The DNC AND My Experience with Mace
, ,
I am now officially registered to the Democratic party. Maybe this isn't surprising to some of you, but others that were surprised, I am even more surprised than you to see myself typing this. Never in all my life did I think the day would come when what I used to consider the "faggot, flag-burning, baby killing, pussy liberals" would be the only hope of saving America. The area I grew up in, the people in it, and the lifestyle I had were all in a sense the republican way of life. But after the past 8 years I've done some growing, both mentally and spiritually, and I realized how terrible it is that small town communities and low-to-middle income families are literally tricked into thinking that the republicans are the right choice for anything.( I'm going to stop myself right there and state that I am solely referring to those currently holding office right now at the federal level.) I understand now what happened to me and why I used to believe that the republicans could do no wrong. It started off so simply. The democrats were for abortion, and being a catholic I was against it, so I didn't like them. I believed that America could not lose a war, so I was always for it. And I was opposed to gay marriage. This sounds like me and the Republican party are a perfect match, right? Well like I said I have learned a few lessons, and I hope other people have also going into the voting season.
The DNC in retrospect was what I expected, aside from a few surprises. And I don't mean surprises as in Obama coming in for a speech on the third night. I mean really, who didn't see that coming? What I meant was Ted Kennedy coming in, Hilary Clinton being a team player, and Michelle being as good of a speaker as she was. I don't know about the rest of you but I definitely feel that Joe Biden was the right choice for the VP as well.
I have to say I was a supporter of Hilary from the start. As first lady, she didn't do what most of them did. As far as I know, MOST first ladies have just done busy work while the husband was in office. By busy work I mean charities, fundraisers, putting warnings on things that are cool, so on. She got started by pissing off every single senator and rep she could by trying her absolute hardest to push for universal healthcare. She failed, but all it took was her push for it to become one of the major topics of the '08 election. I know that some of you might be thinking that it was rising costs and such that pushed the idea into the forefront, but without her early dedication, would it have become a hot topic for debate? I don't think so. It's not just that though, the simple fact is she will say whats on her mind and she has a very sharp wit to go with it.
Now on to the second topic of the title, my experience with mace. Last night me and David went to bootleggers. It was pretty busy and everyone there was shitcanned. At about 1 A.M. I noticed the owner walking up to the dance floor and talking to a black guy. Didn't look like anything suspicious. Then I saw him walking outside to where the Frontenac cops were. Again, didn't thing anything of it. Then the cops come in and head directly towards the dance floor. This is were I start to pay attention. They get on the dance floor, have the DJ cut the music, and proceed to "talk" to the black guy and his buddies that were on the stage. I don't know if you guys know what a taser sounds like, but I do. It has a very distinct popping sound. Well I heard it but I didn't see anybody drop so I thought it was being used for intimidation. They clear off the dance floor and drag the guy off to the side, throw him on the ground and handcuff him. At this point I notice a few people running away coughing and crying very hard. I had no idea what was going on so me being the dumbass that I am move in for a closer look. At that point I started to smell something, but I had no idea what it was. It reminded me of a cinnamon scented candle, but mixed with jalapenos. Then all at once I started to cry, cough, and my nose began to run. I have seen videos of people getting sprayed with mace, but I guess I just didn't realize it has an area effect. I was a good 15 feet away and it still hit me pretty hard.
It is at this point were I actually start to freak the fuck out. There were two drunk very fucking dumb bitches in the bar. One of them began to chant, "Dirty Cops! Dirty Cops!" I realize that I am standing right next to her so I get to the other side of the bar ASAP. Then as I turn around to resume to watch the show, another girl that was standing next to me shouted something to the effect of, "You fucking pigs!" Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ I am surrounded by people that are going to get my ass arrested and tazed. It was at this point that I grab David and we get the fuck out. As we are walking away there is a huge confrontation out in the street, the Frontenac cops have called in the county and pittsburg cops and half the bar is outside looking like they were going to kill them. We tore ass and got the hell outta there before anything happened. There isn't anything on the morning sun website either so I am guessing that it resolved itself.
Related Articles:
Wow! Nice mace story! Smart move getting away from the crazy people.
I'm a registered Republican because I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries. I meant to unregister and just leave my self an independent like I was before, but I haven't. Now I get mailings and phone calls and shit.
Biden and his unconstitutional VAWA legislation makes it even more obvious to me that I will not vote for that ticket.
