The vote for marriage equality in the New York legislature lost last week, but Diane Savino’s speech was a moving moment prior to the vote:

Al Jazeera has reported on the Afghan Women’s Writing Project (AWWP), an English language blog which is written by women in the war-torn country. Given that women rights are seriously curtailed in Afghanistan, these writers have to write under conditions of anonymity and fear of personal safety.

According to the founder of the blog, an American novelist, Masha Hamilton, ‘We don’t just put anything up. It’s a dialogue and a communication. We want to help them express their stories, and their writing often becomes more personal as time goes on.’

Reading some of the entries, one is reminded of the plight of women in  Aghanistan. In the blog entry titled, Sitara, Roya (not her real name) documents the violence perpetuated against a girl who simply wants to go to school:

… That day that she [Sitara] got burned, it was her father who burned her, her father who killed her. He didn’t like Sitara or her mother. When he burned her, he forbid her to go to the hospital because there were male doctors there. The neighbors helped her and her mother to the hospital…

Or the poem by Freshta, her hopes for a more enlightened and better government. This is an excerpt:

Afghans suffers pain, trial, labor, grief, sorrow, tragedy.
Now the president needs to serve them
Serve for people, serve those who need

Serve for those who have lost their families, loved ones who live only in memory.
Serve for those who have lost their parents, who had dignity but are now called orphans.
Serve for orphans who hide their face with their hands and hear the slap of tongues when they say thanks.
Serve for orphans who watch other parents caress their children
Tears come from their eyes as thunder appears in the sky.
Tears of hopelessness, discouragement, depression.
Serve for people, serve for those who need

A project worth supporting.

By BettyJean Kling

Islam may profess to be a peaceful religion; however, it is becoming increasing clear that they are a radical religion who also wishes to take over the world and kill infidels. Both follow a Koran and Mohammad! I am not sure how this Koran and Mohammad can both be a savior and evil but based on what the two faces of this religion profess, we can believe what we see and hear from the believers .

I would love to trust that this is a peace loving religion and would gladly do so and just as I do with other religions, allow them to worship as they will. Live and let live. The peaceful sect may be peaceful but I do not see them in the streets or anywhere else denouncing the radicals and that silence screams loudly. What they do not condemn they condone by omission! I can only conclude they either condone or there are very few peaceful members. In the interest of fairness I realize they must be considered and we shall try, BUT.

Unfortunately Islamophobia is near impossible with this religion because of its other face. Because in the same Koran from the same prophet this group is far from peaceful. This faction means harm to any who are not Muslim. Did the killers advertise themselves as hateful murderers before they blew themselves and others up? Didn’t they integrate themselves into our lives freely and walk amongst us before they flew into our buildings? Didn’t these other guys in Denver live among us inconspicuously while planning hate. What about the guys in NJ planning on delivering Pizza bombs to the base or Ft. Hood? No Muslims read the Koran, go to these Mosques hear this peaceful rhetoric and then do their deeds!

This religion is not within our Constitution- it does not follow our laws and does not provide for our rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

“The pragmatists, most of whom are power holders, are partially right when they insist that the integration of Muslims will take a very long time. Their calls for dialogue are sensible. But as long as they do not engage Muslims to make a choice between the values of the countries that they have come to and those of the countries they left, they will find themselves faced with more surprises. And this is what the Swiss vote shows us. This is a confrontation between local, working-class voters (and some middle-class feminists) and Muslim immigrant newcomers who feel that they are entitled, not only to practice their religion, but also to replace the local political order with that of their own.”Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Swiss ban on minarets was a vote for tolerance and inclusion http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1205/p09s01-coop.html
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of “Infidel,” is the Somali-born women’s rights advocate and former Dutch parliamentarian. Her forthcoming book is entitled “Nomad.”  

Make an image of their prophet and risk holy war- witness rage in your streets and suffer death at the hands of mad men and women covered so that only heir enraged eyes show the hatred the voices shout under that garb. Any who are not Muslims are deemed Infidels, Women are less than infidels they are lower than dogs and they are taught to accept that fate. Children are also taught to accept the fate of chattel.

I have personally witnessed mistreatment from the influx of these Muslim men in dealing with me and other women. Their distaste for dealing with women is obvious, if they hold jobs where they are forced to deal with or serve women such as in gas service stations, they are discourteous and downright rude. It’s scary. No wonder more and more women are showing signs of depression – we really don’t need to launch a study as pontificated by psychologists recently wondering why.

The influx of women hating foreigners into our country, the epidemic proportions of violence against women and the sudden onset of honor killings such as beheading of wives and stabbings of daughters all seemingly kept hush hush rather than outraging us as a society is enough to depress women.

This just gives us another reason to march on DC NOW and demand ERA before these radical women haters with their insidious hateful religion overturn the meaning of our Constitutional rights and replace it with their own laws– all right under our noses – using our very own freedoms to do so. If the Muslims want Shar’ia law, honor killings, and jihad, they should stay in their own countries where these things are accepted.

Radical American Muslims praise Fort Hood shooteras
“An Officer and a Gentleman”

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion my eye! This must stop NOW- this is not freedom of anything but of hate crimes. Commanded by the Koran to terrorize non believers. Killing soldiers, killing Americans , beating of women which should be adjudicated as a hate crime and this should prove it- they hate women and see them as dogs- even dogs under our American laws have more rights than these women!

Obviously our men have not moved against this – so we must act now! We either move against this abomination now or we will not have any legs to stand on. Right now we only have a left leg fighting for any women’s rights at all and that plain and simply ladies just ain’t enough. The left primarily focus on reproductive rights and same sex marriage. There are ERA groups and Violence against women’s groups but they need help and lots of it and they need it from the left and from the right and they need it now!

We desperately need the right leg to stand tall and yell for all the other rights women and girls need counted too. When will we wake up and understand that all issues are women’s issues and we all have more in common than what we have to disagree about. The right and the left are so busy fighting over two issues they will never agree on that – we are blind to a mountain of issues endangering our lives- our children and our country.

It does not matter that we do not agree on every issue. There are 52% of us across America – can we at least all agree against the multitude of issue we have refused to focus on together? Let’s start with Sharia law, radical Islam  and Jihad? Let’s get this majority united on that at least. United we stand on two legs – divided we have not one leg to stand on.

Imagine: The Majority United on something!

