Arizona at it again

Antics of Arizona

The 14 amendment of the constitution of the United Sates says " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside," Sometimes the constitution is a bit vague when it codifies something. The founding fathers intended for this to give our elected leaders the chance to take the law and formulate it so that it fits current times and changes. And the constitution is a tool to provide the framework for the law.

So the constitution goes on to authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship. Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

• Anyone born inside the United States *
• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
• A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

So our consitution gives anyone, without thought to the cizitenship of their parent US citizenship if they are born in the United States. And that is the same many other countries as my sister was granted German citizenship when she was born in Stuttgart.

So what the hell does Arizona think they are doing by even considering this law. When Governor Brewer claimed the previous immigration law wasn't aimed at Hispanics. Obviously all these laws are aimed at the large illegal population in Arizona. I mean never mind that fact that we could simply streamline the naturalization process because there is a backlog of several years for that. No that would too much like common sense right there.

I for one think that every minority in Arizona needs to not show up to work and go to the capital and protest till all this crap is reversed. Arizona has always tried to bully its minority population and frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing it happen. Tear the state house down to the studs if you have to. Rain down debris on top of Governor Brewer dyed head till she act like she has some sense.

Do we still need Arizona?

I'm not sure if its something in the water or if Arizona got a hold of that Jim Jones kool-aid but the entire state has gone completely and utterly insane. Sure South Carolina had its bad apples, but at least we could say it was just the Governor who was messing up, but Arizona is moving ahead to the front of the line of dumb ass states.

First Governor Brewer in all her infinite wisdom announces signs into law a immigration bill that basically makes it open season on all Hispanics suspected of being in Arizona illegally. And we all know that they are going to harass every Hispanic looking person under the auspice of doing their jobs. 

But now we learn that Arizona wants to get rid of any trace of its minority population.

Wonkette : Arizona School Demands Black & Latino Students’ Faces On Mural Be Changed To White

This mural was painted by a local mural company in Arizona with the help of the elementary children that attend the school. Their faces adorn the mural. So during the painting of this mural the artists and the children were constantly verbal abused by passing motorists who saw fit to shout out racial slurs.

Now don't misunderstand me I am the first person to stand up and defend anyone and everyone's right to free speech. Hell I'm fighting for citizens in other countries to enjoy the same thing, however that doesn't mean I condone grown ass adults yelling out racial epitaphs to children. I mean what the hell has to be going on through your head to think that's alright. What sort of role model are you to your own children to show them that its alright to pick on a child for doing nothing more than being black or Hispanic? I just can't fathom the mind set of someone who would think they were doing something worthwhile.

Is there a cure for Ignorance?

Ignorance is a poison that needs to be stopped!

I had the unfortunate pleasure of reading one of the most ignorant FB posts I have ever read in my life. Not up there with the McNance gay rant’s but its close. The name has been withheld to protect you from going to her FB to read more of her ignorance. I said this needed to be stopped from spreading! LOL. The statement that follows was taken directly from the horse's mouth, nothing has been changed.

“Man! I can't agree with you more! I saw on the new that TSA was going to alter the proceedure b/c some people were complaining that it was against their religion. My problem is this...If it’s against their religion, my guess is that they... are not from this country. And the way I feel is that if your are flying/Living in AMERICA then we shouldn’t have to alter OUR security procedures to protect OUR country. If they want to fly / live here…then they need to alter their religion! It’s just common sense. I mean at school and work we can’t even worship God or have a Christmas tree in the lobby b/c it’s offensive to other religions. How far is our country suppose to bend ? I do realize that not everybody who has a different religion is a forigner, but you get what I'm saying.”

Spelling errors have not been changed either. I said this was an ignorant post. First this person asserts that if someone claims something is against their religion they aren’t from this country. Gee, I wonder who she could be pointing the finger at there. Well hun, I hate to point it out to you but this country was founded by people running away from religious persecutions. And since when does a religious objection equate to a non-American? Did you know that is was an American housewife who objected to prayer in schools? And that American was able to plead her case before the United States Supreme court, and it was that court compromised of nine American justices who ruled that Christian prayers in schools was unconstitutional.  And it was American atheist who first objected to “Merry Christmas?” No you didn’t know that I am sure of that.

Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding father’s first authored the phrase “separation of church and state,.” He recognized the havoc that could be weaved when a state sets out to sponsor one religion at the costs of all others. Jefferson, a man who himself was a Deist, with his own Bible that he authored removing all the miracles. So you see if you bothered to do a little research instead of spouting off the same ignorant rantings that you heard on the radio you would know that all the things you are upset about were started and carried about by Americans. 

And Christianity is not an United States construct dear. It actually came to fruition in the Middle East as well. Just because your Bible may say made in the USA doesn’t mean your religion was.