By Mike on 08/28,2008, at 14:56
The ACLU, in their July 27, 2005 'Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee Regarding the Violence Against Women Act of 2005, S. 1197' stated that "VAWA is one of the most effective pieces of legislation enacted to end domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. It has dramatically improved the law enforcement response to violence against women and has provided critical services necessary to support women and children in their struggle to overcome abusive situations."
http://www.aclu.org/...lence/19921leg20050727.html
I was a huge supporter of Ron Paul to. But since he won't win I'll go with my third choice for prez
By Fife on 08/28,2008, at 17:55
Go read all on www.glennsacks.com and tell the men arrested over false accusations and government money training cops to arrest men first even if the female is the aggressor that the law works and is great. Tell the women raped and abused by female leaders at VAWA funded abuse shelters that the money coming out of your wallet for them is really helping them out.
Never mind the fact that men and women are equal opportunity abusers. http://www.glennsacks.com/...stic_violence_a_2.htm
http://www.glennsacks.com/4_feminists_myths.htm
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/...13/roberts.htm
The facts are that law specifically states domestic violence as man on woman, and ignores the component of woman on man. Numerous accounts exist of police showing up to a house on a domestic violence call and HAVING to arrest the man because that's what the training and law required, regardless of the truth. This law is ass backwards on equal protection and the facts. It allows a woman to easily claim abuse and need no facts to back it up, just emotional abuse will work.
This allows continued countless divorces and custody victories that take away children from fathers who have done nothing wrong. There's no real desire for truth or justice in this law.
It may do some of those things that you quote above, but it does a whole lot more and a whole lot worse.
By Mike on 08/28,2008, at 19:53
Mike,
I'm kinda surprised to be saying this, but I feel like maybe you're off base on this one. Which is odd, because you usually strike me as the kind of person who is more interested in facts and less interested in spin. Let me just say that I had never even heard of this VAWA legislation before reading these comments, so of course I was interested. However, Fife's letter from the ACLU speaks much more strongly and broadly than your own links, of which 2 were from Glenn Sacks. I had never heard of him, but from what I read on his site, he seems to have a pretty big things against women. In fact, I don't think "woman hater" is a stretch. One of th headlines on his blog today is "Obama panders to women by pushing 'Wage Gap Myth' in acceptance speech." I mean, seriously? Wage gap *myth*? I don't think I can take anyone seriously who doesn't believe there is a gender wage gap in this country, not when I see it every day, literally at my own workplace. I'm surprised you would go right to such an extremist to try and prove a point -- that's like going to Rush Limbaugh to say that Democrats are idiots.
I did read through a good portion of the References Examination, and I do agree that there is strong evidence to suggest that the language of the law should be changed. However, in doing my own research, I think that you are leaving out a few key points. For one, before this law was passed, abuse was not even considered a federal crime. And again, while the law may now to be adjusted, I hardly think it's fair to judge a law passed in 1994 (most of the studies showing men are also victims were from 2000 or newer) on that regard alone. I think that it really has helped, and it just needs to be tweaked.
What really concerns me about Biden, to be honest, is his issues in the Intellectual Property and computer fields. But I think Obama will probably override him on those, so I'm not too worred.
At any rate, just curious to hear your reasoning on those topics.
By Riley Dutton on 08/29,2008, at 10:45
For one, Sacks is NOT a woman hater. He's for equitable treatment of all, shared parenting, and reasonable laws. He has big things against radical feminists, but certainly not women. He's a married man with kids for pete's sake. Numerous articles of his agree with a lot of women's activists as far as sexist or unfair activities. Spend some more time reading his stuff before you jump to such a strong conclusion.
I'm for tweaking the law, believe me. And it's certainly fair to judge a law on its effects, no matter when it's passed. It's time that law needs be reworked and make much more equitable. I feel very strongly on this since I've seen so much of evidence of so many rallies of mens' lives destroyed because of effects of this legislation.
I'll answer the wage gap thing in separate post.
By Mike on 08/29,2008, at 11:21
I have to back Mike up here. Since the wording of the law, as it was back then, ONLY stated that abuse was a man on a woman.
The letter from the ACLU is broad reaching, sure, but at the cost of being pretty vague. It lacks the specific discussion on the negative impacts, and on the demographics of said impacts. The big reason that VAWA is bad is because it removes due process from the men involved. If a woman, without evidence, states that a man is abusing her, then he's in trouble. No investigation, that's it.
