Why Nina Hartley Is Still THE Goddess….And Shelley Lubben Will Forever Remain Her Bitch

Fighting The Good Fight, Porn in the US of A, Sex Goddesses Who Smack 'em Down, Support Your Local Sex Worker/Performer, The Feminist Sex Wars, The Fighting 101'st Progressive Headbussa Brigade, The Sex Pox August 6th, 2010

No Gravatar

For anyone who thought that the fire in Nina Hartley’s perfectly toned belly had gone out after 26 years of doing porn and sex entertainment/sex education…well, I can only say, ‘May the Goddess help you.”

For those who think that the likes of Shelley Lubben can out think, out wit, and/or outlast Nina in a fair fight….well, even the Goddess and God can’t help you on that one.

Last week, Nina gave the keynote address of the 2010 Sex Worker Conference in Las Vegas, hosted by the sex worker-backed Desiree Alliance.  Considering that it was nearly 20 years to the day that she was arrested for performing a live sex scene in that very city, she had a lot to say about defending both porn and sex work and defending sex workers from both the political authorities and the social commisars who would put her and her allies/associates down for selling sex on their terms.

And…a few verbal nukes launched at Gail Dines doesn’t hurt, either.

The original speech was first posted to YouTube by sawbuckfilms; they have granted me permission to repost it here…for which I am thankful and grateful. Because of its original length, I broke it down into six segments.

Enjoy, please.

Adult superstar legend/progressive sex educator Nina Hartley giving the Keynote Address at the Desiree Alliance 2010 Sex Worker Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada (via YouTube, h/t to sawbuckfilms for posting the original)

Follow me on Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

Our Porn, Ourselves Facebook Ban Update: PornHarms Taunts…And How #Proporn Can Fight Back

Makes Me Wanna Holla, Porn in the US of A, Sexy Sex Intellectuals, Support Your Local Sex Worker/Performer, The Sex Pox, The War on Sex/Sluts/Gays/Whatever, slut shaming July 29th, 2010

No Gravatar

Since we reported yesterday about Facebook pulling the Our Porn, Ourselves page without warning,some developments have ensued.

First off, the opposing main antiporn organization PornHarms.org has been publically high-fiving themselves over the banishment of OPO, with resounding hosananas and Hallelujahs to FB for laying waste to a group of over 3,000 people. At her personal Posterous page, as an addedum to her original post, Violet added these screenshots from PornHarms’s Twitter and Facebook pages displaying their smack-running habits.

You will notice the trend here: according to the Porn Harms folk, the mere existence of a discussion page where adult women get together and defend their constitutional right to access, view, and consume adult sexually explicit media for their own personal pleasure….would allow CHILDREN access to porn.

Never mind that there was no porn or even no nudity (hell, not even bare cleavage or midriff), or any explicit dirty sex talk; never mind that Violet took great steps to banish anyone attempting to exploit the page for the usual porn spam; and never even mind that any linkage that did take place went solely to either discussion sites or to blogs with clear adult disclaimers and restirctions. Merely breaching the subject of women liking porn and resisting the Dines/Lubben/Trueman monopoly was more than enough to warrant this blatant act of censorship.

Of course, going after their critics with a nuclear bomb mentality has been the essence of the antiporn folks for forever, and it’s no surprise that they would seek to maintain their monopoly on the porn debate…mostly because allowing intellegent, sexy women a forum to defend themselves from countless slander would make PornHarms look like the right-wing sex-hating bigots they really are. (Yes, I said it…sex-hating bigots. Please send all complaints to HostGator.com or WordPress.org, or sue me directly.)

But…what does that say for Facebook, who seems to have gotten infected with the MySpace bug of policing thought of late??

After all, Facebook has several, if not hundreds, of pages dedicated to porn performers, and host a well of other pages and groups that tend ot promote sexual expression indirectly (such as Nina Hartley’s SexWise group). If FB is going to become now the newest arm of the Online Puritan Police, then why not be consistent and banish ALL of these pages, not just OPO?? I mean, it’s not as if “children” can’t simply google “Nina Hartley” and locate plenty of her video clips…or that Amazon.com‘s link to her Nina Hartley’s Guide to Great Sex book isn’t easily accessible, too….right???

A couple of commentators over at Violet’s Posterous blog have noted the contrarian view that it is Facebook’s space to do as it pleases, and perhaps it was more of an algorithm slipup that prompted the pulling, rather than the protests of PornHarms. Well, it is their space, and they did have rules and a TOS…but if you bend yourself backwards to follow them to the letter, and you still get banished, that’s a BIG problem.

But, by far the most frustrating thing about this is that while OPO tried to be as open a forum as humanly possible, the Porn Harms page, in comparison, was as closed and restricted as usual, with membership firewalled and commenting moderated to filter out any view other than the “official” party line. And, they probably contained just as many links to their propaganda (which, BTW, includes images far more graphic and explicit than anything linked by OPO…remember The Price of Pleasure pilfering scenes from porn vids and fracturing them out of context to sell their position??). So..why isn’t FB challenging THEM for “obscenity”??

So..what does this mean for sex-positive discussion online and social media?? Simply put, it is a shot across the bow that the other side is more than willing and able to use whatever means necessary, fair or unfair, to monopolize the debate and eliminate their critics. Like the Teabaggers, the antiporn folk don’t respect the notion of civilized and equal debate, and they respect #proporn’s existence even less…they simply seek to dominate and destroy. There is NO acceptable middle ground for negotiation with them; only our total destruction will do.

Even worse, it seems that their viewpoint is slowly becoming the default view for most dominant social media sites, whose dependency on advertisers and political power gravitates them to accept the dominant cultural biases against sexual expression as well as the neoliberal/neoconservative/Far Right paradigm/political spectrum of acceptable debate. They can far too easily supress oppositional debate using the old “Think of the CHILDREN!! You’re a SLUT!!!! You’re a TOOL OF THE PATRIARCHY!!!!! You’re pushing SEX to CHILDREN!!! PEDOPHILE!!!!!!!!1111ONETHOUSANDONEHUNDREDELEVEN11!!!!!!” memes to intimidate social media into throttling free expression of sexual issues. The fear of the boycott or federal intervention to impose the usual restrictions only help to reinforce such sexual policing online as well.

The best solution for those of us who are #sexpositive and #proporn remains to be vigilant of the antiporn censorship attempts and organize to protect our free speech spaces, and to use our own power to counteract the myths, the smears, and the outright lies they promote. Forming and aggressively defending our own independent free spaces, as well as challenging online sites like Facebook to maintain their stated beliefs and mission of open and free discusion in the face of such efforts is wipe sexual communities off the face of the earth and online, is a minimal requirement as well.

Above everything else, though, those of us who are #sexpositive and #proporn absolutely need to come out of our scared closets and openly, aggressively, and enthusiastically defend our right to be thoughtful, normal, and capable sexual beings, and resist to the fullest the attemps by the likes of PornHarms to reduce our lives, our professions, and our basic beings, to mere objects to be stepped on, crushed, and thrown aside for their “glory”. There are still more of US than there are of them, and if we unite and (pardon the pun) come together against this nonsense, we will prevail in the end.

Or, to put in in the form of a memo to Porn Harms:

We’re still here. We’re not going anywhere. And, in the end, we will WIN.  Deal with it, folks.

Follow me on Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

This Is Open Source Sex Solidarity: In Defense Of Violet Blue (Sex Blogger) Against Facebook Axing Her “Our Porn, Ourselves” FB Page

Makes Me Wanna Holla, Sexy Sex Intellectuals, Support Your Local Sex Worker/Performer, The Fighting 101'st Progressive Headbussa Brigade, The War on Sex/Sluts/Gays/Whatever July 27th, 2010

No Gravatar

Well…it seems that some people just don’t like the fact that women are stepping up and opposing antiporn “feminist” philosophy and activism.

Either that, or Facebook happens to be on Gail Dines’ payroll.

Tonight, I stumbled on this quite disturbing and, to be frank, damn angering news from sex blogger Violet Blue posted to her Posterous blog this evening.  Seems that Facebook decided that the Our Porn, Ourselves page they hosted was a little too hot for their sensibilities, so they just removed it. Gone. Finito. Burnt. Zipped.  Nuked. Without even any appeal of explanation other than some note about “violating their Terms of Service”. (The OPO blog, on the other hand, is still active..at least for now. Thankfully, WordPress and Automatic don’t eat fruit from the tree of lunacy.)

First, here’s the notice that now appears in place of the OPO page at Facebook:

And now, here is what Violet wrote in response (including the text of an email she sent to the Facebook staff in protest):

My letter to Facebook about removing the Our Porn, Ourselves page #proporn

I just got an email from Facebook telling me that the Our Porn, Ourselves page was removed for a terms of use violation. They did not say what the alleged violation was. Take this as a win for the anti-porn trolls that had been harassing members, reporting photos that were not in violation, and were likely reporting the page for non-existent violations. (Some may remember a few weeks ago when I asked on Twitter how I could stop these people from harassing us).

I was very careful to police the page nearly hourly to keep the content strictly within Facebook’s terms, as I knew the page was under scrutiny from anti-porn zealots (and I had been witnessing their underhanded tactics on the page to harass users since its inception). I immediately blocked anyone who tried to post pornographic content. I believe the page was an example of exemplary conduct in order to have a safe place in which women (and men) could talk about pornography in a socio-cultural context. I purposely wanted a work-safe, non-offensive destination for these discussions and to build women’s community. This is our porn for women manifesto, and was in the Facebook “info” box.
I had built an intelligent community of over 3,000 members, mostly women. They have deleted a giant community. All talking about what it means for women to “take back the right to look” at explicit imagery.
Facebook has given me no options for recourse: no evidence, no trial, just judgment and sentence. Like when they ‘accidentally’ removed the Ban BP Oil page (800,000 members) and then restored it, removed the gay author page for ‘Band Fags’ which had been up for two years, or when they removed Robert Scoble completely.

As I wait for Facebook’s response, here is the letter I just sent them:

Hello,

I’m Violet Blue: bestselling and award-winning author, and educator who speaks from UCSF and UC Berkley (Boalt) to Google Inc. Tech Talks on my field of expertise — exactly what this Facebook group page was about.

My page did not violate any of the reasons stated for deletion. It was under constant attack by people who disagreed with our point of view, and constantly reported our posts and images, even though we were very careful not to violate your Terms. May I find out why the page was removed? It is my utmost priority to follow and uphold Facebook community rules and standards. With national media attention to the page, questions will be raised and I hope to be able to furnish answers. Especially with a higher minded page of over 3000 members seeking community and discussion around a topic that did not target any group, threaten anyone, or link/depict/suggest inappropriate content. In fact, I policed the posts hourly for spam and attacks on our members, of which there were many. We never posted obscenity in links or images, though innocent user photos seemed to be increasingly mysteriously removed.

I feel that our page was targeted, and that we did nothing to violate the community standards of Facebook, which we sought to uphold. Any help to find out why this has happened would be deeply appreciated. I do not want to be talking to press about this in the next few days and be left guessing. We sought a safe place to discuss sex culture in media, and that is all.

I sincerely hope we can resolve this. Salon and Examiner wrote about our page as a signifier of community organization around women’s empowerment, calling it a new movement for women’s rights. I could tell we were under attack by those who violently opposed our discussions and representation as a community intersection for enriched discussions about important women’s rights issues. This development is confusing and saddening.

