Some bell hooks "therapy"...

Even though bell doesn't begin speaking until nearly the end of the first video, I included it because I thought the DR.'s (she IS in Texas - guess she wanted to make sure the white folk present didn't get shit twisted - you'll see what I mean when you listen) information on studying abroad in Ghana was important.

Sort of in the same vein, when you get a minute, check out this post that my Lil Sis over "At the Bar" wrote about kinfolk going back to Africa.  If it doesn't move you to action - it should at least make you think!





(A little sound problem from the :26 click to the 1:25 click - but do go past it.)



(Now here's a good example of those "multiple intentionalities" (from Slick Willy in Haiti) that bell talks about near the end of the above video - h/t The Haitian Blogger.  So, your blue helmets bring the damned cholera - infecting thousands upon thousands - and NOW, you plan on selling "cholera insurance," to already poor people, to supposedly protect them against the damned cholera you brought?!  SMMFH)

The strange career of patriarchy and race in the "belly of the beast"

This horrific, Good Friday night news story - Authorities: Mother Kills Two Children, Then Self  (watch video at link) - just jacked me the hell up from under myself. Nothing I'm dealing with compares to this tragedy.

So unsettling on its face, I couldn't tune it out.  And once I heard the details (such as they were), I just could not add, yet another "swirling of thoughts" to the already too-numerous ones floating around in my head.  My only choice?  Spew forth, and hopefully the drip will lead to a trickle, and then maybe a deluge - clearing my head of all the shit I've been seeing, hearing and feeling that just doesn't make sense.

It's been three weeks since this happened and I've heard nothing else about it in the local media.  I'm thinking it's because, as the officer so nonchalantly said in the video, "I can tell you that on the surface, it looks like a murder-suicide." 

First, I went off on a disgusted, "Damn!  More collateral damage from the Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning Changeling's war."  And then, for reasons on which I can't quite put my finger, I got two very disturbing thoughts in succession which I said aloud:

1) "I sure hope there's going to be more investigation, because something in that milk ain't clean."
2) "I bet this is a Black family."

My eldest asked me, "What makes you think that, Mom?  The news didn't say that."  All I could say was, "Just seems so open-and-shut."   

And it did.  And it bothered me all night long. 

The next day, I got a call from this lively, Panamanian woman I'd met, at what passed for a dialogue on race relations (that's another "interesting" story I'll probably get around to telling) a month or so ago at a local community college.  Our conversation turned to the deaths and I repeated my hope that there'd be further investigation.  A divorced Army wife and long-time San Antonio resident, she looked at me and asked, "Was she Black?

Unnerved (because I'd been thinking the same thing), I said, "I'm not sure, but I'm going to try and find out."

Then she said, "You know they don't care nothin' about Black people killing each other down here."  (I thought to myself, "Or anywhere else for that matter.")

We talked for awhile about how the Changeling's war was producing collateral damage both abroad and at-home, with families torn asunder by stress due to falling-outs about money, or infidelity - and of course, the plethora of difficulties should they not come home in one piece either mentally or physically.

I told her I was going to see if there was anything more online and that I'd try to find out if the family was, in fact, Black.  I told her I'd let her know, and hung up. 

Then, I found this even more distressing and confusing, Holy Saturday story which accompanies the photo above - Threat preceded apparent double-murder suicide:

Richard Griffin sensed danger.

In the midst of a divorce, the U.S. Army soldier stationed at Fort Hood in Killeen talked early Friday to his estranged wife, who was living in far West Bexar County with their two school-age sons.

In that conversation, Sheena Griffin threatened to kill herself and their children.

Richard Griffin, who filed for divorce March 1 and was scheduled to soon deploy to Afghanistan, quickly called local authorities and asked them to check on his family. He was worried, he told them.

When sheriff’s deputies arrived, they found the two-story home in the 12000 block of Gable Oaks engulfed in heavy smoke.

