text:
BURGER KING SETTLES SEXUAL HARASSMENT SUIT
Burger King Franchisee to Pay $55,000 To Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit
Male Manager Harassed Female Employee, Federal Agency Charged
CHICAGO - Burger King franchisee Heartland Food LLC, of Downers Grove, Ill., will pay $55,000 and furnish other relief to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Heartland Food violated federal law by subjecting a female employee to sexual harassment by a male manager at a Burger King restaurant in Palatine, Ill. Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination, including harassment, on the basis of sex. The EEOC filed its lawsuit on April 10 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago (Civil Action No. 18 C 2534) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
Under the consent decree settling the suit, entered by Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer, Heartland Food will pay $55,000 and furnish other non-monetary relief.
"We are gratified that vigorous enforcement on the Commission's part has led to appropriate corrective action and compensation for the victim," said Julianne Bowman, EEOC 's district director in Chicago.
EEOC Regional Attorney Gregory Gochanour noted that the settlement was negotiated before the parties engaged in extended litigation or pretrial discovery.
Gochanour said, "We appreciate Heartland Food's determination to work with the EEOC to resolve this case quickly by providing appropriate relief."
The EEOC's Chicago District Office is responsible for processing charges of discrimination, administrative enforcement, and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This Sabbath just gone probably took a darker turn than the Lord intended with the launch of an exciting new label. LXXII has been started by the Bristol-based artist and musician Graeme Swinton, who makes fragmented, reverb-heavy acid/techno under the name Palace Lido, and has provided print and digital artwork for a diverse range of artists and labels, including Depeche Mode, Nick Cave, XL and Domino. LXXII (it's 72 in Roman numerals) was started primarily as a showcase for the "dismembered and lost" artists Swinton has stumbled upon online over the last year or so. "The 'Unwashed And Somewhat Slightly Dazed' as the Thin White Duke once said," he explains.
According to Swinton: "Now the last gasp of the EDM hubris has passed, the party is over and LXXII intends to document this with their uneven, fragmented assembly. Broken, woozy, gothic. The label sound has at its core an artificial intelligence, but the end product is way more disparate. It's heartbreaking. Could it even be blacker than Blackest Ever Black?"
Videa Gam is David from New York/LA. He describes himself as an anonymous urban dweller. The lead track for LXXII, 'Get to Know Me', comes from a collection of songs called Ultimate Loneliness Field Guide. These songs stem from "talking to people through computers". Detachment, safety through anonymity and patience all feature prominently in the music and they fuse beautifully into this heartrending hymn.
Deflection Pulley is Rosie from Vienna. She has described her work as "avardgardistic". It is an appropriation of found sounds, shaping noise. A pirate postmodernist retelling, restructuring and reframing of narratives. The lead track for LXXII, 'Looming', sounds broken yet utterly exciting. Rosie herself says she "follows the law of passion rather than one of perfection". 'Looming' is provoking; it's breathless.
Wiicca is Wolfie Rudz from California. He is a complicated gentleman, one who combines dedicated musical endeavour with excessive stimulant use. His music is equal parts DXM and MBV. Wolfie has said himself that he finds "beauty in harsh noise" and the lead track for LXXII, 'Heather (Why Am I So Distant?)', can be summed up perfectly with this description. A beautiful melody submerged in overwrought noise, heavy in every sense of the word.


text:
Brad Wilmouth
Oops! Chris Matthews Confuses Tim Scott and Jaime Harrison
On Friday evening, MSNBC host Chris Matthews made an embarrassing faux pas as he seemed to forget that South Carolina has more than one black politician and confused Republican Senator Tim Scott with Democratic candidate Jaime Harrison.
At 7:39 p.m. on Hardball, Matthews was interviewing Harrison when video was shown from President Donald Trump's rally in his state, which included Senator Scott standing next to fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
After the clip of Senators Scott and Graham was shown, Matthews turned to his guest, who is running for Graham's seat, and commented: "Jaime, I see you standing next to the guy you're gonna beat right there -- maybe, maybe, maybe -- Lindsey Graham."
MSNBC correspondent Trymaine Lee and Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod -- who were seated next to Matthews -- could both be heard trying to correct him as they both injected, "Tim Scott."
It took a befuddled Matthews a few seconds to catch on to his mistake:
TRYMAINE LEE, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: That's Tim Scott -- Tim Scott.
MATHEWS: Jaime?
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Tim Scott.
MATTHEWS: Who's that?
LEE: That's Tim Scott.
MATTHEWS: Who -- huh? I'm sorry, it's the other Senator, Tim Scott. What am I saying? Big mistake --- mistaken identity, sir. Sorry.
An apparently amused Harrison smiled and glanced at someone seated off camera next to him. Just as he was about to respond to Matthews's fumble, the MSNBC host asked: "Tell me how you're going to beat Lindsey. Everybody knows Lindsey."
Harrison ignored the gaffe and began his response: "Everybody knows Lindsey, but everybody doesn't like Lindsey Graham, and that's how I'm going to beat him, Chris."
Back when Barack Obama was relatively new on the national scene, Matthews --- in spite of being a big fan ---notably mixed up his name and that of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden on more than one occasion.
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of transcript:
MSNBC's Hardball
7:39 p.m. Eastern
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Jaime, I see you standing next to the guy you're gonna beat right there -- maybe, maybe, maybe -- Lindsey Graham.
TRYMAINE LEE: That's Tim Scott -- Tim Scott.
ADRIENNE ELROD: Tim Scott.
MATTHEWS: Who -- huh? I'm sorry, it's the other Senator, Tim Scott. What am I saying? Big mistake =- mistaken identity, sir. Sorry.Tell me how you're going to beat Lindsey. Everybody knows Lindsey.
JAIME HARRISON, SOUTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE: Everybody knows Lindsey, but everybody doesn't like Lindsey Graham, and that's how I'm going to beat him, Chris.


text:
Commentary :: Human Rights
Sexual Offense in California
by Citizen Sane	 07 Jul 2010
Sexuality and eroticism has always been "offensive" to somebody. Especially is this so in the landing of the European Blue Nose, which descended here in Native America from a long Christian paranoia of anything erotic and unclean. Even the devil was associated with illicit sex-and of course so were witches. But where is this psychology of "erotophobia" mentioned in California's latest crusade against anything that falls under the rubric of "sexual offender?"
Sexual Offender as Label and the Zealotry of California's Self-Righteous
By Citizen Sane
To feel offended is often very much a subjective notion. Take, for example, the original intent of the meaning molest. Molest originally meant that which was irritating, vexing or annoying; which naturally was subject to the whims of the personality interpreting an event or series of events. But now, due both to the ease at which practically anything sexual in nature, such as an invite or complement, can be taken as offensive, as well as a "misandrist" prejudice, the word molest must now mean something "men" mostly do as accused, and with this broad brushstroke of a word, as something very antisocial. This is to say this hobgoblin word, like the word sexual offender itself, gives the connotation that one has done the worst of things imaginable.
Yet, somehow the attitude for some citizens thus goes, after more legislation has been proposed, and in process of being enacted (Assembly Bill 1844 Chelsea's Law), in California following the recent rape and killings by one John Gardener, a sexual offender released from prison and not very closely and competently monitored by the system, is that everyone, that is everyone thought to be a "good" citizen of the state of California, ought be able to live in a Utopian world in which "no one" feels offended—especially sexually offended—and this idealism should reside no matter how arbitrary and contradictory the propensity to feel offended may seem.
Certainly the case was well made about a violent repeat offender going bad and good social policy not actively in place, but this campaign has been extended to brand the phrase "sexual offender" as one who is not only capable of vicious acts, but likely to do it repeatedly, and this paranoia of terminology tends to assume, by some, that no sexual offender can ever go good or is deserving of a second chance. There has been much press, pressure and editorializing to come down hard on the sexual offender—since this new twist on terrorist psychology, that now is of sex, is to paint the word "offense" as the equivalent of absolute evil—so that the very notion of the phrase brings a Pavlovian response to the most unconscious of animal.
Notwithstanding, there exists from time to time obviously vicious and heinous crimes within huge statistical populations, as well as smaller—as the recent episodes show; but, there are many more sexual acts, or transgressions under such a rubric, that are far from vicious and heinous. Yet due to America's latent extremism of moral Puritanism, including a long smoldering secular and feminist Puritanism that is when it came to attitudinalizing about men, one too often sees what one's personality wants to see—and what some want to see is the criminalization of male sexual intent everywhere.
The mainstream media made the John Gardner murders a 9-11 catastrophic event—big headlines, big front page pictures, many stories, continuously stirring up anger, paranoia and despair. And needless to say, the event helped sell newspapers and news advertising for flagging reader rates. Nothing was spared to highlight the trauma and infuse a sense of alarm in the community of southern California.
This is not to argue that the investigative journalism was primarily political or having ulterior motives as some serious flaws in the system were revealed to the public. Nor is such a story not newsworthy—obviously it was—but there were other factors behind the scenes at play, and we shall touch of some of them.