You are asserting that people should alter something as deep seeded and personal as their belief system just to get through a security check point when you yourself is balking at the idea that you can got o work and see a Christmas tree? A truly pagan leftover in the first place? So I guess whatever is good for the goose isn’t so good for the gander?

And you are asking how far is our country supposed to bend to protect the right’s of its citizens? So what you are putting on that table is that this country stops catering to its own citizens when you don’t personally agree with it? Well I don’t like how come Christian churches protest the funerals of soldiers killed in this “war on terror.” So from you’re statement I’m not an American? I mean does it hurt for you to think about putting your pants on one leg at a time?  Do you and Bill O’Reilly share the same brain cell?

The continued genocide of the Black Community

The Genocide of the Black Community

The state legislature of Georgia is considering a bill that would outlaw abortions based on race and gender.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act would apply to abortion "the same standards of nondiscrimination" that govern employment, education, government and housing, said Georgia state Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Republican who introduced the bill. It brings up the question, is there a reason for this bill? Guttmacher Institute figures say that of 1.2 million abortions obtained in 2005, 37 percent were to black women. Blacks make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population. "We are not demonizing black women," said Catherine Davis, director of minority outreach for Georgia Right to Life, to CNN last week. "What we are saying is that the abortion industry has targeted, specifically, the black community.The goal is to alert the community and awaken the community," she said.

This systematic destruction isn’t a phenomenon that just started in the 21st century; this goes back to the first time American sailors set feet on the black continent, Africa. Angela Davis, a noted Black activist and former Black Panther noted, “Judged by the evolving nineteenth-century ideology of femininity, black women were practically anomalies.” From our introduction to this country we as Black women were exiled from the White ideal of womanhood.

Dr. David Pilgrim, and professor of sociology at Ferris State University described the first contacts Europeans had with their African counterparts. “European travelers sailed to Africa and through their ethnocentric eyes viewed the local dress and tribal dances as lewd and proof of the insatiable sexual appetite of the savage natives.” Never did they stop to think that the heat and the lack of wooly animals could have been the reason for the scantily clad natives they found. The African custom of polygamy, which is still practiced by many African tribes, was thought to be another indicator of the savage’s sexual appetite. These views fueled the myth of the Black Jezebel. “Black women have always been these vixens, these animalistic erotic women. Why can’t we just be the sexy American girl next door?” Supermodel Tyra Banks‘ words captured the raging battle that African American women, who are solely defined by their sexual appetites, still face to this day face. Elizabeth Hadley Freydberg, a professor at Northeastern University said, “ White men not only appropriated the children of Black women under slavery, they also appropriated Black women bodies through rape. And, when their offspring bore silent witness to rape, these men profited from the unholy harvest by selling their own children and justified their violent subordination of Black women by labeling them promiscuous seducers.”

Not only were black women blamed for seducing white men into raping them they were blamed for the ills of the black community. Historian Philip A. Bruce in 1889, explicitly tied Black women sexual impurity to our dangerous mothering. He reasoned that Black women promiscuity not only provoked Black men to rape white women but also led the entire Black family into depravity. Professor Howard Odum, at the University of North Carolina attributed Black’s poor home life partly to the sexual and domestic laxity of Black mothers. Decadent Black mothers, are then responsible for the menace to society that the black family poses to the American social order. Something had to be done. North Carolina, in 2003 became the first state to work to rectify its role in the near successful genocide of the Black race. A campaign that took the right to bear children away from an estimated 450,000 black women, according to the United States Government Accounting Office in 1977.

First the United States government tired to rid of the country of the Black menace by targeting black women, when that became illegal the focus was shifted to black children with abortion rates that far outstrip the Black population. Georgia a southern state that fought for the south’s right to keep slaves has become the first state to realize this and they are trying to correct it.

Take out the trash Palin!

So Sarah Palin’s show debuted on TLC and broke its viewing ratings. Which if you ask me isn’t hard to do on TLC. However a few of the show’s critics were obviously vocal about their dislike of the show and of Sarah Palin.

What they weren’t expecting was for Sarah’s little bears, Bristol and Willow to personally attack them back on various social networks, namely Facebook, according to The Daily News. The most shocking words flowed from the littlest Palin daughter, Willow. She went on the hurl several homophobic epitaphs at a classmate. Calling him “so gay” and “such a faggot.” And then big sister Bristol also chimed in taking a pot shot at her child’s father.

Is this the sort of behavior we could have expected from the Vice President’s children? Is this their normal behavior? Does Bristol call the father of her child a loser during her talks to high school students about the dangers of teenage pregnancy? IS the garbage coming from her facebook page worth the thousands of dollars she is paid for these so called “informative” talks?

