Life has been so incredibly busy that three dirty words experienced a stasis. But, assuming I can get the dyke trophy wife on board, three dirty words might soon experience a premature awakening due to global warming.

gw.

But is "yes" the right answer?

This joke used to be funny to me when I had this idealistic view that the 90's Aids Awareness boom had caused people to really put safe sex into practice. Now, I'm not so sure.

At work, I happened to be reading this GQ article asking, "Who's practicing safe sex anymore?" and it scared me. The opening shot related a particular grou of professionals who bragged about their unsheathed sexual exploits. One man said something to the effect that the only thing that's really ever asked is, "Are you on the Pill?" and only after penetration has already occurred. Another male said that contracting STDs was no big deal, because most of them could be cured with a shot anyway. What disturbed me is that a couple of these men were in health professions.

But what about the ones that can't be cured with a shot? As a black female, I'm concerned about this seemingly lackadaisical attitude towards unsafe sex, because my demographic happens to be at highest risk for HIV and AIDS in this country. Most people are uninformed to this fact because it doesn't directly affect them, and a lot of people really don't see this as a potential pandemic. But if a doctor is not the least bit concerned about contracting The Clap, who's going to take the initiative to bring awareness to black women, and everyone for that matter, regarding the dangers of unsafe sex?

To add insult to injury, one of my coworkers told me about a news article concerning a dating website for people with STDs called Positive Singles. Now, I'm typically not judgmental as to what circumstances people face, but the website seems a bit tongue-in-cheek--besides its seeming attempt to allow infectees (sorry if that sounds harsh) to have normal, "positive" (a double entendre, perhaps?) dating lives, is it also sending mixed messages that add to the casual stance towards practicing safe sex?

If the men in that article I read, as well as the crop of "positive" dating sites, are any indication towards a shift in concern for our sexual health--and not just in the exercise of healthy sexual desire, but in the risks associated with it--then I fear what this regression is going to teach younger children.

Whatever the answer is, please remember that your Butterfly Position potentially has a Butterfly effect.

Danger Snatch is moving to NYC, so she won't be around until she gets settled.
the dyke trophy wife promises to keep the good posts coming, like the one below.

Go.

...more unrest in the Middle East. Big surprise.

After my diligent surfing of BBC's Have Your Say (which should be changed to BBC's Express Your Disdain For America-The EU Edition), I noticed that many more people seem less up in arms about Israel's aggression and more upset about the US's failure to intervene.

People are calling for the US to intervene, when they disliked our invasion of Iraq and dislike what is perceived to be an increasing separatist attitude in UN involvement--one Irish reader said that "Bush is to the UN what Tony Blair is to the EU"--both hindering some sort of global progress. I, for one, didn't agree with the Iraq invasion and I'm still tentative to comment on our involvement in the UN pending further observation, but the world needs to decide if they want us meddling in their business or not.

What can anyone really say that will make us look better in the grand scheme of things? This is another circumstance where we, the American people, become synecdochic of our faulty government (sometimes, when I hear comments about how "bad" we are for not doing shit, I perceive the European complainers to have an expectation of each citizen of the US gather a pitchfork, torch, and/or laser-shooting Sidekick II, board a jet [preferably British Airways--they serve good booze on board], and go over to stop the aggression).
True, innocent people are dying, but I don't see logic (only wishy-washy attitudes) in the castigation of our government for choosing not to hurtle itself headlong into another Middle Eastern dispute, especially when it ostensibly has nothing to do with us. Didn't we take a lot of deserved shit for this before? People just seem to want to blame the US for any aggression, whether it be legitimate because of our preemptive measures, or unfounded because of our failure to act (yet).

First and foremost, I'm all about peace. But when it comes to expectations of the United States as a world power, I'm tired of the blowing hot/cold on each issue (especially from the Brits, whom I love but drive me insane. They are quick to villify Mr. Blair in his support of the Iraq invasion, his adherence to Bush's foreign policies, and his "lack of putting pressure on Bush to do something about the Israel/Hezbollah conflict." Heaven forbid, though, that a smarmy American associates them with that horrible excuse of a leader. How dare one judge all Brits' political beliefs in foreign policy by one man and his administration. The nerve.)

Treat us like the Lex Luthor of the world, or heap a Superman complex upon us. Just pick a side and stop being fickle.