This fostering of group community around female empowerment and the page topic stems from my work as a talkshow guest (Oprah), international conference speaker, and columnist for various national and international magazines and publications (Oprah Magazine, Forbes.com, MacLife, etc) and media pundit (Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, Esquire, Redbook, Wired, etc).

Please help me understand what I can tell media outlets asking about this, and the over 3K member we had in the page group.

Sincere thanks,
Violet Blue

Of course, Facebook has a long earned reputation of jerking around with adult performers and sex-positive/sexually oriented pages; I could take a whole week to recite the number of Facebook pages built by adult performers who have been deleted or otherwise censored for no reason whatsoever, since none of the sites contained any nudity or even softcore sexual content whatsoever.

This has all the makings of a classical cave in to antiporn forces who simply lobbied FB to eliminate opposition to their campaign.

Whatever differences I may have with Violet Blue (and I do have many), and whatever I may have felt about the objectives of her site, this is still an outrageous act of sexual and political censorship by Facebook. I stand in total solidarity with her and all those who were members of OPO, and I will join in solidarity in any action against Facebook in protest of their capitulation.

In the meantime, I’ll see how FB responds to Violet’s letter of protest..if they do respond, that is.

Follow me on Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

Lies, Damn Lies, Goddess Damn Lies….And Anti-Porn “Facts”: The XXXChruch/HeartSupport Edition

Porn in the US of A, Sex Goddesses Who Smack 'em Down, Sexy Sex Intellectuals, Support Your Local Sex Worker/Performer, The Julie Meadows Files, The War on Sex/Sluts/Gays/Whatever, slut shaming July 26th, 2010

No Gravatar

Isn’t it interesting how antiporn activists are so outward with knowing “THE FACTS”???

Never mind that their “facts” turn out to be nothing but cooked-up propaganda and mashed-up statistics slanted to their own agenda…but boy, do they know about THE FACTS.

Shelley Lubben is one of the better examples of someone claiming to be so deeply knowlegable of THE FACTS about porn, so much so that her Pink Cross Foundation webpage and her personal website is practically littered with the standard: PORNOGRAPHY KILLS. PORNOGRAPHY DESTROYS.  GET THE FACTS.

Now, never mind that most of those “FACTS” about how porn led to so many performers deaths are woefully off, since she claims deaths by anything from tragic traffic accidents to cancer to unrelated suicides from drug abuse to be blamed on porn.

And, never mind that perhaps Sister Shelley might not be the best to claim expertise on such matters, having openly said herself that she “contributed” to the epidemic of herpes” by being an active prostitute engaging in unprotected sex with clients (but, of course, that was when The DEVIL had a hold of her, before Jesus SAVED her!!!).

But…for this once, I’m going to let Shelley off the hook for now, especially since Julie Meadows has more than enough of the hammer of truth to smack her down for the rest of the year.

Naaaaah.  Today, I’m focusing my wrath on another antiporn organization that, similarly to Lubben and the PFC, is attempting to make waves in converting former porn starlets to their religious Right agenda.

However, unlike Shelley Lubben, Craig Gross and his own website XXXChurch.com tends to take on a far less confrontational approach.  They are far more of a “good cop” to the Lubbenite smash-mouth “bad cop” approach; Gross appears friendly and magnamanous, appearing at porn conventions not to preach down performers a la Lubben, but simply to spread their message that there is a dark side of porn, and their agency is there to help those who might need it.

Certainly, this is a far, far less hostile approach that XXXChurch takes…which is why they have even garnered support from plenty of people within the porn industry as an acceptable and decent advesary who isn’t a wild censor like Lubben or Gail Dines or Pat Trueman.

That’s all fine and good…but underneath all of the friendliness and the amicable smiles of the XXXChurch, it seems like they have the same fundamental agenda that Lubben does…and the same fleeting carelessness with “THE FACTS”.

Want some proof of that? Well, once again, we turn to Julie, who has been sticking to the case like Colombo of late.

In doing followup research on the mythology of “sex addiction”, she discovered a page of the XXXChurch.com website which included some “factoids” on how much porn had decimated society and enabled “sex addiction”. That page included a link to another page hosted by something called HeartSupport.com, which featured this lovely graphic (which Julie grabbed and reproduced at her blog):

[Click on image for a larger view]

The claim here, of course, is that porn has created a whole nation of “sex addicts” who are so obsessed with seeing T & A (and D & P) that they are destroying their and other people’s lives, and that only through compassionate Christian “treatment” will they and the world get any better. Notice how close this gets to Mary Ann Layden’s theory of “sexual obesity” (and there’s more on her whackiness too..but that’s for another post), without crossing that line into full-on censorship advocacy.

Nevertheless, all of those “FACTS” can be easily disposed of. Julie has done an excellent job at her place of debunking the more obvious fallacies and BS at her space, so I will simply go off what she has done.

Let us begin at the beginning, shall we??

4.7 million Americans visit porn sites in excess of 11 hours per week.

Sounds mighty sinister, doesn’t it??  Sure it does…until you realize that 11 hours a week still corresponds to less than 1.7 hours a day. I know some commutes to/from work that are longer than that. So, where does that leave the rest of the day…other than the 8 hours of sleep and we give 8 hours for work and two hours for commute, that still leaves us with 4.3 hours of downtime.

And…4.7 million Americans viewing porn?? Out of a nation of well over 300 MILLION??? Gee, that’s some epidemic!!

Here’s a similar nugget that Julie discovered from her research:

“40 million Americans regularly visit porn sites.”

OK…do you mean 40 mil in a year??  In a month?? And how does that jive with that earlier stat of 4.7 million visiting porn sites a week??

And, what’s to say that most of those most likely to visit porn sites might be the very ones most critical of porn?? Remember that study that concluded that the most proific area for downloading porn online happened to be….Utah?? Where some of the most fervent advocates for censorship of porn are located?? I know…facts are stupid things.

Onward to the next factoid, please:

24 million Americans are classified as sex addicts.

Of course, they don’t back up this FACT with any sources…like, who exactly is doing the classifying of so many people as “sex addicts”, or what that has to do if anything with consumption of porn.

It also ignores the basic fact, as Julie mentions, that not even the American Psychiactric Association, which should know about such things, has been moved to label “sex addiction” as an official disorder worthy of inclusion in their vaunted Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:

“The American Psychiatric Association publishes and periodically updates the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), a widely recognized compendium of acknowledged mental disorders and their diagnostic criteria. The most recent version of that manual, DSM-IV-TR, was published in 2000 and does not recognize sexual addiction as a diagnosis.[7] Although some authors had expressed that excluding sexual addiction from the DSM represents a problem,[8] the proposed diagnosis was rejected for consideration for inclusion in the DSM-5.[9] Darrel Regier, vice-chair of the DSM-5 task force, said that “[A]lthough ‘hypersexuality‘ is a proposed new addition…[the phenomenon] was not at the point where we were ready to call it an addiction.”

Obviously, there are those who do believe that sexual compulsion is indeed worthy of inclusion as an “addiction” worthy of treatment.

“The National Council on Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity estimates that 6 to 8 percent of Americans – or 18 million to 24 million people – are sex addicts. And 70 percent of sex addicts report having a problem with online sexual behavior.”

That’s from a quote from an article on “sexual addiction” found at SFGate.com, via Julie’s article. Funny thing, though…when I Googled “National Council on Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity”, one of the first links I found was to the website for a group called the Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health, which included this page that included this factoid:

A conservative estimate of those who could meet the criteria for sexual addiction and compulsivity is that of about 3 – 5% of the United States population. This is most likely a very conservative estimate, since these numbers are based on individuals who seek treatment.

They also link to the very controversial “sexual addiction” test invented by Dr. Patrick Carnes, who is considered to be one of the experts on “sex addiction”.  Problem is, that test has been waylaided from pillar to post for its base conservative assumptions and not-so-veiled biases against common sexual practices.  See Dr. Marty Klein and Greta Christina for some trenchant critique of Carnes’ illogic as well as the test itself.

Nexxxxxxt….

260 million pornographic pages on the internet

I suppose that that’s supposed to ellicit a response like that popular Best Buy commercial currently running: “WOW!!!!! That’s a lot of porn!!!!” Yeah, 260 million is a very big number.   When compared to the over 63 BILLION pages that current ly exist total on the Internet, though, it doesn’t look so big in scale. Actually, it amounts to a ratio of 0.02% of porn pages to all Internet pages….kinda like comparing the power of our sun to that of the entilr Milky Way galaxy.

Oh…and such stats don’t tell us either how many of those porn pages are self-made, or the range of explicity (Playboy nudes?? Topless photos?? Homemade sex tapes?? Homegrown websites??), or where these sites are located.

Finally there is this:

Sex addiction can often lead to: illegal activity and sex complications

First off…”illegal activity”???  Yeah…watching porn — and remember, Clones, that to these folks, too much of an interest in porn is the equivalent of “sex addiction” — most definitely leads to such “illegal behavior” as engaging in sex with the wrong people at the wrong place at the wrong time. Now, what constitutes “illegal behavior” might just depend on who you ask, though. If we are to believe the words of, say, Mary Ann Layden, any form of sexual activity outside of the boundaries of reproduction within Christian-sanctioned marriage would be considered to be “compulsive” and “addictive”, and thusly illegal. After all, we just can’t have impressionable children learning how to touch their genitals and nipples, for that may offend God and make him mad enough to cause more earthquakes or throw another lightning bolt like He did with Sodom and Gommorah. Let us not also forget that until recently, even consensual sex between people of the same gender, as well as people of different races (especially if one of the races happened to be Black) were also considered illegal, too. I don’t quite think that HeartSupport had that in mind when they wrote this, but that’s basically where the logic inevitably leads.

And as for “sex complications”: well…for most people, the only complication that they suffer from after watching most porn is how to clean the sheets. Not saying that for those who do become compulsive enough on sex imagery that it starts disaffecting them, there isn’t issues…but let’s not mistake them for the overewhelming majority of folk who use porn wisely without freaking out.

All this leads me to this question for The Reverend Cross and all of his allies:  Why don’t you reveal all this when you are out at porn conventions pretending to be all nice and moderate (at least, as compared to The Reverend Shelley Lubben)?? I can respect you not being an overt censor, but still…using the sime “facts” as Shelley Lubben and Gail Dines de to downgrade porn and selling the same fundie Christian solution of faked up “treatment” for “porn addiction” doesn’t quite click with your rep as being non-partisan and partial.

Hiding the fact of the Dirty Girls Ministries doing silent conversions behind the scenes doesn’t help your cause with me, either.

This isn’t at all to deny Craig Gross his earned freedom of speech to spread his ministry to whomever might be receptive to his message.  This is only to reveal that if you are going to present yourself as a factual source, it would make sense to rely on actual factual sources for your information. And, it would behoove those of us who defend sexual expression and sexual media to read between the lines and do your research before you blindly accept the logic of your adversary. That smile in your face could be hiding a knife headed towards your back. The Lubbens are easy to spot and avoid…the Grosses are a bit harder.

Trust, but verify. Good enough for Reagan; should be good enough for sex+/porn defenders.