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, … undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
~Thomas Paine

Ever hear of Diane Savino?  You will.  Currently our senator from Staten Island, she recently made the nation’s radar with her speech on the sanctity of marriage, well worth viewing here:

“Diane Savino has dedicated her entire professional career towards improving the lives of working families. She began her career in public service as a caseworker for New York City’s Child Welfare Administration, providing direct assistance to abused and neglected children. …

As a labor activist, she actively and successfully campaigned for an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.15—the first raise for New Yorkers in over a decade. …

Senator Savino has passed important legislation, including a law that ended the 5-year statute of limitation on sexual assualt, a bill establishing a task force for the prevention and treatment of cervical cancer, the Olive Oil Labeling Bill, which prohibits additives in virgin olive oil,  the Prompt Pay Bill, which ensures prompt payment to construction contractors and their employees, a cost-of-living increase in the death benefit for widows and widowers of police officers and fire fighters killed in the line of duty.

In addition, Senator Savino has championed legislation protecting hard-working New Yorkers, Paid Family Leave, which establishes up to 12 weeks of paid leave to care for a sick family member or newborn, Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, expanding basic worker protection rights to domestic workers, and a law that would limit public authorities from contracting out for services that can be performed by public employees.”

From her recent speech to the New York State Senate:

“Turn on the television. We have a wedding channel on cable TV devoted to the behavior of people on the way to the altar. They spend billions of dollars, behave in the most appalling way, all in an effort to be princess for a day. You don’t have cable television? Put on network TV. We’re giving away husbands on a game show. You can watch The Bachelor, where thirty desperate women will compete to marry a 40-year-old man who has never been able to maintain a decent relationship in his life.”

“That’s what we’ve done to marriage in America, where young women are socialized from the time they’re five years old to think of being nothing but a bride. They plan every day what they’ll wear, how they’ll look, the invitations, the whole bit, they don’t spend five minutes thinking about what it means to be a wife. People stand up there before god and man even in Senator Diaz’s church, they swear to love honor and obey, they don’t mean a word of it. So if there’s anything wrong with the sanctity of marriage in America, it comes from those of us who have the privilege and the right and have abused it for decades.”

Interview with Senator Savino here!

You can e-mail her your thanks!