In this climate with many of us fresh off the Day of Remembrance and the McCance scandal for Willow Palin to even let those sort of words pass over her keyboard is outrageous, and we should all be pissed off. She is old enough to be held accountable for her actions. So where is the HRC campaign to demand an apology from her? Where is the facebook backlash? Where is the righteous indignation that so quickly swept through the internet that even Anderson Cooper took notice?

Are the Palins above morality? Is it ok for Willow to speak those disgusting words and use them as daggers against another student? Is she no different from the bullies who forced several teens to commit suicide a few weeks ago?

I say, off with her head!

Stupidity Hurts Children

In the opinion section of the Aussie newspaper the Courier Mail was a starling piece that I had to read to believe. David van Gend theorizes that same-sex marriage hurts children. He claims that the issue of gay marriage is not about the union of two loving people, but at its core an issue of what is right for the child. Now let’s just for sanity’s sake assume that every gay couple that wants to get married wants to have children, because let’s face it everyone wants children, right?

He fails in his piece on several fronts. The most glaring to me is that thinking automatically that gay parents equals a world filled with nothing but men or women. That only lesbians hang out with other lesbians and gay men only shoot the breeze with other gay men. Being a straight black female I find myself hanging out with gay white men, gay black men, straight Mexican men, lesbian Asian woman, tall white guys and short black woman. My life is enriched with the encounters that I have on a daily basis and the eclectic mixture of friends that I surround myself with and I am sure that Mr. Ven Gend is the only person on the planet who hangs out with people who are exactly like he is. And even then I am sure there is some liquor involved.

He says that the law of the land should stay out of the fundamental rights of the child to a mother and a father, but implying that this is a right means that there is some level of a law involved. However the last time I checked the rights of a child as it pertains to what a parent is obligated to do is only to feed, house and cloth the child. No where does it say that a child has the right to a mother and a father. And then if it did the law would have to define what a mother and father is. Are we then to genderize the role of mother and father? Is this putting women back into the kitchen where many of us don’t want to be and men back out on the battle field where again many of them don’t want to be. Would this make stay at home father’s feel less than the men that they are? Would this make working mother’s feel ashamed of the paycheck they bring home to keep their kids swaddled in Nintendo’s and Air Jordans?

Sure a woman wouldn’t be able to show a male child how to properly hold his penis to use the bathroom, though there are youtube videos that can, but could a woman not get a male relative to do the same? Could a man not get his female mother to show his daughter how to properly use a tampon?  This piece totally places the raising of a child squarely on the shoulders of two people. That is not the experience of a child, it takes a village to raise a child. That saying was spoken God knows when but it still holds true today. Now more than even with the increase in parental working hours.

More and more children are being raised by grandparents, aunts, uncles, godmothers, non-blood family friends. Very few children are raised solely by their parents, even if both of them are present.

So why are we to believe that a female mother and male father are in the best interest of a child when statics speak otherwise? Barak Obama, the President of the United States was raised by his single mother, and his grandparents and look what he managed to accomplish in his life. George Bush was raised with a mother and father and look how he turned out.

Well now Mr. Van Gend has brought nature into the equation. Well let’s take a look at nature. Human beings are alone in the fact that we care for our young from the time on conception to the time either the parent or the child stops breathing. Turtles lay their eggs on the beach, cover the nest with sand and walk away. Bird lay their eggs, watch them hatch, and then push the birds out of the nest. And in fact humans beings are the only animals on the planet where the sperm donor actually stick around. Every other male in the animal kingdom does a quickie and then leaves. So the nature argument doesn’t hold water.

He goes on to quote an atheist philosopher (does anyone else see the irony here) “As he wrote in Marriage and Morals: "It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution."” I want to know who in the hell is sitting around thinking about the sexual relations of some random person on the street? I seem to find that in this present sexual cultural that children and sex are as separate. The only institution that should be concern with who I’m having sex with is the Department of Health. And only then when I invite them into my sex life.  Pray tell what legal institution should be given the key to our sexual relationships? Last time I checked society scoffs at prom stars who flaunt their public sex on our TVs and monitors. Oh wait that’s right, they are having sex simply for the pure enjoyment of it and not to produce children. That’s what makes it dirty and something to be scorned. My mistake Mr. Van Gend I thought sex was first and foremost for the simple pleasure of it. A fact that God intended for it to be by placing the majority of our nerve endings in our genitalia.

I think the excuse that gay marriage should be barred because it can’t produce children is a pure crock of crap. I personally can’t have children so then should I be denied a meaningful marriage with a husband of my choice? Should the court void all the marriages of the infertile couples around the world?