Meanwhile the current legislation that is being hammered out in Sacramento increases penalties for "51" offences. According to the San Diego Union Tribune, Ignacio Hernandez, spokesperson for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice called it "extreme over-reaching." Supposedly now as tradeoff change is reclassifying "petty theft" as a mere year in jail without longer prison time to make more room for sexual offenders in prisons for longer periods of stay. But no one in this dear Christian country was, or is, asking why were petty thieves doing long-term prison terms in the first place? Obviously it has nothing to do with a thuggish prison guard union that even the hulk Arnold Schwarzenegger can't face down? Nor does it have anything to do with the dark side of Christianity's terrorist psychology of locking prisoners in hell and throwing away the keys.
But what has been particularly evident is the way the phrase "sexual offender" gets bandied around. Somehow the Gardner story that kept being played like watching the twin towers burning over and over again day after day was to equate all sexual offenders with unmitigated evil. California has thousands of offenders but a much smaller minority of them are classified as dangerous—but this point was not made. The point that was made is that potential rapists and murders are lurking everywhere, and that new laws had to be enacted.
Yet even the word "lewdness" suggests behavior that "affronts" a person's sensibilities—but this word too is subject to personal and cultural prejudice. Remember how embarrassing it was that the mainstream media blew up the Janet Jackson nipple-gate affair making a mountain out of a nipple-hill while the rest of the world was more taken aback about how hung-up Americans get on trivial matters? After all trivial things affect trivial minds—and only the Great One knows how many that might include—but bet for sure no small number.
Still we are not talking about trivial matters. Rather we are discussing society's social policies and attitudes toward people who have committed criminal offenses—some very serious; and yet in the process of doing so, out comes a broader, although unspoken, and often unacknowledged set of attitudes about sex and gender in general—and various attitudes and prejudices related to gender and one's sexual orientation—somehow all wrapped up in this psychology of feeling offended.
And never mind that some people have great capacity to find things to feel offended when little is truly provocative. They will sniff through more and more dirty laundry, like some kind of fishing trip, just to find something—because they can't feel alive unless they have something to complain or get hysterical about. But there was always that fanatic who wanted to personally watch videos so as to censure what was considered pornographic so as to put curfews on "other" people.
But more to the point it is sex itself, or the desire for erotic experience, which is often what really aggravates some souls—especially if that desire is not within the context of monogamy or marriage. What is not tainted to those who find all manner of sexual connotation distasteful? And this prejudice too plays into this latest politics of castigating the so-called sexual offender.
As already alluded to, there is, and has been so for some time, an "enormous" amount of prejudice against men in the United States that has never been honestly addressed or debated regarding the so-called battle of the sexes—making this prejudice all the more insidious. (When is this culture going to have such a debate?) Yet how often do you here people openly discussing fear or prejudice of men? Nevertheless we are supposed to pretend that society's attitudes and prejudices have nothing to do with how "offence" is categorized in a broader scheme of things?
Take the simple comparison of the use of the word misogyny versus misandry. How much more often does misogyny prevail as to categorize some men's hostility to women—but hardly ever is there recognition of the opposite word that does not even appear in some dictionaries? This is a clear indication that things were not fair, to accuse a male of hatred of women if he was critical of women, whereas if women were critical of men—well that's just because men are so blatantly deserving?
At least since Gloria Steinem "chose" to dress as a sexual object—that is to play a playboy bunny—men have been hearing epithets like sexist pig, male chauvinist, etc., although with much less frequency. But this is no small point however, because even to this very day there are plenty of women who still maintain their prejudices, and often enough to a hypocritical level. There are plenty of middle aged women who still hold the same resentful attitudes they learned to have decades ago—learning to blame men for damn near everything one didn't like about the world. For example they made sure everyone was aware women didn't get to vote until recently but completely glossed over the fact that the same was true for most men through much of history. (And Glorious Gloria was not in the top tier of playboy beauty, probably had a chip on her shoulder that was less than rational, and most likely too intellectual to compete with the so-called dumb bunnies—c'est le vie.)
All of this sex-as-minefield mentality was a long psychology of rejection of men who didn't play the politically correct game. Or what about women who dress in very tight outfits, such as going to a yoga class, and if a male is, so-called, "staring" at her, or so-called "gawking" at her (men are so untoward) then it is totally his "male" problem? And yet this is a real attitude for many people—so willing to see him as a sexual offender of some sort. It had nothing to do with her "choice" of deliberately dressing as exhibitionist and creating the scene in the first place. Or the woman who sunbathes with a Band-Aid for a bikini at a public space and then acting ssooo irritated that a guy would approach her to attempt to socialize—how offensive it must feel—that she must be the snob inside so as to snub him? Or the lady jogging in her skintight latex, with her jugs jigging and hind assets bouncing while some guy says something mildly suggestive and she acts ssooo affronted! (Yet we should pity those who have criminalized all sexual innuendo by men, so they cannot imagine such erotic need for themselves, and are then left only to play the high and dry sadist.)
But this is not to argue women who dress sexually provocative are somehow doing something negative—it's only when their attitude is so hypocritical. The point is there is a lot of double standard when it comes to labeling what is considered "perverse" or unacceptable in this society. More importantly there is a slippery slope for some too willing to see any kind of sexual offense as an obvious pattern toward worst criminality—as some suggests. It is a similar argument that if you smoke marijuana it will obviously lead to worst drug use and crime.
But apparently there exists some predictive wisdom for social scientists to assume sexual propensity will go to more extreme pattern? Yet few do-gooders even recognize their own sexual hang-ups or desire to humiliate or dominate others—even if they cannot do it physically. And more poignantly plenty of people who go into the helping professions such as psychology, and even including journalism, and eventually become counseling therapists, haven't even got their own mental health together enough—yet they want to go out as save the planet—never realizing how much they "project" their stuff and presumptions onto others. And this reality of broken people and authoritarian personalities training to be therapists is not rare.
Or take a recent tidbit in the "gossip section" of the local newspaper (page two for the serious reader who needs that quick dose of celebrity tabloidism) that a Hollywood actor, we need not mention the name, had not updated his sexual offender registration status. This gossip section went on to delineate that he was arrested for having a 14 year old boy pose for sexually explicit photos. Whether this incident is or is not offensive is not the issue. Clearly this was meant as a shaming act of humiliation on the part of the mainstream media—because where there is humiliation there is often one who chooses to play the part of the humiliator. Yet one wonders how many shallow people who work the pathway from rumor-mongering paparazzi to mainstream media are likely to read something like Wendell Berry's "Shame: The rediscovery of what some psychologists regard as the primary cause of emotional stress" in The Atlantic Feb 1992, or Toni M. Massaro's "The Meaning of Shame: Implications for Legal Reform" from the University of Arizona (published in Psychology, Public Policy and Law 1997, Volume 3, No.4 pages 645-704)? Probably not.
No one voted any media person into some office of officialdom? Where do news people and editors get some idea they speak for other people or they have some right to punish others? Many of these people act as jacks of all trades and masters of none—yet they feel themselves the experts on damn near everything. Yet 99% of mainstream media of the United States did not mention the International Red Cross revelation, thousands of press releases, that dozens of people were murdered in the process of being tortured by U.S. sponsored gulag archipelago renditions to foreign countries known for human rights abuse—meanwhile they kept playing the same meme to debate whether water-boarding was truly torture or not. (see ProjectCensored.org)
Where, for example, is the awareness building that some social scientists have found a strong correlation between episodes of humiliation and retaliatory violence—that is if society is concerned about sexual violence—which it should be? (see Thomas Scheff's "Emotions and Violence:" and "Bloody Revenge.") Yet violence after episodes of feeling humiliated happens all the time. Take Israeli treatment of Palestinians day after day, week after week, and year after year—it's almost as if this is a deliberate policy to ensure more insecurity and therefore more guilt-tripping and blackmail for more money flow (see Occupation101.com). Or take how some American military treatment of some Muslims—especially in war such as in Afganistan. Stanley Manning is now in a heap of trouble for revealing some of this. (see Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com) Nevertheless if you humiliate long enough you're pretty much guaranteed to find some who want to gain revenge and blowback (see Chlamers Johnson's "Blowback").
Yet some peoples' idea of treating "sexual offenders" is to humiliate them as much as possible with never-ending public exposure and making sure they have no means to a job, livelihood, or a place to live, or any kind of social life; by broadcasting where they live to every potential persecutor and personal avenger, and to make them carry special tags on their IDs, and to have tons of information forcefully posted on the Internet in an atmosphere of more and more paranoia, etc.
These rally calls against sexual predators of late, which is a serious issue that deserves serious consideration and reform for the minority of offenders who truly are vicious, is also a call for some, especially by populists, as present opportunity to find a political foothold to find new scapegoats, that is the so called perverts, and to thus avoid other more complicated political and social issues. There are a lot of issues some people don't want to address—such as welfare of warfare—and this need to find scapegoats has always been a political reality. Now we have an emotional issue to steer tension as condemnation of sexual proclivity, which has always been part and parcel of a totalitarian agenda.
Take for example, the right-wing's war against the Commie Pinko was an insinuation that if you have any kind of "feminine" compassion or sympathy for hearing the other side of an issue you were some kind of unmanly low-life of sorts and pink—because obviously real men don't have feelings and don't identify with outsiders. Their propaganda war against feeling, sensitivity and insecurity is such a method to exact conformity by those who have a need to prove how tough they are—like the Bush administration's Neocon-artist chicken-hawks—the people who had a secret agenda already in place for a 9-11 like event—and so convenient ready to destroy constitutional guarantees).
