Five Easy Ways to Turn Your Man On.

Are you sick and tired of magazines like Cosmopolitan promising to show women what men crave in bed? Are you at the point where the mere sight of a magazine cover claiming to know men’s deepest, darkest desires makes you want to kick a passerby? Well I am! Generations of women have been fooled into believing that the key to finding a life partner lies between the covers of a glossy magazine. These rags make readers think that finding a partner for life is as easy as getting men to go to bed with them, but it’s all nothing more than a marketing gimmick that lets them to sell their trash to thousands of unsuspecting women. I, for one, can no longer sit idly by while this travesty continues.

Every issue of Cosmo—and other magazines of that ilk—claims on the cover that it can show women how to drive their men wild in bed. Or how to turn them on. But it’s all a load of baloney. First of all, these articles are clearly not having the desired effect of turning men into drooling sex addicts who worship the very ground on which Cosmo readers walk. If they were, fewer and fewer women would, after having landed the man of their choice, need to buy this garbage, resulting in the ultimate—and long overdue—collapse of this particular branch of the publishing industry. Since Cosmo continues to roll out a new issue every week, I can only assume business is good.

Ladies, don’t waste any more of your money on Cosmo or any other publication that promises to show you how turn your man on. While it is indeed very easy to get your man—or any man for that matter—hot for you, generations of Cosmo writers don’t seem to know how to. You want to know how to turn your man on? Forget Cosmo’s 20 “Sexifiers!” I can give you five easy ways to turn your man on? Ready? Here you go:

1. Take
2. Your
3. F*cking
4. Clothes
5. Off!!!!!!!!!

There you have it! It’s bloody simple! If you want your man to spring a boner for you, get out of those f*cking clothes. Don’t go wasting your money on Cosmo? All that “literature” you devour about lingerie and massage and oils and candles is nothing more than a steaming heap of bull manure. Men don’t care that you maxed out your credit card at Victoria’s Secret, or that you spent the past three hours soaking in a tub full of honey-milk-vanilla-soybean bubble bath! When it comes to sex, only the actual act of intercourse excites a man more than the sight of the naked woman with whom he’s about to have sex. In fact, men get excited just seeing any woman naked. Why do you think the average man—over the course of his life—will spend the equivalent of Botswana’s GDP at strip clubs? Because naked women are hot, that’s why! So ladies, the faster you get out of your clothes, the faster your man will be turned on. Now I know you’re thinking, “What if he thinks I’m a slut?” I say, “Good for you!” Why? Because men love women who love to have sex, especially with them. They love them so much they’re willing to pay women to pretend to be sexually interested in them. This is what keeps prostitution alive. At the end of the day, nothing makes a man happier than a woman who is willing to engage in sexual intimacy with him. With the possible exception of the sight of said woman without her clothes, of course.

Now, once you’ve driven him wild with the sight of you naked, you must make sure to keep him coming back for more. How do you do this? Simple. By being a total freak in the sack. I know Cosmo authors claim to have 101 ways to make your man think you’re a wild woman in bed but trust me, they’ve got nothing on the internet. If you want to know what your man wants—nay, yearns for—in bed, check out some internet porn. Don’t worry, internet porn is very easy to find. In fact, it’s the easiest thing to find on the internet. It doesn’t matter what you’re looking for, you will always end up at a porn site. Spend a couple of hours a day looking at online porn and pretty soon, you’ll be rocking your man’s world. And the best part is, internet porn is free. No need to spend the equivalent of a day’s lunch every week on some silly magazine.

“But,” I hear some of you doubters ask, “What if I don’t have a perfect body?” Well, I’ve got good news for you. Most men don’t have perfect bodies either. Your man doesn’t have a perfect body but it’s not keeping you from wanting to drive him wild in bed. And you know what? Your imperfect body won’t keep him from wanting you to drive him wild in bed. Why? Because, as I’ve already stated, men are seldom happier than when someone wants to have sex with them. It doesn’t matter who it is or how they look. Even the slightest hint of sexual interest from a woman is enough to preoccupy a guy’s mind for days. Sure, most guys think they can go out and have sex with someone really fit but, at the end of the day, most of them are too lazy to bother and too insecure to try. Like toads, they tend to sit around hoping a tasty fly will come within range of their tongues. Trust me on this one.