He ends his piece with , “Opposition to gay marriage is all about the child, and no parliament has the right to impose a motherless or fatherless life on a little child.” So then divorce should be taken off the books then, because you have to go to court to divorce someone. Just like you had to go to court for the license to marry that person. You can’t have your cake and eat it to Mr. Van Gend. You can’t say the court can do this and only this when agree with it and then tell the court to go to hell when it does something you don’t agree with. If the court can sanction divorce, a procedure that breaks up a household then it should sanction gay families. A action that brings households together. 

Mr. Van Gend, you argument is full of holes and quite amateur in its assumptions. And frankly you have made a right ass of yourself. Thank you very much for you time.

English Drinking Culture

If you’ve been living under a rock for the past two months then you don’t know that since September 14th I’ve been living and studying abroad in Manchester, England. And frankly I’m upset that you haven’t been paying more attention to me but that isn’t the purpose of this.

While I’ve been living in England I’ve been in a house of 5 with people younger than me. As it always seems to be I’m the oldest person in the house. So as a matter of course I’ve become friends with my flatmate Victor, who happens to be at the tender age of 20. Bless his heart. Victor has in turn introduced me to all of this friends and has invited me along to several flat parties and out to clubs, or discos as our Spanish cousins call them.

On these excursions I’ve had the pleasure to witness drinking culture here in England. I have to say that I’m not impressed and in fact have had to amend my previous thoughts that maybe the United States should lower its drinking age from 21 to match the rest of the world which has that drinking age set at 18. I now see the folly in this train of thought.

In the States we’ve all heard the reports that a lower drinking age would reduce the instances of alcohol abuse, it would produce more responsible drinkers and blah, blah. The European model is held up as the way for the United States to. I mean after all their primary school system is beating us hands down so they must be on to something with this as well, right?

Well I beg to differ. In the US at least drinking is still treated as something that needs to be done behind closed doors without the rest of the world knowing what you are doing. Thus all alcoholic drinks must be concealed in brown paper bags as you leave the ABC store. Well, here in England you can walk into any local grocer, gas station, off license shop and buy anything from beer, to Jack Daniels and coke in a can, to Smirnoff vodka. Then you may proceed to stand in the middle of the sidewalk and consume your beverage. No one is going to stop you, no one is going to tell you that public displays of drinking and drunkenness is not only inappropriate but in poor taste. In fact you may be cheered on but several passerbys.

Drinking is celebrated like its a national hero. Like the drink itself is the reason the sun never sets on the Empire, which is a popular saying here in England. I was certainly shocked when I walked into ASDA (the Wal-Mart equivalent) and saw Vodka on display on the next isle from toilet paper. No I’m not prude and as many of you reading this will know that I do in fact drink, but I may be the only person in history to have waited till I was 21 to in fact drink. Not that I was waiting till I was legal it just wasn’t high on my lists of things to do. I, however absolutely detest being drunk and I’ve only done it twice in my life and I regret both of those times. There is nothing cute or funny about hanging your head in a toilet to throw up your insides.

Here in England that seems to be the only reason to drink. Drink till you are drunk and throwing up in the middle of the street with all of your mates around you cheering and taking pictures to post up on Facebook and to text to other friends who aren’t there to witness your finest hour. Public drunkeness seems to be alright and people just walk past the unfortunate soul who can't hold their liquor. No one stops to help and in fact people hurl insults and slurs at the person inability to hold their drink.

Getting up at 5 in the afternoon and zooming down to Sainsberry to snagged bottles and bottles of wine, alcohol and beer to be consumed before 7pm is the greatest fun to be had on a Friday afternoon. And in deed by the time me and Victor, with several other friends in two have arrived at a flat party by 10pm we are the only sober ones and in fact the only ones able to stand without the whole world spinning. This ritual is repeated again on Saturday and Sunday and then the following weekend.


Yes binge drinking happens in the States, I'm not saying that it doesn't or even saying that the United States is doing a better job at curbing the rise in alcholics, but this just my take on the British drinking culture as I'm an outsider.

Allowing 18 year olds the ability to legally buy and consume alcohol doesn’t produce more responsible drinkers. Nor does it cut down on the instance of alcohol abuse, all it does it lower the age for liver transplants. You are expecting a person who has had all major life decisions made by their parents to handle something as serious as alcohol with adult . I am by no means calling an 18 year old a child, but I wouldn’t go as far as to call them an adult. After all the majority of these kids running around here in England with a wine bottle pressed to their lips are living on mommy’s money anyways.

I said all of that to say that I don’t agree with the United States lower its drinking age to 18 if the English model is being held up as the example.

Religious Terrorism...where is your war?

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. The United States has been locked in the battle against terrorism since Sept. 11. But, what about the terrorist conditions some Americans are living under? Can we not send the military in to root out these terrorist cells and destroy them?

