OPINIONS OF ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES, A MINOR GREEK GODDESS. She can be reached at: ECHIDNE-OF-THE-SNAKES.COM

Monday, November 30, 2009

The Three Echidne Posts You Should Read 



Now that was mean, because this post is all about the minor irritation I get from all those headlines:

8 Essential Sites for Cyber Monday
9 Low-Fat Holiday Desserts
Top Doctors Spill 10 Big Health Secrets
10 Commandments You Should Not Break

Every time I go to the supermarket for food I see the women's magazine covers at the checkout: Seven Ways To Drive Your Man Crazy! Ten Perfect Diets! Grrr.

Why all that fascination with numbered lists? Is it because those are about the easiest headlines to make if one wants to tie together lots of pretty unrelated bits?

I shouldn't complain, because my headlines tend to have nothing to do with the posts themselves which makes me cry when I try to search for something in the archives. They are mostly just clever goddessy quips.

|

Another Invisible Elephant 






I feel like an idiot always pointing out the elephant sitting on the couch and merging with the throw pillows so very well that nobody else sees it. In this case it has to do with the fact that the state of Massachusetts, the Sodom and Gomorrah of all liberalism, has never sent a woman to the U.S. Senate. NEVER.

We don't discuss this, just as we do not discuss the fact that there has never been a female president of this country. Even feminists don't discuss this, except to point out that ofcoursethey'dloveawomanbut...there's something too wrong with the particular candidate.

And it is hard. I admit that. Perhaps Martha Coakley is not the candidate one should vote for. Perhaps Hillary Clinton wasn't the candidate, either. But somehow we manage to discuss all that without really discussing the fact that women are not in power in the highest places of this country. Some feminists argue that focusing on the top doesn't help, that we must focus on the bottom rungs of the society only and help the women there. That way the whole edifice gets turned over.

That would be lovely, except for the fact that the social hierarchies are anchored at the top, not at the bottom. They are like upside-down houses and if you want to dig into the foundations you need to do that at the top of the edifice, odd as it may seem.

Then there's the argument that just voting for women isn't necessarily good for feminism and I agree with that. But note that just voting for liberal guys may not be good for feminism, either, and they should be held to at least as stringent a measuring rod as the women are. I do feel that they get a pass, even from feminists, whereas women are taken apart and checked out with a magnifying glass. Bad choices in the past? Scrap her! No experience? Scrap her!

None of this should be taken as an endorsement for Martha Coakley. My aim is to point out the context in which we discuss female candidates, a context which pretends that the playing field has always been equal and that there is no special value in electing more women in general.

|

Sunday, November 29, 2009

Sexxxy violence (by Suzie) 



Because I live on a small outer planet, I just heard about the controversy over Adam Lambert kissing a man on the American Music Awards. Feminists have decried the homophobia of his critics. An example is Jos at Feministing.

Bitch Magazine comments on an earlier Details article in which he’s photographed with a naked woman as a prop. Carla C. at Blonder and Thinner takes him to task for his comments to Out magazine.

But I wish more people were talking about the lyrics to the song he performed. In “For Your Entertainment,” he tells someone that she misread him. He asks if she knows what she got herself into. He says it’s going to get rough for her. He’s going to hurt her. He’s in control, and there’s no escape. He’s going to hold her down, make her scream, force her to take the pain and the pleasure.

Why did I choose female pronouns when Lambert says he’s gay? Because in the video he released, women predominate. (His debut album is selling well.) Maybe he also likes sex with women, or maybe he just uses them for commercial purposes.

Most people will understand the video and the AMA performance as BDSM. But I found the lyrics chilling because they sound so similar to what many rapists say, including rapists who actually believe women enjoy being forced. In a society with so much male sexual violence against women, we don’t need another man showing how much the ladies love it.
|

No Rationing? 



I bet you have heard the wingnut argument that health care reform will introduce rationing to the U.S.! Faceless bureaucrats deciding over your life-and-death! Having to wait in dreary waiting-rooms smelling of dirty socks and prison food! Forever!

You may also remember me writing that every single health care system rations. Some do it on the basis of triage and waiting times, some do it on the basis of money, some on the basis of whom you know. All have some combination of each of these.