Yet today people are upset with the status quo and they want change—but it is almost always change that effects others and for short-term benefit. Well Wall Street doesn't want the heat, and since homosexuals are no longer an easy mark—as they have got organized since homosexuality motivated the rise of the moral majority in the first place—now the emphasis can be on the sexual "predators" (which doesn't mean female prostitutes exploiting sexually deprived men for money—especially since feminism had so successfully created a psychology that men are the predators and women are the victims—or you are accused as "blaming" the victim).
Again obviously some forms of predation are highly offensive to morality and such propensities should be confronted. Murder and brutal violence is serious danger. And anger and indignation were certainly appropriate responses on the part of the family and friends of both Chelsea King and Amber Dubois.
But there is a lot of gray between the black and white when it comes to who and what is defining appropriate or tolerable standards of sexual behavior and solicitation. For example, is it not a form of aggression to put on lipstick that highlights one's lips of mucous membrane as provocative to hormone stimulation? And is it not true men are more susceptible to visual cues of eroticism on average—which is why there is more market for male pornography? Yet when some feminists argued against "aggressive" looks, that is the eyes as violating, they did not equally discuss the choices of provocation such as feminine attire that catches the eye, like pantyhose, tight hip-huggers, high heels and other designs calculated to attract the eye's attention?
Recently at a party, a supposedly sophisticated woman in her late 30s or early 40s, of college bearing, was wearing a see-through long skirt with a thong, showing off her assets, and a guy says: "you have a gorgeous ass" and so she complained about his verbal remark. Here is an example of a guy responding in turn to a scenario she set in motion. Granted her garment had a hue of rich blue so one had to glance twice to verify he was actually seeing through to the gorgeousness of the matter, but why was this even considered offensive—especially since her "goddess" asset really was correctly adjective/ objectified? What is even wrong with openly admiring a sexy part of her anatomy as worthy of a complement—especially when the so-called victim made it so obvious? Yet few would call her response offensive? Why?
Why is it OK for a woman to dress sexually alluring in public and yet when she gets attention that she dressed for from a person she didn't want it—she points the finger at him—as if to say, "I can do whatever I want and act as arbitrary as I wish—too bad your not the man I was dressing for?" Obviously not all men are equal. But more importantly what does such an attitude signify besides it is OK for women to act spoiled and that only men are responsible for the consequences, intended or not, of their actions? That you have no right as a male to be honestly sincere in stating who you really are or what are your interests, or that you are a sexually sensitive being who appreciates sexual titillation. Rather you are supposed to act like you do not notice—that is don't be spontaneous or real. Rather be artificial and phony, allowed to admire from a psychological distance, as with a poker face. Just don't think it OK for men to assume the equivalent of that song "girls just want to have fun."
And yet this is how plenty of sexual harassment policies in the work place are written—that is if you say something verbally or make certain gestures that a male is likely to be provoked—it is called harassment. But few of these harassment policies focus on more covert actions that might elicit such provocations in the first place. Nothing sexist here mind you.
Therefore when people think of sexual offenders they don't think of women. For the most part their reflex is automatically to see men as culpable and to often assume the worst. But more importantly why has there never been a fair debate on how much prejudice and paranoia existed, now over the decades, against men in this society? Nobody talks of andro-phobia or any kind of intolerance of men being men?
What does it mean to be a male animal in this politically correct anti-culture, so that one does not feel one has to fit into some gyno-centric value system—that is where one gender dominates in defining the ideas of reality and sociability? Or is it too lowly to recognize one's animal nature? Surely it has nothing to do with the still ingrained idea that the phenomenon of lust is somehow a bad and indecent thing? Surely our society has surpassed that guilt-trip?
But even before these latest episodes of sexual rape and murder here in California you could note that "plenty" of women were already very leery of wanting to interact with men as strangers. There already existed a lot of fear and prejudice of men—especially men who did not appear to make it into the ranks of the successful (with the job title, clothes, salary and who the media honors as good citizens of value—movers and shakers in the business community and sports stars.) If you move to a new community, as a stranger, with no previous ties, don't expect many local women to just love you being alive.
In another words most women don't go out of their way to meet a man unless he drives a status car, or has a high paying job, and is handsome, and hangs out at the right places like a marina—where they can expect he has a boat. It was always OK to think of men as "success objects." As a nation of consumers most women know the names of the status cars, clothes, etc. and where to meet the men they want to interact—otherwise there are plenty of cold shoulders.
And despite the demand for equality these last decades there was never any kind of equality of a woman buying a man a drink or asking him to dance—not in the United States. How many women ask men for dates? How many concerts or plays have you been invited to? The average male just couldn't shake the status of having all those chinks in his armor—no doubt hiding away somewhere. Being male carried too much negative baggage—at least as the stereotypes were compounded.
Now it seems some people want "all" sexual offenders to be databased, with all kinds of personal information so they are minutely profiled, and all this information should be made available to all elements of the world on reports written on them or what some so-called experts or correction personal wrote about them—and of course they never get it wrong—especially in the subjective world of opinion.
One big discovery of this released murdered Gardner was "not" diagnosed as a high-risk offender. But you can bet now practically every offender from here on will be so diagnosed as high-risk—that is anyone with half a heart beat or less than 85 years old. These people are not going to err on the wrong side of this politic stakes game—which was to revamp a whole system—not simply to look at violent offenders.
But of course the mainstream media would never have a fanatical need to use sexual information on another as a weapon against potentially perceived enemies? They would never highlight the latest scandal if it helped destroy a political career like a Bill Clinton or Gary Hart or numerous others? No they are far much too fair-minded! Certainly they should have access to unlimited information on anyone—since we never know where they invest their money—or who or what they really represent? (see "Operation Mockingbird" and ask yourself how long are you going to remain chained to a rock in Plato's cave—isn't it time to finally realize what you see are shadows of puppets projected on a wall—that is the propaganda your country's intelligence services are using against its own citizens—and using your tax dollars to bribe people to do whatever they want as "false flag" operations—that is working solely for the very wealthy, the military industrial complex, energy industries, banking industries, and including special interests such as right-wing Zionism that not only twisted our arm to go to war with Iraq but is setting up the "same" pattern of propaganda so we go to war with Iran?)
For example, the mainstream media would never gratuitously print a wire story "again" accusing Scott Ritter of Internet interaction with a women pretending to be a teenager—since Scott Ritter was once again, that is one of the very few with the courage, warning the American people that these latest accusations against Iran's nuclear buildup, like his warnings that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction (and who would better had known), were manufactured propaganda with a disguised agenda. What happened with that story and where is "his" access to an open media to state his side of the issue? Not even pseudo-progressives seem to now care that such a courageous man has been seemingly silenced, or smeared and now ignored into oblivion, while the U.S./Israel continues to push the world into a major world war—that could be very catastrophic—especially now that the U.S. has "no" real friends—while it has alienated many.
And of course we "all" had an absolute need to know the details of Tiger Woods private life and choices? Its not like this story was good for selling news advertising? More importantly we all had a "right" to receive an apology from Tiger Woods regarding his obvious character faults as a "cheater" of women. Yes it made headlines—Tiger Woods apologized to the world, and there were discussions as to whether he was sincere. Yet you absolutely know none of those "intuitive" women were nothing if not victims. It wasn't their fault they hung around places where people like Woods might be. It is not their fault that Tiger found their presence alluring—surely none dropped their panties for his knighthood to stoop down and return? Surely those women would just as easily have fallen "victim" to the less wealthy, less famous, and the less handsome? Surly we Americans would never dream of expecting their female apologies for victimizing an Afro-American male trying to make it in the white world of gulf? They couldn't possibly have done a little due diligence and checked the Internet on so famous a celebrity to see if he was not already married or engaged? But there were no headlines and apologies to Americans that these women were any kind of cheaters. It's all good. And it's all so typical.
But less we forget the script—just remember that men are the predators until you look at some divorce settlements. Or if a young woman accuses a young man of date rape—since she did not verbally and overtly consent to sex and offered some resistance—then obviously it is the "male" who is the criminal since his behavior can be seen as aggressive. It never has anything to do with what she chose to wear, or how she acted, or what kind of psychological games might have led him and his desires on, or what kinds of unconscious conflicts she may have been dealing as to send conflicting messages. She can simply accuse him of getting her drunk—it is his fault. That schemer.
And lets belabor this notion, "He got me drunk" a bit. You see sometimes men provide the drinks for free. It's kind of like those nightclubs that advertise "Women Get in Free." Or how often do you see such clubs advertising "Men Get in Free" (that is heterosexual nightclubs)? Maybe, if you are lucky, once just to show they actually recognize, although begrudgingly, who sends most of the revenue stream their way.
With so much preconception and prejudice once a woman accuses a man of something it is pretty much a done deal—the male is assumed the perpetrator. Case closed. Yet when Nancy Friday did her research on woman's sexual fantasies she learned that some women fantasized being raped. Of course she couched this reality with some pseudo-scientific explanations of the mitigating sort. Still we never have women charged with rape in this society? It is never a case of sometimes it takes two to tangle. Yet once you are accused of a violent sexual offense, such as rape, now you can expect to stay in prison until you die, or you are going to be on parole for a very long time.