Inside, in the children’s upstairs bedroom, firefighters made a grisly discovery: The two boys, ages 8 and 9, were dead from gunshot wounds and lying together on a twin bed, their 36-year-old mother on the floor, also dead.

“On the surface, it looks like a double-murder suicide,” Bexar County Deputy Chief Dale Bennett said, adding that a handgun was found at the scene.

Sheriff’s Sgt. Jose Trevino said authorities were called to the home shortly before 7 a.m. It wasn’t their first time to that residence, he said, as deputies had gone to the home several times in the past because of marital disputes.

Authorities said the fire started downstairs and caused $75,000 in damages. They believe gasoline was used to start the fire. As investigators combed through the home and collected evidence, an Army chaplain escorted the distraught Richard Griffin to San Antonio.  (more at the link)

According to my source, the Griffin family was indeed, Black.

I don't know the man, I don't know his wife and I certainly don't know their marital situation.  But, taking the stories together (all three of them), everything about this screams, "ASK MORE DAMN QUESTIONS!"

1. First of all:  "in the midst of divorce," "U.S. Army soldier stationed at Fort Hood in Killeen" and "...about to deploy to Afghanistan" are all issues with which most military families contend at one time or another, but particularly now.  That he'd just filed for divorce on March 1st while on pre-deployment duty and living in Killeen, coupled with that Coldwell Banker sign already on the lawn - seems strange.
2. The husband spoke to his wife sometime before 7 a.m. .  They had a conversation - that only he heard and knew about -  during which she threatened to take, not only her life, but the kids' as well.  Strange.
3. "Sensing danger," he hangs up and calls local cops to do a welfare check at his home and they high-tail it over there - arriving some time around 7 a.m. (according to the video).  Not so strange that they immediately went.  Welfare check requests are common when a spouse is deployed.  And if nothing else, Texas IS a place that takes their "patriots" seriously.  But, when the cops arrived, the house was engulfed  - in SMOKE.  They couldn't get in and had to wait for the firefighters (according to the video) who found the bodies - kids on a twin bed and the mother on the floor.  How long had this "fire" been burning??  They got there around 7 a.m. - when kids are getting up and out for school by 8 a.m., How come nobody saw the "fire" before then?  According to another television station's report in which the wife has already been blamed for starting the fire:  "The blaze was contained to the downstairs area of the home. Officials said the fire appeared to have been purposely set in numerous places on the first floor. More than $75,000 in damage were done to the home."  $75,000 in damage - downstairs!  Real estate values here are way more realistic than most places in the country.  And if that figure is even close - that's a whole lot of damage for this house - in such a short period of time (remember he spoke to her before 7 a.m. and the cops immediately responded somewhere around 7 a.m.).  Strange  
4. According to the video, the next door neighbor heard "screaming/really loud yelling" coming from the house that woke her up just minutes before the cops arrived.  But she wasn't aware the house NEXT DOOR was on fire??  They all died from single, gunshot wounds and none had suffered any burns as a result of the fire according to my source.  Who was doing the yelling?  And if she heard it "just minutes" before the cops arrived, how come she heard - not one gunshot?  As close as the homes are to one another - not a single person reported that they'd heard any gunshots.  Strange.

Fort Hood's approximately a 2-3 hour drive away, so I'm not saying the husband was there to do this.  Besides, he's got an alibi for his whereabouts during the time the bodies were discovered (unless of course, he was there in the wee hours of the morning and left (What?  It could happen!).  All I'm saying is, I'm just not convinced - without more details and investigation - that the wife did this (and no, it's not because I think Black folk don't do that kind of shit.  I must admit though - "When We Were Colored?" - I did think that way).

It bothers me that the "double murder-suicide" ruling was just accepted by the media with no apparent, substantive questions asked.  It bothers me that there seems to be no one following up on this story.  The funerals have been held (hope an autopsy was done) and it's like it never happened.  It bothers me that we've heard nothing about any continuing investigation.  And yes, it bothers me - that they were Black - and no one seems to care.