Follow me on Twitter

Tags: , , , , ,

Why Shirley Sherrod Is My New Hero, Andrew Breitbart A Certified Wingnut A**hole, And The Dimocrats Remain…Well, Chickensh*t Dimocrats

Asshattery, Blogging While Black/Latin@, Chump Change, Current Events, F*ck The Dimocrats!!, Feel Your Inner Populist, Fighting The Good Fight, Love Me...I'm A Liberal...NOT!!!, Political Smackdown 2009-2010, The Conservative Bonehead Resistance, The Keith Olbermann Files, The Obama Nation -- Chump Change??, The Rachel Maddow Files July 21st, 2010

No Gravatar

[Updated below...scroll to bottom.]

This story is as consistent as rain on a summer day, and just as tiring.

The Right seeks to smear an organization that successfully calls them out on their bullshit by fabricating a controversy through a twisted comment or a doctored video.

The accused party suffers direct damage because the lamestream media (and yes, that will be the first and only time I will ever agree with Half-Guv Sarah the Fabricator) fails to do their homework and actually look behind the chicanery…and because the Dimocrats (aka, the Democratic Party) puts public image and not wanting to alienate their corporate money flows over actually defending the people who put them in office.

The progressive/”far Left”/”dirty effing hippie” media actually do their jobs and reveal the scam, but not before the damage has already been done, because the MSM would much rather follow the money and take the words of DLC gasbags and right-wing shysters like Glenn Beck and Boss Limbaugh. Then, when they (the MSM) are revealed to have been punked, they respond with the usual whining about how they are just strapped by their sources.

But at least, the media has an excuse.  The Dimocrats, on the other hand, simply don’t even care.

The latest brohaha over now former USDA bueraucrat Shirley Sherrod and her public high-tech virtual lynching — first by right-wing “blogger” Andrew Breitbart by doctoring a speech she gave on March 27th to a local NAACP meeting, and then by her bosses at the Department of Agriculture, who ordered her to resign — has brought into full focus this procedure where progressive individuals are targeted and smeared to serve the agendas of both the Right and the Center.

In Mrs. Sherrod’s case, the trigger was the fractured and highly doctored clip  that Breitbart released to his BigGovernment.com blog, which implied that she was indeed hostile to a White farmer who sought her help 20 years ago to save their family farm. Problem was…the full video revealed the exact opposite of whay Breitbart was implying, and when reinforced by the testimony of the actual farmers she sought and successfully helped, it was the affect of a nuke exploding all over Breitbart’s face.

Here is the video in its entirety, released to YouTube by the NAACP:

March 27, 2010 speech by USDA bureaucrat Shirley Sherrod to the Washington, DC, NAACP Freedom Fund Banquet (via YouTube from naacpvideos)

The watchdog group Media Matters also provided a transcript of the speech, which I have added below. They emphasized through bolding the portion taken by Breitbart for his smearjob, the rest is from the original.

[11:50] SHERROD: I made the commitment on the night of my father’s death at the age of 17 that I would not leave the South, that I would stay in the South and devote my life to working for change. And I’ve been true to that commitment all of these 45 years.

[...]

[16:34] SHERROD: God is good. I can tell you that. When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people — and to black people only. But you know God will show you things and he’ll put things in your path so that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people –

AUDIENCE: All right. All right.

SHERROD: — you know. The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm. He took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me — I knew what he was doing.

AUDIENCE: All right.

SHERROD: But he had to come to me for help. What he didn’t know, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much I was going to give him. I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he — I assumed that the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me; either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture — and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him. So I took him to a white lawyer that we had — that had attended some of the training that we had provided ’cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer, so I figured if I’d take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.

That’s when it was revealed to me that y’all, it’s about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white — it is about white and black, but it’s not — you know, it opened my eyes, ’cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hands, and said, OK, I’ve done my job. But, during that time, we would have these injunctions against the Department of Agriculture and — so, they couldn’t foreclose on him. And I want you to know that the county supervisor had done something to him that I have not seen yet that they’ve done to any other farmer, black or white. And what they did to him caused him to not be able to file Chapter 12 bankruptcy.

So, everything was going along fine — I’m thinking he’s being taken care of by the white lawyer, then they lift the injunction against USDA in May of ’87 for two weeks and he was one of 13 farmers in Georgia who received a foreclosure notice. He called me. I said, well, go on and make an appointment at the lawyer. Let me know when it is and I’ll meet you there.

So we met at the lawyer’s office on the day they had given him. And this lawyer sat there — he had been paying this lawyer, y’all. That’s what got me. He had been paying the lawyer since November, and this was May. And the lawyer sat there and looked at him and said, “Well, y’all are getting old. Why don’t you just let the farm go?” I could not believe he said that, so I said to the lawyer — I told him, I can’t believe you said that. I said: It’s obvious to me that he cannot file a Chapter 12 bankruptcy to stop this foreclose, you have to file an 11. And the lawyer said to me, I’ll do whatever you say — whatever you think — that’s the way he put it. But he’s paying him. He wasn’t paying me any money. You know, so he said — the lawyer said he would work on it.

And then, about seven days before that man would have been sold at the courthouse steps, the farmer called me and said the lawyer wasn’t doing anything. And that’s when I spent time there in my office calling everybody I could think so to try to see — help me find the lawyer who would handle this. And finally, I remembered that I had gone to see one just 40 miles away in Americus with the black farmers. So, I –

[VIDEO CUT*]

SHERROD: Well, working with him made me see that it’s really about those who have versus those who don’t.

AUDIENCE: That’s right.

SHERROD: You know, and they could be black, and they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people — those who don’t have access the way others have.

I want to just share something with you and I think it helps to — you know, when I learned this, I’m like, oh, my goodness. You know, back in the late 17th and 18th century, black — there were black indentured servants and white indentured servants, and they all would work for seven years and get their freedom. And they didn’t see any difference in each other — nobody worried about skin color. They married each other. You know, these were poor whites and poor blacks in the same boat, except they were slaves, but they were both slaves and both had their opportunity to work out on the slavery.

But then they started looking at the injustices that they faced and started then trying — you know, the people with money — you know, they started — the poor whites and poor blacks — they — you know, they married each other. They lived together. They were just like we would be. And they started looking at what was happening to them and decided we need to do something about it — you know, about this. Well, the people with money, the elite, decided, hey, we need to do something here to divide them.

So that’s when they made black people servants for life. That’s when the put laws in place forbidding them to marry each other. That’s when they created the racism that we know of today. They did it to keep us divided. And they — it started working so well, they said, gosh, looks like we’ve come up on something here that can last generations — and here we are. Over 400 years later, and it’s still working. What we have to do is get that out of our heads. There is no difference between us.

The only difference is that the folks with money want to stay in power and whether it’s health care or whatever it is, they’ll do what they need to do to keep that power.

[APPLAUSE]

[...]

[25:03] SHERROD: I couldn’t say 45 years ago, I couldn’t stand here and say what I’m saying — what I will say to you tonight. Like I told, God helped me to see that its not just about black people, it’s about poor people. And I’ve come a long way. I knew that I couldn’t live with hate, you know. As my mother has said to so many, if we had tried to live with hate in our hearts, we’d probably be dead now.

But I’ve come to realize that we have to work together and — you know, it’s sad that we don’t have a room full of white and blacks here tonight ’cause we have to overcome the divisions that we have. We have to get to the point as Tony [sic] Morrison said race exists but it doesn’t matter. We have to work just as hard — I know it’s — you know, that division is still here, but our communities are not going to thrive — you know, our children won’t have the communities that they need to be able to stay in and live in and have a good life if we can’t figure this out, you all. White people, black people, Hispanic people, we all have to do our part to make our communities a safe place, a healthy place, a good environment.

Yeah…she’s an evil anti-White racist, all right.

Sounds like a woman who has learned to overcome her racial fears and actually help people in need.

Problem for her was, she got caught in the crossfire of the current battle between the NAACP and the Tea Party. The former had just pased a resolution at their national convention calling out the latter for their more overt appeals to racism; and I guess that Breitbart and his right-wing goons were itching to find something to fight back with.

Even worse of problem for her, though, was that she had bosses — such as Agriculture Secretary Bob Vilsack (former Iowa governor and well known DLC corporate clone — who tend to jump the right-wing bait when it coomes to pandering to their nonsense of painting the Obama adminstration as a bunch of evil radical Black illegals. Such was the same case with Rev. Jeramiah Wright and Bill Ayers during the 2008 Presidential campaign, and with the ACORN smear job of Breitbart and his colleague Pimp Daddy James O’Keefe last year.

Apparently, the mere threat of Glenn Beck going on the TV to rip Prez O is enough for the admin to rush to judgment and sack good people in the name of political expedency.

And what’s even worse about Vilsack’s action is that it plays to the coommon theme that Obama is more than willing to coddle those who most hate him, while throwing the very people who supported him most under the bus when it suits his purposes. Problem is, it simply makes him hated even more….by everyone. Only the likelihood of a GOBP/Right sweep in the midterms is keeping the Dems afloat in Congress..but this may be the final nail in the coffin for that if people on the Left conclude that this seals the notion of Obama being a corporatist DLC clone who will always attack his “base”…probably not understanding the fundamental fact that for the Dimocrats, the Left and liberals never were their “base” to begin with.

Plus, nothing Prez O does will ever assuage the hatred of the Right for him or for poor/working class folk, anyway…they will still see him as an illegal Kenyan raised in a Indonesian madrassa and funded by George Soros and Hugo Chavez to impose his inner Marxist/Socialist/Shariaist on innocent pure White Americans.

That’s secondary, though, to Shirley Sherrod’s morality tale of how to actually help people while helping yourself.  This woman deserves better than this. Like, say, a Green Party nomination to become State Agriculture  Secretary??

Just one more reason why I say:  Fuck the Dimocrats.

And…it does pain me to say this, because even if I didn’t vote for him I did have some hope…but if Prez O doesn’t show some balls and rehire Mrs. Sherrod promptly and gives Vilsack the same walking papers he gave Stan McChrystal, then…screw him, too.

I’ll let Rachel get the last word on this debacle.  Who’s next, indeed??

The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC): 7-20-10 opening segment on the deliberate high-tech smear that cost USDA official Shirley Sherrod her job, and the complicity of the Obama Administration in abetting right-wing media assaults (via YouTube from StartLoving3)

Update: Well…the repercussions for all continue.

The response in defense of Mrs. Sherrod has been encouraging and overwhelming…with everyone from Digby at Hullabaloo to Glenn Greenwald raking the Obama Admenistration over the coals for throwing her under the bus without factchecking the story or simply Googling her full video first. As per the usual, Glenzilla was right on the point when he wrote this this morning:

Contrary to the excuse being offered by those who did all of that, her actual message — that she was plagued by racial biases decades ago and overcame them with the recognition that it is poverty that unites people in need — was clearly evident even from the deceitfully edited Breitbart video.  This is part of what she said on that edited video:

That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have.  And not so much about white. It is about white and black, but you know — it opened my eyes.

But — just as happened with Octavia Nasr and so many before her, including the now-destroyed ACORN — the blinding, lying, depressingly common right-wing hysteria churned out by Brietbart/Fox meant that no nuances were permitted, no reason could breathe, and few people had the courage to defend Sherrod or even demand that she be allowed to speak before being thrown to the trash heap.