By now, I’m sure you’re wondering how I can be so sure of what I’ve just written. It’s quite simple, really. Ladies, if what you want is a guy to be hot for you, there’s no need for fancy magazines. It’s a pretty simple process. Higher brain functions like reading—which I presume even Cosmo readers possess—are regulated by the larger, newer and more sophisticated part of the human brain, the Cerebral Cortex. Sex, on the other hand, is a pretty basic function for humans. It is regulated by the limbic system, also known as the “primitive brain.” This is the part of the brain that regulates such functions as sleeping, breathing, and blinking. It’s the oldest and most primitive part of the brain, and it is also the part of the brain we share with reptiles and other animals that have—without any help from Cosmo—been doing “it” for millions of years. A heterosexual man can no more resist getting wood at the sight of a naked woman than he can keep from blinking.

At the end of the day, I suspect getting a man into bed isn’t so hard for women that Cosmo has to devote part of every issue to this topic. And, I’m certain that’s not what Cosmo readers are really after. The majority, I suspect, are hoping to find a nice, handsome, well-educated, emotionally and financially stable guy to raise a family and grow old with. The trouble is, magazines like Cosmo trick their readers into thinking that getting a man to be sexually interested is the same as getting him to commit to a lifetime together. It’s not, and you don’t need a Cerebrum to know that. Sex is a basic, primal impulse in humans—as it is in all animals—whereas commitment, raising families, and growing old together are learned behaviors reinforced through social convention.

Ladies, next time you’re interested in getting a guy into bed, appeal to his primitive brain and take your clothes off. Getting him to marry you, though, will be a little more complicated.

Read Full Post »

Deja-Vu: Another Gay Sex Scandal Hits Republicans.

Another rabid homophobe in the GOP has pleaded guilty to indecent conduct in a public men’s bathroom.

Three-term Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho was arrested on June 11 in a men’s bathroom at the Minneapolis airport after allegedly using coded signs to solicit an undercover male officer, who was in an adjoining stall. Craig apparently tapped his foot in a certain way, which the undercover officer recognized as a coded indication of interest in sexual activity.

Craig, who has consistently run on a “family values” platform and spoken out against the “homosexual agenda” was sentenced to a $500 fine and one year’s probation.

I’d go on and on but it’s easier to just link back to an earlier posting.

Read Full Post »

Republicans Gone Wild!! or, Why is the Republican Party Home to So Many Sexual Deviants?

I have a theory.

I believe that many (if not most) male right-wing politicians are hypocrites. They rail against homesexuality and infidelity while, at the same time, they fight the urge to give in to their “immoral” or ”indecent” desires. And, as recent sex scandals prove, they don’t always win.

Take, for example, the cases of abstinence-only campaigner Randall Tobias, gay-bashing reverend Ted Haggard, and family values champion Senator David Vitter? All these men publicly promoted such “family values” as marital fidelity, heterosexuality, and other manifestations of moral fortitude and Christian values. Yet Tobias and Vitter were both exposed as clients of the DC Madame, who ran an escort service specializing in sexual fantasy and roleplay. It turns out Ambassador Tobias likes to have sex with women who are not his wife while Senator Vitter enjoys being diapered by them. For his part, Reverend Haggard, a relentless anti-gay campaigner, was outed by a male prostitute who revealed that he had received money and oral sex from Haggard.

More recently, Florida State Representative Bob Allen (R-Merritt Island)—sponsor of legislation against “Lewd or Lascivous Exhibitionism,” “Sexual Solicitation,” and ”Lewdness and Indecent Exposure”—was arrested in a public men’s restroom after offering to pay an undercover cop $20 for the pleasure of performing oral sex on him. To clarify, Allen offered the cop $20 if he (the cop) would let Allen fellate him. Allen later told a news conference that he was so intimidated by the cop (who was Black) that he offered to suck him off just so he could walk out of the public bathroom alive. At least Representative Allen is well-rounded in his bigotry.