They took this man's word for everything.  Who speaks for the wife?  In patriarchal institutions, like the military and the police particularly, there's an inherent value in the words of men over women's.  Not just in Texas, but all over!

Two cases immediately jumped into my head (yeah it's crowded up there) after mulling this over - mainly because I was living in Texas and then Florida during both.  The first, was that of Darlie Routier in Rowlett, TX back in 1996.  She sits on death row, accused and convicted of stabbing her 5 and 6 year-old sons to death.  Her husband and baby were asleep upstairs and she and the two older boys had fallen asleep watching TV downstairs.  In early 2008, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed a 2007 ruling denying DNA testing of hair and blood evidence collected in 1996 which her attorneys believe, will prove her story that an intruder stabbed her, and killed her sons (there were three fingerprints found not belonging to anyone in the family or any of the scene investigators). 

This case is especially interesting because it involves new Dallas D.A., Craig Watkins (about whom I've written, here and here), a young man I respect immensely for his dogged determination in freeing (as of 2008) 17 men who were wrongly accused - based on - DNA evidence.  He inherited Routier's case and, based on the afore-linked piece about the reversal, he seems to believe that they've got the right person even though Darlie supporters disagree (I hope he wasn't just regurgitating the "company line" because he was new on the scene).  The show American Justice covered the case and it is available on You Tube in five parts, entitled, "Mother on Death Row."

The other, was the 1997 murder of Sheila Bellush in Sarasota, FL at the hands of hit-man, Joey Del Toro - paid for by her millionaire husband, Allen Blackthorne of San Antonio.  After having stalked her since their 1987 divorce - and through her new marriage to Jamie Bellush  into which quadruplets were born - he had her killed.  Her body was found by one of the daughters she shared with Blackthorne - with her two year-old quadruplets toddling around in her blood.  Sound like a "Murder By The Book" story?  It was.  Author, Ann Rule chronicled the horrific story in her book, "Every Breath You Take" in 2001.  It took THREE YEARS before he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.

 As for the Griffins - yes, there was a history of marital discord.  The cops admit they'd been there before - on many occasions.  That, in itself is disturbing.  Domestic violence cases, the majority of which are reported by women, are rarely taken very seriously by the police.  I met a woman in January, who'd been arrested for domestic violence (another around-to-it draft).  She was so distraught at finding out her husband had long been cheating that she was uncontrollable when the cops arrived and they took her in.  She had no family here and was worried out of her mind about what would happen to her two kids because she was in jail. 

Women have a hard row to hoe when dealing with the rampant sexism and misogyny in patriarchal institutions.  And women of color have it even worse.

"Where the (white) Boys Are..."

UPDATE:  Don't know how I missed this, "Secret Service, YOU take the blame and THE-N-N-N, we'll take the blame for staff sashaying around" memo - but please, do read it. 



Baby please!

The only thing I'm saying about Giblet's little patriarchal performance up there is - "When people show themselves to you - you better pay a-damn-ttention!"

(P.S.  "I've not heard any of that criticism.  I've not read any of that criticism..."  Here, you go Giblet - "Knives come out for Obama's 'preening' social secretary."  It ain't just being bandied about around Washington!)

"You'll say what we tell you to say Sonia!"

The only alarm bells that went off for me about the Changeling's pick for SCOTUS was, well - that she was the Changeling's pick for SCOTUS. That she'd be Latina, I kind of expected. But, cautiously optimistic, I tried to find out more about her opinions and her two previous appointments by Daddy Bush and Bill Clinton, just to see what SHE was about. Now who woulda thunk it? After doing all that reading, it only took these three things to pretty much convince me she's probably just another woman - among the many it seems (Jarrett, Michelle, Hilary to name a few) - who's forfeited her voice, in exchange for a smooth ride to glory on his coattails - as long as she says and does whatever he says --

1) Giblet on May 29:

2) The Changling on May 29:

White House: Sotomayor's Latina Comment Was Poor Choice of Words. Sorry, you'll have to go to the link and then click on "an excerpt from the interview online" to see the actual video because he's already met his "number-of-times-I-want-to-see-his-face-on-my-own-blog-every-time-I-sign-in" quota!