Sorry, folks. The Muse of Blogdom left us for a bit.
Hopefully, we'll be back to regular posting.

During the 2004 election, there were smear campaigns galore--the election became less about who would do a good job for the country and more about whose PR team was more efficient. Needless to say, as an American I was less than enthused about the candidates I was being forced to choose between:
A) a jingoistic, excuse-mongering incumbent with a deceptive War Cabinet and a pithy vendetta against Sadaam Hussein,
B) a smarmy, equivocal, rest-on-his-laurels politician whose resemblance to a Bassett Hound no less than foreshadowed his non-charismatic stance on important issues; or
C) The Ruiner of Close Elections, Mr. Nader himself.
(NOTE: I'm disregarding the lower profile candidates, because in bipartisan politics it seems almost ludicrous to regard them as worth having a shot at the Presidency.)

On top of that, stupid celebrities were wasting their breaths trying to get more people to vote. I saw commercials featuring Jennifer Aniston, the epitome of modern feminism, who urged me to take a stand as an unmarried woman and vote. P. Diddy threatened to murder me if I didn't make my way to an election booth, as he has ways of knowing who didn't show up.

One thing that struck me about the celebrities' ploys to appeal to the masses was a common saying, which was slightly altered but bore the same message:

"It doesn't matter who you vote for--just get out there and vote."

I'm sure that seemed innocent enough in all its electorally-minded zeal to most people, but to me (who tries to read subversion in almost everything), it struck some fascinating thought: Does it really matter who I vote for?

I'm convinced that (light conspiracy theory alert) there's something central at the hub of American politics and has been since the formation of such ideologies as neoconservatism (which I hear from many theorists are the centralization). There's so much debate as to what exactly neoconservatism dwells on (James Bryce wrote about the concept in Modern Democracies in 1921, and the notion has been argued about ever since). It's one of those things that extreme leftists are permitted to write about so the status quo takes their ranting for granted, and later the more "rational" (but probably right-affiliated) documentarians provide "solid evidence" refuting the existence of such a breed.

I'm not sure what the breeding grounds for neoconservative ideals are, but the more I learn of the associations and similarities between our presidential candidates, the more I'm convinced that American bipartisan politics is a cleverly-crafted, quasi-ideological demagoguery by whoever's running things around here, neocons or otherwise. It seems we're so caught up with the divisions of Red and Blue (which, if we really look at, are highly superficial) that we ignore the fact that both colors stem from the same spectrum.

If environment plays such a large role in the shaping of people (and it does), can it be possible for men to attend the same (or similar) institutions of higher learning, to have served in the same administrations under varying leadership, to reputedly belong to the same societies (e.g. Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg Group, Freemasons--I'm not going into the theories behind these groups, though), to share similar religious/spiritual beliefs and yet be so radically different in thought? If we really looked at the underpinnings beneath the major candidates we're expected to choose from, would we find that they're really so different after all?

So, does it really matter who we vote for?

This is how I'm supposed to feel about myself in the public forum, aren't I?

I've always felt this sense that "foreigners hate me by default" ever since George W. declared his war on terrorism. It becomes painfully obvious to me every time I read a forum in which a European interjects in an otherwise relatively playful manner of confrontation by pointing out how "stupid" Americans are. I became even more aware of this throughout my support of the FIFA World Cup (no, I'm not a bandwagoneer--I've loved football/soccer for a long time and was prevented from playing it because my parents felt that my time was better spent in other activities). I've heard and read sentiments about the USA's participation in the event. People found a way to make comments about football snide and hurtful--these weren't just cheap shots against opposing teams.
I became upset by words that shouldn't have hurt me.

I was born and raised in this country. I generally do love this place, although at this point we are sorely wanting for improvement in many aspects. We always have and always will. I hate that I can't have pride in my country without being labeled as a "jingoistic Bush-supporter" by someone who doesn't have the remotest idea of how my life works, what my political motivations are, or the fact that I may be human just like them.

I love the world. I love to travel and experience new cultures. But I hate that the world--including many of our own citizens--is now viewing anti-American sentiment as fashionable, when many of them have never even met an American, much less gotten to know one. It frustrates me to no end that I have to feel ashamed of my nationality when I travel abroad for fear of being labeled as a "typical American."

