Brava's Videos

Loading...

Brava's Search

Loading...

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Blabbing Trump - tiny hands

In his November editor’s letter, Graydon Carter reveals the presidential candidate’s thin-skinned response to a favorite 25-year-old epithet.

BY GRAYDON CARTER

The myriad vulgarities of Donald Trump—examples of which are retailed daily on Web sites and front pages these days—are not news to those of us who have been living downwind of him for any period of time. I first encountered Trump more than 30 years ago. Back then he was a flashy go-getter from an outer borough eager to make his name in Manhattan real estate. Which he succeeded in doing in the only way he knew how: by putting his name in oversize type on anything he was associated with—buildings, yes, but also vodka, golf courses, starchy ties, and even a sham of a real-estate school. Most people who own private planes include their initials as part of the tail number. Not Trump. On his campaign jet, a Boeing 757, his name runs from the cockpit to the wings—in gold letters, 10 feet high.

Like so many bullies, Trump has skin of gossamer. He thinks nothing of saying the most hurtful thing about someone else, but when he hears a whisper that runs counter to his own vainglorious self-image, he coils like a caged ferret. Just to drive him a little bit crazy, I took to referring to him as a “short-fingered vulgarian” in the pages of Spy magazine. That was more than a quarter of a century ago. To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump.

There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers. I almost feel sorry for the poor fellow because, to me, the fingers still look abnormally stubby. The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination. Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: “See, not so short!” I sent the picture back by return mail with a note attached, saying, “Actually, quite short.” Which I can only assume gave him fits.

If Trump is like a feral forest animal on the campaign trail, his Democratic counterpart is a razor clam with a sharp mind and a long memory. They are like matter and anti-matter and really could not be more un-alike. Trump says whatever he wants, takes advice from no one, and so far seems politically unaffected by any of his loathsome boasts and put-downs. Whatever one thinks of Hillary Clinton—and, goodness knows, everyone has an opinion—she knows a lot about government. But she seems to rarely say what she thinks and has surrounded herself with a secretive phalanx of control-freak viziers. At this point, as Vanity Fair’s Sarah Ellison points out, you’d need to apply the famous Turing Test to see if any authentic human “Hillary” can be distinguished from the machine version that has been in development for more than three decades.

In “Fortress Hillary,” Ellison describes the tight-knit group of advisers and surrogates that has grown up around Clinton like a coral reef. It once consisted mainly of women, but now is about evenly split between the genders. Some of them, like Mandy Grunwald and Huma Abedin, have formed part of Clinton’s defensive shield for almost a quarter-century. Hillary Clinton has been embattled ever since she entered public life, sometimes for reasons of her own making (and sometimes not). The wall around her is now high and thick. As Ellison notes, this wall creates its own set of problems—it’s like the Maginot Line.

The State Department e-mail scandal is Exhibit A—the Clintonian zest for prophylactic secrecy is the root cause of the issue that has mired her campaign in the muck of the recent past. The wall also keeps information from getting in. During the dark days of the Whitewater investigation, one adviser told Hillary to stop reading the newspapers—her aides would tell her what she needed to know. How isolated is Clinton? Most of us would find a single day of full-time Secret Service protection to be intolerable. Hillary, Ellison writes, has had it for 23 years. No other recent presidential candidate—not Obama, not Bush, not even Nixon—has been as inaccessible as Hillary has been from day one of her campaign.