But if these conservatives like to blow men and/or cheat on their wives, why can’t they just be honest about who they are? I mean, although they still face a lot of bigotry—most of it coming from people like Haggard and co.—millions of gay men and women live honest lives outside the closet. And while there is nothing commendable about marital infedility, many swinging and swapping couples manage to work out arrangements that work to the detriment of none. While I know Democrats and liberals cheat on their wives and engage in other “immoral” behavior as well, it seems like the conservative ranks—home to those who most vociferously denounce anyone who doesn’t conform to their idea of decency and morality—produce the most sexually deviant and hypocritical public figures.

As I see it, people like Allen, Haggard, Tobias, and Vitter affiliate themselves with the conservative party and adopt the most anti-gay and moralistic stances in an attempt to distance themselves from who they really are. I think they do it to avoid suspicion. After all, who would suspect a leading gay-basher like Haggard of wanting to suck another man off ? Who would suspect that a family-values politician like Vitter enjoyed cavorting with hookers while wearing diapers? Who would suspect that Randall Tobias, a champion of abstinence and fidelity, enjoyed paying for extramarital sex? By denouncing the people who openly do the things they themselves secretly do or would like to do, these conservative hypocrites hope nobody will ever question their moral fortitude or discover that they are not 100% morally upstanding.

And it usually works.

Not on me, though. By now, whenever I hear a conservative ranting and raving against homosexuals, I think to myself, “Somebody stick a c*ck in this dude’s mouth already so he’ll shut the f*ck up.”

Read Full Post »

Hating the sin and other popular idiotisms.

I’m not sure when this happened but it feels like lately, the most pressing issues of the day are squeezed into short (oxy)moronic imperatives utterly devoid of meaning and depth. Nowadays, we seemingly prefer to deal with controversy by eliding and avoiding the heart of the matter and enabling continuation rather than change.

Take, for example, the oft-repeated Christian trope about homosexuality: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” I’ve never really understood this particular instruction. As prejudice against homosexuals and other “sinners” becomes less and less palatable to our society, many Christians are today instructed to continue to hate homosexuality but to love homosexuals. But is it even possible to hate the sin without hating the person who commits it? Some people say it isn’t. I agree. Rather than asking congregations to hate the sin, how about simply commanding them to love everyone and hate nothing, be it a sin or virtue? I guess that might be too Christ-like.

Another popular trope is the one about supporting the troops even if you oppose the war. I’ve never quite understood this one either and I’m not the only one. As citizens, should we not have the right to weigh in on the major foreign policy decisions taken by our government without being accused of disloyalty towards our soldiers? Since there are few foreign policy issues weightier than the decision to go to war, should citizens not have an even greater obligation to voice their opinions? Are we supposed to believe that the people who decided to send the troops to war—where they risk being maimed or killed—actually support the troops more than those who are calling for an end to the war and the safe return of soldiers to their homes and families?

There are too many other similar expressions to go into detail on each but they all have one thing in common: They are mere words devoid of meaning or logical thought. While preserving our freedom of speech in the sense that we are still allowed to say words, these sayings are so diminished in meaning that we are left saying nothing new or different. In the first example, a hater is not challenged to replace hatred for love. Rather, s/he is allowed to continue hating, if not someone, then something; if not the sinner, then the sin. Similarly, people who oppose the current war are asked to pledge their support for the people who are—through no fault of their own—prosecuting the war. In the end, opposition to the war is so watered down by support for the troops as to become virtually meaningless.

 Orwell is certainly spinning in his grave.

Read Full Post »

“I can have my penis surgically removed and still manage this city.”

Steve Stanton (above) recently lost his job as city manager in Largo, Florida after he announced his plans to undergo a sex change operation and become a woman.

He later applied for the position of city manager of Sarasota, Florida. Stanton—who had recently started living as a woman—showed up at the interview wearing a skirt, pumps, and makeup. The job was  given to another candidate.

Frankly, I don’t see what the big deal is. I don’t think Steve-soon-to-be-Susan Stanton should have been fired. If he performed his job well, his private life should have had no bearing on his professional life.

Hopefully Steve/Susan will be able to find a job soon.

Read the full story here.

Read Full Post »

What’s on a country’s mind?

Ever wonder what people in a certain country are thinking about? Me too.