savino@senate.state.ny.us

Senator Diane J. Savino
512 Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2437
Fax: (518) 426-6943

~~~

Carrying on the gay day:  Meredith Baxter comes out (though she was never in)!

View all here:

Interview with Meredith Baxter at The Advocate (click here).

“…this is where I want to be because I was dead to the world in many other ways. I’ve been married three times, and I have a slew of children, but I’ve never felt that kind of connection before in that kind of awakening. It was very profound for me…

The message I get is that I’m America’s mom. And because research seems to show that people who have someone who is gay in their family — or a friend or just know someone in the community who is gay — they seem to have a more open attitude about gay and lesbian issues. So I can say I’m still that mom. I am still the same person. I’m nonthreatening, I’m very friendly, I’m accessible, and if they can say, ‘OK, well, she’s a lesbian, maybe that’s not such a scary thing. And if she can come out and say that without too much fear, then maybe I can do that.’If it makes a difference to a couple of people, then I guess it’s worthwhile. I certainly got tired of hiding to the extent that I was.

The other day I was in the car, flying somewhere. Maybe to someone’s house. I can’t remember now. My co-pilot and I got into a heated debate about women in power positions, about feminism and about the horrible things that happen to women in developing countries around the world.

Here were some of the excerpts from our discussion:

• “Is it cultural or is it cruel to make women wear burkas?”
• “Men rape virgins because they think that will cure their HIV!”
• “It’s always been the boys club everywhere I’ve worked.”
• “Women in power positions have to be aggressive or they won’t be taken seriously.”
• “All major religions treat women like second class citizens.”
• “Look at my leg! I missed this whole section when I was shaving!”
• “Just cross your legs the other way.”

And then, this is what ended the conversation: “There are more of us than them,” I said. “Yes, there are more women than men in the world, so what?” She responded. So, I went on in a monologue of stream of consciousness that was a diarrhea of ideas, which is what usually happens when, well, I get an idea:

“If we were to all join together. If we were to band together as an army of women. Regardless of nationality. If you have a vagina, you’re in. Like the First Wives Club, but on a global scale. Do you know what we could do? Can you imagine how quickly we could fight for the rights of women who can’t speak for themselves? Can you imagine if we can have a Global P***y Strike where we ask women to withhold sex until our demands are met? We can call it GPS! How cool is that? That will for sure work here to get equal pay. Can you imagine? If they can’t ram their wives and chicks on the side, then they’ll have to ram a bill through Congress. Ooooh. That’s another great slogan. ‘Ram the Bill so you can Ram the Wife!’ And then off to Africa. Where we can send our troops, our female troops, to protect women, to educate men and to save the clitoris from extinction. Can I make an acronym out of that? S.C.F.E.. No. That’s dumb. Just ‘Save the Clit’ I think that’s fine. Well, I suppose it would depend if it can translate well. The point is connecting women. Empowering them. So that they won’t be stoned to death for being a woman. Maybe that’s the New World Order? The revenge of the vagina. Or the beginning of the apocalypse, where God will finally show her face and judge all of those who have slapped and spat at women. No, seriously. That’s the answer. Women joining together.”

Without looking over at me, without missing a beat, my co-pilot said, “Men have all the power. It will never happen. Oh, and you missed the exit. I think we’re somewhere in Florida City.”

As I maneuvered a U-turn I thought about my idea quietly. It was a damn good idea. At least, in theory. That GPS thing was solid. Okay, maybe not so solid. But you know what is solid? Betty Makoni, founder of the Girl Child Network helping rape victims in Africa. Gloria Steinem and the Ms. Foundation and Women for Women International and Kiva. But better than all of that is that we have mothers and grandmothers and aunts and friends that affirm us and care for us already. Oh, and yes, fathers and grandfathers and uncles and husbands and friends that are male that view women as more than just an object they own or use for pleasure. And then there are those that have a calling, like my friend Francesca. Always the strong woman who not only cares for those around her, but for those she doesn’t even know as a mental health professional. In fact, she is so ”balls out” that she turns a middle finger up to society and says, “You can call me Franky.”

So yeah, there is a lot of misery in being a woman, economically, politically and socially. But there are a lot of women that are working, helping, volunteering, talking, meeting, brainstorming, plotting, scheming and renting movies that star Sally Field (i.e. Eye for an Eye). So Franky, you can relax. We’ll have our day when we will either be equal to men in every way or we may just make them equal to us in misery, fear and woes.

Like it? Share it!

JOLIET — Most people have an opinion about President Barack Obama ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

Few have a more informed opinion than Joliet native Pamela Hunte, who has worked in that country or for its people much of her career since she first went there in 1969 as a Peace Corps volunteer.

Her training as an anthropologist and her experiences working for UNICEF and the World Bank help her see many issues she wants her fellow Americans to understand.

And no, she has no easy answers or quick fixes for Afghanistan. “It’s complicated” is a phrase that best fits the situation.

>>Read more

->>>>><<<<<-

PRESS RELEASE

Sub: Announcing December 7 as the National Stubble Day

About AIMWA:

All India Men’s Welfare Association (AIMWA) is the first ever organization formed in India to fight against all kinds of discrimination against men and boys. AIMWA was launched in Hyderabad on 11^th October 2009 and has expanded to Bangalore and Chennai within two months of its launch with around 1000 members.

Background:

Gillette, the manufacturer of branded shaving products for men has come up with the idea of “Women against Lazy Stubble” wherein men not shaving, or men sporting stubble have been tagged as “lazy” and their women have every right to detest and demean them. And Gillette also tags this campaign as “Women on the warpath”. This ad campaign was launched on November 7, 2009 and includes campaigns on various media channels as well.

Objections:

AIMWA perceives this campaign as outright against men and is protesting against,

1. Violation of fundamental rights of men.
2. Negative portrayal of men by calling them lazy.
3. Infringement of choices by men.
4. Unnecessary financial burden on men, and
5. Imposing of conditions on men.

Additionally the views expressed in the “Women against Lazy Stubble” campaign and endorsed by Bollywood actresses Minisha Lamba, Neha Dhupia and Mugdha Godse about women’s preference of shaven/stubbled men does not represent the views of the average Indian Woman. As the campaign is being promoted by Procter and Gamble and it has a commercial interest in it, there is every reason to believe the views are bought off, especially when a group of women called “Women Against Male-bashing (W.A.M)” have started the campaign called “Stop the War against Men and Boys”.

The views expressed by W.A.M in their press release aptly represent the views of the average Indian woman as there is no commercial interest involved in it and is a pure expression of thoughts by the Indian women about men and their right to CHOICE. Also, the campaign ignores the umpteen researches that have been done proving it’s actually the stubble in a man that attracts the woman.

A stubble is a man’s right and no one has any right whatsoever to dictate when he should shave or whether he should shave even. It is completely a man’s discretion whether he should remain clean-shaven or stubbled or bearded or unshaven.

By calling men who sport stubble as lazy, Gillette and its parent company Procter and Gamble have issued a Communal Hate Speech as there are enough religious minorities in India who have religious reservations against shaving and also a Gender Hate Speech against men. AIMWA strongly protests it and condemns it outright. AIMWA views the campaign as downright sexist, anti-male and one that can have many disastrous consequences for men like,