What mystifies V.F. columnist Michael Kinsley about Clinton’s opposite in the presidential sweepstakes is how his fellow Republican candidates—and, frankly, the political media—ever allowed him to sprint onto the playing field as if he were a serious candidate, or a serious anything. In business circles, few take him seriously. Even other real-estate developers give him a wide berth. As Kinsley writes in “Fool’s Paradise,” Trump’s opponents’ strategy from the start has been to engage with him, and debate him, on the “issues”: immigration, ISIS, China, health care, taxes—what have you. At a stroke, it elevated Trump to legitimacy. Too late now, but a better strategy would have been to speak the simple truth:

Trump is unqualified for the job by temperament, experience, and character. “That’s why his campaign is a joke,” Kinsley writes, “not the merits or otherwise of his alleged policies.” Fortunes will be lost on bets as to when the wheels on the Donald Trump bandwagon will fall off. He’s certainly lasted longer than his detractors would have initially guessed. He may be giving the American political system the roughing up it so sorely needs, but even the remote possibility that one of those tiny fingers could be within reach of the nuclear hot button should give any sane Republican the chills.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

21 Questions to Donald Trump. By David Cat Johnston

21 Questions for Donald Trump. By David Cay Johnston.

1. You call yourself an “ardent philanthropist,” but have not donated a dollar to The Donald J. Trump Foundation since 2006. You’re not even the biggest donor to the foundation, having given about $3.7 million in the previous two decades while businesses associated with Vince McMahon’s World Wrestling Entertainment gave the Trump Foundation $5 million. All the money since 2006 has come from those doing business with you. How does giving away other people’s money, in what could be seen as a kickback scheme, make you a philanthropist?

2. New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman successfully sued you, alleging your Trump University was an “illegal educational institution” that charged up to $35,000 for “Trump Elite” mentorships promising personal advice from you, but you never showed up and your “special” list of lenders was photocopied from Scotsman Guide, a magazine found at any bookstore. Why did you not show up?

3. You claimed The Learning Annex paid you a $1 million speaking fee, but on Larry King Live,you acknowledged the fee was $400,000 and the rest was the promotional value. Since you have testified under oath that your public statements inflate the value of your assets, can voters use this as a guide, so whenever you say $1, in reality it is only 40 cents?

4. The one-page financial statement handed out at Trump Tower when you announced your candidacy says you’ve given away $102 million worth of land. Will you supply a list of each of these gifts, with the values you assigned to them?

5. The biggest gift you have talked about appears to be an easement at the Palos Verdes, California, golf course bearing your name on land you wanted to build houses on, but that land is subject to landslides and is now the golf course driving range. Did you or one of your businesses take a tax deduction for this land that you could not build on and do you think anyone should get a $25 million tax deduction for a similar self-serving gift?

6. Trump Tower is not a steel girder high rise, but 58 stories of concrete. Why did you use concrete instead of traditional steel girders?

7. Trump Tower was built by S&A Concrete, whose owners were “Fat” Tony Salerno, head of the Genovese crime family, and Paul “Big Paul” Castellano, head of the Gambinos, another well-known crime family. If you did not know of their ownership, what does that tell voters about your management skills?

8. You later used S&A Concrete on other Manhattan buildings bearing your name. Why?

9. In demolishing the Bonwit Teller building to make way for Trump Tower, you had no labor troubles, even though only about 15 unionists worked at the site alongside 150 Polish men, most of whom entered the country illegally, lacked hard hats, and slept on the site. How did you manage to avoid labor troubles, like picketing and strikes, and job safety inspections while using mostly non-union labor at a union worksite — without hard hats for the Polish workers?

10. A federal judge later found you conspired to cheat both the Polish workers, who were paid less than $5 an hour cash with no benefits, and the union health and welfare fund. You testified that you did not notice the Polish workers, whom the judge noted were easy to spot because they were the only ones on the work site without hard hats. What should voters make of your failure or inability to notice 150 men demolishing a multi-story building without hard hats?

11. You sent your top lieutenant, lawyer Harvey I. Freeman, to negotiate with Ken Shapiro, the “investment banker” for Nicky Scarfo, the especially vicious killer who was Atlantic City’s mob boss, according to federal prosecutors and the New Jersey State Commission on Investigation. Since you emphasize your negotiating skills, why didn’t you negotiate yourself?

12. You later paid a Scarfo associate twice the value of a lot, officials determined. Since you boast that you always negotiate the best prices, why did you pay double the value of this real estate?

