 |
|
|
I'd like to commission an artist to draw the following scene: A blond woman is shot and hung in front of a book store. People throw copies of Danielle Steele books at her while other onlookers ponder the meaning of it all. You might think that I have a problem with Ms. M., but you'd be wrong. She said the following in one of her entries: "I might as well be shot and hung in front of the nearest book store/coffee shop. People can throw copies of Danielle Steele at me while others may ponder the meaning of it all." I can't remember the context of this at all. 0 scrawls at the end of this hallThe look: The feel: The taste: ________________________ Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2003 - 12:31 p.m. - Gem of the day: Read this, particularly the one March 21 entry. Very well said. 0 scrawls at the end of this hallThe look: The feel: The taste: ________________________ Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2003 - 10:22 a.m. Breastfeeding: An Act of War The U.S. has done it again. A woman was considered a security threat for breastfeeding in a time of war. This is one of the most offensively bizarre things I have heard of yet since the U.S. started curtailing rights, ignoring international laws and so on in the Bush Administration. This is so disgusting on so many levels. Some highlights: She says that "her 'subversive' actions led to her being threatened with detainment, RCMP involvement and legal charges for terrorist action against a U.S. citizen in international airspace while on an American flight during a time of war." Oh, yes, the sainted American citizen. It gets better, though. Some guy takes offense to her breastfeeding on the plane. Okay, while I strongly disagree with the guy, at least I can see where he is coming from. It makes him uncomfortable. This means, though, that she would have to suffer some rather unpleasant and potentially unsafe conditions, because if anyone complains, she has to move. She had every reason NOT to move, as outlined in the article. She says the man got out of his seat, walked over to hers and stood staring at her. She says she approached him afterward and twice asked if he had a problem with her feeding her son. Sounds pretty tame to me. And then: "He marched past me and to the very back of the cabin to talk to the flight attendant," she wrote. "He told her, 'This woman just assaulted me.' ... He then explained that the asking of two questions by a 'foreign national' in international airspace made him feel the victim of terror and as such he wanted to file an assault charge." Assaulted? Und dann: She says the flight attendants also began to call her and her travelling party "foreign nationals in international airspace on an international flight during a time of war." Sounds like a terrorist when you put it that way, doesn't it? She was facing criminal charges for an act of war upon an American. How can this NOT imply that Americans are worth more than non-Americans? It is written. He says that she became "verbally aggressive with another customer on board while in the airplane's aisle." Yeah, sure she did. Anyway, she has a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to care for her son, none of which matter in the U.S. during a "time of war", as though people are being massacred by armies in New York and Boston right now. It offends me that there even needs to be this law, both in Canada and for the UN. Of COURSE people should be allowed to care for their own children (in normal ways, I guess, there are always some crazies out there). What's most disturbing is that she actually had to capitulate to this crap. She had to sign a document promising that she would neither break Continental's rules about such things, nor speak to American passengers. You can't speak to American passengers on a plane if you are a "foreign national" folks. Can't do it, for that means that you are a threat to the homeland. This is sickening. You know what? People like to say that we should support troops who fight and die so that WE can enjoy the freedoms we have. I don't know any military people, but I think that I can generalize a little here: THEY DID NOT GO AND DIE SO THAT WOMEN CAN GET HARASSED AS A SECURITY THREAT FOR BREASTFEEDING. THEY DIDN'T DIE SO THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO AMERICANS. This type of thing makes a mockery of their sacrifice, and anyone who believes in such sacrifices should be righteously pissed off. And why IS it so offensive to breastfeed when Hooters is allowed to have its own airline? What the fuck is that all about?? I really want some feedback here. Show this to your friends and your enemies alike. 2 scrawls at the end of this hallThe look: pretty fucking indignant The feel: annoyed The taste: bitter ________________________ |
The Latest
|