What sort of terrorism could I be speaking of on American soil? The religious terrorism practiced by the religious right and some conservatives. Last week, as I strolled on campus on my day off of all days, my ears were assaulted with the rambling words of so called "street prophets." Since the founding of this nation, religious rhetoric and theories have shaped public discourse and public policy. The Christian fundamentalists have kept this country cowering in fear of a fiery hell with their terrorist tactics.

The religious right and their greatest champion, the founder of the Moral Majority, the late Jerry Falwell, along with his band of minions, angry housewives and Republican conservatives, would have us believe that these fundamentalists are preaching the word of God and bringing us poor sinners to Christ. They wouldn't call them terrorists. They tell us that theirs is the only brand of Christianity that will get us into heaven. Well, I am here to tell you that my Bible says that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. This is an assault on the terror they were spreading. Their first attack was on women. Women seem to be the scapegoats of history all the time: anything wrong in history, blame women. They told us our proper place was either one of two places: behind a vacuum or behind a stove. Well ladies, I am going to school you on what my Bible says about women. In Proverbs 10, it says that a man is highly respected in his community because of his wife. Her value is far above rubies; and last time I checked you didn't hide your rubies away in the house. You brought it out for the world to see. Our savior was born of a woman, not a man. He called that the woman be blessed and highly favored. God has always loved women and throughout history he has used us to spread his message of salvation and love. The street preachers warned us that our smart mouths and desires to carve a life for ourselves would send us to hell as lonely old maids. How heartbreaking would it be to an 18-year-old freshman to hear that she is doomed to a lonely place in hell for just wanting to be a CPA? Is this not terror?

Aren't these men just as fundamentalist as the terrorists we're fighting a war against in the Middle East? Is not their brand of hate just as much a terrorist attack as a suicide bomber? Is a spiritual death less important than a physical death? The faces of some of the students that were outside of the library that day looked the same as the faces of those stumbling out of a café after a bombing. Are we not granted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Regardless of whether you happen to find that happiness as a Wiccan, or in the arms of a person of the same sex? Do we not cry out about gross human rights abuses when we hear that Christians are being persecuted in North Korea? I say it's time for our troops to come home and fight this War on Terror on American soil.

Where is the National Guard to protect me from the religious terror of the religious right? Is my terror not enough? Are the hundreds of deaths caused by gay bashing not news enough to garner a Security Council resolution? What will it take to get help to fight the terror we live under?

Sex as A Weapon

1994's feel good movie, House Party, starred the women of the popular TLC, as the fictional female group, Sex as a Weapon. How fitting to have a girl group called Sex as a Weapon. Sure it was funny and the movie was mildly amusing, but it seems that the mantra of sex as a weapon is taking hold around the world. This country sat stunned as CNN reported the brutal gang rape of a 15-year-old girl at her homecoming at Richmond High School in California. The girl was raped for almost two and a half hours by as many as ten assailants while at least another ten looked on. Some witnesses even claimed that some people heard what was going on and went over to see and participate. The police in Richmond posted a $20,000 reward for any information leading to an arrest. Since that grim day last week, we have all sat captivated as the story unfolded, and soon after we got a glimpse of two of the young men as they were arraigned in a California court.

As horrific as this crime was and as traumatizing as this girl's experience, she is not the only one. She is hardly the first either. Women are in danger from every corner of the globe. Across the world and even in our own backyards, these crimes are becoming more frequent and more violent. Acts of violence against women have gone unnoticed and unchallenged in many ways. In some of the conflicts around the world rape is even seen as a perk; par for the course for a soldier. Some claim it's just boys being boys, especially following a tiring day of carrying a gun and committing mass murder. Recent history and documentaries have shown that organized patterns of rape are a component of deliberate ethnic cleansing. Even the slave masters of old used rape to control their female slaves as their reproductive rights. These aren't just crimes of passion or boys being boys, this is torture; systematic and deliberate torture. 3,500 women and girls have been raped just this last month in the Congo, some as young as four-years-old.

Rape has always been considered a crime against customary international law, and Peter von Hagenbach was convicted and executed in the first ever recorded international criminal tribunal held in 1474. The Leiber Code listed rape as a capital offense. The Hague Conventions, World War II prosecutions, and the Geneva Conventions all reinforced the ban on rape and other sexual violence.
Some evidence of sexual violence was presented before the International Military Tribunals, after World War II before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East where rape was first specifically referenced in the judgments. But, in the Tokyo Trials sexual violence and rape weren't put on the same level as other crimes, and as such they couldn't stand alone. They were throwaway crimes. The Tribunal lumped the acts of sexual violence under the residual umbrella of crimes against humanity.

Thus, rape was lost in the shuffle of other crimes against humanity. It became just a cautionary tale of horror. As a result no one knew if rape could stand alone as a prosecutable offense in international criminal courts. However in 1993 and 1994 after rape, and sexual violence, was specifically codified for the first time as a recognizable and independent crime within the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR). These two historic international instruments are now the foundation upon which crimes of rape and sexual violence are punished.