But this is not to argue to be easy on rape or rapists—especially violent criminals that run down joggers and then kill them. In fact it seems reasonable some crimes of murder deserve the same in retribution. Yet there are lots of ways for women to "hurt" men without being physically violent. For example, you don't like some guy at work and want him fired. Easy—accuse him of harassment and management will find some way of letting him go to avoid any kind of expensive lawsuit (expensive lawsuits almost always paid to women—not men—as if none of this prejudice ever entered the workplace?
Or take the latest splash in July's British Elle creating blogosphere outrage when Kristen Stewart compared paparazzi photos of her to images of women being raped. She too felt a need to apologize for her "choice of words" since the reactionaries could not see any connection—so were offended by the comparison. Yet isn't what is considered most damaging about rape is the idea of being humiliated and violated? Does violence have to be physical or blatant for it to be violent? And does not the paparazzi humiliate and violate from time to time? Why is it that it is considered OK for the paparazzi to stalk famous people and never allow them a sense of privacy? Why is this media function allowed so much free reign to spy on others as a supposed profession—and to have it occasionally appear in the mainstream media? Apparently if you psychologically humiliate someone without using physical violence then it is permissible? So the word rape, which means to seize, still can now maintain its distinctive male accusation.
And certainly it was press-permissible to print enlarged colored photos of Paris Hilton crying prior to going to jail, or for a female comedian to tell a joke about her at a public forum just prior while she was part of the audience, that is about her sucking the jail bars, referring to her performing fellatio on video—that is calling the rich, blonde, bitch a whore to the world for engaging in sexually explicit practice. But, hey, we know it is mostly men who came up with the idea of labeling women as whores—don't we-after all that is what the dogma told us? And we know that jealousy never shows its face in the corridors of the fourth estate? No one seized the front page moment there for viewer gloating?
And quite frankly Carrie Prejean does deserve praise for being honest about her convictions, even if it is true the media found later she had a scandalous sex tape filmed of her. Yet is it really so shocking that a so-called Christian had engaged in sexual or narcissistic behavior? Is it not true that nature itself has found it fit to make sexual appeal and sexual appetite an alluring reality—so much so that on occasion it makes hypocrites of all who pretend angelic stature? (Yet where are the media and entertainment people willing to broadcast the shocking truth about Moses—that is Jonathan Kirsch's scholarly "Moses: A Life" clearly blowing the myth of a saint—and showing this story manufactured, that is it boils down to show how war propaganda of one tribe occupying land of others after killing them off is covered as God's command—suspending all normal ethical evaluations. If liberal media is so down of Judeo-Christian prejudices well then why not cut to the heart of the matter?)
Or for that matter how many Californians, with their overly crowded prison conditions, are screaming about rape of weaker prisoners as victims. Not many. The big fear here is that the courts are forcing California to do something about prison overcrowding—which may mean releasing thousands of prisoners—many who never committed a violent crime. So it is not surprising how this politics now works in Sacramento.
Yet the issue here is when it comes to sexual offenders of any sort, that is male offenders as so labeled by the legal system, we come to expect it was a worst-case scenario. Someone spreads a rumor that another is a "pervert" or is an x-offender, and we readily "assume" serious or highly offensive behavior. Labels mean danger, that is to avoid, to watch, to be suspicious, to be ready to run, etc. Such is the terrorism of stranger paranoia. "Quick, cross the street, here comes a homeless person!" Gasp.
So you might realize there were a lot of gender issues remaining underwraps—that is this society, and it's professionals, have not honestly confronted. So we wait for a Willy Horton moment to deal with the cases of "x-offenders" never imagining that society itself has always been part of the problem. Nothing over-wrought here hid in the sand of the brown wrapper—that is while the pornography industry is as explicitly shocking as a well-mannered mainstream pretends to be so innocent.
Plus people of this nation have never truly accepted impulses that violate the gender norms of male and female—especially that a male might have androgynous traits—or that a male might seem effete or narcissistic or whatever. While women made strides in tearing down stereotypes of proper girl behavior there has been little acceptance of a male's feminine side.
Plus there are all kinds of anxieties related to man's waste elimination organs being also related to sexuality. Plus there are various kinds of potential fetish labels, which is still grist for the American psyche to fear and to project. So there are plenty of unresolved issues? For some people all the more need to be suspicious, critical and judgmental—because any kind of propensity that deviates from the missionary position of marriage must lead to bad things?
Or, for example, gays may have managed to create enough of their public relations campaign to erase some stigma from the word homosexual, but they did not entirely erase anxieties some people fear in their interests that cross the line—exotic they may be. For example, they did not create awareness to the basic fact that the lower end of colon tract has its own erogenous potential in normal people. Nor would they address the reality that some women like backdoor eroticism blurring the line between what is considered homosexual, etc. But such anxieties still have their consequences in fear and hostility.
This is the psychology side of society that wants to make sure all violations are condemned and punished. Whereas people are taught, as children, that strangers are dangerous—and granted some few are—but what a form of xenophobic prejudice to grow up with. The "Don't talk to strangers" mindset, that one learned with such alarm, often enough carries over to adulthood.
Some women walk by you and act as if you don't even exist. They don't look at you. Sometimes its fear, sometimes deference or preoccupation, sometimes snobbery—in fact there is plenty of snobbery. This is you are not recognized as a human being—rather the invisible man. Some women say to defend this kind of shunning behavior—well you don't know what it is like being a woman; but hey no learned prejudice here with any kind of biased distortions expecting nothing but creepiness? And this attitude that is prevalent basically says "I don't know you but likely you are not worth knowing so I will not waste any effort" equally signifies something else—that is the person doing the rejecting might also not be worth knowing. After all when one has no basis of resourcefulness, no true moxie, no wit or sense of fun, but rather some judgmental reticence—how can such a person be worth exploring as any kind of spirit worth enjoying?
Or how often have people acknowledged that nature itself created certain conflicts between the genders—that is certain misunderstandings that sometimes cause alienation between the sexes? Yet how easy to exploit such natural conflict, confusion and frustration as did some feminists by projecting men as "deliberately" sexist or offensive—as if men invented the idea of a sex object or desire? How dare that lecher think like that!
All this kind of indoctrination mindset was in place before Gardner's release to do his crimes. These recent gruesome murders of innocent girls in a population of three million had it so that suddenly we are lead to expect murders potentially lurking everywhere—that is as feelings and fears go. The media events had all the elements of a Frankenstein movie. Suddenly a big city was a sympathetic community—as nothing unites like tragedy. Yet the outcome was a lot wider net as the situation was being concocted—that if your crime was once sexual—there is no right for you to not be re-prosecuted and re-punished again and again and again. Suddenly everyone was trying to discover where all the offenders lived. NIMBY was everywhere more or less inviting x-offenders to commit suicide. Big numbers were thrown around to give the impression of serious rapists everywhere. And now pretty much all convictions will have longer sentences and evaluation periods—and all offenders will be subject to polygraph tests for long terms of parole.
Nevertheless way prior to this ground zero story there had already been many men who chose not to go into any professions that have any interaction with children such as teaching—for fear of being thought a predator or a pedophile. Many men don't go out of their way to interact with children—except their own. Perhaps children pick up the idea that men are not really very human to a child level—whatever. No inequality there. Another related point is that while women made forays into the work world that was once considered male, female work will stay female because the male is not trusted on face value—which means more jobs for women and less for men.
And this extended with temp agencies that made it a habit of hiring men for coolie, out-of-office, usually labor work while sending women to easier indoor jobs which allowed for more training. Why, because you didn't want some permanent female employee of a customer company complaining, because in reality she just didn't want to rub elbows with a temp male. Well let's just ban them to labor jobs. And colleges too really extended a warm welcome with their dogma and diatribe—which is one reason why there are more women than men in college—but then maybe men can't afford it?
A couple of years ago a man told me that a women called the police because he was watching a little league game (he use to play himself when he was a child) and she learned he had no children there playing. The sheriff deputy advised him to leave and escorted him away even though he had nothing on his record. He told me it was humiliating. Now days you only need be male and if you are even thought looking at a child you might be automatically suspect. Hey we better check his ID if he's going in the children's library—even if on occasion there exists a better book on a subject.
So now, for men, the unspoken rule is to not attempt to socialize. Follow the female lead and play non-social. Don't look. Don't approach them. Don't whistle or make catcalls. Especially don't compliment them like: "Wow you are so sexy." Nothing like that as some will take it as an insult (nothing perverse with such brain wiring of dogma and personality?). Or they will think you are too presumptuous to assume human relation with Christopher Lasch's Culture of Narcissism. Just stay your distance.
Besides, before they interact with you they will want a detective to do a background check anyway—just in case. You see they can't afford to take a chance. Now men should be profiled—especially if you are trying to meet on the Internet. Isn't that what was already going on—that before you met in person you should have given some webpage personal information so they could do a background check? It's not racist—because men should "prove" to women there are equal. That was the attitude. You are guilty until you prove you are innocent. (Whereas how many men were asking for the same kind of check to see if someone woman was not some kind of gold-digger, or nutcase? "May I have the names and phone numbers of your last two boyfriends?" Yeah—right. Since most men were not making such demands you have to be pretty special to expect they would conform.)
Yet what is sexual offense in a society that does not even legalize prostitution? The law of this society basically says that you can only engage in sexual activity with another person if you are legally married or if you are engaged in a monogamous relationship of mutual consent. In another words if you are a male who didn't make it socially, financially, etc., to attract a woman who is looking for whatever kind of guy she wants to get, then you don't have a legal right to sexual experience—except with yourself and that assumes you're not homeless. (Granted this same argument works for women who are deprived but on average women are not as promiscuous by nature.)