We saw it with the Duke case, too! Here the guys get dragged through the mud, and the chick who lied about it all doesn't get in trouble. It's a law that doesn't allow for a guy accused to defend himself, and there is no legal recourse for false accusations.
By James on 08/29,2008, at 12:09
Ok, let's not get into a shouting match. I agree with you Mike, and I realize that there are adjustments that need to be made to the law. Name one law that is perfect. If I murdered/assaulted somebody that killed or severely hurt someone close to me, how wrong is that. If I robbed a gas station to prevent my children from starving, how long should I spend in jail. The fact that women are abusive to men doesn't change the fact that the majority is men to women. The fact that the women are being raped in the shelters doesn't change the fact that the same thing happens in jails or especially in U.N. relief missions. I'm not saying its a good law, but it definitely is a start in the right direction
By Fife on 08/29,2008, at 13:04
Fife, you are right about the UN and all that. The UN is a whole different can of worms :p. You are incorrect when you say that men abuse more than women. It's a stereotype. Mike's links pointed that out.
Still not TRULY why the law is bad. It was a law that was created with no concern for due process, and without a reciprocal punishment. Regardless of how good the idea is (because abuse should be punished), the government MUST STILL observe constitutionality. The reason this makes the ticket harder to vote for is that we have a veep who doesn't seem to care about internet privacy or due process.
Although... McCain MAY NOT know what the internet is, I think sources are still out on that.
By James on 08/29,2008, at 13:44
CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveilance System Survey 2005
* 1 IN 4 WOMEN, 1 IN 9 MEN IN UNITED STATES ARE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT SOME POINT IN THEIR LIVES
* In households with incomes under $15,000 per year, 35.5% of women and 20.7% of men suffered violence from an intimate partner.
* 43% of women and 26% of men in multiracial non-Hispanic households suffered partner violence.
* 39% of women and 18.6% of men in American Indian/Alaska Native households suffered partner violence.
* 26.8% of women and 15.5% of men in white non-Hispanic households suffered partner violence.
* 29.2% of women and 23.3% of men in black non-Hispanic households suffered partner violence.
* 20.5% of women and 15.5% of men in Hispanic households suffered partner violence.
http://www.ndvh.org/educate/abuse_in_america.html
By Fife on 08/29,2008, at 13:56
don't let that stop you from regarding what I say as incredibly important and well informed. Because people do. Men write blogs that use the word "feminist" as a tag for "heinous bitch." While sometimes I can qualify in that realm, that is not my objective and it won't be the point of this note. The point of this note is to speak from the perspective of a woman who volunteers at a VAWA funded shelter. :)
Most of you know me. I am a proud person. And I happen to have a vagina. This will skew my view from yours in certain areas, but domestic violence prevention and legislation should not be one of those areas. You are not wrong to think that men can be falsely accused. You are not wrong to say that women can also be abusers. But I will say that you are wrong about a couple of other things.
1) Law states DV as man on woman violence. This is false. KS DV law merely states domestic violence is among either ppl with familial relationships or intimate relationships. This can be gay, straight, woman, man, mom on daughter, care giver on elder abuse, breadwinner vs. child caregiver etc.
2)There is no such thing as a required arrest. That is always at the discretion of the officer. Often times, our police force is not properly trained or not mature enough to be able to discern abuser/survivor relationships. It is a fucked up system. We need to work to make it better. VAWA is trying to do that, albeit slowly and awkwardly.
3) equal protection in DV is completely different than child custody and a lot of other legal situations. VAWA was not the reason the Duke case was messy. That was the fault of the decision makers. Prosecutors, DAs, officers, etc. allow for interpretations of VAWA and many other laws that lead to extremely bad situes. I doubt that any of you have set in on a PFA hearing, or a custody hearing, or a DV abuse case. I have. The abuser has recourse. Many abusers file a PFA (aka restraining orders) in reponse, break it, and then blame the survivor. There is plenty of investigation. It can be useful, but it often is hearsay, or "feelings." That doesn't mean the case isn't valid. My biggest problem with Mike's comments was the mostly likely unintentional slight of "emotional abuse." "Just emotional abuse will work." Yes, it will. Because it can destroy lives. Don't question me on this. You do not want to see my heinous bitch side. As for the role that DV plays in most custody hearings, most survivors do not have the legal standing that their abuser does. While the family court system favors the
"mother" because of societal expectations and a whole other set of antiquated norms, custody battles are rarely decided with DV case material. But civil procedures like custody fights are more open to hearsay. Do not confuse civil and criminal proceedings. Anyone accused of a crime can defend him or herself. This is evident in the recourses that a survivor can take against an abuser. A Protection From Abuse order can be issued on a temporary basis, but it is not criminal until broken. And every accused has the opportunity to dispute it. Some do and overturn the temporary order. Some don't show up and argue foul play. But everyone gets a chance. And there is legal consequences if a woman files false claims. False reports are a crime. And a survivor is very limited in what protections he/she can ask for.