And that’s where the truly significant and rare courage of Sherrod becomes so consequential.  Unlike so many who are caught in similar right-wing/media smear storms and (understandably) back down, Sherrod refused to meekly slink away.  She conspicuously refused to apologize for things that merited no apology.  Rather than legitimize the accusations with defensive self-justifications, she put the blame squarely where it belonged:  on Brietbart, on the NAACP for condemning her without all the facts, and on the Obama administration for demanding her “resignation.”  And as a result of her refusal to allow these false smears to go unchallenged and the low-life smear artists to be rewarded, the true facts have emerged.  The actual culprits in this episode — basically everyone except her and the white couple who came forward to defend her — are clearly identified and exposed, with their credibility in tatters.  And it’s hard to imagine the administration’s not reversing itself and offering to re-hire her, thus being forced to reverse a serious injustice.

As much value as Sherrod’s NAACP speech has for everyone, her conduct in the face of this massive onslaught is even more instructive.  It ought to serve as a template for how people respond to all of these low-life, right-wing smear campaigns:  with unapologetic clarity and resolve about who the actual wrongdoers are.  To the extent the gross injustice of her firing is reversed and the slander to which she was subjected is nullified, it will only be because she stood up to the right-wing smear machine, the establishment media, and even the Executive Branch, which were all jointly operating — with different motives — to destroy her.  That isn’t easy to do, but this is obviously a woman with uncommon courage and principle — exactly what is required to stand up to and expose the group of thuggish bullies trying to smear her and the cowardly government officials willing to play along.  This will be an extremely valuable episode if her conduct inspires future targets of such smears to respond with similar defiance.

And by this afternoon, the light bulb finally went off over at the White House, and they belatedly stepped up and took accountability for their actions.  Robert Gibbs publically apologized to Sherrod on behalf of President Obama, and Ag Secretary Vilsack even went so far as to offer her her job back. Fair reversal….but not enough to quelch the stench of betrayal and abandonment. And…the stupidity of allowing this to happen in the first place.

For Breitbart’s part, he’s now claiming that he didn’t doctor the vid, but simply used what other “sources” gave him; and he only responded because he was baited by the NAACP’s resolution attacking the Tea Party as abetting racism. As if the racist placards and the “N-bombs” and “Obama in turbans” pics weren’t proof, Mr. Breitbart??

Oh…and you’d think that all this would pass Keith Olbermann by?? Yeah, right. He has temporarily suspended his vacation to promise a Special Comment on his Countdown program (Lawrence O’Donnell is filling in as regular host); when it is posted, I will definitely repost it here.

Update #2: Gee….that was fast.  Thanks a plenty, MSNBC.com and John Amato of Crooks and Liars…appreciate ‘ya.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann (MSNBC): 7/21/10 “Special Comment on the Shirley Sherrod affair and the complicity of both Right and Left (in different ways) in enabling and abetting this debacle (msnbc.com, via Crooks and Liars)

Follow me on Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

The Difference Between “Progressives” And “Liberals”…And How Independent Left Populist Socialists Would Kick Both Their Asses

Dimocrats for the Leisure Class, F*ck The Dimocrats!!, Feel Your Inner Populist, Love Me...I'm A Liberal...NOT!!!, Political Smackdown 2009-2010, The Obama Nation -- Chump Change?? July 14th, 2010

No Gravatar

I thought that I’d get away from the “All Lubben, All Day” theme for a bit and focus on my other more political obsessions right about now.

There is now considerable angst ongoing now about the state of the port side of the political spectrum, with the fears running amok that President Obama and the Democrats have once again found a way to piss away the supermajority status they earned in 2008 to nothingness….such that there is a distinct threat that the Republicans, even with their Teabagger anchor firmly attached, may even be able to take back both houses of Congress.  This has created its own havoc amongst “progressives” and “liberals” alike, where each side is blaming the other ahead of the assumed deluge come midterm Election Day this November.

On the one hand, you have the liberal loyalists, the firm “yellow dog” Democrats and the Obama fans, who insist that people stick with Prez O and his agenda and not bail out, fearing that any dissention would aid and abet the Republicans to come back to power, with all the nightmarish scenarios of everything from Birther lawsuits to impeachment to repeal of health care reform (and having the likes of Steve King and  Michelle Bachmann in real positions of power). They are also the ones most likely to shun any thrid party effort as just awful “Naderism” that they blame for costing the Dems the presidency in 2000 and enabled the Bush regime that followed.

On the other hand, though, you have the movement “progressives”, who see things slightly different: they blame Obama himself for the state of the Dems’ meltdown, saying that he is simply too weak and accomodating to Republican policy and right-wing threats, if not a Trojan horse for the Right in the first place. They see Obama as fundamentally unqualified and inexperienced and simply not willing to export his political capital and oratorial skills to support progressive policies. Either that, or he’s simply as bought and sold to the corporate establishment as every other politician apparently is (save for Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, a darling of the “progressives” for his abiliy to smack down the GOP). A subset of this group are the PUMA’s, who apparently are still stuck in their fantasy world that now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (then Obama’s main rival for the 2008 Presidency) would be the better and true “progressive candidate” merely because….well, her name is Hillary rather than Bill.

Now, if the Electoral Apocalypse does indeed take place and the GOBP (to use Keith Olbermann’s apt phrase) do manage to take control of both houses of Congress, I’m sure that this war of words will simply escalate, with both sides blaming each other for the meltdown and lodging their guns at each other rather than the threat of a Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich Presidency in 2012.

That brings us to a unique post that was offered by one on the “progressive” side, which attempted to draw the line between the “progressives” and the “liberals” in such a way to favor the former.  Sam Smith, the proprietor of the website Progressive Review, is well known for his promotion of “progressive populism” as an antidote to what he sees as sellout corporate liberalism offered currently by the Democratic establishment. The post that he submitted to his site today, titled “The Difference Between Progressives and Liberals” (also reprinted this morn over at CounterPunch), lists what Smith sees as several reasons why Progressives are better than Liberals, and should be guiding the wheel of policy where the liberal Dems have failed.

That may be all fine and good…but as someone who believes that even “progressives” may not be radical enough or independent enough to address core issues of inequality, I find Smith’s logic to be a bit incomplete.

Therefoire, I will use his post as a jumping point for my own argument that a far more radical approach than even the “Progressivism” of Sam Smith is needed to break through the logjam of political inertia affecting the American Left.

No, Clones…I’m not going Castro or Chavez on you (though, considering Cuba’s superior health carre system and Venezuela’s success of redistributing income to its poorest citizens, they certainly merit more than a second look), but I will reveal my thoughts on what could possibly work when the Left decides to think outside the constraints of “the box”.

And so…here we go:

How To Tell The Difference Between A Progressive And A Liberal (Sam Smith, from Progressive Review, also reposted in CounterPunch)

Progressives, as liberals did before Reagan, emphasize doing the most for the most – which is how we got socio-economic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and a minimum wage. Today’s liberals favor expanding health insurance company profits over expanding Medicare and strongly support Democratic presidents who undermine the very programs that earlier liberals created such as social welfare and Social Security.

Ummm….”the most for the most”, Mr. Smith??  Like, the most drafting young men to die in Vietnam and Southeast Asia?? The most…stifling social welfare programs to fuel the unending lusts of the Pentagon?? Raising the minimum wage to the heights of…well…barely enough to even reach the poverty level?? Standing aside while states passed “right-to-work” laws and busted unions left, right and center??

And what about this about “current liberals” versus “earlier liberals”?? I thought that it was just “liberals” who put themselves above the public? Not quite like the “progressives”, who would simply put White working class folks ahead of others..right??

Here’s a better idea, Mr. Smith…how about we have a consolidated social welfare/Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid system based on a guaranteed income program that eliminated much of the red tape and bureaucracy and got sufficient aid and assistance to the people in the greatest need?? Or…how about a greately expanded public sector jobs program with emphasis on education, health care, and fixing our crumbling infrastructure?? Would the “progressives” be as willing to support THAT..or would that fall too far into the category of “socialism” for you, Mr. Smith??

Progressives don’t act like prudes and prigs.

Really?? Considering that the likes of Gail Dines and other such antipornography feminists are the dominant voice on sexual expression policy and that advocates for a more open and egalitarian free speech policy are consistently tossed aside, I’d really beg to differ with that opinion. Has Progressive Review or CounterPunch ever written an editorial opposing antiporn “feminist” fascism of late?? (Outside of Nina Hartley refuting Chyng Sun five years ago and a couple of Susan Block essays in CP, that is??)

There happen to be people on the Left who happen to want to study the excesses and dangers of capitalism by actually analyzing….capitalism, not simply using capitalism as a crutch to condemn personal speech they don’t partacularly grok or like.  When the “progressives” start listening to these voices, maybe they might find their groove again.

Progressives don’t think the commerce clause of the Constitution should be used just because you feel like doing something, such as avoiding single payer health insurance. There is a huge difference between using the commerce clause to guarantee human rights and using it to subsidize health insurance companies.

Funny, though…some “progressives” have no such problem with using the “commerce clause” when it comes to stifling particular groups of people….like undocumented immigrants or lawful adult sex workers merely seeking better pay and employment. Or…does single payer health care only apply to “lawful citizens”??

Single payer is a good start; single payer as a foundation for a nationalized universal health care system like the British currently have, would be even better.

Progressives recognize the Green Party and its members as part of a broad coalition. Most liberals act as though Greens were a new kind of HIV.

Probably true…but where were the Progressives in 2008 when Cynthia McKinney was running at the head of the Green Party ticket?? Or, maybe the thought of two Black women at the head of a party ticket just too much??

And also….while the Greens certainly could be part of any independent Left ticket, some of their platform is way too problematic, due to their emphasis on “smallness” and on “localism” that may not be the best solution for national or even international issues of scale. “Tear down this freeway!!!” and “Build your own garden!!!: can only go so far in an interconnected country such as ours.

Progressives try to convince people with whom they disagree, not just scold them.

Oh, I see…so that means that Black folk should make nice with the Teabagger KKK who would sooner kill them?? Or, women should just shut the hell up if our “progressive” leaders decide that the antigay/antisexual expression/antiabortion/anticontraception leaders of the Roman Catholic Church (or some other “progressive” evangelical church group) should take center stage in their coalition because they offer lots of cash and “converts”?? Convincing peoplein the middle who realy can be sold is one thing; bipolarism is another thing entirely.

Progressive oppose the wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq; liberals like them as long as a Democratic president is running them.

I guess that makes Ron and Rand Paul progressives, then…right?? Wrong, Mr. Smith: Leftists oppose wars in general except as a last resort by people with no other option available to gain their freedom and autonomy against the worst oppression. In other words, we would oppose wars in Palestine/Israel, the Congo, and Northern Ireland, as well as those other countries…because war makes the Military-Industrial Complex grow at the expense of human needs.

Progressives oppose the war on drugs, America’s most masochistic and deadly battle since Vietnam. Liberals treat it with utter indifference.

The War on Drugs is pretty damn counterproductive…but you do know that hard drugs do have a way of injuring and killing people, do you, Mr. Smith?? And what about the even deadlier and even more counterproductive War on Sex???

Progressives believe what people do is more important than how politely they talk about it.

I can agree with that one…so, why are you still a Democrat after all they’ve done for you??  Or haven’t done??

Progressives don’t think you should have to go to grad school to have an important role in government.