1. This campaign will lead to more men facing more domestic violence from their wives in the form of verbal abuse, economic abuse and emotional abuse. The campaign treats MEN as FREE ATM MACHINES and promotes domestic violence against men. Domestic violence is the numero uno killer for men as corroborated by suicide statistics from the National Crime Record Bureau. Every year more than 57000 married men are ending their lives.
2. This campaign adds to the never ending expectations, of the society in general and women in particular, from men.
3. This campaign ignores the countless contributions that men make to the society. It disrespects the fact that the most dangerous, precarious, menial and risky jobs are not only undertaken by men but it is also de-facto expected that they would do so. And if men stop doing those dangerous and risky jobs, the society would cease to run. Rather the campaign designers have chosen an optional activity as shaving as a benchmark to measure activeness of men. It cannot get any more pathetic.
4. This campaign encourages women to command men, which is a violation of fundamental rights of liberty granted under the Constitution of India.
5. The campaign commoditizes men for commercial purpose which is not acceptable. Today it’s shaving, tomorrow some other company might come up with some more such sexist campaigns spreading Gender Hatred in order to boost sales and it can be against anyone, men or women. This campaign is being protested against to pass a message to the Corporate World that they too have limits and they need to learn to respect them.

Why National Stubble Day:

Because stubble is a man’s right and since Procter and Gamble is spreading hatred against men with stubble, AIMWA has come up with the idea of celebrating December 7 as the National Stubble Day. The members of AIMWA have decided not to shave on December 7 this year and the following years as well and urges other men to join us and strengthen the movement.

National Stubble Day is being marked to,

1. Register AIMWA’s protest against the sexist anti-male ad campaign, “Women against Lazy Stubble”.
2. Protest against commoditization of men to boost consumerism.
3. Protest against rampant anti-male quotient in the society and unchallenged insults thrown at men treating them as second class citizens while ignoring the reality that men make some wonderful and indispensible contributions to societies and civilizations.
4. Raising voice against promoting Domestic Violence against Men using commercially motivated sexist anti male ad campaigns.
5. Assert a man’s rights and prevent infringement of the same.

Additionally, on the occasion of National Stubble Day, AIMWA presents the following demands,

1. Procter and Gamble to stop the “Women against Lazy Stubble” campaign immediately.
2. They should publish a 10 cm. X 12 cm. apology for insulting men, in all leading national dailies, on either the front page or back page.
3. Actresses Minisha Lamba, Neha Dhupia and Mugdha Godse should tender apologies to all men for calling them lazy and urging women to detest unshaven men.
4. Procter and Gamble should also tender an apology for making a Gender Hate Speech, and
5. They should give an undertaking that they will never design sexist anti-male ad campaigns in future under any circumstances.

If the above demands are not met, then AIMWA will be constrained to agitate the protest and intensify it and for that Procter and Gamble will be held responsible.

Thanks and Regards

President
All India Men’s Welfare Association

we have been deluded and tricked………..if we are to be pro-choice; it should be choice of life, not death (and abortion is none other than death)……….the only people who should have abortion rights are babies in the womb; the right from abortion!  what right do women (women do have rights over their own bodies, of course, but they aren’t by law allowed to even commit suicide) so how they have the right over their baby’s life and be able to chose to murder them? we have not just lost our ‘moral compass’, we have lost our minds and intellectual integrity!  and the church; where is the church in all this (especially the emerging church, which is a total trojan horse and deception!)?  we need to realize that this is not a political or social or even a justice issue………..it is totally spiritual and the church is the only one that can fight it; it is a battle of priesthoods…….! (i probably lost some of you here….but please read on)   we need to recognize that the doctors that perform abortions are actually hign priests in a blood cult………….empowering the realms of darkness………..we need to remove the shroud of respectibility that they function under and recognize what they are doing is not medical at all! there is power in the blood! we have heard that in terms of the blood of Jesus, but there is power in the shed blood of the ‘innocent’ also……..i’m not saying in anyway it compares to the blood of Jesus; of course not, but to the realms of darkness it is power! empowering! (to be continued)

[This post will be updated with links]

Six months ago I explained the dearth of posts at my blog by posting this from Chris Hedges:

A culture that cannot distinguish between reality and illusion dies. And we are dying now. We will either wake from our state of induced childishness, one where trivia and gossip pass for news and information, one where our goal is not justice but an elusive and unattainable happiness, to confront the stark limitations before us, or we will continue our headlong retreat into fantasy.

I agreed with Chris then and couldn’t agree more after a week of hearing, seeing and trying not to listen very much to stories about Tiger Woods’ extramarital affairs and minor car accident.  Six months ago, I couldn’t think what part, even what very small part, I could play waking people up.  So much wrong, so much to do, so many people really wanting “something” different but not knowing what or how to get it anyway, so many victories for darkness, so much fragmentation, so little time, too much space.  I believe many more people want “justice” than are able to figure out how to articulate their desire in the first place; and certainly not how to make it so in the second.

Recently, two US Senators and the American Conference of Bishops prompted some questions and I began to formulate something like a coherent response, if not exactly an answer. 

In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of Roe v. Wade.  In a nutshell, necessarily simple, they decided that a woman may abort a pregnancy for any reason up to the point of fetal viability.  No doubt Roe v. Wade was a victory for women but it was far from a straightforward one, in part due to America’s constitutional system and in part because of the wording of the decision itself.  The definition of “viability” has continued to be a contentious issue for one thing; for another, ensuing state restrictions on abortion, when litigated, made important incursions on the territory staked out in the case.  One thing is clear, however: the decision was never accepted by rightwing, Conservative Christians and the people who represent them.  The onslaught has been continuous, successful enough and often devious – as in the very recent activity of the US Conference of Bishops in negotiation with House representatives trying to get a healthcare reform deal.  Voila Stupak/Pitts.  What women were thought to have won they have had to win (and lose) over and over again since 1973.  Perhaps that victory has never been as threatened as it is right now.  It’s important to see that the threat comes not just from the “wingnut” right but also from among anti-choice Democrats – once touted as the natural allies of feminist objectives.

The history of reproductive rights in Canada is more than a little different.  In 1988, in R. v. Morgentaler, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the entire section of the Criminal Code that criminalized abortion and there has been no replacement of that law.  Incursions on women’s reproductive rights have occurred less visibly via hospital boards that refuse to permit abortions at Catholic hospitals or hospitals controlled by other religious denominations; via supply and demand problems respecting the availability of abortions in the healthcare system – some doctors refuse to perform abortions; because some doctors or hospital boards have imposed their own limits on when, in a term of pregnancy,  they will perform abortions; and because of the unaddressed accessibility problems of rural and First nations women.