13. You were the first person recommended for a casino license by the New Jersey Attorney General’s Division of Gaming Enforcement, which opposed all other applicants or was neutral. Later it came out in official proceedings that you had persuaded the state to limit its investigation of your background. Why did you ask that the investigation into your background be limited?

14. You were the target of a 1979 bribery investigation. No charges were filed, but New Jersey law mandates denial of a license to anyone omitting any salient fact from their casino application. Why did you omit the 1979 bribery investigation?

15. The prevailing legal case on license denials involved a woman, seeking a blackjack dealer license, who failed to disclose that as a retail store clerk she had given unauthorized discounts to friends. In light of the standard set for low-level license holders like blackjack dealers, how did you manage to keep your casino license?

16. In 1986 you wrote a letter seeking lenient sentencing for Joseph Weichselbaum, a convicted marijuana and cocaine trafficker who lived in Trump Tower and in a case that came before your older sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry of U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey, who recused herself because Weichselbaum was the Trump casinos and Trump family helicopter consultant and pilot. Why did you do business with Weichselbaum, both before and after his conviction?

17. Your first major deal was converting the decrepit Commodore Hotel next to Grand Central Station into a Grand Hyatt. Mayor Abe Beame, a close ally of your father Fred, gave you the first-ever property tax abatement on a New York City hotel, worth at least $400 million over 40 years. Since you boast that you are a self-made billionaire, how do you rationalize soliciting and accepting $400 million of welfare from the taxpayers?

18. You say that your experience as a manager will allow you to run the federal government much better than President Obama or Hilary Clinton. On Fortune Magazine’s 1999 list of the 496 most admired companies, your casino company ranked at the bottom – worst or almost worst in management, use of assets, employee talent, long-term investment value, and social responsibility. Your casino company later went bankrupt. Why should voters believe your claims that you are a competent manager?

19. Your Trump Plaza casino was fined $200,000 for discriminating against women and minority blackjack dealers to curry favor with gambler Robert Libutti, who lost $12 million, and who insisted he never asked that blacks and women be replaced. Why should we believe you “love” what you call “the blacks” and the enterprise you seek to lead would not discriminate again in the future if doing so appeared to be lucrative?

20. Public records (cited in my book Temples of Chance) show that as your career took off, you legally reported a negative income and paid no income taxes. Will you release your tax returns? And if not, why not?

21. In your first bestselling book, The Art of the Deal, you told how you had not gotten much work done on your first casino, so you had crews dig and fill holes to create a show. You said one director of your partner, Holiday Inns, asked what was going on. “This was difficult for me to answer, but fortunately this board member was more curious than he was skeptical,” you wrote. Given your admission that you used deception to hide your failure to accomplish the work, why should we believe you now?”

Saturday, December 12, 2015

Monday, October 12, 2015

Gender Equality & Religion in the US

Gender Equality and Religion:

“woman's condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve, — the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. "In pains and in anxieties do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you." And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealers of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert— that is, death— even the Son of God had to die.”
 -Father of Latin Christianity and the early Church- Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 240 AD)

                            
When discussing the topic of gender equality one of the most important information in order to understand the current status quo, is to look into the history of women in the early ages, specifically the times of “Abrahamic religions”(Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), and the influences of religion in our culture.

Before this (3) religions became the most influential form of reference for culture, government, and politics, women possessed many important roles in society.

History teach us about how, before the "Abrahamic religions," there were the existences of Queens, female Warriors, Head of States, female Elders in ethnic groups, and women leaders. There were some bias but not as much as now. Regardless, women fought for equality even then.

For many centuries women held important roles and were the sources of reverence and admiration in all part of society. However; with the rapid expansion of the world and the curiosity for the unknown, humanity started to create ways and new forms of beliefs to cope with the reality.