Now there is solid case law holding that rape and sexual violence are a form of genocide. It started in the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In the case of Jean-Paul Akayesu, for the first time, rape and acts of sexual violence were put on equal footing with all other offenses. The Tribunal captured the grave nature of the crime finding that just like torture, rape is used as intimidation, degradation, humiliation, discrimination, punishment, control or destruction of the person. The Rome Statue said it best, "Like torture, rape is a violation of personal dignity."

Clinton's First Report Card

The U.S. secretary of state is the head of the Department of State, which concerns itself with foreign affairs, such as diplomacy and international development. The secretary of state is the highest ranking Cabinet member, both in terms of succession and precedence. If by some accident of birth you have been living in a cave and do not know this, Hillary Clinton is the U.S. secretary of state. She is one of three women that have held that position. Now since his inauguration as the first black president, President Obama has come under fire for his so-called poor job performance, but is he the only one sleeping on the job?

What has Secretary Clinton been able to accomplish on the world's stage? There isn't much glamour in being the secretary of state, this is universally understood - just look at Condoleezza Rice. If we turn back the hands of time, many of Clinton's predecessors got their jobs done. The Reagan administration had the strong policy voice of George Shultz, and President George H.W. Bush's administration had the world-class power broker James Baker on the job. Most others have been just irritating or utterly useless and forgettable at the job. Condoleezza Rice only made headlines when she decided on a new lipstick color to wear, or she was being picked on by the heads of states of our Middle Eastern brothers. Colin Powell got more accomplished in the military than he did as secretary of state.
Secretary Clinton on the other hand almost became the first female president, so surely her name alone would bring clout and glamour back to the job. Surely, Secretary Clinton would attack the job like she did the campaign trail on her way to the White House. That just hasn't happened. It's like the light has gone out of Clinton's eyes because she wasn't able to beat Obama for the presidency.

To me, she seems like a sore loser and America's foreign policies are paying the price. Clinton's presence, so brazen in her historic presidential candidacy against Barack Obama, has proven hard to find the first few months she's served as the "supposed" voice of U.S. foreign policy. President Obama's passport has more stamps than hers, powerhouse White House envoys have been dispatched to the hotspots around the world, Vice President Biden has been taking on assignments overseas, and even former President Clinton has thrown his hat in the mix, freeing some jailed journalists in North Korea.

I wondered why President Obama would even name her as the secretary of state. One side of the argument could be that Obama was keeping his friends close and his enemies closer. That by appointing Hillary Clinton, he could keep an eye on her ambitions and pacify her bruised ego. The other side would be that Obama wanted to keep her under wraps and essentially neutralize the incredible power she held as a senator. The latter seems to be true, as Clinton hasn't done anything in her first nine months in office; instead letting others like special envoy Richard Holbrooke do her job.
The most newsworthy thing Secretary Clinton has done was to verbally and viciously attack a Congolese student at a press conference. It would seem that she should spend more time doing her job and making her mark that way, instead of jumping on students who ask what her husband thinks about a situation - when he can clearly get the job done and she hasn't even clocked in for her shift.

In the past we would pass or fail the secretary of state on their ability to formulate policy. I mean, that's part of their job. Secretary Clinton has no such track record. During the 2008 Democratic Primary, she did prove to be a bit more conservative than President Obama, being more of a foreign policy realist than an idealist. Is she a good state manager or negotiator? She has never been a global strategist, and thankfully she has never claimed to be. Is it too early to judge her? I think not. She was very vocal in her campaign about the things she wanted to get done about foreign policy. Now that she didn't get the job she was applying for, she seems to be shuffling around trying to find her bearings as if this is the first time she has heard of Afghanistan. Her dismal performance in Jerusalem has proven one thing however: she needs to get a few more lessons in Middle Eastern haggling.

Church sins

While the holidays are generally known for being family-oriented, research has concluded that there seems to be an apparent spike in suicide rates during this time. We pity them, the people without families to share the holidays with. Or at least families they want to see and who want to see them. Well, as we all sat down for the holiday with our families - marveling at the genius that flowed from the kitchen, or simply enjoying being with our families, many of whom we don't get to see outside of the holiday season - Patricia Halbach was kneeling at the bed of her son Nathan as he lay still and silent in his coma. A coma he had fallen into the day before Thanksgiving. Nathan had been battling brain cancer for some months now, and the doctors didn't give him long to live. When the turkey was sliced and the thanks made, Nathan took his last breath. Nathan Halbach died one month before his 23rd birthday, peacefully in his home, in his bed.