Also one I can agree with…so, where’s the Left popular countermovement to the Teabaggers which would actually elect “progressives” to positions of power within government?? Oh, I forgot…that’s only for local folks.

Progressives respect state and local government; liberals often act like they’re a Republican plot. Progressives understand the importance of the devolution of power to the lowest practical level.

Ahhh…no.  Simply…HELL TO THE NO. What Mr. Smith misses here is that it was “devolution” to the states and the locales that allowd Jim Crow slavery and segregation to kick Black folks in the asses for nearly 100 years…and it was the full weight and power of the Federal government acting in progressive means and ends that helped those “local’ groups overcome the repression of state and local governments. Some levels of government can be placed closer to the people…but there still needs to be a federated, consolidated, amalgamated role of Big Government (tempered by egalitarian principles and democratic accountability, of course) to supersede any regional attempt at petty power plays. There is as much a need for nationalization as there is for localization.

Progressives worry about locked doors, liberals about glass ceilings, which is why liberals thought Obama’s election would create a post-racial society.Too many liberals are infatuated with symbolism such as electing a black president, while ignoring the real problems most minorities face in everything from the job market to dealing with the law.

Pardon my French here, but….EXCUSE FUCKIN’ ME?!?!?!? Electing the first President of color was no damn symbolism…especially for a country that has not managed to elect anyone other than a White male for the previous 232 years of its existence. That Obama hasn’t exactly been sterling as a progressive or a Democrat doesn’t negate the legacy of his victory one bit…it only proves how out of touch the Democrats and the corporate hacks that put him in the White House have been.  And besides….it would have been just as siginificant had it been Clarence Thomas elected.

And sure, us “minorities” (uhhh, Mr. Smith…non-Whites aren’t minor, and soon we collectively won’t even be a “minority”) are well aware without your help that we have issues that Prez O and the Dems are ignoring…but why are you ignoring US in favor of going after the conservative White working class voters?? Not saying that they aren’t hurting and in need of help like everyone else, but why should they get all the love while others get thrown under the bus?? How is that any different than what you accuse Obama of doing??

Even progressives who don’t own guns respect the right of others to do. Besides, why piss them off the way liberals have done, when they could be allies on a host of other issues, beginning with civil liberties.

Really?? Are you saying that the NRA could be an actual progressive ally?? The same NRA in the pocket of GOBP?? The same NRA that openly consolidates with Teabaggers to oppose even lukewarm Obama/Clinton/Bacus health care?? And since when did even most liberals ever back taking away guns from law abiding citizens not accused of any crime?? Sorry, but no sale here…we can carry our own weapons without the NRA’s help, thank you very much.

But then, progressives still defend civil liberties. Liberals seem to have forgotten about them and ignore Obama’s abuse of them.

As if Hillary would have been better??  Or Bubba Clinton??  How about Al Gore??? Yeah, right.

Progressives pursue issues; liberals support candidates.

Progressives don’t give up an issue just because the candidate they voted for is now in office and opposes it.

Aside from the basic fact that in order to pursue an issue you got to have a candidate there to pursue that issue….I can go with that one. Maybe we just need candidates who don’t compromise themselves to pass that issue….don’t we??

Liberals love Clinton and Obama while despising the Bushes who preceded them. They don’t seem to notice that our government continued to move to the right under both Democrats and that neither repealed any significant policies of their GOP predecessors.

That’s funny…I’ve seen quite a few PUMA progressives still brandishing their “Hillary in ’12, DAMMIT…because WE WERE RIGHT IN ’08!!!” stickers.

Progressives don’t think bailing out banks is an economic stimulus, but that helping to create jobs and stop foreclosures is.

Can’t disagree with that one…but how about the idea of simply nationalizing the banks and wiping out those deficient junk loans and foreclosures, and just letting people keep the homes they paid good money for?? And doing the same for forgiving government-supported student loans, too??

Progressives support local public schools and their teachers; liberals go along with the Bush-Obama attack on public education.

OK…so Obama and Duncan’s plans for public ed mimics Bush’s “No Child Left Behind”. What about actualy improving local public education by making it free from Head Start all the way through grad school, and basing it on need and competence rather than logrolling and senority??

Progressives are not afraid of criticizing Israel for its abusive treatment of Palestine. Liberals either support Israel’s criminal actions or are afraid of being called anti-Semites so don’t say anything.

The best of the lot here…but important to understand that it is the abuses and the underlying bigotry and racism of the philoso[hy of Zionism that we are attacking, not the right of Israeli Jews to the same basic rights of freedom and self rule that the Palestinian Arabs should also have. It doesn’t have to degenerate into becoming fans of Hezbollah or Hamas…or Irgun or Likud.

Progressives have new ideas; liberals come up with new compromises with the right.

I don’t know…many of the old idea — like democratic socialism and self-autonomy interspersed with collective solidarity — still remain quite valid for me.  And I don’t want compromise with the Center, either.

And the last word by Smith goes thusly:

Progressives believe that change is produced by broad coalitions brought together on specific issues, but not necessarily agreeing on all policy. Liberals believe change will come when everyone acts like they do.

Yes, consensus on the fundamentals combined with agreeing to disagree on the peripherals is important…but without a core commitment to the fundamentals, and without establishing a foundation of what those fundamental values are, no coalition worthy of its name will last.

The real issue that faces the Left (other than the lack of money, of course is) that there is no core central belief system and no core foundation of outreach that appeals to the issues of the majority of the working class and the unemployed…which still remains the majority of the country’s popuilation. That makes the latter far more suspectable to being divided against each other by both neolberals and neoconservatives who battle tooth and nail over the seats of power while the rest of us are reduced to spectators to this debacle.

The only way out of this is for the Left to rediscover the idea of democratic socialist populism: the belief that average people working together in solidarity and helping each other as equals can turn this thing around and restructure government to serve them under genuine progressive principles. That means nothing less than principled and total rejection of and rabid opposition to every inch of the Right’s core ideology, but it also means the ability to question and hold accountable its own leaders when they stray too far from progressive principles.

Say all you wish to say about the Right’s lunacy, but they sure do an excellent job of holding on to their biases and maintaining their discipline when in power…which is probably why they tend to come back like Freddy Kruger in far too many nightmares. If we tapped even half of their balls, we’d be in better shape than we are right now.

In other words, instead of arguing about why your house always gets pummled in hurricanes, why not just get the hell out and build a stronger, better house??

Follow me on Twitter

Tags: , ,

The Pink Cross Ponzi Scheme, Part Deux: Anatomy Of A (Cooked) Charitable Foundation

Makes Me Wanna Holla, Porn in the US of A, Sex Goddesses Who Smack 'em Down, Support Your Local Sex Worker/Performer, The Julie Meadows Files, The Shelley Lubben Files, slut shaming July 13th, 2010

No Gravatar

Like I promised in Part One of the saga, onward to the real fun.

For those of you just joining us, we are now beginning an in depth look at the Pink Cross Foundation, which serves as Shelley Lubben’s prime organization for “fellowship” and “missioning” of porn performers wanting to get out and, to use the old cliche, “find Jesus Christ as your personal Savior”.

The problem is, though, that their stated financial disclosures tend to tell a bit less alturistic tale of their motives.

Some background before we begini: The Pink Cross Foundation sells itself as a tax-deductible charitable foundation under the terms of Section 501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Under those terms, orgs seeking tax credit or tax deductable privileges under that umbrella are required to retroactively justify their tax-exempt status by filing and publically disclosing upon request Form 990 (among other forms), stating the org’s membership, detailing their revenue and expenses streams, and verifying that the majority of their funding is used for the purpose of charitable giving given in their mission statement. These forms, as I said, are not only required to be filed every year that the charitable org exists, but have to be accessible to the public and to every donor making a contribution to the organization.

In the case of the PCF, they were first chartered as an charitable org in 2008, and as such filed for 501 (c) tax exempt status for the years 2008 and 2009, using the standard Form 990 (the EZ version for 2008; the more detailed, itemized version for 2009).

And here is where the fun begins.

One of the main requirements that the Feds give to charitable organizations seeking tax exempt status is that there be a clear firewall of seperation between the organization and any individual who may even hint at profiting personally from that org. In other words, if, say, Michelle Obama wanted to start her own charitable org to promote ending hunger, she would have to have that org be run as a seperate entity, with her recieving no direct aid or salary or having any position of financial power over the revenue or contribution stream going to that org.

So, what’s the relevance of that to the Pink Cross Foundation and Shelley Lubben?? Whheeeeelllllllll….take a gander of a the following two screenshots taken of the “official copies” (more on the need for parentheses anon) of the PCF’s tax forms filed for 2008 and 2009, respectfully (eternal h/t:to Julie Meadows, who posted the originals here):

Please direct your attention to the URL at the top of each page. You will notice that they all point to “shelleylubben[dot]com”.

NOT “pinkcross[dot]org”, which just so happens to be the official domain for the PCF’s official website.  Not even “pinkcroos[dot]net”, another domain name bought by Lubben as a back up (and which currently also redirects people to her personal website.

Now..didn’t someone over there actually think about the alarm bells that could potentialy go off about the prospect of having a charitable organization so intimately linked with its founder and executive director to the point of sharing the same website??

Apparently they didn’t….at least not until just recently, because up til last week, this was exactly the case. It was only after Julie Meadows made it public knowledge that someone over at the PCF (mabye Lubben or her webmasters) redirected the URLs to have them go to the PCF’s website rather than Lubben’s.

OK….so that solved that issue, right?? Not bloody likely.

That was only the cosmetic , the patina….break through the seal and actually look through the records, and a more sinister and less altruistic motive emerges.

And, break through the seal is exactly what Julie Meadows and her husband Doug did: they managed to get full copies of the PCF returns and analyze them with a fine-tooth comb.  The results, needless to say, raise far more questions than answers.

So many questions, in fact, that Julie and Doug were moved to make a video out of their research, one that is now up for display and review on YouTube (via her JulieMeadowsEnt page) and at Julie’s home blog. She has gracefully given me permission to repost the four parts of video here, to which I am grateful.

I couldn’t post the video in its entirity, so I’m using the 4-part series they posted to YouTube. It’s more than worth the time.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

And finally…Part 4:

Some highlights:

1) OK, so Garret Lubben (Shelley’s hubby) is listed as “secretary” on the tax form, but not as any official paid staffer. So..why the HELL is he plastered all over the Pink Cross site as “Director”, and “Secretary/Treasurer”, which, in case you don’t notice, makes him a staff member?? Why hide that fact froom the returns, Shelley?? Hiding income much??

2) Lovely juxaposition between the two returns: $64,520 of income listed in 2008 return; as compared to $64,250 posted in the 2009 return for “last year’s income”. Gee…nice proofreading, guys. Did you just rush through the return, or are you really that slipshod??

3) In 2008 return, Shelley signs her own return.  In 2009, they outsource it to some org called Business Management Services Inc. out of Bakersfield, and Garret signs the return as “Treasurer”. What exactly changed between 2008 and 2009 that Shelley couldn’t sign it herself??  Well, could it have something to do with the fact that the PCF doubled their income from donations from $64,250 (see note (1) on that) to $125,000…but managed not to list any salary or benefits for any of the lead officials (read, Shelley and Garret Lubben)??? I wish we could tell..but the 2009 return refers inquiring minds to attachments that are invisible to the naked eyes, or at least those eyes listing the return.