The point is that the current U.S. system rations care, too, and it does most of it on the basis of ability to pay:

John is a sawmill worker from Yamhill County, Ore., where I grew up. He was a foreman at a mill, he felt strong and healthy, and he had very basic insurance coverage through his job. On April 18, he was married, at age 23, and life was looking up.

Ten days after the wedding, he was walking in his backyard carrying a neighbor's dog — and he suddenly blacked out. That led, after rounds of CAT scans, M.R.I.'s and other tests, to the discovery that the left parietal lobe of his brain has a cavernous hemangioma. That's an abnormal growth of blood vessels, and in John's case it is chronically leaking blood into his brain.

John began to have trouble walking and would sometimes collapse. He developed spasms and restless leg syndrome, he began to use a cane, and his mind suffered.

"He forgets stuff a lot, he bumps into things," said his new wife, Esther Brodniak. "But he keeps things light. He jokes about it."

Perhaps the worst is the pain — blinding, incapacitating headaches that have left him able to sleep only in short intervals. He vomits daily when the pain surges.

"The pain is constant," John said. "It's a 7 or 8 on a scale of 10, and then it hits the high peaks and makes me vomit."

With John unable to work, he lost his job — and his insurance coverage. Esther had insurance for herself and for her two children (from a previous marriage) through her job building manufactured homes. But she couldn't add John to her plan because of his pre-existing condition.

Without insurance, John has been unable to get surgery or even help managing the pain. When he collapses or suffers particularly excruciating headaches, Esther rushes him to the emergency room of one hospital or another, but an E.R. can't do much for him. One hospital has told them not to come back unless he gets insurance, they say.

Esther used up her family leave time to look after her new husband. "Then I went back to work, and he fell several times," she said. "I told my boss that I had to quit. Taking care of John was more important than building someone else's house."

John has been rationed out of the system. Indeed, his new family has been rationed out of it, too, because Esther had to take up the nursing care John was denied.

My point is not to argue that everything in, say, a publicly controlled and funded health care system would be peachy. But let's not pretend we don't ration right now and let's not pretend that it has no dire consequences.

|

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Saturday Silly Statistics Lesson 



Via Ritholz.com, we learn that at Fox News the slices of a pie can add up to more than the total pie! Now that is not only fair-and-balanced but also miraculous.





A bar chart would have been more suitable...

|

In The Kitchen, Yapping 



Some post-Thanksgiving humor for you. We all know that a woman bossing a man is funny whereas the reverse is as gods and nature ordained. And no god will make Glenn Beck take the number 2 position behind a chick:





There it is, in a nutshell, that invisible elephant of the hilarity of fighting "natural" gender hierachies. And yes, I know that an elephant doesn't fit into a nutshell but Beck's brain is too small for a better simile.

If you feel a sense of deja vu again, you are quite correct. This pachyderm sat around many television studios and lounged about in liberal blog comments threads during the Democratic Primaries. It's not just Sarah Palin that it follows.

|

Friday, November 27, 2009

Definitions of sexism & racism (by Suzie) 



When the word “racism” gets mentioned, I bet a lot of people think of Klansmen in white hoods. “Sexism,” however, seems to conjure up a smarmy guy telling a bad joke.

Merriam-Webster online defines sexism as
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex ; especially : discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
It defines racism as:
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination
Sexism isn’t defined as a belief that gender determines traits and capacities, perhaps because that belief is widely accepted among academics, religious leaders and others. Even if they don’t say men are superior, many assign more highly valued traits to men. Consider this gauge of mainstream thought: The media routinely quote experts explaining why men and women are different, with no rebuttal. They wouldn’t do a similar story on race without quoting someone who disagrees.

Some social scientists describe “hostile sexism,” “ambivalent sexism” and “benevolent sexism.” Hostile sexism is akin to “women are all manipulative sluts.” Tekanji on Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog explains that benevolent sexism involves a “good” stereotype, such as: Women are more virtuous than men. But this can backfire. When a woman doesn’t act virtuous, she may face more criticism than a man would. The example for ambivalent sexism is stereotyping that appears neutral, such as pink for girls and blue for boys. (These terms also apply to racism.)

