SOWing Hatred

Have you seen the little piggies crawling in the dirt?

And for all the little piggies life is getting worse

Always having dirt to play around in.

Everywhere there's lots of piggies living piggy lives

You can see them out for dinner with their piggy wives

Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon!

"Piggies" (Harrison/Harrison/Lennon)

I spent some time last year trying (unsuccessfully!) to convince people in the men's movement not to waste extremely scarce resources lobbying Congress to amend and "gender-neutralize" language in the recently renewed Violence Against Women Act.

The VAWA is anti-male in its conception, execution, and enforcement. It is gender-supremacist hate disguised as aid to the downtrodden. In reality, it is worship of that Great America Goddess, The Almighty Victim.




Bush Signs Domestic Violence Act Extension

Friday January 6, 2006 12:32 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Thursday signed an extension of the Violence Against Women Act, which aims to curtail domestic violence through funding for women's shelters and law-enforcement training.

The act, which expired in September, helps children exposed to violence, trains health care workers on how to support victims of abuse and encourages men to teach youngsters that violence is wrong. The extension includes new provisions on health care, early intervention and outreach to American Indian women.

It originally passed Congress in 1994 and was renewed in 2000. The latest renewal calls for extending the legislation for five years, at a cost of about $3.9 billion. That figure represents a 20 percent increase over the last five-year extension, although actual funding levels will be left to yearly appropriations legislation.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and sponsor of the legislation, applauded the bill signing.
``This law supports programs that have been successful in combating domestic violence and changing attitudes toward violence in the family,'' Sensenbrenner said, adding that the act also works to change attitudes toward dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

Esta Soler, president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, urged Congress to fully fund all the programs the law contains.

Only if we do that will we be able to say that our nation is doing all it can to stop domestic and sexual violence, and help victims,'' Soler said.

Here's a related story from CNET about a nasty little "rider" concealed within VAWA -- the CNET correspondent, unlike the AP, doesn't simply kneejerk-genuflect to the matriarchy/Homeland Security psychos.

Perspective: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail

By Declan McCullagh

Published: January 9, 2006, 4:00 AM PST


Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name. Thank Congress for small favors, I guess.

This ridiculous prohibition, which would likely imperil much of Usenet, is buried in the so-called Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act. Criminal penalties include stiff fines and two years in prison.

"The use of the word 'annoy' is particularly problematic," says Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

"What's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else."

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called "Preventing Cyberstalking." It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet "without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy."

To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice. The plan: to make it politically infeasible for politicians to oppose the measure.

The tactic worked. The bill cleared the House of Representatives by voice vote, and the Senate unanimously approved it Dec. 16.

There's an interesting side note. An earlier version that the House approved in September had radically different wording. It was reasonable by comparison, and criminalized only using an "interactive computer service" to cause someone "substantial emotional harm."

That kind of prohibition might make sense. But why should merely annoying someone be illegal?

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to set up a Web site or write something incendiary without telling everyone exactly who you are.
Think about it: A woman fired by a manager who demanded sexual favors wants to blog about it without divulging her full name. An aspiring pundit hopes to set up the next Suck.com. A frustrated citizen wants to send e-mail describing corruption in local government without worrying about reprisals.

In each of those three cases, someone's probably going to be annoyed. That's enough to make the action a crime. (The Justice Department won't file charges in every case, of course, but trusting prosecutorial discretion is hardly reassuring.)

Clinton Fein, a San Francisco resident who runs the Annoy.com site, says a feature permitting visitors to send obnoxious and profane postcards through e-mail could be imperiled.

"Who decides what's annoying? That's the ultimate question," Fein said. He added: "If you send an annoying message via the United States Post Office, do you have to reveal your identity?"

Fein once sued to overturn part of the Communications Decency Act that outlawed transmitting indecent material "with intent to annoy." But the courts ruled the law applied only to obscene material, so Annoy.com didn't have to worry.

"I'm certainly not going to close the site down," Fein said on Friday. "I would fight it on First Amendment grounds."

He's right. Our esteemed politicians can't seem to grasp this simple point, but the First Amendment protects our right to write something that annoys someone else.

It even shields our right to do it anonymously. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas defended this principle magnificently in a 1995 case involving an Ohio woman who was punished for distributing anonymous political pamphlets.

If President Bush truly believed in the principle of limited government (it is in his official bio), he'd realize that the law he signed cannot be squared with the Constitution he swore to uphold.

And then he'd repeat what President Clinton did a decade ago when he felt compelled to sign a massive telecommunications law. Clinton realized that the section of the law punishing abortion-related material on the Internet was unconstitutional, and he directed the Justice Department not to enforce it.

Bush has the chance to show his respect for what he calls Americans' personal freedoms. Now we'll see if the president rises to the occasion.
BiographyDeclan McCullagh is CNET News.com's Washington, D.C., correspondent. He chronicles the busy intersection between technology and politics. Before that, he worked for several years as Washington bureau chief for Wired News. He has also worked as a reporter for The Netly News, Time magazine and HotWired.



It took a while to work its way through the System's moo-goo, but we're beginning to see the results of the Status on Women's (Canada) machinations, which I predicted were pavestones for future anti-male legislation throughout North America.

So here ya go boys . . . how you like this Boot in the balls? eh?

Sec. 113 is a very convenient tool, especially with a far-right judiciary and executive -- it allows the govt to prosecute a vast potential pool of cyberspace, advancing its own political, religious, ideological, and economic agendas.

Burying 113 in VAWA shields the code change from mainstream media, while still ensuring it'll get play in cyberspace and send a "message" to certain individuals and groups. The purpose is to intimidate and silence men's advocacy on the Internet (the only place such advocacy exists anymore.)

Notice that the broadening of telephone harassment to the Internet mandates disclosure of **"his"** identity and "intent to annoy."

This language is not accidental, and it's included as part of the renewed Violence Against Women Act specifically to build legal and propagandistic "bridges" to criminalize any current or potential men's movement/male-positive speech.

The leaders of our nation -- CONSERVATIVES! -- have just massively broadened the demonization of males, especially of Uppity Males.

I mean . . . you think this country is gonna start putting WOMEN in prison for "annoying" men on the Web?

If you believe that, then you must also think, like some "men's activists," that lobbying and schmoozing the US Congress -- that citadel of matriarchy -- for "gender-neutrality" in the VAWA was an achievable goal, a productive tactic, and a sane use of resources.

What ARE you people taking? Rush Limbaugh "jujubees"?!

Those billions of dollars in VAWA are going to buy "ARMAMENTS" with which to WAGE WAR on American boys and men, just like the previous billions of dollars did . . . more mancages, more d.v. centers, more cultural programming, more cops, more Victimocracy . . . are we starting to smell the coffee yet? Why are you asking these pussies for ANYTHING??

Given that VAWA's new Section 113 -- not to mention the Act's massive re-funding -- passed an ultra-conservative Congress and White House, the American right-wing must be considered an adversary of this nation's boys and men.

Tragically, Western governments have funded and lauded gender-supremacist groups like Canada's pitiful SOWs and the endless helltrain of American feminist organizations. Scapegoating and criminalizing maleness is big business. The biggest.

Contrary to popular opinion, it always has been.

American government therefore shares responsibility for destroying goodwill, trust, and love between Western females and males, in the stunning span of one mere century. That is an awesome crime, one any sane -- or God-fearing -- person must oppose.

May this post ANNOY the FLAMING SHIT out of feminists and male punklings everywhere.