While modern science might be a few light years away from a breakthrough in this field, a software company out in California might have taken us one small step forward. Thanks to a new Google search tool, you can get a pretty good idea of what is on the minds of people in various countries. Well . . . sort of.

With Google Trends, you can search for a particular word or phrase and the Web site will generate a daily top 10 list of countries whose residents did a search on that word or phrase.

Today, Pakistan tops the list for sexually deviant searches (terms included “gang rape,” “penis,” and “breasts“). The U.S. tops the list for “nigger” and “abstinence“ and comes in at number 5 for “abortion.” And, although the U.S. does not make the top 10 for “Camus,” we come come in at number 4 for ”existentialism.” Not too shabby.

The Philippines is in the top 3 for “abstinence,” “abortion,” and “masturbation,” with Manila and Makati being the top 2 cities with searches for “abortion.”

I wonder what people in Saudi Arabia are thinking about today?

Check it out at www.google.com/trends.

Read Full Post »

Farewell to Falwell.

 Jerry Falwell, right-wing Christian evangalist died on May 15, 2007. As the country prepares to remember the late Reverend Falwell, let’s take a moment to remember what Jerry Falwell stood for.

Jerry Falwell supported Apartheid, the white South African government’s policy of seperation of people based on their skin color or ethnicity.

He said that the Sept. 11 attacks were God’s punishment for gays, lesbians, pagans, abortionists and the ACLU’s promotion of an “alternative lifestyle.”

He was opposed to religious figures’ involvement in the civil rights movement.

He also thought that all schools should be run by churches: “I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!” (America Can Be Saved, 1979, pp. 52-53.)

He believed that AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuality and for a society that tolerated homosexuality.

My heart goes out the the people who were close to the Rev. Jerry Falwell and who mourn his passing.

To millions of other people though, he will at best be remembered as an insensitive, intolerant and judgemental demagogue. 

Read Full Post »

Pro-lifers value fetuses more than women!

Three years ago, President Bush signed into law the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, effectively creating a new set of laws based on “fetal rights.” When examined against the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act passed by the House of Representatives last week, it becomes clear that those who advocate “fetal rights” actually value the rights of fetuses more than they do the rights of living women.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is based on the notion that there are two victims in any crime committed against a pregnant woman: the woman and her fetus. Under this law, if a pregnant woman’s fetus is injured in the course of a violent crime, the perpetrator of that crime is charged twice, once for attacking the woman and again for attacking the fetus.

Yet the same people who champion ”the rights of the unborn” vigorously oppose the recent Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act that seeks to expand federal hate crimes legislation to include crimes committed on the basis of a person’s gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

Back when the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was first proposed, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) suggested amending it so that the new law simply carried stiffer penalties for crimes committed against pregnant women without treating the fetus as a victim too. She was ignored. Currently 24 states have laws on the books protecting “fetal rights” but only 19 have laws that consider gender-based crimes to be hate crimes (see my earlier post).

What does this all mean? First, it means that a federal law now protects the “rights” of a fetus separately from the rights of the woman in whose uterus it is growing. Secondly, until we have an expanded federal hate crimes bill that counts gender-based crimes as hate crimes, a fetus now has greater legal protection than a woman.

This means that if a woman is raped (a crime committed against her purely because of her sex), her attacker cannot be prosecuted under federal hate crimes legislation. However, if this woman happens to be pregnant and her fetus is injured in the course of the rape, then the rapist would be prosecuted under federal law, not for rape but for injuring the fetus! In this case, the rapist will actually be prosecuted more severely for harming a fetus than for raping a woman. And, should the damage to the fetus be so severe as to result in  termination of the pregnancy, the attacker could also be charged with the federal crimes of fetal homicide or murder of the fetus.

At the same time, the supporters of this unborn victims law oppose a new set of federal laws that would classify attacks against women as hate crimes. These people clearly value fetuses more than women. Why else would they oppose expanding legal protections for women but support new laws protecting fetuses?

But more importantly, if a person can now be prosecuted for “murdering” a fetus, how much longer before women are completely barred from terminating their own pregnancies? ”Abortion is Murder” might soon become more than just a pro-life slogan.