4) The 2008 return is signed.  The 2009 statement is not, neither by BMS or by Garret. Why?? Unless, as Doug says outright in Part 2, the 2009 “statement” was really a ruse to call off the dogs.

5) The mission statement on the returns lists their “humanitarian” goals of assisting sex workers to quit porn and to educate people on the “facts” about porn.  That’s a bit different from the actual mission statement that is published on the PCF website which states (emphasis added by me):

Pink Cross Foundation, a humanitarian outreach and international movement will respond to needs of people who are victims of pornography. Our mission is to share the good news of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination. We also combat community deterioration due to pornography and prostitution through attempts to educate legislation in order to enforce health and safety laws within the pornography industry, to protect adult industry workers from sexually transmitted diseases and other job-related abuses, to ameliorate the secondary negative effects of pornography on the general public and to toughen laws to protect children from accessing online pornography. This ministry is motivated by the amazing love of God.

Gee….now I wonder why all that religious pontification didn’t make it to the mission statement they gave to the IRS?? Would it be something having to do with the laws of church-state seperation, or the non-political/non-religious motives required for charitable orgs to keep their tax-exempt status?? And I thought that charitable orgs weren’t supposed to be able to lobby, either?? So, what was Shelley’s crying jag in front of the dining Congressmen during Pat Trueman’s “Pornography Harms” luncheon gabfest….old time witnessing?? Sheeee-utz, not even Gail Dines pimped for tax exempt status for her antiporn efforts.

6) Then, there is the case of the disappearing “salaries”: $49,336 in salaries claimed on the 2009 return, but with no mention (other than references to the invisible “attachments”) of names or any details of any person claiming to recieve such salaries. Never mind that Garret is still listed as “Treasurer”. Never mind that Shelley still owns the domain names of “thepinkcross[dot]org” and “thepinkcross[dot]net” (and in fact, the latter domain still redirects directly to Shelley’s personal home website, “shelleylubben[dot]com”).  And, also never mind that even within the Pink Cross Foundation site there is linkage aplenty to Lubben’s home site…so much so that the two can be seen as interlaced tighter than one of “Roxy’s” former gangbang scenes. Either Doug is right and this form is more bogus than a 6 dollar bill and designed to fool the prospective donors just as she grifts off the performers she “saves”…or she must have someone at the IRS by the nads, so to speak, in order to get her exemption from paying taxes on her “foundation”.

Oh, but there is so, so, so much more chicanery to be found there…you’ll just have to watch the video in its entirity to bask in the beauty of this scam.

Which leads me to my final riddle on this:  Why does Shelley Lubben get the funds, but someone like Monica Foster (an actual working performer who actually gives a damn about real women performers) can’t even buy herself that kind of aid?? Oh, I forgot…Monica actually walks the talk…and she’s Black, too. Wrong complexion for the connection, I guess.

Follow me on Twitter

Tags: , , ,

The Pink Cross Foundation: Legitimate Organization Helping Ex-Porn Girls…Or, Shelley Lubben’s Personal Slush Fund??

Hypotwatcracy, Support Your Local Sex Worker/Performer, The Julie Meadows Files, The War on Sex/Sluts/Gays/Whatever July 5th, 2010

No Gravatar

Given that I have thrown a lot at you lately concerning Shelley Lubben and her Pink Cross Foundation, a little more wouldn’t hurt too much.

Although much of the criticism of Lubben has been focused on the legitimacy of her criticism of the profession that she left, along with some of her most outlandish claims about what frmale porn performers are forced to endure, there is beginning to emerge a clearer picture of the actual scope of her organization, The Pink Cross Foundation, and their crusade against women within porn. And, that picture is beginning to bring up even more fundamental questions about whether or not the actual aims of PCF are in tune with the professed goals thereof…or, whether or not this is simply a scam designed to exploit former porn performers in order to enrich Ms. Lubben’s back pockets.

Once again, I will mostly use as my base for this analysis the evidence mounted by Julie Meadows and her colleagues over at her blog, since she has been the most active in publically investigating and exposing Lubben and the PCF to scrutiny and accountablilty. An additional assist goes to Violet Blue and the Our Porn, Ourselves blog, for they have also been on the case of Lubben for quite a while as well.

First issue: How PCF recruits and “helps” women wanting out of porn.

It’s been well documented how Lubben and her organization has been trolling porn conventions searching for new recruits and harassing porn performers and producers to promote her mission. She has also boasted about how many ex-performers have “seen the light” and not only left, but converted to her fundamentalist religion.

Problem is, there may be a much more sinister and obtuse objective in mind in Shelley’s efforts.

Julie Meadows happened to discover what she alleges to be the official application that PCF gives to all former porn performers seeking their financial support to help get out of the industry, and if it’s the truth, it says a hell of a lot about Lubben’s hypocrisy in slamming porn as being exploitive of the women. Apparently, there are conditions attached to receiving PCF’s help, conditions that would make workfare proponents envious.

Here is Page 1 of the supposed application, originally posted at Julie’s blog (click on image for larger view):

Notice that the “short term” assistance requirements only goes up to $500 per year, although the only requirement that remains significant is that the applicant leave the industry.  All well and good…but if you want the REAL assistance (up to $5,000 per year), you have to not only leave the industry, but also be fully employed, be “accountable to the Pink Cross Foundation membership team” (which I assume means totally adopt fundamentalist Christianity and “get saved”), abandon any employment, funds, royalties, or any other means of financial assistance from “the sex industry” even if rightfully earned, and stay away from drugs or excessive alcohol usage.

That’s right, Clones…they require you to be both abjectly poor AND gainfully employed AT THE SAME TIME in order to get their assistance. Not to mention, you must give up any income received from porn AND convert to their religion to boot.

I’ll just let Julie supply the answer to that nonsense:

As Cocaine Incorporated points out, there is a sincere problem with two of these requirements.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF NEEDING HELP IF AN ACTOR OR ACTRESS CAN GO OUT AND GET A FULL TIME JOB? THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT, AFTER BEING IN THE ADULT INDUSTRY, TO GET A FULL TIME JOB THAT IS NOT ADULT INDUSTRY-RELATED. If this really is an application The Pink Cross gives to performers who want/need their help, how does this help someone trying to get out of the industry? The fact is, without financial assistance and help finding the job, there is no help to be gained because that’s the first concern. Income. So, “if funds are available” and you need help, but don’t have a job, you can quit the industry and get $500.00 in the interim (again, maybe)… except how do you know you’re going to get $500 help until you fill out the application and someone reviews it first? How long is the review process? “All applications must be submitted to Pink Cross Foundation for review and approval. Applicants must meet requirements for approval.” How is any part of this supposed to ease the mind of one of these women who have been harassed by this organization at trade shows (might explain why they don’t have the funds to help these women, Shelley allegedly eludes to this in emails I was sent from an anonymous source that I will post later)? How is this supposed to make a performer feel like they will actually get help? And if you sign up for short term help and get approved, does that mean you have forfeited your opportunity for long term help? Just because you couldn’t get a “full time” job first? What if you can get a part time job? All this looks like is a reason to not help, and in the event that they can help, to not help very much. $5000.00 is just a drop in the pond for an organization that sweeps in over six figures annually.

The next big problem in this list is “stop receiving all funds, royalties, and gifts from prior industry and sex work.” So the performer already did the work and is due whatever money they worked for, regardless of whether or not it’s a payroll check for a scene that’s already a few months in coming, royalties for a photo shoot executed to promote a toy line, website money based on fan memberships, etc… Even though this is the kind of money that can help them, and compensate for the possible lack of funds available from the organization, THE MODEL IS SUPPOSED TO DECLINE ALL MONEY FOR WORK IN THE INDUSTRY THEY’VE ALREADY EARNED. IF THIS IS REALLY AN APPLICATION THE PINK CROSS GIVES TO PERFORMERS WHO WANT/NEED THEIR HELP, DO THEY KNOW THAT YOU CAN’T JUST REFUSE YOUR MONEY? EVEN IF THE STATE HOLDS ONTO IT AS UNCLAIMED FUNDS, NO ONE CAN SPEND IT BUT THE PERSON IT BELONGS TO, AND THAT PERSON STILL HAS TO CLAIM IT ON THEIR TAX RETURN AND PAY TAXES FOR IT. Unless… The Pink Cross asks the performer to turn the funds over to their organization. Is that part of the “willing to be accountable to Pink Cross Foundation mentorship team,” line of “requirements?” And if they’re providing financial aid anyway, what does it matter if the performer keeps money they’ve already earned or hand it over to The Pink Cross and then The Pink Cross compensates them? I think it’s a very good question considering the application requires the performer disclose their Social Security number. And then what of the line “willing not to promote the sex industry?” Is this a vague agreement to publicly speak out against the adult industry? It doesn’t clarify.

So, let me get this straight, if I need to get out of the industry, I have to quit completely and cut myself off financially, fill out an application with no guarantee on how long it takes to get “approved”, turn all my information over to the organization and hope they approve me and then hope they have the funds, after all the traveling and lobbying and booths rented at industry events, to actually help me. Where is the help during the frantic nail biting period of, “Will they help me or not?” Why the booths at events to pull American Porn Stars in if she spent and could be spending more donation money to travel to Canada for a speech? So she can maybe help women in Canada, too?

Which begs Burning Question #1 for this ‘Dog: Maybe the PFC’s really requiring full employment and refusal of “sex industry” funds as a shakedown tactic to wring more cash from potential converts?? Or…are they basically telling their potential clients to simply transfer all of their “unGodly” assets over to PCF in exchange for the pittance of “assistance” and absolute dependency (albeit, with the full time employment requirement)? How in the HELL is that not exploitating the performers far, far WORSE than anything that porn imposed on them in the first place?? But hey, it’s all in the name of Jesus, so that’s OK…right?? Right???

Perhaps that explains the basic fact of why at last count, the PCF could claim only six active full-time members. (In an industry that brings in 300 new girls each month.) Or, it may explain why Lubben has to resort to tactics like blackmail to force unwilling performers to join PCF (ask Taryn Thomas about that).

But that’s only part of the story…just wait until we get to the actual financial records of PCF, and the real fun begins…that’ next on the queue.

Follow me on Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

Reason #4,569 Why Porn Starlets RULE: Julie Meadows Pwns Shelley Lubben The Way Charlie Daniels Rocks The Fiddle

Porn in the US of A, Right-Wing Sex Freakery, Sex Goddesses Who Smack 'em Down, Support Your Local Sex Worker/Performer, The Julie Meadows Files, slut shaming July 1st, 2010

No Gravatar

I know that you might be getting more than a bit tired of me ranting about Shelley Lubben of late…I wouldn’t even go this far if I didn’t think that it was important to expose her for the fraud she is.

Fortunately, though, others more involved than me have also come forth to join in the debunking of her idiocy and hyp-twat-cracy. And one special person has now made it her personal mission to cast the blinding light of sunshine on Lubben’s supposed mission to “save” porn starlets from themselves.

But before I introduce you to Julie Meadows and her tireless campaign, a brief update on Shelley’s latest goings on.

