speech DO NOT extend into their work space when attacking other individuals. They DO NOT extend to the property or homes of others that can force them from that home. They DO NOT extend to public accommodations that prevent the capabilities and services of others.

3) This is the one that ticked me off the most…The HRC (Human Rights Commission) is failing in its mission of equality for failing to represent persons of faith among its discussions.

Really? REALLY? Because what exactly does that make me? What does it make everyone else in that room that subscribes to any faith be it Christian, Jewish, Agnostic, or otherwise not specified? Do we not count as people of faith simply because the large group from Fort God disagrees? Because a “pastor” from a church chose not to bother showing up at the group discussion among the other clergy in the area, he states that his beliefs are being excluded? Uh…No. That being said, at least HE was honest and didn’t hide behind bad logic and incoherent ramblings about the Constitution.

And in relation to that same point…Why!? Why should faith be considered? Why should anyone’s faith be considered when this is an issue of civil rights? This is not a question about placing a brothel downtown. This is about EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS. This is about crazy things like job protection, housing protection, and public services. This IS NOT about anyone’s opinions about sexual or gender identity.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” No one is suggesting that anyone not practice their beliefs, only that they recognize the beliefs of others.

11
Jan
11

Reality check

Generally speaking, in case you might have missed it, I am pretty liberal in my political viewpoints. That being said, I have a couple of things to point out about what happened in Arizona.

1) This is terrible and wrong, but not remotely new. Violence as a political tool is as old as politics itself. This isn’t a “What is the world coming to?” kind of moment. This is more of a “We haven’t quit this crap yet?” kind of moment.

2) This has absolutely nothing to do with Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, or any other Republican or tea party politician. They do not hold the monopoly on violent political comments or images. Examples:
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/ghr/lowres/ghrn583l.jpg and
“More drama than a junior prom, a shotgun wedding, and a paternity test all rolled into one!”
The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC (June 8, 2009)

Like them both. Think they ar funny, but (at risk of using the mosted hated phrase of 2010), I’m just saying.

12
May
10

Women and Violence in the US

At one time, there were a great many issues facing women and the United States. Through the work of suffragists, women’s rights pioneers, and many lawmakers who recognized gender inequality, most of those issues women once faced are no longer at the forefront. Today, however gendered violence is still a problem facing both women and men.
Women are more likely than are their male counterparts to be victimized by a domestic partner, however homosexual men are more likely to face such violence than are heterosexual men. Because domestic/intimate partner violence is most often about power, those who are outside of the gender norm (ie women and homosexual men) are most likely to be victimized based solely on their marginalized status.
While there have been a great many strides in prevention of domestic and intimate partner violence, there is still much work to be done. Laws have been enacted that protect victims after violence occurs. Most recently, the state of Kentucky enacted legislation to require certain perpetrators of domestic violence to wear devices monitoring their whereabouts should an Environmental Protection Order be in place.
The problem with the current laws is that the vast majority are reactionary. There are few programs in existence to prevent domestic violence as opposed to stopping it after it occurs, and even fewer laws to prevent initial acts of violence. The prevention of initial violence is key to reducing overall occurrences.
Also problematic is that perpetrators are incarcerated for their acts (some of the time) but are not educated in how to prevent future acts. Inmates are placed in a violent environment that only serves to increase violent tendencies, not reduce them. Instead, perpetrators should take part in educational and therapeutic activities to teach coping skills and reduce violent outbursts. Maintaining results with group therapy sessions and visits with parole officers is advisable after release.
Despite the fact that violence faces women all over the world, each and every day, there are methods available to reduce violent acts. The importance is to educate people on the signs of abusers to prevent acts and to educate and treat abusers after violent acts occur.




Join 14 other followers