Sexy Feminst

I have no idea of her intention or ability, but if supermodel, Gisele Bundchen, continues to speak her mind, she could become the new spokesmodel for the feminist agenda.

At fashion week in (way Catholic) Brazil, she spoke out in favor of condoms …

"It's ridiculous to ban contraceptives -- you only have to think of the diseases that are transmitted without them. I think it should be compulsory to use a contraceptive."

… and a woman's right to abortion:

"If she thinks she doesn't have the money or the emotional condition to raise a child, why should she give birth?"

Last month, Bundchen admitted that when she was going through an emotionally hard time, she too, shaved her head like Brittany Spears. While the tribulations of the rich and beautiful are inconsequential to the rest of the world, there's something very genuine about this gesture of public disclosure. It's a clear confirmation of the pressure of womanhood (not that it needs confirmation). These two woman have only superstardom in common, yet their experiences are the same.

Gisele's a classy dame to be sure. She dates Superbowl quarterbacks and Academy Award nominees. When she quit her Victoria's Secret gig she said she had bigger plans. Her web site has the civic minded aroma of an ethic evolved since that of the 21 year old girl who agreed to hawk furs.

For us lefties, Gisele could breath a sweater full of fresh air into the Women's Movement.

ps - If Feminism is getting a new look, we may as well look again at the ERA, or whatever it's called now.

Christo-Fascists Phone It In

Why is it that Cosimo Cavallaro's "My Sweet Lord" (the chocolate Jesus sculpture recently ejected from a group show in New York) seems so unimportant as an issue of freedom of expression? Is it because the piece is so funny, in a way that Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" wasn't? Perhaps it's because the kerfuffle was ultimately good for the artist, who received several offers for the piece, in addition to very memorable publicity.

Or, is it because we are all ready to accept censorship by threat of violence. Death threats are not legitimate protests, but rather intended to create fear in innocent people. This is terrorism, plain and simple. Are we ready to accept it now as a way of life?

Radical Muslims used violence to react to the Muhammad cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper, and now radical Catholics are using violence to quash an artwork. Most notable is just how easy it was for the religious bullies to get their way. The curator resigned, but the street remains silent.

In the eighties, the NEA Four caused a mass movement of artists and a protracted court battle. In the end, however, the government beat those artists. They won their law suit in 1993, but the Supreme Court reversed that victory in 1998 by declaring that Obscenity was a legitimate reason to deny funding. Further, Congress eliminated the NEA's Grants to Individuals Program.

So is that what happened? The bastards just won is all? And to the victor of the war for expression goes the right to silence artists merely by phoning it in?

ps - Apparently, threatening to kill is also effective for intimidating bloggers, too.

Electrons for Jesus

An old friend recently marshaled untold billions of electrons for the purpose of delivering this chain email:

[begin inane block-headed chain email]

Do you believe in God?

NBC this morning had a poll on this question. …
86% to keep the words, “In God We Trust” and “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
14% against.

That is a pretty 'commanding' public response. …

Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such
a mess about having "In God We Trust" on our money and having
God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Why is the world catering to this 14%?
AMEN!

If you agree pass this on, if not, simply delete.

-In God We Trust

[end inane block-headed chain email]

I was shocked and dismayed. It used to be that, in America, there was the notion that God created all people equally. Even the people that don’t believe in Him. He’s God, He doesn’t need to have an ego trip about having everyone believe in Him. So here is a chain email that characterizes the belief that God endowed each of us with the unalienable right to believe in His non-existence as something they can’t condescend to.

“Cater to”? Oh please! The Constitution protects the rights of the minority because God gave the minority the same rights as the majority and it’s not for the majority to say what those rights are. It is up to God. If you trust God you simply must not force others to proclaim the same, because that is tantamount to trying to take away a right granted by the Creator.

OK, Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. IN GOD WE TRUST. Are you telling me you are a better judge of rights than God? I don’t think so.

This is the kind of thing that really gets my hackles up. Maybe the person who created it was being deliberately provocative and scored a point on my naïveté, but I know for certain that lots of people pollute their minds with these ideas, which amount to false maxims signifying intolerance and which cannot withstand even the most casual scrutiny.

Please see US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s moving explication of the tyranny of the minority at in an interview with CNN correspondent Jeffrey Toobin at this link:

http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1965499598&pt=Y