3) Her Honor on June 2 (as told by Diane Feinstein):

Sotomayor to Feinstein: Latina remark 'poor choice of words':

She said, 'Obviously it was a poor choice of words if you read on and read the rest of my speech you wouldn’t be concerned with it but it was a poor choice of words,'" Feinstein told reporters.

According to The Post piece:

Neither Obama nor Gibbs said how they knew that she would say this, and Gibbs acknowledged, "I have not talked specifically with her about - this."

Rather, he said, he had had "discussions with people" that led him to believe that "if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word."

Come on now Giblet!!! You know damn well both of you talked to her! As Cinie says, "Lying Liars Indeed Lie."

Now I know this seems a petty litmus test, but when something hits me, it just hits me. First, the (all-male?) "handlers" marginalized the importance of what she said. Then, it looked like it might not go away so they trotted the Changeling out to further marginalize it. And the-e-e-n, she goes a courtin' on Capitol Hill in a series of supposedly "private meetings" with Senators - and, using their words, takes back her words just like those "wise men" told her. And the-e-e-n, they used a female senator to put the marginalization out into the ether. Brilliant I tell you, just brilliant!

Unless, of course, she's playing the "Undercover Hermana" role like the Changeling's alleged "Undercover Brotha" role that so many Black people keep telling me he's playing because, I ought to know he can't go up in there talking 'bout what he's going to do for us because "they" won't let him (Damn, here I am in 2009 thinkin', "we is all free ya'll!" - stupid me).  If that's the case, I have no respect for her either. I might be a helluva lot poorer than them, but trust me - I am far freer (guess it depends on what's most important to you).

I tell you, POTUS, FLOTUS and SCOTUS are lookin' more like Wynken, Blynken and Nod each and every day I breathe.

Update:  Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor breaks her ankle at LaGuardia airport.  See, God really don't like ugly!  (Okay, that wasn't nice to say.)

Major gender-based pay-equity legislation remains in Committee

Women are still waiting for the Paycheck Fairness Act to become a law. But, since passing by a party line vote of 256-163 in the House on January 9, it remains in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP).

Unlike the recently passed Ledbetter bill which extends the statute of limitations for everyone in a protected class with a proven claim of pay discrimination, the Paycheck Fairness Act’s aim is to provide women with more effective tools to combat pay inequities based on gender. But, given its overwhelmingly partisan vote in the House, it appears the wait will be a little longer than expected and I don't think the Republicans are the only ones to blame - after all we all know who has the majority. If they wanted it to pass, Republicans alone could not stop it.

According to a January 27 CNBC transcript of a media event held in the Capitol following passage of the Ledbetter bill, Speaker Pelosi’s comments seem to hint it may well be some time before the bill passes.

When asked what the next workers’ rights bill she would attempt to take up, she replied:

” Well, we have paycheck fairness, sponsored by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, which Mr. Miller passed out of his committee, and with the leadership of Mr. Hoyer, on the floor passed and was sent over to the Senate. So we hope that eventually that will become law someday, too, because that's the obvious next step.”

If the bill becomes a law, women would be able to sue for unlimited punitive and compensatory damages to include expert fees either individually or as a class. Companies would have a greater duty to prove that job performance alone was the reason for any pay inequities that do exist. Additionally, the bill would usher in a never-before-seen era of wage transparency in our culture by preventing companies from retaliating against employees who share salary information.