Speaking of which, when is any foreigner going to accurately describe a "typical American"? There are 300 million of us to date. We're mothers, sons, daughters, fathers just like them. We work day-to-day to make a living, just like them. We cry about relationships, just like them. We want to be better people, and we want a better world, just like them. But there are so many of us that it's impossible to pin down one commonality except for the fact that we're American. It's as if they have total disregard for the fact that the nature of this country is fettered with a racial and cultural heterology that can't be erased, and that people of their very culture helped to shape the demographics. Dare I reiterate that there are 300 million of us?

Everyone blames me for electing George W. Bush. Whether I voted for him or not, I am not the sole cause of his being elected into office; regardless, I'm made to feel that way every time a foreigner looks down their noses at me. I used to just believe that this hatred was politically fueled, but I'm terribly mistaken. Even if I rationally discuss my political views (which I can do without slandering my country) and even bring up the general argument that George W.'s approval rate is an all-time low (including the entire presidency), they find ways to attack my way of life otherwise:

1. "You must be a Southern bible thumper." Foreigners are quick to generalize that Americans are hyper-religious; ironically, a few of those nations have sanctioned religions whereas the United States has none (e.g. the Church of England, the Church of Sweden). Further, many foreign countries have people with notably strong beliefs; for example, France and Italy are both supremely Catholic, but we don't attack their abritrary degrees of exercising their faith. So why do Americans (regardless of whether I agree with their fervor or not--I'm not religious but was raised Christian) face skepticism? Because they're American.

2. "You're fat and lazy." I am neither fat nor lazy. I lead a very active life. I'll admit that I did get trapped in fast food for a while while writing a thesis, but my life doesn't revolve around it. Again, because we're Americans and there are more of us, we get pinpointed--and with cheap shots, nonetheless. People I know may not exercise on a daily basis, and they may not be a size double zero, but we're constantly busy. Besides, many other countries have certainly embraced McDonald's wholeheartedly--but of course, our forceful influence is to blame and not their willingness to adopt the Golden Arches.
(NOTE: If I use the argument that all Americans are not fat and lazy, someone tells me, "Americans work too much and are too obsessed with looking good." )

3. "Americans don't care about anyone else but themselves." Well, we've kind of been forced into that corner. We're not allowed to share in the affairs of other countries without facing provocation just because of our nationality, so we have to make do with what we have and keep to ourselves. We've been put into a bad position where, if we did try to help, people would just perceive us as engaging in manhandling (see number four). More people I've talked to than not are either perfectly willing to experience culture outside of the US (and have and do on a regular basis, myself included), or have trepidation about traveling abroad because of how they fear being perceived. We're accused of being bullies, but we're being bullied into keeping to ourselves.

4. "The US is always sticking its nose in other people's business." Our government may be, but Americans on the whole (well, at least the region where I'm from) keep out of other people's business. On a less serious note, we're chastised for "celebrity worship," for wanting to know everything about our famed A-list stars, while people across the pond are allowed to have The Sun and OK!, and Hello! and celebrities like Jordan and Jodie Marsh.

I can't help but think that people worldwide hate us just because it's in fashion and not for any legitimate reason anymore. We're being held accountable for sins that a lot of us didn't sanction, and the world is crying for us to pony up and make amends, but no one wants to give us the chance. We are a flawed country, but each of us, all 300 million of us, are red-blooded humans who deserve as much criticism as foreigners are willing to give themselves. Jesus is attributed with saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." In that case, it seems there are a lot of spotless people, and nations, on earth.

So if I have to remain a world's outcast for being tainted amongst a world of perfection, I'll be the Pearl to my country's Hester Prynne and take a scarlet O for the team. To corrupt a saying by Martin Luther, "America is a whore, but she is my mother."

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin made headlines after he kissed a young child--on the stomach, of all places.



CNN quotes Putin:
"People came up and I began talking to them, among them this little boy. He seemed to me very independent, sure of himself and at the same time defenseless so to speak, an innocent boy and a very nice little boy."

"I tell you honestly, I just wanted to touch him like a kitten and that desire of mine ended in that act."

Is this the Russian equivalent of a neocon having vanilla sex with his wife while imagining a hot buggery session with the lawn boy?


Putin kissed boy 'like a kitten' (CNN International)