Should people who have a bit of a personality disorder be denied the right to occasionally engage is erotic experience with another person for the purpose of pleasure and pursuit of happiness—if they are willing to pay for it? How does that harm the judgmental world? Maybe someone is a bit on the ugly side or whatever? How does this oppression work for everyone's sanity?
Where are the enlightened pillars of society screaming for a human right to have sex whether you are married or not—provided you have some means to pay for it—and the price isn't so outrageous, and provided it is not truly harmful to society at large? Few people care because this society is so family-centric and Judeo-Christian. And yet it can be argued that having children is also the equivalent to an offense of great magnitude. What sane person who bring children into a world in which there are supposed thousands of nuclear bombs stored and ready to go, and other weapons of mass destruction created? What sane and humane person would bring children into a world on the brink of economic, environmental, and population disaster; or where abortion is condemned by the same nuts that readily advocate for the war machine? Anyone who studies human nature, political nature, history, and current realities cannot easily justify bringing more children onto this planet—and yet family values are the singular bedrock for our current morality?
Maybe we should change the law that anyone who has children should be forced to get professional counseling? "Why would you bring a child in a world that forces more competition for limited resource?" After all if republicans are going to demand more government bureaucracy to watch for every sexual perversity and demand all kind of services so "potential" minor offenders get long term treatment then why not the whole human race?
But then we forget. After all, does not an American deserve heaven on earth—that is total security as metaphor? Why should any Californian have to live in a world in which even "one" potential criminal of any propensity might be stalking the state? (This is not meant to be facetious in the face of discussing serious crimes and in which parents and families of victims have truly suffered calamity.) But somehow we have managed to justify Abu Graib. We justify locking up people without any rights at Camp Gitmo—even there plenty of elderly and children. So while the paranoid American is fretting having to cross the path of an x-criminal that served his time, she goes blissfully about her business not realizing crime happens in many parts of the world partially because the average citizen here is economically privileged and partially due to injustice elsewhere. How many innocent civilians and children are killed in the name of high-minded propaganda—so the average American can have the nice lifestyle? How many dictators has America helped put into power including Saddam Hussein and the brutal Shah of Iran? Just so long as he has access to cheap energy, world resources and markets, and throwaway fast food packaging and golf courses in the desert.
And just so long as "all" potential criminals in his own country are locked down or hounded and watched in everyway imaginable. There can never be enough security at home if hysteria and fear reign supreme. Remember how Gray Davis would not dare pardon hardly anyone for any circumstance—as having any kind of empathy for a criminal was political suicide? This is really not so far from a McCarthyism call to find Hitler's need for scapegoat.
And yet what was more indicative of California and the U.S. than how highly active were gays about gay issues—that is so hyper vigilant about gays rights and yet so blasé about other more important human issues? Thousands turned out to march—it was really impressive. But where were all the gay activists when it came time to protest before the war in Iraq—where millions of bombs went off? Where were all the thousands of California's gay activists to learn about a myriad of issues to confront of far more serious issues than whether they were allowed to be married—complacently living their isolated lifestyles—while hoping that "gay" would become known as a happy word—wrapped up in living the good life like the rest of America.
Where were all the artists who are suppose to be on the cutting edge of what is happening? Where were all the pseudo-spiritualists so concerned about singing songs of peace and love? Hiding away in their denial of reality or thinking the only real issue to get political is marijuana or organic food.
But now it is more a woman's world and plenty of women in voting were even more conservative then are men. Plenty were content to see the ranks of prisoner numbers skyrocket—since most prisoners were men. Furthermore prisoners don't compete for jobs, and when homeless are not likely to find jobs, especially as if they will have some kind of scarlet letter on their state ID they never will. That was one issue debated—that all sex offenders be branded so they dare interact in any setting in which someone might demand to see their ID.) No one would rent x-offenders an apartment, or hire, etc. There is no such thing as re-integration into the mainstream—for x-criminals in general let alone those who did something sexual.
Yet it is a curious thing that in a tolerant society one learns by making mistakes and growing, yet when it comes to sexuality, one is suppose to have some uncanny capacity to have already know all the politically correct reactions and socio-sexual maturity—because there is no room for mistakes—there is no room for negotiating one's style, there is no room for negotiating one's individuality, there is no tolerance for a learning curve, there is only intolerance and inflexible banishment.
This is probably another reason why people want much information posted on anyone who has ever committed any kind of sexual offense or crime—because it can operate as a kind of political tool. In fact we ought to have a database in which every accusation against anyone can be registered and never destroyed. We can then know everyone's business and every rumor. At least we can be titillated by distraction—but no fanaticism or addiction here.
Isn't that how it sometimes goes—that some people are so voyeuristic they want to know all the dirty laundry about everyone so they can tell everyone else, and more importantly so they never have to confront their own issues? They want to electronically stalk people, especially people they don't think they like. And these private investigation services do well meld into a security police state that rides to the brink of fascism in the larger context.
That is how it is in the American society—once you make a mistake—it must always be recorded, remembered, and used to stigmatize long after the event occurred. More importantly the label never can leave you—no matter if 99% of your life was exemplary to community standards—they will always remember the sin that will weigh so heavily—and no sin is as terrible or as terrorist as a "sexual" sin.
Take for example the act of exhibitionism. It was the "male" perversion—never would women be so debased with anathema. But truly how victimized was such a victim? Did her eyes burn in their sockets? Did he really do it to shock another? Was she psychologically damaged for life? Is that male penis, made of collagenous skin and balloon tubes, the real deal on monstrous abomination?
Certainly the male genitalia can never gain the worship status of the female. How many men get hired and advance along because they are sexual objects—and let's not pretend this does not happen—that is that if you are attractive you are more likely to get a job? How many men can expect to be housed and supported so they can be available for her when she comes home after work for a little afternoon delight? How many men are paid the kind of call-girl prices Elliott Spitzer got caught shortly after he had an article published in the New York Times decrying the financial finagling on Wall Street—prior to the crashes?
Whereas the person who drives his car dangerously and fast and could readily do some serious financial and physical damage to a victim is seldom viewed in so dire a manner of reprehension. There are all kinds of unethical behavior that damage the rights and needs of others and they suffer little in way of stigma or prison term. Take the people who deliberately sold bad mortgages—knowing they were putting people's financial livelihood to damage. The huge majority still made their cut, and paid no penalty, some who are looking for their next scam job. Some even claim bragging rights.
Nancy Friday's My Secret Garden will have to become more secret—because it wouldn't be good politics to reveal that women too have all sort of sexual curiosity and appetite? We can't destroy the myth that all women who work in the sex industry just do what they do because they need the money—less we think badly of them for having erotic urge and impulse? It's not even kosher for men to have such as part of their humanity—at least not the white male.
But then what area of human endeavor is more vulnerable to mobilize fear than sex offense? Sex seems irrational. It does not readable adhere to idealist or angelic standards. Even the mandate that women should have their organism by the time a man does is not readable achievable simply because it sounds so egalitarian. Furthermore there is so much potential to manipulate guilt and shame.
After all how many people have never done anything sexually questionable—at least by some group's standards? Surely you must have called a 900 number once? Surely you thought about a sexually ambiguous thing or two—at least for a minute—tell the therapist so she can write it down and then the world can review it—or extracted generalizations presumably made by experts? Or at least you dreamed about something ambiguous? Or maybe you're just angry that you don't get the kind of erotic experience you secretly want on some level—so at least you should know what kind of life others live?
You don't live in a sexually healthy society. You never did. They haven't even come out of the closet enough to tell you they would label masturbation as a disease generator of many illnesses—not really all that long ago. No neurosis there. Further some people seem to constantly fret that others might violate norms of appropriate sexual expression. And despite the enormity of pornography on the Internet and stores we still live in too much a sexually repressed state. (And yet women too make a "lot" of money in the sex industries that capitalize on "desire" but don't expect many to be branded as offenders anytime soon—this is to say those women who enjoy showing off their wares and engaging spicy behavior are not considered very offensive by predilection or impulse—there is a market—and people are paying for it where it might elsewhere be labeled a crime—and sometimes far more explicit). It's not like pornography, such as some made in California, never earned a blush or two?
Still if this were a liberated society a person could communicate a sexual interest to another and not expect the person to denounce, make a scene, call the bouncer, or get others to chase and harass. The person flattered could simply say, "I'm not interested" and not make a big deal about it. And the rejected person could carry on with looking elsewhere.
Yet it is more than interesting the attitudes Americans have willingly adopted toward the sex industries that make money from sexual frustration. If there seems to be much porn on the Internet or children can see it too easily—well then it is the job of the family to take corrective actions by getting blocking devices—no police state here putting restriction on pornography companies that make money—even if there is little dispute to the levels of what some would deem lewdness or subsequent feelings of being offended or affronted? Why that is just good American capitalism.
So they will impound the cars of men who pay prostitutes—those who make propositions to streetwalkers, that is streetwalkers who are scolded by the police from time to time—not like the aristocratic prostitutes that can afford to advertise in L.A. adult magazines that sit in front on the courthouse. High class prostitutes are too special to be classified as offensive in any way, beside they might know a few secrets, granted not as many as women paid to listen to 900 number explicit fantasy calls (giggle, giggle).