4) Poor poor men. Now, while everyone has to acknowledge that ANYONE can be an abuser and ANYONE can be a survivor, it is documented that the majority of DV crime happens in a male on female setting. 95%. Yep. And as Riley pointed out, our society had not considered DV abuse a major crime. Raping your wife won't get you on the sex offender's list. :) And if anyone says a "wife" can't be raped, I will once more warn you of my heinous bitch mode. What VAWA does is provide an avenue for survivors of a crime that often cannot be addressed in any other fashion. There is no mandate to always arrest the male. As I mentioned earlier, that is a poor training and societal issue. And as for rape in shelters and further victimization of survivors, I don't think you can blame the legislation for awful human beings. It is, however, an unfortunate truth that people who are victims of abuse such as DV are more vulnerable to further abuse from many sources. This is especially true for shelter residents who often are from further victimized demographics such as disabled persons, the lowest socio-economic positions and minorities. Those instances are atrocious and the accused should be pursued in the most strenuous of fashions.
I encourage you to get involved and contact your local law enforcement and legislators to provide a perspective on this issue to improve legislation and procedures. But do not attack a first step unless you are taking further ones. And bitching here or on glenn sacks' blog doesn't count. For every radical feminist he claims is destroying our country's values, there is a gentleman like him that will prevent real equality for men AND women.
By Cayla Witty on 08/29,2008, at 14:01
my note was supposed to start with "I may be a feminist, but..."
By Cayla Witty on 08/29,2008, at 14:04
Interesting points. I'll read some more about it all. We may be mixing up DV in general, and the specifics of the VAWA legislation. Or at least I might. We'll find out.
I have to question the 98% statistic, though. I've seen several articles that indicate women's DV is much higher than 2%. Especially if DV includes mother on kid. That's the other problem with percentages, you don't know the real number so that joining them is made easier/reliable. Damn statistics!!
By James on 08/29,2008, at 14:35
Thanks for the good information. I'm glad Kansas defines this correctly, and that officers aren't required to arrest the man. Maybe other states should take after us a bit more in those regards. I will do more research into this matter and amend my gripes as is factually necessary.
Believe me, I have no misconceptions about how real and devastating actual emotional abuse can be. And it should be defined as a crime. My statement earlier would have been better worded as "a false claim of emotional abuse". No "simple"... this is obviously never simple.
I also understand the cases and news articles I read from Father's Rights activists detailing abuses of these laws and the destruction of the lives of perfectly good men. Here's another link to show you where I'm coming from on this.
http://www.mediaradar.org/...a-for-VAWA-Reform.pdf
So you're right, I do need to bitch to our legislatures to promote equity in this matter. Although it seems from your description Kansas behaves close to the way I would want a state to.
Thanks again Cayla for a good look at what goes on here. And you're right, most of the time people are skewing the law. That's why I want the law less skew-able.
Sigh.
By mike on 08/29,2008, at 14:55
I gotta say, I like that Constitutional Law fellow for keeping an eye on what happens next to our tarnished legal system. I'd be willing to bet he could repair some Republican wrong-doings. Yep.
By nolant on 08/29,2008, at 15:03
James- the 95% is in regards to relationship crimes. Women definitely account for more than 5% of violence, but you'd be damnedly hard pressed to find a reliable statistic on that. Some reason that men won't report crimes in DV. weird... :)
Mike, if you ever want to put in a letter to a legislator about VAWA, let me know. I am working with the director of our shelter on grants and legislation to improve funding for assistive services and to remove criminal proceedings from VAWA. Dealing with the survivors and prosecuting abusers should be different issues and VAWA needs to be re-addressed.
So, who's up for talking up wages? ha.
By Cayla Witty on 08/29,2008, at 15:12