Read Full Post »

Conservatism has failed wherever it has been tried.

Rush Limbaugh, a well-known American radio talk-show host, is fond of saying that conservatism has succeeded wherever it has been tried. But since conservatism is rooted in a reluctance or outright unwillingness to change the existing order, can anyone truly argue this to be the case? After all, as human society progresses towards greater rights and protections for more and more people, conservatism has been characterized more by failures rather than successes.

The premise behind conservatism is simple. Conservatives prefer things to stay the way they are, believing the status quo to be better than any possible or potential system. In extreme cases, some “conservatives” even seek to revert to a previously existing order but, since reactionaries are not necessarily the same as conservatives, we’ll focus on conservatism and leave reactionism for another day.

Historically, conservativism has lost out because things do not stay the way they are. At every stage of human history, some people have looked forward to a better, fairer, and more inclusive world while conservatives have preferred to keep things the way they are. During the colonial period, conservatives wanted to preserve the status quo, i.e., British rule. In the 1860s, conservatives opposed the abolition of slavery. In the early part of the 20th Century, conservatives opposed giving women the right to vote. During the Great Depression, conservatives opposed the social programs of the New Deal. In the 1960s, conservatives opposed civil rights and equal rights legislation. And today, conservatives have come out against expanding federal hate crimes legislation.

Internationally, there is a similar pattern. In 1980s South Africa, conservatives were the most vocal supporters of Apartheid.

In every one of these cases, however, conservatives have lost. People have listened to their hearts and chosen progress over stagnation. Little by little, progressive ideas are being adopted by more and more people. How many people today can say that women shouldn’t have equality under the law or the right to vote? How many people today advocate the segregationst policy of “separate but equal“?

Certainly there are still many battles to be fought. At every step in human society’s advance towards a more just world, conservatives have popped up and argued for a halt to progress, warning mankind of the dire consequences of progressive ideas. Today, some people continue to openly make disparaging and dismissive remarks about Black people, women, and immigrants. Gay people are still denied many rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals and ostracized by many religious groups. Poor people and minorities are over-represented on death rows across the country. In many places, it is becoming harder for a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Millions of immigrants still languish in legal limbo, victimized many times over by ruthless coyotes, unscrupulous employers, domestic hate groups, and an overzealously punitive government policy of detentions and deportations.

But all in all, there is cause for optimism. Human society has never stayed stagnant and the status quo is always under challenge. Progress is inevitable. Today, abortion is illegal in only three European countries while the U.S. is the only industrialized country that enforces the death penalty and women in most countries have the right to go to school and vote.

As progressive ideas become more mainstream, conservatives are constantly being forced to back up, draw another line in the sand and say, “OK, but you’re definitely not crossing this one.” Thanks to progressives, today’s world is very different from what it was a hundred years ago. And much better too. How many of today’s people would rather live in the world as it was in the past? How many women would rather live in 1900? How many Black Americans would like to go back to 1850? Very few, I’d imagine because, thanks to progressive policies, the world today is a safer and fairer place, especially for women and minorities. Fifty years from now, gay and lesbian Americans might look back with horror and shame on a country in which most states barred them from getting married or having/raising children. If progressive policies win the day in the next half-century, how many gay Americans would prefer to live in today’s America, which denies them so much?

The fundamental irony about conservatism is that change is the only thing that remains constant in human society. Looking back on a human history characterized by  progressive change, and with progressive ideas becoming more and more mainstream, how can conservatives honestly claim to be winning?

Full disclosure: In my late teens, I shared a workplace with some Limbaugh fans so I have listened to many, many hours of right-wing radio.

Read Full Post »

Expand federal hate crimes legislation!!!

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives yesterday passed a bill expanding federal hate crimes legislation to cover bias crimes committed against people because of their gender or sexual orientation. Now, if you haven’t been following the story, you’re probably thinking “We have federal laws against hate crimes. Why do we need a new law?”