The opponents of the bill feel it would strip employers of the right to manage their businesses and lead to more frivolous class action lawsuits. But the sponsors believe its passage is imperative in order to:

• provide a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities
• substantially reduce the number of working women earning unfairly low wages thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance
• promote stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay
• remedy the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex
• ensure equal protection pursuant to Congress' power to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments

If implemented as written (guess I should say "if implemented at all), it could either seriously close the gender wage gap, or clog the judicial system to such an extent that no substantive progress is realized. We'd just have to wait and see.

Shirley Chisholm - "On Women" in American politics

While sitting here waiting on Sen. Clinton's speech, I thought about Shirley Chisholm and the differences and similarities between the two of them. I thought about how each of these women stood up against this patriarchal society and though neither won the nomination, their true victory was in the stand itself. Here's an excerpt from her 1970 book, "Unbought and Unbossed," (the emphases are mine). The battle for the Democratic nomination we've endured over the last year or so, shows just how prescient she was, and how relevant her words remain - even for a white woman.

#########

On Women

In the 91st Congress, I am a sponsor of the perennial Equal Rights Amendment, which has been before every Congress for the last forty years but has never passed the House. It would outlaw any discrimination on the basis of sex. Men and women would be completely equal before the law. But laws will not solve deep-seated problems overnight. Their use is to provide shelter for those who are most abused, and to begin an evolutionary process by compelling the insensitive majority to reexamine its unconscious attitudes. The law cannot do the major part of the job of winning equality for women. Women must do it themselves. They must become revolutionaries. Against them is arrayed the weight of centuries of tradition, from St. Paul's "Let women learn in silence" to the American adage, "A woman's place is in the home." Women have been persuaded of their own inferiority; too many of them believe the male fiction that they are emotional, illogical, unstable, inept with mechanical things, and lack leadership ability. The best defense against this slander is the same one blacks have found. While they were ashamed of their color, it was an albatross hanging around their necks. They freed themselves from that dead weight by picking up their blackness and holding it out proudly for all the world to see. They found their own beauty and turned their former shame into their badge of honor. Women should perceive that the negative attitudes they hold toward their own femaleness are the creation of an antifeminist society, just as the black shame at being black was the product of racism. Women should start to replace their negative ideas of the femininity with positive ones affirming their nature more and more strongly. It is not female egotism to say that the future of mankind may very well be ours to determine. It is a fact. The warmth, gentleness, and compassion that are part of the female stereotype are positive human values, values that are becoming more and more important as the values of our world begin to shatter and fall from our grasp. The strength of Christ, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King was a strength of gentleness, understanding, and compassion, with no element of violence in it. It was, in short, a female strength, and that is the kind that often marks the highest type of man. If we reject our restricted roles, we do not have to reject these values of femaleness. They are enduring values, and we must develop the capacity to hold them and to dispense them to those around us. We must become revolutionaries in the style of Gandhi and King. Then, working toward our own freedom, we can help the others work free from the traps of their stereotypes. In the end, antiblack, antifemale, and all forms of discrimination are equivalent to the same thing — antihumanism. The values of life must be maintained against the enemies in every guise. We can do it by confronting people with their own humanity and their own inhumanity whenever we meet them, in the streets, in school, in church, in bars, in the halls of legislatures. We must reject not only the stereotypes that others have of us but also those we have of ourselves and others. In particular, I am certain that more and more American women must become involved in politics. It could be the salvation of our nation. If there were more women in politics, it would be possible to start cleaning it up. Women I have known in government have seemed to me to be much more apt to act for the sake of a principle or moral purpose. They are not as likely as men to engage in deals, manipulations, and sharp tactics. A larger proportion of women in Congress and every other legislative body would serve as a reminder that the real purpose of politicians is to work for the people. The woman who gets into politics will find that the men who are already there will treat her as the high school counselor treats girls. They see her as someone who is obviously just playing at politics part-time, because, after all, her real place is at home being a wife and mother. I suggested a bright young woman as a candidate in New York City a while ago; she had unlimited potential and with good management and some breaks could become an important person to the city. A political leader rejected her. "Why invest all the time and effort to build up the gal into a household name," he asked me, "when she's pretty sure to drop out of the game to have a couple of kids at just about the time we're ready to run her for mayor?" Many women have given their lives to political organizations, laboring anonymously in the background while men of far less ability managed and mismanaged the public trust. These women hung back because they knew the men would not give them a chance. They knew their place and stayed in it. The amount of talent that has been lost to our country that way is appalling. I think one of my major uses is as an example to the women of our country, to show them that if a woman has ability, stamina, organizational skill, and a knowledge of the issues she can win public office. And if I can do it, how much more hope should that give to white women, who have only one handicap?

