

Learn more about Soul Soldiers here.
I'm kinda tired of hearing some folks for either Clinton or Obama say "it's about time we had a woman candidate." Or "it's about time we had a Black candidate." No it's not. It's not about time. The time, folks, has come & gone & has been past due for many many moons. This country has been overdue for a minority candidate for a long while & by now we should have had a bisexual, transgender, half Asian, half Black, half Dutch, half Jewish, wheelchair using former mental health patient by now. For the love of gawd people stop staying it's about time. No one gives a shit that you think you sound so progressive and tolerant. You don't.
Though I'm reluctant to endorse anyone for president who does not support full marriage equality for LGBTQ2s, I am still endorsing Barack Obama for president. The electoral college sucks, and our system for elections needs to change, and until that happens I doubt I'll feel overcome with excitement over any canidate. That being said, I feel Obama is a uniter rather than a divider. He's not perfect but he will make a good president for how the system is and I like his style. So I'm supporting Barack Obama. Go team!


"I suspect that America’s fabulous growth in productivity is another illustration of the disconnect between economic measures and human experience. It’s been attributed to better education and technological advances, which would be nice to believe in. But a revealing 2001 study by McKinsey also credited America’s productivity growth to “managerial innovations” and cited Wal-Mart as a model performer, meaning that we are also looking at fiendish schemes to extract more work for less pay. Yes, you can generate more output per apparent hour of work by falsifying time records, speeding up assembly lines, doubling workloads, and cutting back on breaks. Productivity may look good from the top, but at the middle and the bottom it can feel a lot like pain."
Yes Babs it does feel like pain!
I'll try to get some pics up from the rally Thursday. Peace!
I'm still sick with that effing sinus thing (aka "the crud") and too boot I think I may have candida. I see my naturopath tomorrow & hope she can help heal me before I present my workshop on Saturday. Last thing I need is for a group of my sisters & brothers hearing me hack, snort & wheeze my way through the session. So here's my chili recipe, which my beloved said was the best chili she ever had and even though she has to say nice stuff about my cookin', I know when she's really impressed by a dish.Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?Ms. Steinem goes on to write that the key reason others would not find this WOC qualified is because of her gender and most U.S. citizens attitudes toward gender. Don't believe the hype folks. The reason some would not find the woman qualified for much (other then polishing their floors), is because this person in Ms. Steinem's example is a woman and of color. Not because she's one or the other. My point in acknowledging this is that it feels Ms. Steinem is trying to pit race against gender in the "which minority has it worse" competition. And guess what Gloria? There are no winners. And let's be really real here. When someone is a double, triple and so on minority, they get the short end of whatever stick, based on the combination of their minority statuses. One minority status is not exclusive to the other within a person with more than one minority status. Therefore Ms. Steinem's example was not only erroneous but wrought with the perspective of privilege.
And I don't think I'm alone in starting to feel like if I vote for Mrs. Clinton I'm against Obama, POC and therefore against my own color. Or if I vote for Mr. Obama I'm against Clinton, women in general and therefore sexist."...Steinem’s piece (intentionally or unintentionally) draws a line in the sand between people of colour and women, essentially disregarding the everyday racism faced by Black and Brown people, and claiming the Oppression Olympics gold medal for women. Further, by casting the debate as between Black men and White women (despite her imperfect creation of Achola Obama), Steinem renders the woman of colour invisible, reaffirms the binary Black-White paradigm of race, and demands we take a side in the epic battle between race and gender. Is it no wonder, then, that women of colour have long felt alienated by feminists like Steinem? Where do we fit when we’re being asked to choose between Obama and Clinton as a metaphor for race versus gender? And how are we supposed to react when an incorrect choice labels us as “less radical”?
"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act," Clinton said. "It took a president to get it done."Okay so she doesn't acknowledge Rosa Parks, or Jesse Jackson or other influential activists but she did mention MLK Jr. first. And for the love of you-know-who folks, it did take President Johnson to sign off on civil rights legislation getting passed. It took the work of the activists without a single doubt. But it ultimately took one dude, the president at the time to sign off on our rights. Sadly we have a system that makes things that way. And please don't tell me what the president does & doesn't sign isn't very significant. I know all too well how policies can hurt or help citizens freedoms, for example, say, Don't Ask, Don't Tell anyone? How about DOMA? That was a president who made that happen in the end, wasn't it? Many homophobes influenced Bill Clinton, but ultimately he made a decision about the value of queer people and acted in ink, by signing our rights away. It indeed took a president to do that.