Polytheistic religion started to fall, lost followers, and create despair and controversies. People started to question their existences and this new change gave birth to a more monotheistic view of the world and religion at large.  With the new monotheistic view and religions, humanity found a different way to answer the questions of their surroundings and to organize themselves, political, and culturally.

Unfortunately when those question arises there wasn’t any modern scientific tools to explain and
verify the answers. Because of fear of the unknown and lack of verification men invented new
forms of religion to cope with their uncertainties and curiosity. The creation of new
monotheistic religions change the way humanity look at women and they became a sources of
hate, blame, and shame.

These religions from the beginning perpetrated women as evil and
deceiving creatures who were the reason for all problems and disaster happening in the world.

The largest monotheistic, “Abrahamic religions” in chronological order of founding are:

 Judaism (1st millennium BC),
 Christianity (1st century AD),
 Islam (7th century AD).

The influences of those religion in humanity is so great that even in the 21st century there is a
54% of the world population approximately (3.8 billion) people who still follow some form of
these religions. This statistic show us that still now more than half of the current population has
some type of bias towards women, including women themselves, because of the great influence
of those religious teaching, our society still view women as immoral creatures who shouldn’t
have a voice nevertheless make decisions and/or held positions of power.

Here are some examples by religion of the view towards women in their teaching:

Judaism:
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to
children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
- Genesis 3:16 Thora

Christianity:
“(34) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
(35) And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for
women to speak in the church.”
Corinthians 14:34-35 Kings James Bible

Islam:
“The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its
inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women."
- Hadith 4:464 Koran

After reading those early scriptures anyone will then conclude that misogyny, hate, and unfair views of women have influence and polarized the world at large.

The United States regardless of its foundation and forefathers intention of creating a secular, unbiased, and non-religious society; has been polarize by people in power who has transform the country into a platform for religious views were women are demonized, criticized, and attack for their constant desire for equality.

Women in the US too often are deprecated if they show any signs of intelligence and power. Even women attack each other because the glass ceiling is so high everyone feels the need to step over other women to reach it. Furthermore, conservatives and religious fundamentalist still hold the beliefs that women should not have the right nor they have the intelligence to make their own decisions about their body, their political views (women were only allowed to vote after 1920), the status in society, and their religion.

The patriarchal world has a male figure as the ruler of all and women have no place in it. We can verify this finding just by looking how any women who can dare, even has the intention, or idea of holding any higher political place, is demean, belittle, criticized, and humiliated. Moreover, a male candidate is questions about his career, experiences in politics, and future views; women are question for the personal lives, sexual desires or preferences, and attitude.

A man who is assertive is view as a leader a woman who dares to be powerful is portrait like a bitch.

There are many examples of how misogynistic our society is:
In a very racist society it was easy for the public to allow a black man to held the higher office of the land (President Barack Hussein Obama 2008 - 2016), than even consider a woman to run (Hillary Rodham Clinton – Primary contender-2008).

Sarah Palin (2008 vice-presidential nominee- Republican Party), was a vivid example of the hate that our society held towards women. Regardless of the facts that after many interviews and checking her records it was concluded that she was not educated and/or ready for the position the attacks were directed at her personal life and family.

Currently in the future presidential run for the white house the percentage of women is minimal at best. Carly Fiorina (Republican) and Hillary Clinton (Democrat) are the only women seeking the nomination in the primaries to run for the presidency.

Leaving aside the fact that many of us may not agree with the political views of neither candidate, the truth is we can easily see how the media is attacking, hating and destroying the reputation of both women. It is appalling to see the disgrace and disrespectful way many people use when referring to either candidate.  Almost no one question their strategies, political intentions, and future ideas to run the country. The media criticized their personal views, political mistakes, personal lives, religious views, and ethics.

This current situation is a clear representation of how The United States has to become more secular and view women for what they really are; intelligent, powerful, kind, entrepreneurs, capable of doing the same job men created for themselves.

We live in a Patriarchal, misogynistic, religious fundamentalist society who will need a great change, re-education, starting with us women, to then embrace the capabilities and power of women.