It’s simple. The current federal law only prosecutes people for hate crimes committed against a person because of the victim’s race, religion, or national origin. Supporters of the expanded federal hate crimes law maintain that the law is not broad enough to protect people who may be victimized because of their gender or sexual orientation. For example, Matthew Sheppard‘s murderers could not have been prosecuted under federal law because sexual orientation is not covered by the existent hate crimes law, even though it was clear that they killed Sheppard because he was gay. Moreover, some states do not have laws against attacking someone because of their gender or sexual orientation so the expanded federal legislation would be the only legal protection for women, homosexuals, transsexuals, and others in those states who may become victims of gender-based hate crimes.

Unfortunately for the bill’s supporters, and for anyone who believes that nobody should be victimized because of their gender identification or sexual orientation, President Bush has promised to veto it. The president is not the only person who opposes this bill. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson called it a “thought crimes bill,” saying that “if you read the bible a certain way with regard to morality, you may be guilty of committing a thought crime.” In a letter of opposition, Dobson writes, the bill “is ultimately designed to muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality.”

Wow!! Where do I begin? There’s so much in those few sentences it’s going to be hard to stay focused.

OK! Here goes! First off, Dobson claims that the expanded hate crimes law will “muzzle people of faith who dare to express their moral and biblical concerns about homosexuality.” Huh?! The federal hate crimes legislation is designed to punish people for HATE CRIMES committed against other human beings! Thinking is not the same as committing a hate crime. Anti-gay campaigners like Dobson and his ilk can think and say whatever they want about homosexuals but as long as they or their supporters do not translate those thoughts into violent actions (i.e., HATE CRIMES) they are not breaking the law.

Basically, Dobson tries to argue that expanding federal laws to protect homosexuals (let’s not forget the law would also protect women who are victims of sexual violence) somehow restricts his and other Christians’ freedom of speech. Why would that be? After all, these guys can, and do, say whatever they want about homosexuals and anybody else of whom they disapprove. Does it have anything to do with the fact that he and some other Christians espouse views that are intolerant of homosexuals?

Obviously there’s more to these people’s opposition to this bill. From the Chicago Tribune news blog we get this gem: “Also, religious conservatives feared the new legislation could be used to criminalize a clergyman whose fire-and-brimstone against homosexuality might, inadvertently, spur a misguided believer to commit a hate crime.”

What!!!??? How the hell is anyone going to “inadvertently” motivate someone to commit a hate crime? If you are afraid something you say might make some sick f*ck want to kill someone else, don’t f*cking say it! Simple! And, it is no less a hate crime if some “misguided believer” attacks someone simply because that person is gay. It would be no different from attacking her simply for being a woman, or Jewish, or Asian. By the way, for any “misguided believers” who may be reading, saying you did it because of a sermon you heard in church still makes it a hate crime.

Sure, you could argue that you were just trying to rob someone and you didn’t know he was gay when you bludgeoned him to half to death, tied him to a fence post and left him to die but seriously, how often does this happen? If someone is injured or killed in the course of being robbed, it’s pretty clear to police and prosecutors that the primary motivation of the criminal was robbery. And it’s pretty clear when the perpetrator is driven by hatred of the person for his/her skin color, religion, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation. Hate crimes are characterized by a degree of violence that goes beyond any reason. And anyway, if you beat up and/or kill someone who turns out to be gay, your hateful ass deserves to go to jail for a long, long time regardless of what your original intent was.

But let’s go back to Dobson. I was really intrigued by his statement about reading the bible ”in a certain way.” Would that happen to be in a way that leads him to scorn and castigate gay people? Because personally, I’m not sure which bible Dobson has been reading. Whenever I read the Gospels, I get the impression that Jesus Christ was an advocate of love and tolerance. Take, for example, this statement he made to the mob that had assembled to stone a prostitute to death: ”He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7 King James Version). Or how about the story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32), the young man who broke traditional and religious law when he demanded his inheritance prior to his father’s death, moved off the land, spent all his money on booze and women, and (abhorrent to the Jews of the time) worked with pigs. Despite all his failings, this son was welcomed home by his father in a show of tolerance and acceptance.

We’d all be better off if more of those who call themselves Christians showed even a tiny fraction of the capacity for love, acceptance, and tolerance Jesus preached in the Gospels.

Support the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Write letters to your congressional representatives, petition the White House, and support groups like Human Rights Campaign that fight for equality.

Read Full Post »