The Feminism 101 blog says most sexism is unintentional, born out of ignorance. If so, a close second has to be sexist statements made by people who think feminists take ourselves too seriously, want special treatment, are not really oppressed or blame men for everything. (The same can be said about a lot of racist remarks.)

It’s tempting to think hostile and intentional bias is worse than unintentional and benevolent bias. But it depends on the impact. Certainly, a man who kills a bunch of women or a white who kills a bunch of people of color is worse than a poor, elderly, white man who means well but says offensive things from time to time.

On the other hand, a hostile guy who intentionally says rude things doesn’t cause as much damage as a prominent politician who means well but acts in a detrimental way that affects millions.

To complicate the matter further, there are many people, notably academics such as Abby Ferber, who consider all whites racist. She wrote in the HuffPost:
Part of the problem is that we think of racism as an individual quality. We see racists as nasty people who march around with white hoods burning crosses. But this [way of thinking] actually reinforces racism. We need to shift from using "racist" as a noun, to an adjective. The reality is that white folks are racist; how can we grow up in this culture and not internalize racism?
The task that faces us is not to try and identify who is or is not a racist, but to examine the many invisible ways in which racism and white privilege pervade our lives, our views, our assumptions, and our opportunities. The question is not are we racist, but are we anti-racist? What are we doing to recognize and undermine racism and privilege as it shapes our life, day in and day out? We need to strive to make racism more visible, more conscious. Only once it is conscious can we work to undermine it.
I assume that people who believe this also believe that all men are sexist, although I hear that less from academics popular now. It also follows that women internalize sexism and people of color internalize racism.

On a Racialicious thread (not reacting to Ferber), Marge Twain said:
To continue that analogy, all women are sexist too, even though they are not the beneficiaries of sexism. It’s not hard to look around and find women who have internalized the message of their own inferiority, who seek to blame rape-victims or who participate in slut-shaming or believe women and not men are the natural care-takers. Being female doesn’t excuse me from needing to check my own sexist assumptions.
Saying all whites are racist and all men are sexist helps rally the troops, in an us-vs.-them fashion, but does little to guide our actions. I agree with Ferber that actions are what matter.

We need to look at the intention and impact of individual actions, instead of thinking that all acts of bias are equally bad. I’m not saying we should disregard lesser sins and focus only on the most horrific acts. But I tire of name-calling (except when I'm doing it, of course).

We should continue to examine belief systems and structural inequities. We’ve got to stop the media from publicizing, without criticism, theories or beliefs that gender determines traits and capabilities.

What do you think?
----------------------
Next month I’ll discuss power + privilege and institutionalized bias.
|

Friday garden blogging (by Suzie) 

This is a fountain at the Atlanta Botanical Garden. The water appeals to me as Florida enters its dry season.
|

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Happy Thanksgiving Day 



Jen has made a list of things to be thankful for. I'd add the removal of the global gag rule to that list. But that would still be a fairly U.S. centered list, and I'm sure you can add other things which elicit gratitude.

Here are a few nice things:


1Watt's Stub dreaming:





Doug's Sasha all grown up:





Michelangelo's statue of David from a different angle:




|

Meet Tucker Max 



Don't shake hands with him, though. He is a wannabe comedian and a real fried-in-the-c*m woman-hater. Jaclyn Friedman wrote about him last September:

Tucker Max thinks that "all women are whores" and that "fat girls aren't real people" -- and those are some of his family-friendlier observations. So why do so many women love him?

If you're not 19 and don't regularly scan the best-seller list, you may need an introduction to the Max oeuvre. Max, a hedonistic folk hero to his fans, got his start in 2002 when, egged on by a friend, he started a blog detailing what he calls his "life as a self-involved, drunken womanizer." The site now gets more than a million unique visitors every month. It has spawned a book, "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell" -- more than 100 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list -- and his exploits have been adapted for the big screen in a movie opening this week.

Max and his growing audience share an unabashed focus on three basic adolescent obsessions: bodily functions, drinking toxic amounts of booze and "scoring." The women in his stories are insulted, tricked, coerced, traded and discarded. One conquest is vomited on and videotaped without her consent.