In some ways, the difficulties that American women experience in trying to access full reproductive rights are more visible.  But in many ways they parallel the problems experienced by Canadian women.  The Stupak/Pitts amendment seemed to come out of nowhere.  There have been several points in the process of trying to achieve healthcare reform when the abortion issue has been raised but it doesn’t seem that anyone expected it to come out of negotiations with Nancy Pelosi, a couple of cultish Christian congressmen and the Conference of Bishops.  But there it is, the congressmen were ready and willing, the bishops pounced and the Democrats caved.  Some of those same Democrats who supported the amendment then went ahead and voted against the reform bill!  And what did the Dems gain by supporting the amendment?  The vote of one Republican (reprobate).  That’s right folk.  One.

We haven’t seen anything quite so dramatic in Canada – a few slippery Conservatives have tried to pass disguised private members bills by us but always unsuccessfully.  The point is though, the rightwing is there, more than ready and more than willing if not quite so able, thus far, to pounce in just the way that Stupak and Pitts, a whole bunch of Reprobates and more than a few Democrats just did.  Witness the comments of Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott just a few weeks ago:

“a growing body of research reveals significant health problems caused by abortion,” including breast cancer, cervical injury, uterine perforations, hemorrhaging and infections.

He said further that pro-life women view abortion as “part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available”.

Following on Mr. Vellacott’s comment, this exchange took place in the House of Commons:

Mme Lise Zarac (LaSalle-Émard, Lib.): Monsieur le Président, le député de Saskatoon-Wanuskewin a récemment émis des commentaires sur l’avortement qui insultent et dénigrent les femmes. Le député fait des affirmations qui sont médicalement inexactes pour hausser son programme idéologique moral.
   La ministre de la Santé dénoncera-t-elle les croyances de son collègue au sujet du droit des femmes de choisir?
Hon. Helena Guergis (Minister of State (Status of Women), CPC)
   Hon. Helena Guergis (Minister of State (Status of Women), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I note for the member that all members of Parliament in the House are required to have their opinion. It does not mean it is the opinion of the cabinet.
   Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it looks like the muzzles are off. The Conservatives are sounding like Reform Party extremists.
   The member for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin’s comments are completely degrading to women. He claims that abortion causes ‘a greater risk of breast cancer’ and he asserts that ‘abortion is part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available.’ His comments show an odious attitude toward women.
   Will the Minister of Justice stand up for women and denounce these vile comments?

Hon. Helena Guergis (Minister of State (Status of Women), CPC): Mr. Speaker, I again will note for the member that each member of the House is able to have their own opinion. It does not mean it represents the government.
   What I will highlight is that this government under the leadership of this Prime Minister has made significant investments in Status of Women Canada. We have three pillars of focus: economic security, violence against women and women in leadership roles.
   We also have the highest percentage of women in cabinet in Canada’s history and the highest level of funding at Status of Women Canada, the highest level in Canada’s history with an increase in the number of grass root organizations that are now able to receive funding to support the most vulnerable women in Canadian society.

Guergis would not renounce Vellacott’s statement even though they were incorrect and even though they were degrading to women.  Apparently she believes that the presence in this government of a larger number of women will suffice to shut women’s mouths even if those representatives are not advocating for them.  And she is not averse to lying.  This government has stolen funds from Status of Women and has done absolutely nothing to guarantee women’s economic security – remember the governments attempts to make inroads on pay equity in the public service last year?

But we cannot blame all these betrayals on the CONS alone.  Liberal and NDP members have also been willing to turn their backs on the women who elect them.

For instance.  The much discussed private members bill to do away with Canada’s long gun registry.  It’s a classic rightwing hot button issue and in case not many people have noticed, it’s contradictory as hell alongside the usual “law and order” kvelling done by the nuts.  Crazy like foxes they are though.  As someone who’s noticed has pointed out, though the “right to bear arms” is a classic American cris de coeur of the Christian right, it’s been adopted by the Canadian right too.  Why?  It provides a brilliant wedge between rural and urban constituencies and helps to frame other, conservative v. “liberal” debates.  It’s also a divisive issue between men and women – even rural women are overwhelmingly pro-registry.  It’s been estimated that, in tight races, the gun registry is “vote-determinating for about 5% of the voting public”.  It’s not stupid, crazy people who use this issue to their advantage.  But it just might be stupid people who ignore it.

I’ve also watched how the issue divides “progressive” men and women.  If you can achieve this political result simply by introducing a system to register (not “control” mind you, just register) you’ve gained a lot of ground on the cheap.  Similarly, watch progressive Americans, men and women, try to rationalize the passage of Stupak-Pitts.  “We don’t like it but it was a ‘compromise’ we had to make for the greater good”.  Over and over again.  As if you can trade off the rights of one group of people (a mere 52% of the population no less) for the rights and needs of another.  But over and over “progressives” are willing to do it while women scream “betrayal” and bear accusations, not only of hysteria, but even of selfishness.  This must make conservatives just bliss out.

Then there are the more quiet betrayals.  I’m not sure how they end up being quiet but it’s been done by the HarpyCons with the passage of criminal legislation that provide for mandatory minimum sentences for a load of offences, and with the agreement of both the Liberal and New Democratic Parties of Canada no less.  Thanks guys.  Love women of Canada.

Here’s why the mandatory minimums are a women’s issue.  The m.m.s have a disproportionate effect on groups who have experienced historic and current political, social and economic disadvantage.  One of those groups would be women, in this case, particularly First Nations and African American women.  First Nations women are the most rapidly growing group in the prison system.  They are vulnerable to arrest because of police targetting and the poverty,  and social and political injustices that have led to increased drug useage.  First Nations women suffer disproportionate effects once they’re imprisoned.  Often primary caregivers, they’re separated from children for long periods of time and often lose them to foster care forever.  Programmes for women in general receive fewer monetary and staffing resources than those for men.  Women in general are subject to strip searches and body searches in prison that put them at great risk.

African Canadians, also over-represented in our prison population, are similarly at risk for similar reasons.  But women, and particularly African Canadian women, are especially at risk, as pointed out by Professor Elizabeth Sheehy in her recent evidence to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs:

Women are often caught up in the prosecution of drug offences through their relationship with male partners, often while having minimal actual involvement in drug transactions.  Acting as drug mules is a crime committed often out of economic desperation.  African Canadian women will be the subgroup of women most dramatically affected by mandatory prison sentences.  They are already over-incarcerated at seven times the rate of white women.  Some commentators and judges have observed a growing presence of African Canadian women accused as drug couriers.  It seems evident that the new mandatory sentences will augment the number of women currently imprisoned, with African Canadian women and their children feeling the worst effects.

Professor Sheehy ended her comments with these words:  “I believe Bill C-15 is an affront to our commitment to equality and non-discrimination.”

An affront?  Yes, I agree.  But it’s an affront that very few people know about and that therefore even fewer are concerned about and that the opposition parties of Canada have chosen to ignore so absolutely that Bill-C15 has been passed through the House and now awaits only Senate approval.  There are all sorts of reasons that women’s groups haven’t picked up on this issue in an effective way but I’m not going to blame the women.  I’m looking at the people who women, feminists especially, voted for to represent their interests.  I’m looking at Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton, the Liberal and New Democratic Parties of Canada who have seen fit to add their votes to the Conservative votes needed to pass this legislation.

