Chas Freeman Jr.

"The name Chas Freeman Jr. has been "floated" in the media as President Obama's selection for Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, the intelligence community's primary big-think shop and the lead U.S. governmental body in producing national intelligence estimates. For the last dozen years, Freeman, the former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, has been President of the Middle East Policy Council (formally known as the American Arab Affairs Council) a Lobbying group for the Arab World. One of the groups primary functions is to Publish a quarterly journal called Middle East Policy. The Journal is filled with anti-Israel messages that are beyond even the broadest definition of mainstream of U.S. thinking on the region. As the President of the the organization responsible for this Journal, who's viciousness and willing to show bias, the appointment of Freeman as a gatekeeper for U.S. Intelligence is a very disturbing matter."

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-proposed-spy-chief-publishes.html

www.flickr.com

post feminism in the NYTimes

porn is what is considered obscene. you can have willing porn. don't believe the 70s and Gloria Steinem. all those experiments were lacking the proper axioms for truth. I've read the book by David copp and Susan Wendell. they aren't objective stats at all. did you read the post feminist article in the NYTimes last month. pretty much throws all those lies out. most of the stats that claim the mental distress from porn is based on the idea that it causes pain in both genders. that is a lie. it is relaxing to many. it causes a loss of status for women... but soap operas do the same to men. the final finding from those Copp/Wendell studies were based on levels of aggression towards women. it also claims that women also feel aggressive to other women from watching porn. but what it fails to mention is the cause of the female aggression is different then the cause of male. men might be more likely to be dominant after watching a display of this... but the aggression that women feel is their..

"...maybe the value is the fact that feminism doesn't value women to begin with? a thought? why must the tyrannical theoretical religion of Gloria Steinem not be questioned? maybe the girls really are different then men. maybe their value really is proportional to their sexual nature and possession. why must these asshole feminists be so judgmental? ironically gender theory is about to reach the same paradox that communism did. that our nature is not the problem. the problem is in not understanding the dignity in the parts. our failure is in hating the roles we play. so sad that these gender thugs have not come to terms with the social engineering they have committed."

it is true that viewing domination causes the audience to be dominant, but it is also true that to not be appreciated for your traits causes feelings of anger. should I not appreciate a women's beauty? androgyny causes negative violence. masculine domination on the other hand can be liberating for heterosexuals


wasn't that what I've been saying for 20 years?