The author is now in the midst of a 31-city film tour, attracting sold-out crowds at every location, just as he does on college campuses across the country. And according to Max, his audiences are nearly always at least half female.

These women are not reluctant dates dragged there by men exacting revenge for being forced to sit through the "Sex and the City" movie. They are die-hard fans, willing to do almost anything to get their hero's attention. For one fan at a recent stop in College Park, that meant using her mouth as a receptacle for a male audience member's chewing tobacco. Another female fan sought out Max, slept with him, and then tattooed an explicit sentence commemorating the event just below her hip bone, thus earning the Holy Grail of any Maxite: an original Tucker Max blog entry featuring her.

This is Max's magic trick: The Amazing Max Mistreats Women and Makes Them Love Him For It! It's also his ultimate defense against critics, one that he has repeatedly deployed after the protests at some of his recent tour stops, insisting, "I am still waiting for a protester to answer the question: 'If Tucker hates women, why does he have so many female fans? Why is half of each screening women?' "

I shall return to those questions a bit later, but first I'd like to share a few more Tuckeresque examples with you:

For those unfamiliar with Tucker Max: he has a website, and has published several books, the most well-known being "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell." Recently he wrote and produced an ill-fated movie by the same name. Quotes are offensive, and promote rape and violence. Examples include "I'm going to get you so drunk you can't consent," "Your gender (women) is hardwired for whoredom," and "Get away from me or I'm going to carve a fuckhole in your torso." Some people find it funny – some find it offensive.

...

Students wrote statements, read speeches, and actively debated the issue. Those in favor of the event re-iterated that students had a choice to attend the event, and that Tucker Max was not to be taken seriously. Those against it found it hard to believe that statements saying women Max finds unattractive are "generally just so annoying that you have to actively restrain yourself from kicking her in the crotch and stomping on her throat until she drowns in her own blood. There is no insult too mean or crude for her, and basic human rights do not apply to her," could ever be construed as anything but misogynistic violence, and objected to the fact that the fund that brought Tucker Max to campus came from tuition money.

Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian and liked dogs?* There's always two sides to everything. Even misogyny might be perfectly acceptable if it is funny enough. Besides, women are not a minority so hating on them is fair game as one Johns Hopkins student (I believe he is a student) stated it while writing about a recent Tucker Max event at the college. There are days when even a goddess despairs about this get-women-to-be-treated-like-human-beings shit.

To return to the questions Tucker Max posed in the above quote:

"I am still waiting for a protester to answer the question: 'If Tucker hates women, why does he have so many female fans? Why is half of each screening women?' "

Jaclyn gives several answers to these questions, and I only want to add a few observations:

Let's begin with those questions themselves. Suppose that Tucker's audience consisted of all men. Would those men be there because of all that juicy misogyny? He seems to think so, if his counterargument has any weight. That's a very scary idea in itself, you know.

Next, note that misogyny is not just something men might be infected with. Women can be misogynists themselves. Just think of the Aunties in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. Or of some conservative female pundits who tell us that women shouldn't have the vote. Female misogynists hate other women.

But a different explanation for Tucker's female fans seems more likely to me, and that is the way we women often learn to regard the cultural messages about women as applying to other women, not to us. It's they who are the sluts, the bitches, the c*m-buckets, the whores. We are on the other side, laughing at the jokes with our boyfriends who would never regard us in those terms. Besides, we are cool and can laugh at raunchy or objectifying jokes with the best of the boyz.

Or it could be that the real explanation has to do with human beings as social creatures. We want to be accepted, we want to belong, and if the price of inclusion is to be bullied or despised, we sometimes even swallow that. This is not something special about women or girls, by the way, but about all humans.

Whatever the explanation for this particular phenomenon, misogyny is part of the popular culture of this country. Sometimes it is foregrounded, sometimes it is just an irritating background hum. Where Tucker's particular version differs from that background hum is in its explicitness: Men are callous hunters and women are stupid prey animals. If the prey gets caught it's her own fault:

Max is fond of telling women that "men will treat you the way you let them" -- in other words, if you've been used, abused or assaulted, you must have done something to invite that behavior.