The legislation effects vulnerable groups most but those vulnerable groups are less able to shake the sturdy trunks of the political trees/parties that represent them.  The always waiting, not stupid rightwing is there to pounce.  The mandatory minimum sentencing issue fits squarely with the conservative “law and order” agenda which would be an absolutely irrational policy if it were actually meant to affect law and order.  But it isn’t.  Surely the rightwing is not quite so stupid as to believe that longer prison sentences for drug users and dealers does anything at all to prevent crime – there’s just too much empirical evidence showing that it doesn’t.  No, once again this is a divisive issue being used to achieve political ends, not the least of which is the building of a prison industrial complex to rival that of the United States of America.  It might not “work” but it sure does make a lot of money, create lots of jobs and make constituents in ridings that host prisons pretty happy.

The “liberal” parties supposedly elected at least in part to represent the interests of women and minorities are quite willing to sell out these constituencies out because it just doesn’t do them much harm.  So far.

I, for one, want to make it hurt.  I want to keep sorting out the links between these rightwing policies and liberal betrayals and putting them out there.  I want to defeat the HarpyCons but I also want to make it dead clear that, as a woman, I can’t find a blessed party that truly represents me and my sisters and others for whom I care.  I reject a “headlong retreat into fantasy”.  I’ll not sit around waiting for this culture to die.  That might all sound a little melodramatic but there it is and it suits me just fine.

On this day, December 6th, 2009, when I want to reflect and grieve the women’s lives lost in Montreal in 1989 and all the women of this country who died before or since as a result of intimate partner violence and public violence against women – all those whose names we don’t know – I’ve actually had to time defending my right to define, with my sisters, the meaning of the event and the meaning of those lives and deaths.  When women are murdered because they are women, we still have to fight to say so.  We are so far away, still, twenty years later, from doing those things that must be done to begin the end of male violence against women that we still struggle for the definition itself.

I wish no person physical harm.  But I do want to make that hurt by defeating this government and any other government that thinks it can lead a country while ignoring the needs of half its population.

December 6th is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women.

On this day, we remember the 14 women who were gunned down at L’Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989 just because they were women.

This is also a time to reflect on gender-based violence, and to work towards a world where violence against women (and against everyone) is eradicated.

airing during 12/13 to 12/18/2009 in Ventura (see air times)

airing 12/14/2009 in other cities in Ventura County (see air times)

click to view video

Lilly Ledbetter, pioneer of the "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009"

Speech by Lilly Ledbetter, pioneer of the “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009″ about pay discrimination, loss in the Supreme Court, and final passage of a bill in Congress to allow recourse and guarantee equal pay for equal work. Sponsored by the Ventura County Womens’ Forum 2009 and held at Cal Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks on Oct. 10, 2009.

Here’s an image of Eleanor Roosevelt, 60 years ago (in 1949), holding up a broadsheet containing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations on December 10th, 1948. I think that Eleanor Roosevelt would have liked this. If you’ve forgotten what it means to be a liberal, or why you ever became a liberal in the first place, here’s a reminder:

We ran this fantastic article last week (Patrick Stewart: Repeated Domestic Violence Against His Mother and the Legacy of Witnessing It), and the reader responses were just as touching.  From The Guardian (UK):

Reader responses to Patrick Stewart on domestic violence

Last week, actor Patrick Stewart wrote of his experience of growing up with a father who beat his mother. Here are readers’ responses to that article

Patrick Stewart: his experience struck a chord with readers. Photograph: Terry Harris/Rex Features

Last week, the actor Patrick Stewart – patron of the domestic violence charity Refuge – wrote about his experiences of growing up with a father who regularly beat and abused his mother. There were many heartfelt responses to the article – here is a small selection:

✒Patrick Stewart’s article touches on something which is hidden and forgotten – the children trapped within violent marriages, not necessarily abused directly, but living with it, within it, for years. When you are five, six, seven and utterly dependent on your parents, there is no escape. I can remember telling my teacher that “my dad hits my mum”. Nothing came of it and it was never mentioned again. The situation is so uncomfortable, it’s easier to pretend it isn’t happening.

Jane

✒My father was very abusive – mostly verbal – but the rows were constant, with little or no provocation from my mother. It pushed her into mental illness. I have grown up to detest male authority figures and to find many aspects of my own masculinity abhorrent. I wonder what creates such men, for I believe they are created, and for that they are not to blame. Yet [this means that], for the victims, there is not even the consolation of hating them. Only loneliness and emptiness.

James

✒My dad was a Vietnam vet and I identified a lot with Patrick Stewart’s childhood experience. I don’t remember too much, other than the feeling of dread as I walked home from school, hearing the shouting as I neared the door. I too would have gladly killed my father, yet I sobbed like a baby when he died.

Anonymous

✒I was abused by my ex-husband on and off for about 12 years. It was random and unpredictable, which made it all the more terrifying. People liked my ex-husband and thought that he was a warm, loving person – which he was, at least half the time.

Once, I managed to get to the safety of the bathroom and locked myself in with the phone, before calling the police. On that occasion a police officer took my husband into another room; I heard laughter – they were discussing house prices and how the stress of paying for our house must be hard for him.

I was still shaking uncontrollably, and my hair was coming out from where he had pinned me to the wall. The police officer took a statement from me, then left, telling us to “stay in separate rooms”. As soon as he was gone, my husband looked at me with a cold fury; needless to say, he didn’t fulfil his side of the agreement.

I have had good and bad experiences with the police, but women’s refuges were a total godsend.

Name withheld

✒Patrick Stewart’s article struck a chord. I endured the same, and worse [as a child] – as did my mother, of course. Not a day goes by when I do not suffer. In some ways it’s a living hell.

Alex

✒I believe that there should be a domestic abuser register so that women with a new partner can have them checked out – not just for arrests and convictions, but also police call-outs. Some, if not most, abusers are clever or controlling enough to avoid arrest or conviction, no matter how obvious the situation.

Kevin

✒Thank you for highlighting Patrick Stewart’s story of his father’s abuse of his mother. I spent 18 years in a similar situation [to his mother] – my eldest child was born blue, asphyxiated, and consequently suffered all his life from a form of epilepsy, as a result of being born prematurely, after I was beaten by his father. I gave birth to three sons in all – two conceived in rape. Two of my sons grew up to hit their respective wives, and they dealt with this shortcoming by hanging themselves. It is my mission to educate every girl from the age of five that [abuse] is just not acceptable.

Alexa

✒Patrick’s article put into words the feelings I went through growing up in similar circumstances – the loneliness of stepping in to stop the violence, the feeling of wanting to protect my mum, but irrationally still loving my dad.

Fortunately, as an adult, I am not one of the one in four women who become victims of this terrible abuse. I have a wonderful loving man to whom I have been married for the last nine years. This is my second marriage, and I would like to spread a few words of hope to those who have suffered that there are many exceptionally good men still out there.

Trisha

✒I lived in a household with an alcoholic father as well, and thankfully he rarely struck us, but his tongue lashed harder than his belt ever could. My sister suffered great emotional disturbances from it, and to this day, at 28, still struggles with body image issues, depression and rage. I internalised the damage and it took me well into my young adult life – I am 26 this year – to come to terms with how his actions affected me.

I too fell into the pattern of blaming everyone other than him for the problems. I blamed my sister for the verbal fights they would have; I blamed her for the screaming matches and the times he hit her. His actions have led to me having difficulties maintaining relationships with friends, family and sexual partners.

More light needs to be shed on the emotional aspects that continue long after the bruises heal. These are hard to see, and you can’t call the cops for them.

Thomas

✒In 1997 my mother’s partner of 10 years assaulted her and she told him to move out, which he did. What followed was at least a year of extreme and intense stalking. Our phone number was changed several times, letters would arrive on an almost daily basis, he would drive along our street constantly. On one occasion he arrived at the house when my mother was on her own and held a knife to her throat. When the police arrived he claimed that he was in the house to collect his knife and was not charged with any crime.

In many ways my mother was fortunate. He was not our father; they were not married; she informed the police of the initial assault. She had three sons aged 15, 17 and 19, each of whom had friends in the area. She was well known locally and people did call the police when they sensed trouble. One of her brothers was a high-ranking police officer who phoned him to warn him off. All of this was useless. I believe that the police were sincere in their attempts to protect my mother, and us, but frankly the law was, and is, pathetic. Men who behave like he did are engaged in terrorism.

When he was finally brought to court on charges arising from his year of stalking and the initial assault, the punishment was a fine of £1,500.

In my opinion, there should be extraordinary measures to contain domestic abuse. Like child abuse, it contributes to creating a new generation of abused people, abusers and criminals.

Stephen

Get your attention? This picture is kind of a knock off of Josiane Lalonde (Canadian blogger). I hope I did not scare anyone! lol Women are much more beautiful than men. We are just really disgusting and I do not know what you ladies see in us! lol Anyways this blog entry was inspired by another fellow blogger (Josiane Lalonde). First off I do not speak French, so I have to translate her blog via Google Translation. I first learned about her from some of her youtube videos. Google Translation is at least accurate enough for me to understand the majority of what she is saying. Anyways she brought up the topic of women having to act sexual in order to obtain recognition. This topic is relevant, especially in the media realm. It is a shame that women have to portray themselves in a sexual manner just for any kind of attention. But thankfully I believe the internet is beginning to change the status quo. I believe the internet is making a difference in the lives of many people and is giving people for the first time in history a universal voice. People from any religious faith, gender or ethnic background have the ability to speak out. The Internet knows no discrimination and as long as you can connect, then you can have a voice.

And to all of the women out there that are reading this blog. You are worth much more than for just your body. Remember to hold yourselves we dignity and pride! I believe that as long as you have interesting content you will be heard. There are plenty of women who have maintain their reputation, look to them for guidance. In the long run, sex does not sell.

Reference
http://josianelalonde.blogspot.com/

Feminist criminologists have been studying perceptions of female offenders for a number of years now. The data collected around this issue indicate that a woman will be demonised to a greater extent than a man for committing the same offence. For example:

With the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham, Maxine Carr has arguably been more slated by the press and public than Ian Huntley, who actually killed the girls. Maxine Carr’s crime was to lie to the police by giving Huntley an alibi, and there is no indication that she did so with any knowledge of what he had done.

Women, you see, are not supposed to be deviant in any way at all, so the perception is that their committing crime must be linked to some sort of psychological/ psycho-biological disorder. When criminologists first started to study female offending, they actually attributed female criminality to sexual deviance (i.e. any form of overt sexuality at all).

Amanda Knox has been the focus of this case so far. As Nowpublic’s SMK quite rightly pointed out, Raffaele Sollecito has been all but ignored.

Is this further evidence of the heightened demonisation of women who commit crime? I believe that it is.

Amanda Knox has been convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher, and if you weren’t paying attention, you might believe that she did it alone. In fact, two men have also been convicted of the murder – one last night and one last year, but they are very much secondary to the story, even though, as far as I can tell, it has never been decided who did the actual killing. Now, I have not studied the trial or the evidence, and I do not know whether Amanda Knox did or did not kill Meredith Kercher, but I do know that this is seeming to be another legal case where the woman involved is demonised to a degree rarely seen in male defendants.

I am undecided about Knox’s guilt and I am not in a position to make a judgement about that – no one is apart from those who were in the courtroom hearing evidence. But I do know that Knox’s sexual practices, and the choices that she made about her sexuality, are not relevant to this case.

And the fact that Amanda Knox appears to be a young woman with some confidence in her sexuality has certainly worked against her. That she had condoms and a vibrator in a see-through bag has been widely reported, as some kind of proof that she was deranged enough to kill her housemate in a sex game.
1. There was a youtube video showing her drunk.
2. She sent an email to a friend saying she had had sex on a train.
3. She wrote a story about a woman being raped and a photo of herself with a machine gun entitled ‘the Nazi’.
4. She did cartwheels in the police station while waiting to be questioned.
Now, while the third of these is certainly questionable, and the fourth somewhat odd, the first two are unremarkable, and are in no way legal evidence for murder.

Quite right. So why were they used against her? My guess is that the age-old notion that a woman’s sexuality is to blame for her criminal behaviour is still more prevalent in society today than we thought it was. That’s not something I have want to believe for a long time…

That Knox is a woman, and a woman with some sexual history, appears to have damned her.

–

Quoted text from thefword.org.uk

“For a long time people thought you have to have a big organization to do anything, but I’m now convinced its going to be millions of small organizations that will actually do the job of bringing the world together.”
—Pete Seeger, from Greg Reitman’s upcoming film, Rooted in Peace

Rooted in Peace is a film currently in production written and directed by Greg Reitman, a wonderful person who works hard to further the causes of peace and understanding. He braved the cold and rain to walk with us over the Brooklyn Bridge this past Monday, November 30th, 2009. He participated in Universal Peace Day with Phil Sauers, Su Zen, Gloria Waslyn and all the other wonderful people who were involved. His contributions help to make the world a better place. We eagerly await this movie’s release, and extend our thanks to Greg for all that he’s done, and continues to do.

El Periódico:

An Islamist  procedure in full. Like the ones held by the Talibans in Afghanistan or by extremist militias in Somalia. But this time it was held in an isolated masía (sort of cottage typical of Catalonia). There, 9 islamists, all of Maghrebi origin, had kidnapped a woman and retained her.