"Life is the result of our choices" -Brava <3 p="">

Saturday, June 6, 2015

El tiempo de la Mujer - Globalmente...

 "...Ha llegado la hora de la mujer que comparte una causa pública y ha muerto la hora de la mujer como valor inerte y numérico dentro de la sociedad. Ha llegado la hora de la mujer que piensa, juzga, rechaza o acepta, y ha muerto la hora de la mujer que asiste, atada e impotente, a la caprichosa elaboración política de los destinos de su país, que es, en definitiva, el destino de su hogar. Ha llegado la hora de la mujer, integramente mujer en el goce paralelo de deberes y derechos comunes a todo ser humano que trabaja, y ha muerto la hora de la mujer compañera ocasional y colaboradora ínfima. Ha llegado, en síntesis, la hora de la mujer redimida del tutelaje social, y ha muerto la hora de la mujer relegada a la más precaria tangencia con el verdadero mundo dinámico de la vida moderna." -Eva Perón ("Evita" 12 de marzo de 1947).

"Life is the result of our choices" -Brava

Friday, May 1, 2015

Out of the Shadows with Immigration Reform




Out of the Shadow with Immigration Reform


As an immigrant in the United States, the topic of immigration reform is critical and unequivocally of the most importance. I will provide the information necessary to form a constructive and educated opinion in regards to such a controversial topic. There will be an extensive explanation of the history of immigration in the United States, the most recent reforms (DACA and DAPA), how the reforms became an executive order, the blocking and opposition, and the advantage of implementing such executive order.

My report will include verified data, experts’ opinions, and information on possible outcomes and benefit of an immigration reform. The report is intended to educate and provide an honest and personal opinion.

ABSTRACT

(This disquisition is intended to answer the question of the controversial topic of immigration reform by providing compelling data of the history of immigration in the United States, and the political debate that comes from those in favor and those against it. It will discuss the positive consequences of a new executive order signed by President Barack Obama, how the executive order has been blocked by a Texas Judge, the definition of such laws (DACA and DAPA), the people in favor, or in opposition, blocking the law, and the possible future of United States after the law is executed.

Immigration is a subject matter that affects us all, regardless of our status (legal or illegal), and if the public is not educated, and a solution reached, it will become a new civil right conflict.)
According to the oxford dictionary; Immigration is defined as” The action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country “

Regardless of the specific circumstances in which people arrive to such country there is not a definite way to determine if those people arriving are recognized as being legal or illegal. However, the word immigrant does not in any way imply legality or status.

Continue reading @ Link
out-of-the-shadow-with-immigration-reform
"Life is the result of our choices"-Brava

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

The rights' made-up God: How bigots invented a white supremacist Jesus///by professorcrunk.

The right's made-up God: How bigots invented a white supremacist Jesus

 Michele Bachmann, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee (Credit: AP/Reuters/Susan Walsh/Michael Conroy/Joe Skipper/Photo montage by Salon)

"As Indiana peddles its "religious freedom" garbage, it's time to call the religious right's trash what it really is"-Brittney Cooper

Just in time for Holy Week, the State of Indiana has passed a new Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law explicitly permits for-profit corporations from practicing the “free exercise of religion” and it allows them to use the “exercise of religion” as a defense against any lawsuits whether from the government or from private entities. The primary narrative against this law has been about the potential ways that small businesses owned by Christians could invoke it as a defense against having to, for instance, sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding.

Any time right-wing conservatives declare that they are trying to restore or reclaim something, we should all be very afraid. Usually, this means the country or, in this case, the state of Indiana is about to be treated to another round of backward time travel, to the supposedly idyllic environs of the 1950s, wherein women, and gays, and blacks knew their respective places and stayed in them. While the unspoken religious subtext of this law is rooted in conservative anxieties over the legalization of same-sex marriage in Indiana, Black people and women, and all the intersections thereof (for instance Black lesbians) should be very afraid of what this new law portends.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby decision that corporations could exercise religious freedom, which means that corporations can deny insurance coverage for birth control. Now this same logic is being used to curtail and abridge the right of gay people to enjoy the same freedoms and legal protections that heterosexual citizens enjoy.