-----
*I was told that this is not true. But he did praise his mother!

|

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

A Campaign Opposing Violence Against Women 



This is a campaign by the UN Secretary General by men and aimed at men and boys around the world:

The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has unveiled a renewed campaign opposing violence against women.

He says about 70% of women experience some form of physical or sexual violence from men.

Ban Ki-moon said men must teach each other that real men don't violate or oppress women.

The 14 men currently in the network include Spanish PM Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Do watch the video at the link if it doesn't trigger you, because it shows the global nature of the problem.

I want to write a proper post on this topic later on because it deserves one. For now, I notice that my Google news page gives articles which redefine the topic right off the bat.

|

Some Holiday Thoughts 



Well, pre-holiday thoughts. (If you don't read this in the U.S. you may not know that tomorrow is a big holiday here, called Thanksgiving. It has something to do with the death of turkeys.)

I have noticed in the past that my readership figures drop about a week before large holidays, especially Thanksgiving and Christmas. That seems pretty natural, given all the hassle holidays cause and the need to travel and to prepare for them. But then I started wondering if there might not be a difference for those who are in charge of most of the work for creating the festivities. If you cook for Thanksgiving you won't have much time to hang out here or elsewhere on the blogs. The same is true for any other major eating holiday. So do you do the cooking for your family or friends?

|

Sperm In Her Hair 



The picture below shows Mark Halperin's The Page before it was removed. Mary Landrieu is photoshopped to have sperm in her hair, based on a 1998 romantic comedy. It's a joke, I guess, but I don't get the joke.





Neither does Media Matters get the joke:

Maybe Halperin thought it was really clever to echo a scene from a late-90s romantic comedy, but it isn't. The image and all that it suggests -- yes, her hair is supposed to be held up by semen -- isn't supported by any facts provided by Halperin in his post. The page to which he links doesn't have anything to do with semen, romantic comedies, or hair gel. In fact, it's a statement from Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) Communications Director "on motion to proceed timing" on the Senate's health care reform bill.

In other words, it's part of a broader, sexist right-wing narrative that the U.S. Senator from Louisiana is, as Glenn Beck put it yesterday, "a high-class prostitute" engaged in "hookin'" -- all because she lobbied Senate leadership for expanded Medicaid funding for Louisiana in the Senate health care bill in what was characterized by the media as an exchange for her "yea" vote to proceed with floor debate on the bill.

Such political deals are routine, as far as I understand the game. But women who participate in them? They give blow jobs and end up with sperm in their hair which is very funny if you are a guy journalist with the emotional age of twelve.

That's not quite right, either. This whole trend is nastier than just adolescent humor, because it applies both the nudge-nudge-wink-wink (buying sex is just dandy) and the filthy-whore (selling sex is disgusting) ideas at the same time.

|

Twilight 



I have read neither the Twilight books nor seen the movie which means that I shouldn't write anything at all about the topic. But honest, vampires and werewolves as male sex objects for teenage human girls??? Isn't this taking the idea of the "bad boy" a bit too far? Or is this all a much deeper and nastier parable about what it means to be a woman in this world?

Carmen Siering reviews the series from a feminist angle:

But while Twilight is ostensibly a love story, scratch the surface and you will find an allegorical tale about the dangers of unregulated female sexuality. From the very first kiss between Edward and Bella, she is fighting to control her awakening sexuality. Edward must restrain her, sometimes physically, to keep her from ravishing him. There are those who might applaud the depiction of a young man showing such self-restraint, but shouldn't the decision about when a couple is ready to move forward sexually be one they make together?

Meyer insists that she sees Bella as a feminist character, since the foundation of feminism is being able to choose. What Meyer fails to acknowledge is that all of the choices Bella makes are Meyer's choices—choices based on her own patriarchal Mormon background. In Breaking Dawn, the latest book in the series, Meyer finally allows Bella's subordination to end as she takes her proper place: in the patriarchal structure. When Bella becomes a wife and mother, Meyer allows her to receive her heart's desire—to live forever by Edward's side, to be preternaturally beautiful and graceful, to be strong and be able to defend herself.