Let's turn back the clock a few weeks, to a time before we knew who Nathan Halbach was, when this story first broke into the national news scene. Patricia Halbach, married at the time, had an affair with a Franciscan priest. Who would have thought that priests had sexual urges like the rest of us? However, priests take vows of celibacy and we trust them to follow through on those vows. Father Henry Willenborg had an affair with Patricia for five years while she lived a few doors away from the church where he pastored and she worshipped.

The church, being the moral compass, didn't reprimand the wayward priest. He was allowed to remain at his post and he even baptized the son he denied as his own. Instead of holding up the moral standards they hold the rest of the world accountable to - by forcing this priest to take responsibility, to stand up and be the father he should have been - the church struck a deal with the mother. They agreed to pay all the expenses of the child in exchange for her vow of silence about the true lineage of Nathan. The sacred place of worship, the holy pew that we kneel at to quietly reflect on God and to feel his awesome presence, now seemed tainted with the stench of a back alley deal worthy of a hostage takeover.

Over the course of young Nathan's life, the church gave over $200,000 to keep the woman and her child silent. No guidance, only money and silence. Silence, such a simple thing coming from any other place, but what seems to be such a funny request from a church. The church, who shouts at us from our television screens and from our street corners the virtues of the righteous. The church, always vocal about abortion, liberal women trying to break into a man's world, the war in Iraq and anything else the church feels it needs to speak out against bought the silence of a fatherless child and his wayward mother. Instead of making the priest do what was right according to the Bible, which the church is always shoving down our throats; they bought the silence of the mother and allowed the father to roam free.

Where was the fire, hell and brimstone many churches call down upon those who step out of line? I didn't see the eternal damnation they shout from the top of their lungs when a gay couple wants the civil right to marry. Nothing came from the church but a wall of silence. How dare the church not hold one of their own to the same moral yardstick they hold the rest of us to? Where have the morals of the church gone? Has the church just become a den of iniquity like our city streets? We are supposed to be following their example? It seems the church is grabbing more and more of the headlines these days; the kind you would expect from a Jerry Springer guest. Are we still expected to follow their lead when they are allowing fathers to be deadbeat dads? As these church escapades continue to gain national attention, is it any wonder why church attendance continues to decline?

The Great White Hope in a post-racism era?

Post-racism was the buzz word of the century as we went into the 2008 elections; it was then trumpeted throughout the country when Barack Obama took the highest office an African American has ever held in this country. Well the idiot that coined the term, "post-racism" has to be the same idiot that told The Rock that pretending to be a tooth fairy was a good career move. Taking stock of the of the smash hit and Oscar hopeful, Avatar and the recent headlines with Senate majority leader Harry Reid D-NV, any sane person would draw the conclusion that racism is as rampant as it was when the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. 

In The Washington Post last year, a psychology professor, Richard Eibach theorized that white and black people use different yardsticks to measure racial equality. With this theory, maybe we can explain why there is an overwhelming majority of white Americans who live in la-la land and think that just because a black president was elected we are living in a post-racial America. Eiback claimed that whites use the yardstick of how far we have come from the nation we used to be. Blacks use the yardstick of how far we have yet to go to be the nation we ought to be. Let's see how far we really have to go.

There are a shocking number of white people in this country who are quick to cry out that this is the era of post racism. According to a 2008 gallup poll, as much as 46 percent of white Americans hold that sentiment. This past week it was revealed that Senator Harry Reid, while behind closed doors, voiced the undercurrent of racism that few white people are even aware they have. He is quoted as saying, "Obama would have an easier time of winning the election because he is ‘light-skinned' and does not speak with a Negro dialect."

Reid thought he was paying President Obama, who he ardently supports, and black people a compliment. However, Senator Reid took us all the way back to slavery where black slaves were separated, treated different, and given different jobs based on their degree of "blackness." In general, the lighter the slave, the easier the life. Perhaps, like many, he is utterly shocked when a person of color opens their mouth and is able to converse in the English language. I mean after all we should throwing around the "foshizzle my nizzle," everywhere we go. Right? 

The new James Cameron film, Avatar was sure to brighten up my holidays, and like millions of other around the country I crowded into the warm theater, popcorn in one hand and 3D glasses in the other, and settled down for what was sure to be a great movie. What I got was a great white hope movie filled with racial slurs and undertones. We've seen this before in the films Dangerous Minds, The Last Samurai and Oscar-favorite, Dances with Wolves.  But all we, as black people get, is Lean on Me; and most important thing that we were supposed to take away from that movie was that through it all us blacks can still come up with a great song to capture the moment. After all, if we can't even colonize ourselves why would we be able to protect and rescue ourselves?

Back to Avatar, I know I wasn't the only person of color that cringed when the character played by the talented Giovanni Ribisi called the Na'Vi a bunch of blue monkeys. That was the icing on the cake for me.  