And given our current anti-Black racial climate, there is no reason to trust that these laws won’t be eventually used for acts of racially inflected religious discrimination, perhaps against Black Muslims or Muslims of Arab descent, for instance. Surely this kind of law in this political climate sanctions the exercise of Islamophobia.

As a practicing Christian, I am deeply incensed by these calls for restoration and reclamation in the name of religious freedom. This kind of legislation is largely driven by conservative Christian men and women, who hold political views that are antagonistic to every single group of people who are not white, male, Christian, cisgender, straight and middle-class. Jesus, a brown, working-class, Jew, doesn’t even meet all the qualifications.




Nothing about the cultural and moral regime of the religious right in this country signals any kind of freedom. In fact, this kind of legislation is rooted in a politics that gives white people the authority to police and terrorize people of color, queer people and poor women. That means these people don’t represent any kind of Christianity that looks anything like the kind that I practice.

To be clear, because I’m an academic, I get static often from folks who wonder how I could dare ally myself in name and religious affiliation with the kind of morally misguided, politically violent people who think it reasonable to force women to have babies they do not want and who think their opinions about whom and how others should marry matters even a little bit.

I often ask myself whether I really do worship the same God of white religious conservatives. On this Holy Week, when I reflect on the Christian story of Christ crucified, it is a story to me of a man who came, radically served his community, challenged the unjust show of state power, embraced children, working-class men and promiscuous women and sexual minorities (eunuchs). Of the many things Jesus preached about, he never found time to even mention gay people, let alone condemn them. His message of radical inclusivity was so threatening that the state lynched him for fear that he was fomenting a cultural and political rebellion. They viewed such acts as criminal acts and they treated Jesus as a criminal. And all who followed him were marked for death.

This is why I identify with the story of Jesus. And frankly, it is the only story there really is. This white, blond-haired, blue-eyed, gun-toting, Bible-quoting Jesus of the religious right is a god of their own making. I call this god, the god of white supremacy and patriarchy. There is nothing about their god that speaks to me as a Black woman of working-class background living in a country where police routinely murder black men and beat the hell out of black women, where the rich get richer while politicians find ever more reasons to extract from the poor, and where the lives the church imagines for women still center around marriage and motherhood, and no sex if you’re single.

This God isn’t the God that I serve. There is nothing holy, loving, righteous, inclusive, liberatory or theologically sound about him. He might be “biblical” but he’s also an asshole.
The Jesus I know, love, talk about and choose to retain was a radical, freedom-loving, justice-seeking, potentially queer (because he was either asexual or a priest married to a prostitute), feminist healer, unimpressed by scripture-quoters and religious law-keepers,  seduced neither by power nor evil.
That’s the story I choose to reflect on this Holy Week. The Christian lawmakers seeking to use the law to discriminate against gay people are indicative of every violent, unrighteous, immoral impulse that organized religion continues to represent in this country. I have said elsewhere recently that it is a problem to treat racism as if it will simply go extinct. But as I watch the religious right engineer pain and obstacles for queer people in America’s heartland, I find myself wishing that this particularly violent and vicious breed of Christianity would die off.

I cannot stand in a church and worship on Sunday alongside those who on the very next Monday co-sign every kind of legislation that devalues the lives of Black people, women and gay people. I am a firm believer that our theology implicates our politics. If your politics are rooted in the contemporary anti-Black, misogynist, homophobic conservatism, then we are not serving the same God. Period.

And more of us who love Jesus, despite our ambivalence about Christianity, the Church or organized religion, need to stand up and begin to do some reclamation of our own.