Edward is a vampire, so I guess the ending means that Bella becomes one, too? And then has vampire babies? But that's not how vampires are created, you know. And they drink blood. Or has that changed, too? Are vampires now cuddly vegetarians who sip tomato juice while helping the poor?

|

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The Manhattan Declaration 



Somehow that phrase makes me think of grown pale-faced men in mohawks doing a war-dance on the island of Manhattan. Sadly, that's not quite what the Manhattan Declaration is all about, though a war-dance it well might be. It's the latest statement by various conservative Christians about what they are all about: No abortion, no same-sex marriage and lots of rights for religious people to determine how the society is organized:

The Manhattan Declaration is billed as "A Call of Christian Conscience," drafted and signed by Catholics, evangelicals, and Orthodox Christians, an "ecumenism" celebrated by its promoters as evidence of its far-reaching appeal. The document targets reproductive freedom (enemy of the "sanctity of life") and LGBTQ equality (enemy of the "dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife") as foes of Christians' religious freedom. It's a new document but an old canard. And it's proof that the culture wars are not only not over; there hasn't even been a truce.

The Declaration's drafters and signatories view it as an act of "conscience" and religious devotion, not politics, yet they threaten unspecified civil disobedience if the law fails to yield to their theocratic fantasies. But if the document is so disassociated from current political events, why did it need to hit the streets with a splash at the National Press Club? The festivities took place just steps away from where the D.C. City Council was considering gay marriage legislation subject to threats from the Archdiocese of Washington, and where the Senate was poised to break a threatened filibuster of floor debate on its health care bill, which the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called "the worst bill we've seen so far on the life issues."

The list of signatories include all sorts of high-and-mighties (mostly guys, natch, including Dinesh d'Sousa):

Religious leaders signed a pledge Friday announcing that they won't abide by laws that support gay marriage or abortion. Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput and Focus on the Family's Founder James Dobson and President Jim Daly joined 125 other conservative religious leaders from Colorado in signing the so-called Manhattan Declaration. The declaration comes amid the contentious national health care debate that has featured Catholic Bishops prominently and in the wake of hate crimes legislation passed earlier this fall that drew staunch opposition from evangelical leaders, who argued it might prevent them from preaching against gays. The signatories of the Declaration (pdf) vow to ignore any laws that contradict their worldview.

The list of Colorado signatories also included Fr. Joseph D Fessio, founder and editor of Ignatius Press; Rev. Michael J Sheridan, Bishop of the Archdiocese of Colorado Springs; and John Stonestreet, executive director of Summit Ministries at Manitou Springs.

The Manhattan Declaration is well worth reading carefully. It has three parts. The first condemns the "culture of death" which has to do with the desire to ban abortions and euthanasia but remains silent about the desire to kill people in wars or through economic and political measures, the second condemns all other types of marriage but that between one man and one woman, with hints about how the woman was made out of the rib of the man and how he deserves honoring by her, and the third is all about the rights of religious people to refuse any laws which don't respect god's laws.

These are then linked to biblical texts, selectively picked, given that the Bible doesn't actually condemn those polygynous Old Testament patriarchs or say anything about abortion.
----
Today's Fresh Air interviews Jeff Sharlet on the Stupak amendment.

|

To Expound On The Obvious? 



One of the weirdest things about blogging is that I never know if something I write about is totally obvious or if it might have some value for others. So I pretty much write about everything inside my divine head and watch to see which things drop into the abyss and which do not. But often I do feel a bit silly doing this. Like now, for example.

The (probably obvious) point is that different groups of "the oppressed" are not necessarily on the same side in political debates, and to automatically assume that they are can lead one into trouble. For one example, men who are oppressed on ethnic or racial grounds can easily see their own fight for equality as a righteous one but at the same time regard women as people who should be oppressed on religious or cultural grounds. Not seeing this can lead to cases where a person works for the rights of a group which then would like that person to have fewer rights.

Feminists discuss some of this when addressing racism within the movement. But the same arguments also apply in reverse. And in many other cases.

|

I Know What I Like... 



The following video may have been edited to emphasize the know-nothing side of Sarah Palin's supporters. Or perhaps not; many people are politically uninformed. The media should take the most blame for that, because if they don't provide adequate comparisons of rival politicians' views, who will? The politicians themselves have no interest in doing that.




|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com
Progressive Women's Blog Ring
Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next
  • DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!