Hutchinson's Support of Ferraro's Statement Courageous - and Right

Earl Ofari Hutchinson's recent piece, "Don't Fire Geraldine Ferraro, Pin a Merit Badge on Her for Having the Guts to Tell the Truth" in The Huffington Post, regarding her now-fateful comments about the Obama run for the White House, stirred up a hornet's nest of controversy in which I felt I had to have my say. Here are my comments: "Earl, kudos man for saying - out loud - what many others have definitely been thinking, Hats off for your courage in telling the truth all around. Edwards was my original candidate because, out of the gate, he spoke directly to all those elephants ganged up in our respective corners. It was a refreshing change. When his (Sen. Obama's) campaign headed to my home state of SC, I'd already spoken to family there and they were awash in the Kool Aid as I’d anticipated. And you know what? I even understand why. When I asked, "What exactly do you expect he will do for you there? I got no concrete answers. Many Black’s, 30 - 50+ years old, who grew up there still remember the long history of Jim Crow and James Crow Esq. in their lives. But more importantly, they understand it really hasn’t changed that much regarding the balance of power. It has informed who we've all become, white and Black. The chance at having a Black president is not only vindicating, it offers, in their minds, an opportunity to change (there’s that word!) the dynamics of power - but that's not ever going to be said out loud in “mixed company.” That being said however, all is not lost when it comes to building cross-cultural relationships or reconstructing the face of this country. But that won't happen without serious, open dialogue about race, something neither Blacks nor whites seem really ready to have -out loud. Sen. Clinton's comments on Dr. King and LBJ we're true, but that rains on the momentum parade if the statement is considered for accuracy. Here, Joe Califano, President Lyndon Johnson's special assistant for domestic affairs from 1965 to 1969 gives an account of what happened - he was there: "It Took a Partnership." I understood the "fairytale" comment from former Pres. Clinton to mean, Sen. Obama’s comparison of speaking out against the war versus Sen. Clinton‘s voting for it, was a fairytale given that once in the Senate, his votes mirrored hers. He, in my opinion, wanted the senator to drop the "fairytale" and tell the people the whole truth – me too. I'd have respected him immensely for that. Since he wasn't yet in the Senate for the vote, with no access to the erroneous information to which Congress was privy, making a comparison at all was like comparing apples and oranges. But to then vote in tandem with her on all war issues, once elected to Congress, makes what he’s telling the American people very disingenuous. And I don’t respect him at all for that. Here's a very long, yet interesting article written by Sean Wilentz, entitled "Race Man." It further illustrates how racism has been employed by the Obama campaign to paint Sen. Clinton with that ugly brush. And before anybody jumps on me, I know he's a Clinton supporter, but does that make his points any less true? I’ve had several conversations with Black and white friends and family of mine regarding the “white guilt” thing long before you wrote this piece. Some agree it exists, some don’t. Some say there are whites who feel electing Sen. Obama would finally put to rest the idea that America is racist. To them, I’ve said, “Bad Reason.” That’s just more prettying up a longstanding problem with no real move toward facing and fixing the truth AND it opens the floodgates for some whites who are racist to say, “See, we’re not racist, we elected a Black president” - and then continue to support all of the institutional racism entrenched in our society. Some say, it is time for a Black president. To them, I’ve said, “Thank you Miss Ann for finally deciding it’s time.” When pressed, they say that’s not what they meant and I know it isn’t, just had to let them know what that sounded like without them further supporting their point. They just think that throne is, and always should have been, open to all and feel for the first time, there are others who agree. As for Ms. Ferraro’s statement, I’m not all up in arms. As a woman, I totally agree with her. Men have historically and consistently found ways to minimize and marginalize the role of women in this country if we’re honest. Blacks got the right to vote long before women did! I believe that’s where she was trying to go with the statement."

"Real Time with Bill Maher" is Real Time for Hillary Clinton

Just finished watching Real Time with Bill Maher and though I'm really not into the "vote for the Black guy because I'm Black or vote for the woman because I'm a woman" meme, one thing I know is true - we women have lived in a patriarchy all our lives in America and I'm sick and damned tired of it. Bill's guests tonight were actor Adam Goldberg, NPR's broadcast and digital media journalist Farai Chideya (whose show, "News & Notes" I absolutely love!), Joe "Morning Joe" Scarborough, Real Time correspondent Jeremy Scahill and via satellite, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe. As I watched the panelists and Bill discuss the election and Iraq (great clip and insight from Scahill on this), I bristled every time Farai tried to make a point. Though she had been invited, presumably because she had something of value to offer to the conversation, the men acted like she did not even exist. On several occasions, she tried (to no avail) to politely interrupt Scarborough's patronizing lecture about what was happening in the election or what was going on in Iraq, by saying over and over again, "Excuse me, I just have to say..." - at least, not until she finally said forcefully to Scarborough, "No! You listen!" at which point Adam Goldberg dryly interjected, "I was told at the pre-interview, there would be no yelling." I could not help but equate what I was seeing to the Democratic race for the nomination. Like Sen. Clinton, Farai is an engaging, talented and intelligent woman. Like Farai, she's often forced to say, "No! You listen!" to the patriarchal, condescending American media (which, by the way, includes a sprinkling of women like Maureen Dowd or The Washington Post's insufferable, guest columnist, Charlotte Allen who feel they have to grab their proverbial "balls" and insult other women in order to be "one of the boys" or work out some deep, Electra complex childhood wounds) and even Sen. Obama himself. I totally agree with essayist and author, Katha Pollitt in her rebuttal (to Ms. Allen's self-hating opinion piece in the Post), "Dumb and Dumber: An Essay and Its Editors" In it, she said, "Misogyny is the last acceptable prejudice, and nowhere more so than in our nation's clueless and overwhelmingly white-male-controlled media. . . ." Sen. Clinton is repeatedly lambasted by both the mainstream media and Obama supporters whenever she holds her ground or actually goes on the offensive against the senator from Illinois. It seems she's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. I'm sure she's sick and damned tired of it too.

The Ohio Debate - Men Still Behaving Badly

Watching the Democratic debate in Ohio, I could not help but think, "Here we go again, yet another exercise in men behaving badly." I don't know why, but I expected better of Brian Williams. Tim Russert, not so much - though he did surprise me in appearing to break up the media "love fest" by asking Sen. Obama a couple pointed questions - never mind the answers were predictable. What was with all the video clips of Sen. Clinton? Could they at least have shown an equal amount of Sen. Obama? They seemed to intentionally present them to evoke an image of a woman too "temperamental," rather than one who'd reacted honestly to some political machinations by the Obama campaign. While the moderators gave Sen. Obama more than ample time to eloquently dodge the Minister Farrakhan question until Sen. Clinton momentarily backed him into a corner (with a wink and a nod, he finally "rejected" the minister's endorsement, reassuring the Jewish community he was no under-cover anti-Semite), they repeatedly cut Sen. Clinton off time and time again, particularly during her health care explanations on which she is head-and-shoulders above the senator from Illinois. Luckily for Sen. Obama, there are far less people concerned with appearing sexist in this country than appearing racist.