I am heartened to say that there is a generation of young people of faith rising up, spurred on by the Ferguson events of last summer. A group of young seminarians at Union Theology Seminary in New York City have been at the fore of effort to #ReclaimHolyWeek. I spoke with one of the organizers, Candace Simpson, who told me that, “#ReclaimHolyWeek is a way for us to challenge and disrupt the sanitized stories we share during Holy Week. We refuse to pretend as though the main story of Jesus’ resurrection was that he ‘died for our sins.’ We need to be better in discussing the ways Jesus represented a threat to his empire, that his teachings disrupt power structures. We pretend that we would be mourning at his tomb, but it is clear in the ways we blame victims of the system that we are not as moral as we pretend to be.” They will spend this week protesting various forms of state-sanctioned violence against Black and Brown people.

What this vocal contingent of the religious right is seeking to restore is not religious freedom but a sense of safety in expressing and imposing dangerous, retrograde and discriminatory ideas in the name of religion. I continue to support the free and unimpeded expression of religion. And I am hopeful that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s call for “clarification of the law” amid a massive backlash will actually force the Legislature to explicitly ban discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation. Then perhaps the law could do what some legal scholars claim it was meant to do, namely, protect freedom of religious expression for religious minorities in the U.S.

Alongside that, I maintain that another kind of reclamation needs to occur. We need to reclaim the narrative of Jesus’ life and death from the evangelical right. They have not been good stewards over the narrative. They have pimped Jesus’ death to support the global spread of American empire vis-à-vis war, “missions,” and “free trade,” the abuse of native peoples, the continued subjugation of Black people, and the regulation of the sexual lives of women and gay people. Let us mark this Holy Week by declaring the death to the unholy trinity of white supremacist, capitalist, hetero-patriarchy. And once these systems die, may they die once and for all, never to be resurrected.
Brittney Cooper Brittney Cooper is a contributing writer at Salon, and teaches Women's and Gender Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

I'm going to Hell! - Voy a ir al Infierno! con Isabel Serrato




 

 I'm going to hell!

I’ll announce, will go to hell

with the women that do what they say

and say what they think,

to women’s hell Maverick

and her politically incorrectness 

to unbalanced women's hell

and the misfits,

the hell of the ones that

despite torture

could not fail to be authentic ...

I'm going to hell!

with people madly in love with life

and not ashamed of it,

with people living without contracts

Paperless,

with the lovers

with the ill for freedom

and the lonely.

I'm going to hell!

with those who fight everyday

with the ones without limits (and will never have them).


I'm going to hell!

with feminist

with poets

with independent

with dissidents,

with the ones that never found their place

-in the celestial sphere-

with the lost

the outcasts

the orphan

the experienced

with the strong

with the hippies

and destitute.

I'm going to hell!

and if by chance,

I do not ...

Please, take me!



® Isabel Serrato 
Poet & Author- Seville Spain
**************************************************************



Voy a ir al infierno!



Lo anuncio, voy a ir al infierno

con las que hacen lo que dicen

y dicen lo que piensan,

al infierno de las inconformistas

y las políticamente incorrectas,

al infierno de las desequilibradas

y las inadaptadas,

al infierno de las que

a pesar de la tortura

no pudieron dejar de ser auténticas...

Voy a ir al infierno!

con la gente que ama locamente la vida

y no se averguenza de ello,

con la gente que vive sin contratos

sin papeles,

con las amantes

con las enfermas de libertad

y las solitarias.

Voy a ir al infierno!

con las que luchan todos los días

con las que no tienen límites (y no piensan ponérselos).

Voy a ir al infierno!

con las feministas

con las poetas

con las independientes

con las disidentes

con las que nunca encontraron su sitio
-en la esfera celeste-

con las perdidas

con las parias

con las huérfanas

con las experimentadas

con las fuertes

con las hippies

y las indigentes.

Voy a ir al infierno!

y si por un casual,

no voy...

¡Por favor, llévenme!



® Isabel Serrato
Poet & Author- Seville Spain


   
"Life is the result of our choices" -Brava