You will remember that Lubben was documented here giving her usual “witnessing” at a Congressional lunch/speakfest hosted by several antiporn activists in Washington, DC, around the middle of last month. Since then, she has been on a roll, getting a prime interview segment on an ABC News’ Nightline program on the prevailence of porn; then jetting over to LA for a hearing sponsored by the California OSHA officials on whether mandatory condom usage should be imposed on porn sets in the name of protecting performers. The hearing itself featured several active porn performers and producers attempting to make the case that requiring condoms on all porn scenes would negatively impact the profits of the industry, would violate the principle of performer choice, and would be a backdoor method of driving sexual media out of Cali completely while driving production underground into more dangerous (at least for the performer) and possibly life-threatening situations.

Lubben, of course, went there in support of AIDS Healthcare Foundation spokesperson Michael Weinstein, who wants not only to impose mandatory condom usage, but also undercut and undermine and ultimately destroy the existing testing regime and its overseers, the AIM Foundation, which he sees as discriminatory against HIV+ people, and insufficient in protecting performers from STDs. Weinstein has even borrowed two members of Lubben’s Pink Cross Foundation — her organization of born-again former performers — to file lawsuits against AIM-MED, claiming that their testing regimen and passing results to industry producers violates the privacy rights of the performers. (Never mind that Weinstein had attempted to browbeat Cal-OSHA to that very same thing during the last HIV porn scare,when he actively encouraged them to force AIM to reveal the medical records of all of the performers involved in that teapot tempest, in which one performer managed to get infected outside the industry when she missed her deadline for her regular test, then managed to do one unprotected scene afterwards. No other performer ended up infected as a result. And, the fact that Weinstein could personally profit with a fat government contract to supervise any testing/condom regime that would replace the AIM-MED system is simply coincidence.  Riiiight.)

But, Weinstein’s not the issue here and now….it’s Lubben’s claim to represent herself as the ultimate porn performer activist, the ultimate victim of the innate evil of porn, and the self-ordained by God himself missionary/Mother Teresa of “ex-sluts” cleansed by “the blood of Christ”, that has become a real flashpoint for plenty of active and former performers.

Now, there are a few who do sympathize with her tragic and horrific tale of absolute exploitation, suffering, and calamity; her sordid tales of rape and cervical cancer and forced prostitution, and her efforts to overcome those setbacks and survive as a recovering victim. I, for one, am NOT going to doubt one bit her experiences as real and her emotions as legitimate; nor am I going to gloss over the fact that there are a few women within the porn industry who have been treated just as harshly and may feel just as Lubben does about how the industry does tend to overlook its darker and more surly side. Nor am I out to deny Shelley her right as a citizen of the US to make her case in the public about the supposed evils of porn.

However….while one is entitled to speak her mind on her experiences, one is NOT entitled to mangle and manipulate facts to deny other people their experiences, nor is one entitled to use tactics of manipulation and fear and outright lying to promote their point of view. And, when one decides to attack others who might have a slightly different opinon of their profession as a bit less than evil…well, let’s just say that the latter have the same right to correct the record.

Which brings me to Ms. Julie Meadows…long time adult performer with roots in both softcore AND hardcore, and one pretty smart lady who has had many experiences — good AND bad — in the adult sexual medium.

Lately at her blog and in other venues such as adult agent Mike South’s personal blog, Ms. Meadows has been riffing big time on her objections to Lubben’s “activism”, claiming everything from outright hypocrisy (claiming to renounce porn while still exploiting her former image and profession by invading porn conventions); to lowdown tactics in recruiting new members (baiting potential “recruits” into choosing her organization via the usual “saved” rhetoric, only to make thinly veiled threats against them — up to and including “outing” them for doing “unnatural acts”– if her advances are rejected); to financial chicanery involving her Pink Cross Foundation and their tax-exempt status; to the “bait and switch” tactics imposed on recruits (promising to pay expenses involved with giving up porn, only to break them later at a moment’s notice; basing treatment of recruits on popularity status, with more publically favorable ex-performers being favored for propaganda purposes)…and the list could go on to infinity.

Because it is such a lengthy and consistent effort, it would take several posts here to fully document the evidence Julie has uncovered….so, it’s best to simply refer you to her blog and read up on what she and some of her commenters say. I will, however, cross post some of the more…shall we say, interesting elements of her case against Shelley Lubben as seperate pages, just I have done with Kayden Kross’ and Vicky Vette’s articles opposing Lubben and her crew of devotees. I’ve already included one blog entry from Julie’s blog, and more is on the way.

Why do this, you ask??  Because:  (1) it’s important to expose people like Shelley Lubben who paint themselves as the only tried and true representative of women who have done porn for the fools they are; (2) the best people to repudiate and counter lies about sex workers and porn performers are porn performers themselves who have actually been there and should have a lot more to say about how they should go about their profession; and (3) more smart and sexy women speaking out in defense of making and doing porn and standing up for their own lives doesn’t suck at all.

The fact that Julie Meadows is also more of a political progressive doesn’t hurt her cause with me, either.

A sampling of how Julie lays the smack down from a blog post on PCF’s “requirements” for “helping” former performers get out of the industry (original post here):

1) The very first lines reads: Pink Cross Foundation: A non-profit organization offering emotional, financial and transitional support for adult industry workers their first year of recovery who are in the United States who qualify and depending on availability of our resources.”

“Depending on availability of our resources.” What? After you pay to go to conventions, which are expensive? After you spend how much of your time lobbying? If this really is an application The Pink Cross gives to performers who want/need their help, then those are legitimate questions.

2) “What we require for emergency short term assistance (up to $500 per year)” and “What we require for long term assistance (up to $5,000 per year)” – are the same term – one year. You’d think that “short term” would be… a shorter term. Also, it seems that the difference between $500.00 and $5,000.00 (depending on availability of resources, of course), is that the model must be “willing to be accountable to Pink Cross Foundation mentorship team, already have full time employment, stop receiving all funds, royalties, and gifts from prior industry and sex work, cannot take jobs related to anything in the sex industry, willing not to promote the sex industry, and willing to abstain from illegal drugs and excessive alcohol use.”

As Cocaine Incorporated points out, there is a sincere problem with two of these requirements.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF NEEDING HELP IF AN ACTOR OR ACTRESS CAN GO OUT AND GET A FULL TIME JOB? THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT, AFTER BEING IN THE ADULT INDUSTRY, TO GET A FULL TIME JOB THAT IS NOT ADULT INDUSTRY-RELATED. If this really is an application The Pink Cross gives to performers who want/need their help, how does this help someone trying to get out of the industry? The fact is, without financial assistance and help finding the job, there is no help to be gained because that’s the first concern. Income. So, “if funds are available” and you need help, but don’t have a job, you can quit the industry and get $500.00 in the interim (again, maybe)… except how do you know you’re going to get $500 help until you fill out the application and someone reviews it first? How long is the review process? “All applications must be submitted to Pink Cross Foundation for review and approval. Applicants must meet requirements for approval.” How is any part of this supposed to ease the mind of one of these women who have been harassed by this organization at trade shows (might explain why they don’t have the funds to help these women, Shelley allegedly eludes to this in emails I was sent from an anonymous source that I will post later)? How is this supposed to make a performer feel like they will actually get help? And if you sign up for short term help and get approved, does that mean you have forfeited your opportunity for long term help? Just because you couldn’t get a “full time” job first? What if you can get a part time job? All this looks like is a reason to not help, and in the event that they can help, to not help very much. $5000.00 is just a drop in the pond for an organization that sweeps in over six figures annually.

The next big problem in this list is “stop receiving all funds, royalties, and gifts from prior industry and sex work.” So the performer already did the work and is due whatever money they worked for, regardless of whether or not it’s a payroll check for a scene that’s already a few months in coming, royalties for a photo shoot executed to promote a toy line, website money based on fan memberships, etc… Even though this is the kind of money that can help them, and compensate for the possible lack of funds available from the organization, THE MODEL IS SUPPOSED TO DECLINE ALL MONEY FOR WORK IN THE INDUSTRY THEY’VE ALREADY EARNED. IF THIS IS REALLY AN APPLICATION THE PINK CROSS GIVES TO PERFORMERS WHO WANT/NEED THEIR HELP, DO THEY KNOW THAT YOU CAN’T JUST REFUSE YOUR MONEY? EVEN IF THE STATE HOLDS ONTO IT AS UNCLAIMED FUNDS, NO ONE CAN SPEND IT BUT THE PERSON IT BELONGS TO, AND THAT PERSON STILL HAS TO CLAIM IT ON THEIR TAX RETURN AND PAY TAXES FOR IT. Unless… The Pink Cross asks the performer to turn the funds over to their organization. Is that part of the “willing to be accountable to Pink Cross Foundation mentorship team,” line of “requirements?” And if they’re providing financial aid anyway, what does it matter if the performer keeps money they’ve already earned or hand it over to The Pink Cross and then The Pink Cross compensates them? I think it’s a very good question considering the application requires the performer disclose their Social Security number. And then what of the line “willing not to promote the sex industry?” Is this a vague agreement to publicly speak out against the adult industry? It doesn’t clarify.

So, let me get this straight, if I need to get out of the industry, I have to quit completely and cut myself off financially, fill out an application with no guarantee on how long it takes to get “approved”, turn all my information over to the organization and hope they approve me and then hope they have the funds, after all the traveling and lobbying and booths rented at industry events, to actually help me. Where is the help during the frantic nail biting period of, “Will they help me or not?” Why the booths at events to pull American Porn Stars in if she spent and could be spending more donation money to travel to Canada for a speech? So she can maybe help women in Canada, too?

Makes you wonder whether she learned her recruitment tactics from Jim Bakker, ehh??

I’ll take Monica Foster’s GettingOutOfPorn.com over this fool any day of the week. At least Monica actually cares.

Oh, wait….Shelley’s threatened Monica, too??? Niiiice. More on that anon….

Follow me on Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

The Mother Jones MegaFAIL Of Antiporn “Left Journalism”: Part Deux: Shelley LaLoon..Errrrrr, Shelley Lubben Rocks The Mic

Asshattery, Hypotwatcracy, Love Me...I'm A Liberal...NOT!!!, Porn in the US of A, Right-Wing Sex Freakery, Sexy Sex Intellectuals, Support Your Local Sex Worker/Performer, The Vast Sex Pox Conspriacy, The War on Sex/Sluts/Gays/Whatever, slut shaming June 18th, 2010

No Gravatar

[Updated below...scroll to bottom, as usual.]

OK…when we last left fisking the Mother Jones article on the supposed evil of porn, we had just finished skewering the “testimony” of Donna Rice Hughes, adulterer turned born-again fundie Christian activist, whom had just informed us about how young boys were being corrupted by the sight of naked nipple, bare midriff, exposed cleavage (both front and back), and even the occasional split beaver shot.

But the best was yet to come still…no pun intended.

Several academic types spoke about how pornography affects the brain, comparing it to drug addiction and positing that one reason Internet porn has gotten so hardcore so fast is that heavy viewers get desensitized. Mary Anne Layden, codirector of the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathy program at the University of Pennsylvania, described several patients whose lives were ruined by porn addictions—wherein what started off as a more benign nude-women surfing habit led them down the rabbit hole to becoming obsessed with kiddie porn, which led to jail sentences. And of course, there was the usual stuff about how porn hurts women and marriages.