The woman was judged by her captors, who had decided to held a procedure in which they accused her of adultery. Supporting an extremist version of the Islamic law, the Sharia, the kidnappers decided to condemn her to death, according to investigation’s sources.

Luckily, she escaped and went to a police station (Mossos d’Esquadra). According to the agents, her kidnappers were planning to execute her in a short period of time.

After carrying an investigation on the woman’s statement, the Mossos entered on Nov 14th’s midnight in three apartments, located in Reus (Baix Camp) and Valls (Alt Camp) and arrested 9 men, all of them linked to the Salafist movement, an ultraorthodox Islamic school very spread throughout Tarragona. No violent incident have been previously reported as committed by this movement in these surroundings.

Criminal Judge no. 1 from Tarragona has believed what the woman denounced and has ordered imprisonment without bail of 7 of the 9 arrested Islamists. They are accused of performing an ilegal arrest, attempted murder and illicit association.

The special circumstances of this case -1st time it happens in Spain- made the Information Division of the Mossos d’Esquadra, take charge of the case. This is the unit in charge of the Islamist extremism and terrorism. The whole operation was carried out by the Brigada Mòbil of the Mossos, in absolute secrecy (of course, this measures the high quality of Spanish MSM… how on earth they want a police operation to be carried out?).

Once they were arrested, and in a non-very common practice, each one of the arrested was taken to a different police station to prevent them from speaking with each other.

The circumstances of the operation led to the general belief of this being a terrorist-linked operation, but police has denied it from the first day.

(T&P translation).

NOTE. The press release doesn’t say what type of death she was going to be condemned to. But adulterers are normally condemned to death by stoning. So that’s the reason of the photograph I have chosen for the post.

A police force failed to properly investigate an allegation of rape and let the victim down "by basic policing errors and lack of adequate support", an independent investigation has found. (1)

This is another in a series of stories highlighted on this blog on the treatment and neglect of rape victims by the police and other agencies of the Criminal Justice System in the UK. Previous stories:

Rape complaint woman reaches settlement with police

Expert view on rape: ‘Victims are judged and often not believed’

Violent offenders receiving only police cautions

The latest story concerns a woman in Wales whose rape claim was neglected by the police.

Beth Ellis disclosed her plight in the Guardian in 2008 when she agreed to publish her journal, using a pseudonym, detailing how she had been mistreated by South Wales police. She went to the police, she says, to disclose for the first time that she had been sexually assaulted years earlier as a child by her stepfather. (1)

Audio link:

‘They said they lost her file – it was just one of those things’ (2)

"Officers too overworked to pay attention to case". Well that’s OK then. If you’re just too tired to investigate, we completely understand.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said today a detective from the force and his supervising inspector had been disciplined for their failures. Months had been taken to obtain statements, appointments missed, key files had been lost, and a single detective constable handling the case had been left virtually unsupervised. Officers claimed to be too overworked to pay full attention to the case, and after an inadequate investigation, prosecutors turned it down. Ellis said yesterday: "It is really galling that because of this mess, the person involved has got away scot-free." (1)

Quoted text from guardian.co.uk (1) and blogs.guardian.co.uk (2)

“Women against Lazy Stubble (W.A.L.S.)” is a sexist anti-male ad campaign with the message that since women like men who are clean-shaven (as per some challengeable research), those men who do not shave will be marked off as lazy and their women have every right to detest them and not co-operate with them. Without going into the righteousness of the spirit of the campaign let’s look where can such a campaign lead to in a society precariously poised against men and considering abuse of men as social service.

All the characters in the narration below are fictitious and bear no resemblance with any person living or dead whatsoever. Any such resemblance is co-incidental.

Abhishek is 29 years old, has a degree in management, a well-paid job in an MNC, an apartment, a car, lives away from his parents who are financially not dependent on him and is the only child of his parents with stunning looks and dashing personality. In short, he is just the husband any woman can dream off. And so comes Neha’s dream true with as his alliance get fixed with her.

Neha, who is an educated smart and beautiful looking young girl, attracts Abhishek a lot who falls for her and despite her extremely demanding nature tries every bit to keep her happy while their courtship blossoms.

Neha had a wish. She wanted her fiancé to be the first person to wish her on her birthday. So Abhishek gets up at 5 AM on her first birthday after their engagement just to fulfill that wish of hers and does succeed in it as well. Neha is on seventh heaven, as Abhishek just broke one rule of would-be spouses not meeting for 2 days before their wedding just to please his princess and be her Prince Charming.

But, co-incidentally her birthday coincides with their marriage date and Abhishek gets a little late for marriage and reaches the marriage venue with his stubble (not clean shaven).

Neha gets extremely furious seeing him in stubble. She leaves the marriage proceedings in between and tries to run away saying,

“A research by Procter and Gamble has proved that men who do not shave are lazy and I do not want to marry a lazy fellow like you. You have ruined my life. You know how much I hate this damn stubble, yet could not take care of this simple thing, how are you going to take care of my feelings?”

Abhishek, his parents, Neha’s parents and all tried a lot to pacify her and convince her to get married to Abhishek but she does not listen. Seeing all this, her brother Abhijit gets furious and slaps Abhishek saying, “Why did you do this to my sweet little innocent sister?”

Abhijit walks out of the venue along with Neha and the duo return with the local police with a complaint of dowry harassment against Abhishek and his parents who are immediately arrested and sent to judicial custody for 8 days without any trial/investigation. Inside prison, also, Abhishek does not get an opportunity to shave and his stubble get promoted to beard.

He gets bail after 8 days and when he produced in the court before the magistrate, there too Neha lashes out at him saying, “See your honor, I told you, this fellow has no feelings for me. Still he is the same dirty fellow. Please cancel his bail”

Abhishek is still in a state of shock as he is not able to comprehend what went wrong. He said to himself, “I loved her so much, and did everything just to keep her happy and one ad campaign ruined my life! And that too I could not shave only to keep her happy and still today I am a criminal without a crime! Why the hell do they design such bogus, meaningless, destructive and gender biased anti male sexist ad campaigns?”

He decides to fight for his innocence. It takes him 10 years to prove himself innocent of a crime he did not commit. He became victim of what has been aptly termed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India as “Legal Terrorism” i.e. misuse of dowry laws and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. But during that time even Neha is not able to get married because of the case.

One ill-designed and myopic ad campaign ruined so many lives!

Think, would you not like to protest against such a campaign?

If so, visit “Phone Action Campaign Against Procter and Gamble”

]]> http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/mental-health-break-36/ Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:00:10 +0000 santitafarella http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/mental-health-break-36/

When ya’ll have time, take a listen to my interview with Nashville/Austin - Singer/Songwriter, Matt King, about his personal alchemic journey and the patient development of his current redemptive CD: “RUBE.” Matt is a brave southern writer of the underbelly of southern life and drama. And, like Tennessee Williams, he is fearless and in my opinion, “authentic to the bone.” I love him and I know you will too!! Check out his website www.MattKing.com for show info and his video “Cursing The Ohio!” Thanks!!!! ~sst

http://shannantaylor.podbean.com/2009/12/04/1-matt-king-interview/

www.mattking.com