Yet with the Internet the entire world can see American pornography—and sometimes it has stuff arguably offensive to hygienic standards. For example, how often does a woman, who has been penetrated from behind, expected to orally deliver to the same instrument of bacterial contamination? This medically questionable and socially distasteful reality is allowed by corporate industries because the standard of business enterprise presumes some inviolable right to make money (besides they can afford good lawyers and might even be connected to the underworld). Yet this loose standard could use a bit of education.
Or why does there exist advertising about "teen sex" on the Internet and in some porn magazines, and yet the country is arresting people who they claim have downloaded pictures? What kind of double standard is this all about? Some of most serious offences according to legislation have to do with teenagers yet for-profit industries enjoy latitude? Certainly we are not so tolerant that we have allowed for teens to see teens—or is this excess that suggests permissive normalcy really entrapment on steroids?
Meanwhile just like the witch-hunts of medieval times, some zealots will spend time on their computers checking out the "profile" on every potential offender. Some argue sexual criminals are a "different" sort of criminal and this form of discrimination will be used to help alleviate all anxieties of the modern age. Even now men, especially the homeless, the single, the loner, the one not well-heeled, and the one who does not play the American game of having a family, is seen as a burden or threat to society—like elderly women were during the witch trials.
Despite the fact that science has never met the task of adequately and humanely explaining the labels it uses to classify the "deviants" it somehow carries an authority it does not deserve. Sexologists cannot even come to terms with their prejudice about "sexual addiction." Somehow if you desire more sex than the average person you are addicted? It does occur to these people that libido levels do peter out on their own once satiated. Or if you have some fascination with viewing pornography you are viewed as deformed—because it's "all" deplorable-or is it not quite the same as romance novels? Somehow to be turned on to a different state of consciousness is bad?
Nevertheless no one is writing a book on sexual starvation or sexual frustration—that probably is more common than addiction. Why? Where is there any kind of recognition of sexual deprivation or need for touch in this society?
Or what about the people who push the idea that your erection "should" last a long time or you need Viagra—that is you are not really a real virile male? Who is countering this form of insecure exploitation and mis-information? It seems social scientists have a way to go themselves to deal with issues. In fact there are very few books on the mental health of sexuality. Now why would that be—if it is related to serious problems? But hey they are trusted to determine the guilt of others? Meanwhile in the English language thousands of books are published yearly on all manner of subject. There are literally thousands of living psychologists and plenty of sexologists and they haven't even come up with one good book on the mental health of sex? Nobody seems to wonder too much about this odd affair?
So why can't they make a prescription that kills sexual desire that sexual predators are required to take if they are on leash? Certainly the world could concoct such a drug? And why not for the over-the-counter since there is so much eroto-phobia anyway? Why would anyone want to have sexual desire in this society—with all its blame and shame games?
They probably don't even have a hypothetical model, that is of an Aristotelian presumption of knowing a healthy model, as to who would qualify as sexually and socially healthy—perhaps some celibate with little sexual drive? I don't think they would nominate someone like Xaviera Hollander and her Xavier's Supersex: her personal techniques for total lovemaking? Probably not. They probably wouldn't nominate Isaac Asimov and his How To Be A Dirty Old Man? (Of course he used a pseudonym—but why would a prominent scholar and author feel a need to use a pseudonym when writing on how to be a dirty old man? Doesn't every red-blooded male want to grow old that way—apparently not?)
So why don't they just get to the legislative issue they are really hankering for—to have a profile on every male in America—DNA and all—with every crime, every accusation, every suspicion etc., recorded, so that people in general, and bored journalists can easily find in some "centralized" Edgar Hoover database? This is basically where we are headed. Plus first sexual offenders will be booked and not allowed to use computers at all—then this curfew will expand to others, etc. Of course their motives are always worthy—those do-gooders who know how to fix every social problem with more government and more need for tax revenues, and who have little faith in the average person's ability to lead his or her own life. Their hero will say: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
What is the opposite of a sexual offense—a sexual defense? That doesn't sound very complementary. Is there a label for an act that is sexually positive while being pro-social? What label is that? Meanwhile there are lots of unemployed, lots of people worried about their kids being sent to war, lots of people worried about financial matters, housing, etc. But this sexual offender "program" will be good politics for the naïve masses that the media usually distains as hoi polloi populist—when they are not so much hoi polloi themselves.
P.S. This July 4th I celebrated what constitutional rights I still believe I can exercise because given the state of reality and law in this country—what is left will not last much longer. Also if you have the email addresses of state legislators please send them this message. Thanks.


Biometrics technology company Clear has installed biometric scanners at John F Kennedy International Airport's Terminal 4 in New York.
The biometric scanners aim to help more than 21 million passengers a year move through the terminal's security checkpoints quickly and efficiently by having their fingerprints or eyes scanned to verify their identity and board their flights.
This is the latest introduction of Clear technology at New York area airports after integrating into facilities at JFK's Terminal 2, LaGuardia Airport's (LGA) Terminals C and D, and domestic Delta Sky Clubs since 2017.
Roel Huinink, president and CEO of JFKIAT – the company which operates Terminal 4 – said, "Accounting for one third of all JFK Airport traffic, Terminal 4 is the premier international gateway to New York City and we are thrilled to be able to now provide our passengers with the latest innovation to further ensure a seamless travel experience.


Opinion: Investors should no longer bet on Warren Buffett MarketWatch. If CalPERS runs true to form, they will have adopted "Buffet-ism" exactly at the moment when it has run its course.
Farmer worry as US demands end of 'unwanted trade barriers' post-Brexit Farming UK. Chlorinated chicken, here we come!
White House is weighing TPS for Venezuelans McClatchy. Clarifying!
Navy training exercises rattle windows in Ocala and beyond Ocala Star-Banner (guurst).
Pakistan to lodge 'eco-terrorism' complaint against India over damage to trees from airstrikes AFP. Trees in the news!
Malaysia plans to halt palm oil expansion to fight bad image Jakarta Post. More trees in the news!
Foxconn, a tale of slashed salaries, disappearing benefits and mass resignations as iPhone orders dry up South China Morning Post. Gonna be hard to send money home as an act of filial piety this way….
Majority of Americans Now Consider Russia a Critical Threat Gallup. Propaganda works.
Trump Ordered Officials to Give Jared Kushner a Security Clearance NYT. EM: "Latest MSM-generated teapot tempest – it's been tradition to let former high officials keep their clearances long after their active government service has ended and they've hit the Sunday morning talking head circuit, so pretending these are normally treated as Holy Relics is absurd. But maybe a top-to-bottom review of *all* the currently-issued clearances and some sensible policies restricting their issuance going forward would be good! Just spare us the suddenly-under-Trump-this-is-an-outrage tone." Looks to me like the Times is doing its allies in the intelligence community a solid.
Here's Why Donald Trump Doesn't Want Anyone To Know His Grades Or SAT Scores Forbes. Hard to think of a line of attack from deeper in the professional class bubble than this.
PHL online troll earns between P30,000-P70,000 a month, leader bares GMA News Online. Seems high; the average monthly salary of a Philippines airline pilot is P5,639. Though English skills do command a premium. Makes one wonder if US campaign strategists understand labor arbitrage. I would bet they do.
Sanders plans to weave family story into first major 2020 speech CNN. In contrast to the typical pattern, I think Sanders will tack to the center in the primary, and the left in the general.
'I don't think it's a contradiction: 2020 candidate Kirsten Gillibrand says fundraiser at Pfizer exec's home shouldn't be a cause for alarm Business Insider (MV).
Phone-hacking device used by police sells on eBay for $100 Engadget (EM). But don't worry. All the data's been wiped.
Excellus makes $150M profit, gives CEO 23 percent pay raise Syracuse Post-Standard (Bob). The article helpfully lists all the executive salaries.
Quantitative easing was the father of millennial socialism FT. Sloppy generational framing.
Early Affluence Tied to Faster Cognitive Drop Late in Life MedPage Today (original). n = 24,066.
See yesterdays Links and Antidote du Jour here.
Next Climate Change Mobilization: To Fear, or Not to Fear?


Bovines are so very intelligent. They are always curious and eager to see new things. notice how they come running to the music. they want to investigate. give it taste….so funny! I love it. anything new we do our cows are right there watching us and investigating what we did. from a new building or fence to walking the dogs. Cows walk with us sometimes. Always watching. NOTHING escapes their notice!


text:
B A N C O
black autonomy network community organization working for economic and social justice in Benton Harbor, MI ...exposing state and local NAACP corruption
What's really happening to the people of Benton Harbor
The Dictators and Billionaires Take Control
By Rev. Edward Pinkney
Palm Sunday gathering in Chicago calls for a real remedy to violence. Photo/deBorah mccoy. Photo/DaymonJHartley.com
The Whirlpool Corporation has unveiled a plan to completely gentrify downtown Benton Harbor, Michigan. This is being accomplished with the aid of the new Emergency Manager, Tony Saunders, who has a shopping list of things Whirlpool wants completed. The last Emergency Manager failed Whirlpool's test. Whirlpool went to the governor to have him removed. Saunders was put in his place.
The Whirlpool Corporation designed the Harbor Shores project, hailed by the media and the white business community as a revitalization of the city of Benton Harbor. They told the community that the project would bring jobs. It was really an unprecedented opportunity to make a lot of money at the expense of an impoverished community.
The city of Detroit is facing the very same problems with their new dictator. The city of Benton Harbor and Detroit are under a vicious fascist attack by Governor Rick Snyder and his rich buddies, known as the billionaires.
Dan Gilbert, the multi-billionaire owner of Quick Loans, and a member of the Business Roundtable, has been meeting with Detroit's new Emergency Financial Manager Kevyn Orr under Public Act 436, which gave Orr total control. Gilbert also owns a number of sports teams, including the Cleveland Cavaliers. He has plans to transform several Detroit streets and thoroughfares into pedestrian walkways with shopping districts around 22 buildings Gilbert has purchased. Several of the buildings are historic. All were purchased at bargain prices. Gilbert's company also is providing seed money for digital companies. Detroit is seen as a major future home for that industry. Such companies hire very few workers.
An Emergency Manager has also been placed in six cities and three school districts across Michigan. None of the Emergency Managers work for the citizens. They work only for the corporations.
For example, the Benton Harbor Public Safety officer and Chief Roger Lange reduced the Benton Harbor Fire Department down to three full time firefighters from ten. They worked hand in hand with the Emergency Manager. Recently Lt. Doug Bell was severely burned in an early morning fire at 1034 Jennings Ave. Bell was the only firefighter on duty when the call came in. How can one person put out a fire? The standard procedure is for two fire fighters to be inside a burning structure and for two to be outside monitoring the scene. The fire department has been destroyed by the cuts. In addition, Benton Harbor city workers saw more benefits cut, including 12 holidays. Their insurance contribution was trimmed and Saunders is promising more cuts in a series of emergency financial orders.
People need to stand up and fight. A new world is possible.
http://peoplestribune.org/pt-news/2013/05/dictators-billionaires-control/
Listen to Rev. Pinkney on Prison Radio.
Mr. Kaepernick, You Are My Hero
The River Goes By - Philip Bassett
See the lyrics here
quickly with PayPal
Fundraiser/Publicity T-shirts are white in sizes M, L, XL, and 2X. Donation is $10 and $3 for shipping. Payment can be made at Moratorium-Mi.org or checks can be sent to Moratorium NOW, 5920 2nd Ave., Detroit MI 48202
Central Coordinating Committee
Press Release Issued By Rev. Pinkney
All-white jury convicted - no evidence
#FreePinkney!
HOLIDAY CAMPAIGN FLYER
WHIRLPOOL & SUBSIDIARIES Amana, Estate, Gladiator Garage Works, Insperience, Jenn-Air, KitchenAid, Magic Chef, Maytag, Roper, Acros, Inglis, Bauknecht, Brastemp, Admiral, IKEA appliances and some Kenmore
Funds Needed!
10 Reasons to Donate $10
Send donations as checks made out to "BANCO" to:
Dorothy Pinkney
1940 Union St.
How BANCO Started
Video of Rev. Pinkney
Discussing Local Democracy
(more videos at end of page)
Reporting every month on Benton Harbor's monumental struggle: PeoplesTribune.org
Free Pinkney Poster
Listen to internet radio with Rev. Pinkney
Labels (quick searches)
* Attorneys for Pinkney
* BANCO
* Benton Harbor
* Berrien County
* Boycott Whirlpool
* Commissioner Glenn Yarbough
* Court Case
* Harbor Shores
* Jail
* Jean Klock Park
* Judge Butzbaugh
* Judge Wiley
* Legal Defense Fund
* Media
* Mrs Dorothy Pinkney
* Pinkney for US Congress
* Police
* Police Abuse
* Prison
* Quoting Bible
* Rep. Fred Upton
* Rev Pinkney
* Sheriff
* Whirlpool
Select Speeches and Reports
* February 03, 2007 -- Detroit Greens: Benton Harbor's Rev. Pinkney Hearing: Summary & Report
* January 25, 2007 -- Michigan Peace Network: Justice for Rev. Pinkney! Jan. 25
* January 3, 2007 -- Media Mouse - Grand Rapids Independent Media: Court Support needed in Rev. Pinkney's Struggle against Whirlpool in Benton Harbor
* December 15, 2006 YouTube - Todd Price & Karen Chin OTE productions: Rev Pinkney speaks at a Democracy Conference
* October 01, 2006 Truth of the Matter
* March 12, 2006 Pan-African News Wire: Statewide Meeting Supports Rev. Pinkney in Benton Harbor
* November 30, 2005 Michigan IMC: Reverend Pinkney Speaks in L.A.
* May 31, 2005 Black at Michigan: Back again…
* January 7, 2004 MarkDilley: GENOCIDE IN BENTON HARBOR (more)
(racism)
Taking American jobs away is a Whirlpool Specialty
Whirlpool layoffs in Fort Smith total 850 11/23/2010 Whirlpool Corp. has confirmed that two rounds of recent layoffs have resulted in 850...
Corporate Crime & Benton Harbor
Great article on corporate crime and Benton Harbor Pinkney Interview BENTON HARBOR: THE STOLEN TOWN by Kathy Nathan As consumers of main ...
10 REASONS TO DONATE $10 TO BANCO'S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
We still need 100 good people to donate $10 each to BANCO's Legal Defense Fund. In December 2014, Rev. Edward Pinkney was sentenced to ...
For profit chain gangs in Michigan?
Reposted from MWRO Blog Having family and friends in prison teaches you a lot about what things are like from "the inside." MWR...
Prosecutor Gerald Vigansky, a monster
Berrien County Commissioners have knowledge of the following, but remain mute Seeing Benton Harbor residents and Berrien County Courthouse ...
Benton Harbor/St. Joseph is the most blatant planned racist divide in the country
Job losses have not affected St. Joe even close to how they've decimated Benton Harbor. In fact, the funds of Whirlpool have been primar...
Does a Broken Country Have a Future? The Criminal Injustice System
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS, March 11, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coau...
When they don't like who's running for city commission in Benton Harbor, illegal actions are taken by Berrien County judges, prosecutors, and attorneys
Make sure you're sitting down for this one. Dennis Knowles, a citizen of Benton Harbor who is running for city commission, was recentl...
Julie Swidwa, Herald Palladium "reporter," is expert in making up stories out of nearly nothing
In this case, she's able to draw out and sensationalize the story of a man with a cracked car windshield being chased at high speed by a...
Benton Harbor's Most Wanted
BENTON HARBOR'S MOST WANTED FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY CHIEF PROSECUTOR: JIM CROW CHERRY JUDGES: JOHN HAMMOND PAUL MALONEY DENNIS WILEY...
BANCO online archive
BANCO online archive July 2020 (1) June 2020 (1) May 2020 (1) April 2020 (5) March 2020 (1) February 2020 (2) January 2020 (1) December 2019 (2) November 2019 (1) September 2019 (1) July 2019 (2) June 2019 (3) May 2019 (3) April 2019 (2) March 2019 (2) February 2019 (1) January 2019 (3) December 2018 (5) November 2018 (7) September 2018 (1) August 2018 (1) July 2018 (5) June 2018 (3) May 2018 (7) April 2018 (1) March 2018 (6) February 2018 (1) January 2018 (1) December 2017 (7) November 2017 (7) October 2017 (6) September 2017 (2) August 2017 (9) July 2017 (14) June 2017 (10) May 2017 (12) April 2017 (9) March 2017 (4) February 2017 (13) January 2017 (6) December 2016 (10) November 2016 (9) October 2016 (12) September 2016 (14) August 2016 (10) July 2016 (9) June 2016 (11) May 2016 (21) April 2016 (10) March 2016 (17) February 2016 (15) January 2016 (27) December 2015 (31) November 2015 (21) October 2015 (19) September 2015 (23) August 2015 (9) July 2015 (14) June 2015 (12) May 2015 (9) April 2015 (9) March 2015 (8) February 2015 (9) January 2015 (9) December 2014 (11) November 2014 (15) October 2014 (11) September 2014 (4) August 2014 (9) July 2014 (8) June 2014 (9) May 2014 (7) April 2014 (4) March 2014 (4) February 2014 (1) January 2014 (11) December 2013 (4) November 2013 (6) October 2013 (5) September 2013 (3) August 2013 (5) July 2013 (12) June 2013 (3) May 2013 (7) April 2013 (7) March 2013 (8) February 2013 (5) January 2013 (12) December 2012 (6) November 2012 (9) October 2012 (4) September 2012 (8) August 2012 (11) July 2012 (11) June 2012 (15) May 2012 (12) April 2012 (11) March 2012 (5) February 2012 (5) January 2012 (8) December 2011 (11) November 2011 (9) October 2011 (10) September 2011 (14) August 2011 (4) July 2011 (13) June 2011 (9) May 2011 (14) April 2011 (16) March 2011 (5) February 2011 (6) January 2011 (7) December 2010 (10) November 2010 (7) October 2010 (16) September 2010 (15) August 2010 (10) July 2010 (7) June 2010 (5) May 2010 (7) April 2010 (6) March 2010 (17) February 2010 (13) January 2010 (13) December 2009 (10) November 2009 (8) October 2009 (10) September 2009 (11) August 2009 (7) July 2009 (17) June 2009 (18) May 2009 (12) April 2009 (19) March 2009 (25) February 2009 (25) January 2009 (20) December 2008 (18) November 2008 (15) October 2008 (22) September 2008 (20) August 2008 (16) July 2008 (15) June 2008 (22) May 2008 (20) April 2008 (30) March 2008 (16) February 2008 (8) January 2008 (4) December 2007 (13) November 2007 (4) October 2007 (5) September 2007 (5) August 2007 (4) July 2007 (9) June 2007 (8) May 2007 (9) April 2007 (4) March 2007 (12) February 2007 (6) January 2007 (7) December 2006 (2) November 2006 (2) October 2006 (4) September 2006 (4) August 2006 (3) July 2006 (3) June 2006 (7) May 2006 (7) April 2006 (4) March 2006 (5) February 2006 (3) January 2006 (2) December 2005 (3) November 2005 (4) October 2005 (5) September 2005 (5) August 2005 (9) July 2005 (14) June 2005 (19) May 2005 (8) April 2005 (1) January 2004 (1) July 2003 (1)
Rev. Edward Pinkney - How BANCO Started:
"Many years ago I was going about my life believing that the justice system was just that until I started going to the court house to observe all the wrong convictions. There are numerous factors for wrongful convictions in the Berrien County court system. Most of the problems are in the local judicial system."
"It's hard to believe that in the year 2012 we have a county in Michigan with a legal system this antiquated and racist. What's harder to believe is that no one at the State or National level is taking any action to remedy the situation."
"We cannot run society for the privileged and allow a significant proportion of the population to be marginalized. It impacts the quality of life for all of us. If we have throwaway people, a justice system which tolerates injustice is doomed to collapse. I am truly ready for action."
Call or write me anytime about anything!
269-925-0001 banco9342@sbcglobal.net


Clyde and Ethel Higginson—residents of a retirement home in Sandy, Utah—made the evening news for having more descendants than anyone else in the home.
They have a ways to go before they match the record of Samuel Mast of Pennsylvania, who reportedly was survived by 11 children, 97 grandchildren, 634 great grandchildren and 82 great great grandchildren—824 descendants in all.
I'm pretty sure that my 3gg father, Benjamin Thomas Trotter Mitchell, didn't set any record, but was quite a bit more prolific than anyone you mentioned.
He had 7 wives (two who died after only having two children), 47 children, and 255 grandchildren. So far, I have traced over 13,000 descendants of this man who was born in 1816.
Even Warren Jeffs, who was recently apprehended by the FBI, was one of 65 children of Rulon Jeffs.
If he lived long enough to see his great-great-grandchildren, he may well deserve the record. The only problem would be documentation--which should be no problem at all for an able genealogist like yourself.


�Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results� is a form of adware that makes it difficult for computer users to have a smooth and safe browsing experience. PC users are even more likely to encounter rerouting to unwanted web site and loss of control over their browser.
One of the most increasing and annoying adware is browser hijacker like Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results. It is an unknown search engine that able to change the homepage or search settings of Edge, Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Mozilla Firefox.
Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results is contained in some adware that spreads over the Internet. Some of its functions can do browser modifications like creating shortcuts on your toolbar, add links, and redirect search results. However, its main concern is to set Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results as the default home page on your browser.
In general, Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results is an adware that displays advertisements when you use the search function. This adware is typically bundled to free programs such as free tools, games, updates, and download manager. Without your knowledge, any of these applications may secretly install Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results.
Once running on the PC, your browser may get flooded with pop-up ads. Endorsements containing materials that you might find inappropriate and invaluable shows up each time you are surfing the net. Purpose of putting Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results on your browser is to earn money through ads and other promotional schemes.
Adware risks always exist these days. It can cause harm to your PC and diminish system performance if not deleted at once. Some browser hijacker can be taken out easily. However, it is not always the case, other variants can be too complicated to eliminate. For a complete guide, please browse the section on this page where we have complete tutorials to remove Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results effectively.
As observed, this threat is also linked to known malware. You may also look for and delete the following names that were identified with Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results: Aztec Media Inc.
To remove Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results, download MalwareFox Anti-Malware. This tool is effective in getting rid of Trojans, viruses and malware.
To make sure that no more malicious files linked to Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results are inside the computer, we must run another effective scanner. This time, use Junkware Removal Tool. No installation is necessary with this tool.
6.	After scanning the computer, JRT will open a Notepad containing scan logs. It may have not find Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results relevant entities, but it will surely delete any malicious items not found in the previous scans.
4. At the bottom of the page, click on Reset settings to remove all changes made by Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results.
4.	In order to reverse modifications caused by Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results, click on Reset button to bring back Internet Explorer's settings to their default condition.
3. Click on Refresh Firefox button to erase the effect of Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results.
SmartScreen filter is a built-in feature in Microsoft Edge browser that can help you deter malicious programs such as Aztec Media Yahoo Search Results. It can block malicious web sites and downloads.


The BCW Storage Box is the highest quality, most competitively priced cardboard storage box on the market today. They are constructed of white corrugated paper and have a 200 lb. test strength. Use this box for store and protect collectible trading cards like: baseball cards, basketball cards, football cards, Magic The Gathering, VS, Yu-Gi-Oh, Pokemon, Dragonball Z and others.


I wouldn't go as far as to say that I'm a stroller snob, but I do like strollers that are stylish, yet functional, as long as the price adheres to my budget. I also prefer strollers that are lightweight, compact, and easy to use – something that can fold up effortlessly and be placed in the trunk of the car….and be able to get out just like that. Anything else usually poses as an inconvenience, because I don't want to lug around a stroller that is bulky and/or hard to set up/fold.
I've come to appreciate the fact that "top of the line" and expensive (i.e. Stokke Xplory) doesn't always necessarily equal better. Most "luxury" strollers are ideal for the city, especially if you're not going to hardly do any driving. The bulkiness of those strollers doesn't make those in-and-out car trips particularly easy, and they don't always fit perfectly in the trunk.
This is why the Baby Cargo umbrella strollers instantly caught my eye. They're sleek, lightweight, and not a hassle to get in and out of the vehicle. I currently have three strollers (one stays in the car, one stays at home for those trips around the neighborhood, and the other one is at my mom's house when my daughter is visiting), but the Baby Cargo 300 Series Lightweight Umbrella Stroller stroller ($179.99; Available in Eclipse, Blacktop, and Simply Taupe) is my favorite so far.
The Stroller 300 isn't your run-of-mill umbrella stroller, and one can easily see that at first glance. It features an adjustable canopy, a webbed shoulder strap, five-point safety harness with padded guards, and rubber handle. It is very lightweight (14.9 lbs), yet durable and sturdy enough to hold up to 50 lbs. The age guideline is birth and up, not 6 months and up like most.
It may not have any of the features that a full size stroller will entail, but it perfectly suits my needs and lifestyle. Also, I think it's pretty sophisticated for an umbrella stroller!


Find out what services and advantages are available to City of St. James businesses.
Access information about services offered by the Fire Department, as well as fire safety tips that may help keep you and your family safe during an emergency.
Learn about rebates, load management, and available electric services.
Find out how to report an issue or what to do in case of a snow emergency.
Take a look at billing information and all the public utilities offered in St. James.
Review the city's wastewater services and how to report an issue.
Check out water processing and filtration services and how to report an issue.


TS Servers due for maintenance !!
Although this should not affect our server !!!
Multiplay Gameservers - Important information!
our upgrades will be to replace some of our core networking equipment.
increased latency from traffic taking different routes.
You agreed to these mails when you purchased your service from MultiplayGameservers.
Copyright (C) 2013 Multiplay All rights reserved.


Online presence is nowadays the most important marketing aspect of a business. It helps to connect a product or a service seller to their intended global clients directly, meaning more sales and profits. But, it requires to be done in the right way through a channelized strategy for complete affectivity.
1. Content is the King: Content is the most important part of your online presence. This includes text, images as well as your video content. Always ensure that you have a perennial inflow of content to refresh and create new links. Also, try to widen the scope of creation of content by looking out for topics related to your products and services as well.
The already written content should be well researched upon for good attention-grabbing topics and updated in course of time as well. Quality content always rules the roost. Always keep in mind that all your online content should somehow support the overall character of your online presence and add on to it positively.
2. Develop Local SEO links by registering on various directories and groups to be easily found-able for clients looking for at a platform other than Google as well.
3. Eliminate the broken links of all URL'S and backlinks. Ensure all of them, new or old point to your intended destinations and content.
4. Creation and updating of website pages with proper sitemaps, metadata, URL's, blog links and tags is also important.
5. Find most searched keywords linked to your created content and use semantics like h1 and h2 to give them higher prominence. It makes your content easily searchable when a client types in searching for the keywords.
6. Ensure that the images and visuals do not make the pages heavy. Easy downloading and smooth navigation pages are always preferred by the Google search crawlers.
7. Eliminate thin content i.e. the content which has very less new content. It actually brings down your content's search abilities.
8. Admirable SEO services always include updated online presence of all online platforms including social networks, website, applications, blogs, etc. You can personally also maintain records of your various online links and keep them updated.
Brandsmartini is one of the best SEO Company in India. We are just not saying so, our works speak for themselves. Our innovative strategies and out-of-the-box concepts can redefine your online presence to a new level of customer likings and sales.