Now, many of you may not have heard about Mary Anne Layden, because she is new to the antiporn crusades…but her own coming out party as an antiporn zealot was a speech she did for the fundamentalist Catholic Witherspoon Institute wherein she described the situation of people overwashed in immoral and destructive sexual thoughts as “sexual obesity”.  That’s right, Clones…if you think about sex in any way outside of making lots and lots of babies for Jesus, then you are in need of a strict diet of abstinence and a forced trip to Sexoholics Anonoymous to cure you of your sinful and un-Godly thoughts of lust.

‘Ya think I kid ‘ya?? Here’s a sampling of Mrs. Layden’s thinking, as relayed by sister right-winger Mary Eberstadt in an article posted to the journal First Things:

But while we’re on the subject of bad habits that can turn unwitting kids into unhappy adults, how about that other epidemic out there that is far more likely to make their future lives miserable than carrying those extra pounds ever will? That would be the emerging social phenomenon of what can appropriately be called “sexual obesity”: the widespread gorging on pornographic imagery that is also deleterious and unhealthy, though far less remarked on than that other epidemic—and nowhere near an object of universal public concern. That complacency may now be changing.

The term sexual obesity comes from Mary Ann Layden, a psychiatrist who runs the Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program at the University of Pennsylvania. She sees the victims of Internet-pornography consumption in her practice, day in and day out. She also knows what most do not: Quietly, patiently, and irrefutably, an empirical record of the harms of sexual obesity is being assembled piecemeal via the combined efforts of psychologists, sociologists, addiction specialists, psychiatrists, and other authorities.

Young people who have been exposed to pornography are more likely to have multiple lifetime sexual partners, more likely to have had more than one sexual partner in the last three months, more likely to have used alcohol or other substances at their last sexual encounter, and—no surprise here—more likely to have scored higher on a “sexual permissiveness” test. They are also more likely to have tried risky forms of sex. They are also more likely to engage in forced sex and more likely to be sexual offenders.

As for the all-purpose cop-out that “all this shows is correlation,” it can be refuted as Dr. Johnson famously refuted the immaterialism of Bishop Berkeley—by kicking a stone. No one reasonable would doubt that there is a connection between watching sex acts and trying out what one sees—especially for adolescents, who rather famously and instantly ape the other influences on their lives, from fashion to drug use and more, as has also been copiously studied.

So you see, we absolutely MUST wipe out sexual speech from the face of the earth, says Ms. Layden, because impressionable children are really like sponges and monkeys, just sapping up and imitating all that is impure and evil and ungodly and unnatural, and we must rigorously put them on the strict and (Far) Righteous diet of only “healthy” sexuality, because we know that all children who can’t resist the site of a woman’s exposed cleavage will ultimately become Ted Bundys!!  Or…Ed Bundys!! Or, even…Ted Kennedys!!!! Whether or not Ms. Layden would be as willing to draw her fire towards say, I don’t know, ministers who run smack about the evil of gays and their nasty sex habits by day while trolling for “luggage help” on rentboy[dot]com by night….or Catholic priests pontificating on the natural evils of homosexuality and the evil “porn culture” while protecting actual child molestors from accountablilty, is a question left only for loser skeptics and “secularists”, I suppose.

And remember, y’allz…this is coming from a LEFTIST rag, named for a populist revolutionary well known for risking and ultimately sacrificing her life for the fundamental rights of the common man and woman.  Sorry, but I just can’t see the original Mother Jones breaking bread with the likes of the Witherspoon Institute or the former head of the Obscenity Task Force for an administration who can be best described as the antithesis of organized labor. Then again, recessions and shared myopia makes for strange bedsistas.

Ahhh, myopia…which brings us to the finale and keynote of this flim-flam show. Shelley Lubben, you have the com.

But by far the most compelling argument came from Shelley Lubben, who during the 1990s performed under the name “Roxy” in such screen gems as The Cumm Brothers 3 and Beaver Hunt. She eventually left the business, found the Lord—Lubben showed up at the event with Bible in hand—and founded the Pink Cross Foundation, a nonprofit that offers support to adult industry workers.

Ahhhh, yeah. Right. A woman who, according to the Internet Adult Film Database, appeared in as many as 15 adult videos during a span of nearly ONE YEAR, and whose last work appeared maybe 15 years ago, is deemed by the Porn Harms conference and by the esteemed writer for Mother Jones as the ultimate authority on porn performer treatment. Not someone like Nina Hartley, who has a record of well over 25 Goddess-damn years in the industry AND a history of sexual rights and feminist activism to boot.  Not someone like Sasha Grey, who is the reigning princess of the alt[dot]porn genre, and who has enough mainstream chops to be featured in actual movies, for heaven’s sake. Not even someone like Jenna freakin’ Jameson, the woman who exemplified the boom of the modern Internet porn era (and whom MJ actually adored their article with as a symbol of the popularity of porn. Nope…none of these ladies apparently are good enough (or bad enough) to represent the pure unadulterated truth about the porn industry quite like….Shelley Lubben. Of course, that alone makes her the absolute perfect choice for antiporn whackjobs. And boy, does she play the “ex-slut martyr” to perfection:

Lubben described how her porn career left her with incurable herpes, papilloma virus, and ultimately cervical cancer. She is anemic, she added, due to hemorrhaging from reproductive injuries sustained during filming. “The last thing I want to do, people, is talk about porn,” she said, dabbing her eyes with tissues. “I have been hit, spit on, penetrated in every orifice imaginable.”

She also worked for a while as a prostitute: “At least with prostitution, you get a dinner sometimes.” Her story had the kid sitting next to me weeping. Beyond pimps and porn producers, Lubben spoke of an epidemic of suicides and other violent deaths of film stars, and talked forcefully about the doctors who collaborate with the industry to keep the performers “wasted” most of the time on prescription drugs. “This isn’t happening underground,” she said. “This is happening in America.”

WOW.  I mean, you do know that EVERY SINGLE WOMAN who performs in porn inevitably ends up getting herpes and cervical cancer, if not HIV/AIDS, right?? And don’t you know that women who perform anal sex end up losing their bowel controls, too?? And what about all that throat cancer from gagging from all those oversized penises?? And of course, all those cocaine and heroin and crystal meth parties invented by porn producers to keep them hooked on all that evil ungodly sex!!!

Oh, but what’s that, you say?? That may be simply an grossly extreme example of one woman’s experience in porn that may actually be less the result of porn per se and more the result of getting in with bad individuals in a localized bad situation?? Or, maybe, that it may be simply a convert typically exaggerating the “evil” of her former repudiated life as a means of selling her new life as a right-wing born-again saved “ex-slut” who preaches The Good Word to “save” others from a similar fate?? Oh, STFU, you evil liberal porn apologist…we KNOW that Shelley is telling the GOD-endorsed TRUTH…because…well…..GOD meant it that way!!  That, and it’s the best way to use emotion to sway the public towards a lynch mob mentality against “the industry” and “the pornographers”…even if the overwhelming majority of them and their consumers simply aren’t that evil.

I’m not in any way downgrading Lubben’s personal experiences, which can only be described as horrific. She has as much a right as any other American citizen to use her experiences to sell whatever agenda she wishes, and I wouldn’t ever doubt her sincerity to her cause. No one would deny that women in porn can experience the worst of human behavior, and that not all porn is egalitarian and mutually pleasurable and even respectable to humanity.

The problem is, though, that when she decides to exploit her own personal experiences as a wedge to back a political movement aimed at restricting and controlling the fundamental human rights of people who have done no harm to others, and when her personal drama is used as a stick to promote plain ignorance and bigotry and repression and outright sexual fascism, she becomes accountable for her actions and those who use her.

And when a magazine that promotes itself as the premiere “progressive” magazine reduces itself to becoming a propaganda forum for this nonsense, for attempting to replant right-wing repressive claptrap as “liberal antiporn feminism”, and to lower themselves to being a sap to astroturfing without even bothering to check their sources….well, they should be held accountable as well.

Bad move, MoJo.  Very.  BAD.  Move. I expect so much from AlterNet, but not from you.

—————————————————————————-

Update: Well, well, well..speaking of the Hazen Devil itself….lookee here. Although, nice touch in changing the lede to make it a bit scarier and more consistent with AlterNet’s more consistent antiporn crusading efforts.

Update #2: You think that Violet Blue (The Sex Blogger) wouldn’t notice??

* Yesterday Mother Jones got pwn3d big time. The notoriously left-leaning magazine was right-wing astroturfed when they ran an article that was full-on anti-porn, conservative Christian, far-right FOX News propaganda — and the writer swallowed it whole in a show of some of the poorest journalism I’ve ever seen. No fact checking is to be found in Have the Feds Gone Soft on Porn?, just regurgitated manufactured opinion. It’s exactly as if they’d run a sizable article reporting on the horrors and “facts” of unborn children torture-killed by Planned Parenthood, with “data according to” people from National Right to Life. I’m considering an offer to do a larger story on it, but for now,  you can see here where I  spanked them on Twitter. (twitter.com)

The tweet series, from her Twitter page (@violetblue):

hey @MotherJones Have the Feds Gone Soft on Porn? is the most irresponsibly “reported” story you’ve ever run. biased, factually incorrect. 6:59 PM Jun 16th via web (138)

@furrygirl that’s right! @MotherJones is supposed to be left-wing. this is a very right-wing article, though. were they sold to Murdoch? 7:31 PM Jun 16th via web in reply to furrygirl (136)

:@chrisburlingame it just makes me so angry. we deserve unbiased reporting on this. lefties parroting righties’ fake journalism IS shameful. 7:34 PM Jun 16th via web (twoosh!)

here’s a @MotherJones example. for “more than 10 times as many” they cite socialcostsofpornography.org for the numbers. #journalismfail 7:42 PM Jun 16th via web (135)

we expect @MotherJones to link credible unbiased sources. socialcostsofpornography.org is staunchly #antiporn #journalismfail 7:45 PM Jun 16th via web (125)

aside from the bias, the link @MotherJones gives us for numbers is a website with no data to back the reporter’s claim. #journalismfail Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:46:22 PM via web (135)

k, let’s ignore the #antiporn bias and say, well at least @MotherJones linked its data citation to a religiously/politically neutral site Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:47:50 PM via web (137)

for on the surface socialcostsofpornography.org is non-religious, non-political. but we trust @MotherJones to report fact beyond the surface Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:48:58 PM via web (twoosh!)

on socialcostsofpornography.org the lineup of “experts” are the same #antiporn people @MotherJones saw lobbying Obama admin. #journalismfail Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:50:30 PM via web (twoosh!)

what’s a “real” reporter to do? I’m sure @MotherJones MIGHT have done the first thing I did, which was look up socialcostsofpornography.org Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:51:36 PM via web (139)

so I’m sure there’s no way @MotherJones knew that socialcostsofpornography.org was made by Christian PR firm northstar.ac #journalismfail Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:53:06 PM via web (137)

and I’m sure @MotherJones doesn’t know socialcostsofpornography.org is hosted on a server with 59 other Christian websites #totalcoincidence Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:55:43 PM via web (twoosh!)

so where IS the source for the number @MotherJones cites factually in this harrowing piece about web porn? anyone? Bueller? #journalismfail Wednesday, June 16, 2010 7:58:44 PM via web (139)

More than likely, Violet, they simply either grafted it out of some AVN stats, or just pulled it our of their collective arses.

Follow me on Twitter

Tags: , , , ,

The SmackDog Chronicles (Ver. 2.6) is using WP-Gravatar

Theme Tweaker by Unreal
WordPress Loves AJAX