Am I pulling my Negro card right now? Yes, I am. Am I being overly sensitive? Maybe to a non person of color, but as a person of color who is bombarded by "White America" everywhere I turn I think I am being highly tamed and civilized. Do I honestly believe we will ever reach that utopia of a post racism America? No, I do not think so, but are there steps we can take to bring this country as close to Shangri-La as possible? Yes, but both sides have to be willing to come to the table and realize that yes, we have come a long way and that is a great thing, but we aren't there yet.

When is enough, enough?

In recent news there have been reports after reports of suicides of gay teens and young adults. Millions of facebook users gathered together to remember these lost children. Statues were dedicated, profile pictures changed with users wearing the chosen color purple. In show of support for gays teens around the country. And recently the Village Voice asked journalist around the world to recount their bullying experiences.

It just seems that somewhere along the way children got the idea that its better to just check out of life.

Bullies don't only pick on the gays. Bullies target anyone who doesn't confirm.

I was the first girl in middle school to come back after summer break with a C cup. So of course I was bullied, and then I put on a few extra pounds and I was bullied because of that. There were days I cried myself to sleep because of the torment. And I did sit and wonder if I should just end it all. Call it quits and end my suffering at the hands of a few jerks. But something always stopped me.

I wondered, is this it? Is there more to life than middle school, Tiger Beat and my bullies? And now I will admit I took the road less traveled and I started to fight back with my bullies. Verbally and physically. Now I am not condoning violence here, but I will say it was damn empowering to send my tormentors scurrying about under my verbal assault and well placed punches. It even brought a smile to my face when the mother of one of my bullies called my mother to rant about the beatdown I had laid on her daughter.

But that little shred of confidence gained when I stood up to my bullies changed my life. No longer did I have to suffer while others laughed at my expense. No longer did I have to hid in the library during lunch just so I didn't have to stand in the middle of the cafeteria pleading with my eyes for someone to let me sit at their table. I could walk into that school with my nose in the air and my C cups bouncing and my thick thighs swaying knowing I had just as much of a right to liberty as anyone else.

Now back to the matter at hand.

There have been developments in the political sphere to curb the practice of bullying,specially because of sexual orientation. In Oct of 2009 President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Act into law. This Act is an expansion of the federal hate crime law. It included acts of hate motivated because of a victims perceived or actual sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or their disability. This is the first act to actually extend protection to transgendered individuals.

And many school systems across the country have adopted a below zero tolerance for bullying. But this is as far as I beleive politics and the law can take it.

There needs to be a shift in society for bullying to really be curbed. The federal government and the school system can't police thoughts and notions. And they certainly can't do anything if the victims don't report it. Often children feel ashamed because of their bullying or they think it will intensify if they speak out. So how can these wonderful laws that we worked so hard to bring to pass work if no one takes advantage of them? Or if instead of bringing the issues to light the child just jumps off a bridge? This journey is not just one lane. Victims have to speak out and stand up. We as adults and mentors have to foster open communication and safe environments with our youth. They have to know they can come to us about being bullied and something will be done and their tormentor will be swiftly dealt with.

We can not allow this trend to continue. How many more children have to take their own lives before something is done? When is enough enough?

What are we doing America?

The Pentagon announced today that Guantanamo Bay detainee, Omar Khadr, has plead guilty. He is the youngest prisoner in the controversial facility. Khadr was accused of throwing a hand grenade during a firefight back in 2002 and killing an American citizen, Army Sgt. 1st cClass Christopher Speer in Afghanistan. This is the first trial for the military commission since President Obama took office.

The Canadian citizen plead guilty to "murder in violation of the laws of war, attempted murder in violation of the laws of war, conspiracy, two counts of providing material support for terrorism and spying in the United States, a Canadian diplomat said," as reported by CNN.

Khadr was a 15 year old child solider when he was involved in that firefight in 2002. 

And as of yet the United States sign hasn't signed the Optional Protocol to the Rights of the Child. We still allow children under the age of 18 to join the military with parental consent. Though the Pentagon has assured Human Rights NGOs that these children aren't used as combatants.

But in 2008, President Bush, in a rare moment of intelligence signed into law the Child Soldiers Accountability Act. This Act allows the United States to prosecute any person who knowingly and willfully recruited children under 15 even if they were recruited and served outside of the United States.

And just two short years after vowing to protect children around the world and bring their tortures to justice we are sending a child solider to jail.

What message are sending to the rest of the world? We care about people who use children as combatants as long as that child doesn't kill an American? Then we prosecute the child, after we detain them for years in a facility where they are housed with adults. Is rehabilitation of criminals only good for American citizen. Khadr spent more time behind bars for being a child solider than most rapists in the United States.

This is not a bright day in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave......