• He was a lying sack of something when he made that statement in ’71, not because the statement wasn’t good, but because it wasn’t anything near his real values, but a ploy to catapult himself into the limelight as the “leader” of something, in this case Vietnam Vets Against the War. As soon as he got entrenched inside the Beltway he jettisoned any “against the war” sentiment to pursue a full force support the Imperial State agenda.

    I am ashamed of myself that I was fooled by the LOTE argument in ’04 and voted for the sack of something.

  • LibWingofLibWing commented on the diary post 53 Palestinians, 0 Israelis Die in Air and Missile Strikes … by fairleft.

    2014-07-09 23:49:48View | Delete

    “Re Palestine, I don’t think they want a little piece, iirc the Hamas charter still explicitly calls for the total annihilation of Israel, or did the last time I read it a couple of years ago.” I support the end of Israel too. The problem is that too many people act like holding that point [...]

  • LibWingofLibWing commented on the diary post In Search of a Good War by David Swanson.

    2014-05-05 23:59:24View | Delete

    The fact that the American public doesn’t want war is irrelevant to those who do want war, the elite who want control of resources. This article claims war does nothing good for the aggressors, which is true if you mean the people of the nation that is the aggressor. But war isn’t intended to profit [...]

  • Yes. That was one of the points the pro-legalization folk made. That, like the draconian DUI laws, make it so the long lasting continuance of THC make recreational users subject to anti-weed penalties long after usage.

  • I live in Washington State.

    There are lots of problems with out law.

    1) It gives counties and cities too much regulation power so a conservative county can basically make it too difficult for growers.

    2) We have a DUI law that uses blood levels, which is totally irrelevant as far as impairment is concerned. Basically, since levels remain high for a long time, anyone who ever uses somewhat regularly will always fail a blood test even if they haven’t used for days. Reform now means not using blood tests to prove impairment but actual behavior that indicates it.

    3) To open a shop that sales it you have to apply for a license and there are so many available so they take the applications and then whittle them down. That would be okay EXCEPT the application has a very high fee AND you have to already have your place of business set up but it can’t be adding on to another business. So you can’t have a little shop that sells pipes and bongs, which already was legal, and then seek to sell weed or have a shop that sells gourmet tobacco and apply to sell weed. You got to invest in a new business, get a new shop space and then shell out hordes of money all with a very small chance you’ll win the lottery.

    4) You can’t use in public. It’s legal to own and use, but if you’re on an empty beach with some friends and you light up you are breaking the law.

    5) You can’t grow your own. Yes, This is a biggie as Jon points out. But home growers are doing it anyway, just like they did before it was legal.

    (By the way, I’m not a user, just an advocate.)

  • LibWingofLibWing commented on the blog post Late Night: Crappy Anniversary

    2014-03-21 01:25:32View | Delete

    I remember that the polls said 20 percent of the USA opposed the war. I remember arguing in a blog that was a very high number at the beginning of a war that supposedly was so popular. I remember saying that I doubted 20 percent opposed Vietnam when the Gulf of Tonkin resolution happened or the Korean War or WW2 or WW1 started. I remember saying that if 20 percent opposed it before it even started how long will it take before the majority of the USA is against it.

    But the Bill Kristols still get their pundit pulpits and I and the other 20 percent get to post comments in a few blogs.

  • It was never about pleasing the GOP; it always was about what Obama and his people wanted.

  • Is there a strike? If so then Ed can bluster all he wants about supporting the union, but if he keeps working for MSNBC instead of going on strike, then he’s just hot air.

  • My friend is fatigued, but she won’t give in and take a pea; she sees her day in court as part of the action.

  • What is going on with legal issues for those arrested for involvment in Occupy? Our Occupy movement here in Bellingham, Washington had an action to occupy the railroad tracks to protest building a coal terminal here at Cherry Point to ship coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to China, which would have meant a steady stream of coal trains through out little city. One of my friends was arrested two years ago now for this action and she is still waiting for her court date.

  • I love the people in the FRC. You see I am Christian and I do know who are my enemies. Since Jesus tells me to love my enemies that means I have to love the folk in the FRC. It’s very difficult to love people like that who hate me.

  • But Helen accepts and affirms her being a Lesbian. This write up makes it seem like the story was Jessica’s with Helen only the situation, but I recall it being about both women.

  • “Nirvana’s success on Geffen Records, coupled Cobain’s turbulent life with wife Courtney Love and subsequent suicide have made him a rock and roll an-hero.”

    Nope. It was only the music. His marriage and his death didn’t make him a hero. Just his music.

  • LibWingofLibWing commented on the diary post How to Build a National Security Blowback Machine by Tom Engelhardt.

    2013-09-18 22:26:15View | Delete

    Mr. Englehart, if you appreciate so much what Chelsea Manning has done, why then do you delegate her name and true gender to a parenthesis and then misgender her throughout the rest of the article? Why is it so difficult to respect her for whom she is? It seems there are two circles. Inside one [...]

  • LibWingofLibWing commented on the blog post Thoughts On Chelsea Manning’s Coming Out

    2013-08-27 12:28:07View | Delete

    “Looks like my diary has plenty of mistakes…”

    I didn’t see any mistakes.

    But first let me say that that story of Fred is very sad. All across our nation Trans people are vulnerable to violence and murder. We are mistreated, maligned and made fun of, but that all dissolves into comparative insignificance compared to how we are killed. According to TruthOut, “A recent report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs found that 50 percent of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) murders in 2009 and 44 percent of LGBT murders in 2010 were of transgender women.” When you consider that Transgender people are, according to some latest statistics make up only 8% of the LGBT population it becomes very clear we are the targets of hate.

    Two things make this even worse. First is that often the police ignore this problem.

    Second is that it is specifically poorer Trans women of color, like Fred, who are the main victims. We have four marginalized groups intersecting into one population that is the most marginalized in our culture: Women, Transgender, the Poor and People of Color.

    Now back to your diary. As I said I didn’t see anything I’d think was an error in it. Remember I affirm that there is a status of Transgender. Two Spirits in the past would not have had the medical means to physically change sex, so they’d be the same thing as a one current usage of Transgender, people who transform their gender identity/attribution but don’t fully change their sex. Also, I do admit that we have the term as an umbrella term. I prefer using the term Transsexual for me and for discussions of physically changing sex, but I often use the term Transgender when talking about the entire community because it is the umbrella term. More and more, though, I find myself using Trans as the umbrella term because it implies that we are talking about Transsexuals and Trans(form)genders and Trans(cend)genders.

    Wendy, I appreciate you and what you have written. Thank you.

  • LibWingofLibWing commented on the blog post Thoughts On Chelsea Manning’s Coming Out

    2013-08-25 15:06:05View | Delete

    After I posted this I noticed some errors and I tried to edit it and only minutes after posting it I got a notice saying my time to edit had expired. Strange.

    Any way, most of them don’t keep the intent from being clear.

    But, “I don’t see why the Transgender community then don’t see how their adopting the same argument somehow justifies their right to live as who they are,” really should read, “I don’t see why the Transgender community then doesn’t see how their adopting the same argument DOESN’T justify their right to live as who they are.”

  • LibWingofLibWing commented on the blog post Thoughts On Chelsea Manning’s Coming Out

    2013-08-25 14:55:32View | Delete

    I prefer Transsexual for a number of reasons. You see when Virginia Prince coined the term “transgender” she coined it to indicate people who self consciously weren’t Transsexual, that is they did NOT want to change any of their physical sex but wanted to adopt the social roles of their target sex, usually only part time.

    This was an attempt to change the language that had been used for her and others like her- Transvestite, which was a fancy, Latin way of saying “cross dresser.’

    Prince was part of a growing culture of straight men who enjoyed cross dressing, wanted to include it in their public lives and escape the stigma of it being a sexual fetish. Transvestite was used as part of a psychiatric diagnosis for those who did have a sexual fetish around cross dressing, i.e. their sexual arousal was dependent on wearing clothes of the opposite sex. Not only did Prince invent the term Transgender to replace Transvestite, she also created a social organization that eventually became Tri-Ess, the Society for the Second Self, the largest social organization in the nation for straight men who cross dress and their wives.

    This original idea of Transgender continues to have strong impact on the usage. First it distinguishes between the physical sex and their gender, which actually was an existing idea but not in the way it came to be understood in Transgender thinking.

    You see originally gender meant masculinity or femininity. It did not mean identity of being a man or a woman. Man was just another term for male humans and woman another term for female humans. Man/Woman then was on the sex side of the difference between sex and gender.

    This became more complicated when some Transgender people wanted to adopt their target gender not as a second self but full time. So they were saying they wanted to change from being a man to being a woman, or vice versa, without change from being male to female or vice versa. This was of course a big departure of the original idea of gender is the social sciences, but they were still availing themselves of the social sciences’ understanding that gender is a social construct. But of course the social sciences meant masculinity and femininty, not where one is a man or a woman. Then this became even more complicated when some self identified Transgender people wanted to do some medical intervention, but not a full transition. In other words they were in part Transsexual, in part changing the sex of their body, but they still eschewed the idea that they were pursing sex change. In fact through their influence the term “sex change” became an unpopular term. They rejected the term Transsexual even though they were changing sex in some ways.

    Their argument, which I suspect is the one impacting you in this discussion, was that Transsexual was understood to be about having sex not about which sex one was. They argued that Homosexual is a term about identity around having sex and so Transsexual must be similar. They wanted to state it’s not about having sex, after all they were straight men who wanted to escape the idea that their cross dressing had anything to do with a sexual fetish, they wanted to emphasize that their sexual activity was just ‘normal’ heterosexual sex with their wives. what they wanted to do was change their social role.

    On the other hand those who didn’t want to fully change sex, that is they wanted to keep their original assigned sex’s genitals, wanted to live as the sex they identified with and yet remain genitally the sex they had been assigned. We’re not talking about people who would if they could, but they can’t afford it or other medical reasons keep them from doing so. We’re talking about people who would still opt out even if it was free and magical- you just go to your doctor who waves a magic Harry Potter wand over you and POW you have your target sex’s primary sexual organs.

    Yet they wanted to be able to change their being a man or a woman to the other one. So they put man/woman on the gender side instead of the sex side.

    Now I suppose I’d be comfortable with this when Transgender then became the umbrella term for what before had been Transsexuals and Transgenders if it hadn’t continued to have the connotations it had before the adoption of it as an umbrella term and if it also hadn’t had another development. That was a move away from the ‘trans’ being about ‘the other side’ to it being about ‘transcending.’ More and more the Transgender activists, is the people who didn’t want to fully change sex, began to argue that they didn’t really want cross over to the other side, they began to argue that they were ‘transcending’ the distinction between men and women to be something else.

    What this means is that the term “Transgender” has THREE usages:

    1) The umbrella term that is supposed to include me
    2) The term that describes those who want to change their social identification but don’t want to change their sex fully, which doesn’t include me.
    3) The term that describes those who want to transcend the distinction between man/woman and don’t want to be either, which doesn’t include me.

    It is not a good umbrella term for these reasons. It leads to misunderstanding. It implies that everyone who is “Transgender” is the same. It leads to the understanding that my identification as being a woman is not a part of my physical nature, the sexual structure of my brain, but is entirely a social construct. I have a major problem with this social construct thing. Those who assert it assert it as if it justifies their freedom to be who they want to be, but they are wrong. If being a man or a woman is entirely a social construct then that actually implies that once could reconstruct themselves to fit into society’s norms. This was the mistake of Dr. John Money who thought he could play god and reassign a boy as a girl after a botched surgery near birth and he’d just be socially constructed as a girl. But it didn’t work. Our identities as boy/man or girl/woman are not social constructs, any more than our sexual orientations are. Those who want to do ‘reparative therapy’ on Homosexuals people and ‘cure’ them are operating under the idea that our sexual orientation is a social construct and not an innate part of our being and that those who are not heterosexual just got misconstructed and can be reconstructed to fit the norm. This is a horrid argument. I don’t see why the Transgender community then don’t see how their adopting the same argument somehow justifies their right to live as who they are.

    We’re stuck with the term as an umbrella term. It goes the other way in creating misunderstand too. People think if someone is Transgender that they are Transsexual and they assume someone who is Transsexual wants/needs genital surgery. Thus people in blogs all over the internet are angry at Chelsea and blasting away that they don’t want their tax dollars paying for her operation. But Manning has indicated anything about whether she wants surgery.

    Manning, however, has indicated she wants hormone therapy. She does want to change aspects of her sex, male v. female, in her body. She wants to change her hormones. We don’t call them gender hormones. We call them sexual hormones. She wants to go from the male hormones controlling her endocrinology to female ones doing so. She wants the secondary sexual characteristics that result from our hormones to change too. She wants to change her now male secondary sexual characteristics to female secondary characteristics. We don’t all those ‘secondary gender characteristics.’

    I think it is vital to distinguish between four things:

    1) Our sexual orientation: homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual
    2) Our physical sex: male/intersex/female
    3) Our gender identity and attribution (as it is used by the Transgender community): man/gender queer/woman
    4) Gender; (as original defined in the social sciences): masculine/androgynous/feminine

    Transgender has to do with the third category and is about changing where one is on that spectrum.

    Transsexual has to do with the second category and is about changing the physical aspects of one sex.

    I find that for those of us who are changing our physical being so we are congruent, making more of our sex match our brain’s sex, the term Transsexual is better than Transgender.

    Of course I will use whatever term an individual wants for their own self labeling. But in discussing this issue in theoretical terms, I find Transsexual more appropriate.

  • LibWingofLibWing commented on the diary post Manning’s Biggest Revelation of All by Nat Parry.

    2013-08-25 13:52:49View | Delete

    Well, I hope you can forgive me for trying to nudge you. :)

  • LibWingofLibWing commented on the blog post Thoughts On Chelsea Manning’s Coming Out

    2013-08-25 02:39:52View | Delete

    Well, let me as a Transsexual woman, who is a licensed mental health counselor who helps Trans people with their transition, join the conversation and see if I can help clarify things a bit.

    “Until recently, I though it meant someone who had the means to change their gender by surgical means in order to match the one they, for reasons admittedly totally incomprehensible to this old, straight and male barbarian, thought they should be.

    Recent months have learned me. Apparently, one is transgender if one merely FEELS that one should be the other gender.”

    Sex is the spectrum of male and female. It is not a single spectrum, however. It has components. Some of these are chromosomes, gonads, genitals, other reproductive system parts, bone structure, secondary sexual characteristics and brain structure.

    The sexual here is NOT sexual orientation, but sex as described in the above paragraph. “Trans” means “the other side,” the way it used to be used by the Romans to describe Gaul. There was Transalpine Gaul that was on the other side of the Alps from Rome and Cisalpine Gaul, the Po Valley, that was on the same side of the Alps as Rome.

    Transsexual, then, had to do with one’s sex being on the other side from one’s original assigned sex. It thus meant change. Not all aspects of sex could be changed, but a lot could.

    Thus Transsexual indicated one who had changed as much of his or her sex as possible or was in the process of doing that.

    But then what do you call someone who needs/wants to do that but hasn’t yet? Well, the accepted consensus is that these people are Transsexuals too, just ones that haven’t yet started the process of changing, which we call transition, which is not just medical changes but also social changes. Many of these social changes had to do with dress, manner and presentation, including name and which pronouns are used.

    Meanwhile research on Transsexuals was discovering something vital. Brain research was finding structural differences in male and female brains and that Transsexuals brain were structured like their target sex, not like their original assigned sex. This added to the idea that Transsexuals who hadn’t yet transitioned, or ever decided yet to do so, were still in fact Transsexual. They had the brain of their target sex no matter what. The identifying that one makes of ‘feeling’ like a man or a woman was due to the actual physical sexual structure of one’s brain.

    It is this realization that lies behind the idea that as soon as one realizes he or she is Transsexual, decides to transition, and announce this, that we join in adopting the new name and pronoun, even though the physical transition hasn’t happened yet. This announcement is the beginning of the social change of transition.

    Here’s a parallel. A homosexual person is still homosexual even before he or she comes out and even before he or she enters into same sex relationships. The orientation is there even before it is acted on, the FEELING it is enough. Once an individual comes out we don’t have to wait for that person to be in a same sex relationship before we identify that person as a gay man or as a lesbian. As soon as a person comes out as Trans, which is due to that individual FEELING inside his or her gender identity and embracing it, we should relate to them as their target gender.

    Making that announcement is a first step. It takes time for individuals to go through the process enough that those encountering them without knowing them will identify them naturally as a members of their target gender. This doesn’t mean we should wait until they reach that point to relate to them according to their target gender. If we accept that Transsexuality is a real dynamic and want to support those Trans people who transition, then we should waste no time in relating to them as members of their target gender. Th.is is helpful for them when they are in a very vulnerable and difficult stage.

  • Load More