DesertLight Journal

Latest Entries

The DLJ Goes Dark

11-26-06 3:45 A GMT-07

This will be my last post here at the DLJ blog. My decision to discontinue posting here is actually far more positive than it may seem. That’s because my current situation will allow me to focus on the thing that got me into activism and publishing the DLJ in the first place.

There are others who are quite ably covering the issues, such as Teri Stoddard, Wendy McElroy, and of course, Men’s News Daily and Mensactivism

The hundreds of good people all over the world I’ve met in the years since the DLJ was first launched (in 2001 as an e-mailed newsletter) have all taught me a lot, and given me the tools which I can use to effectively run a program that provides practical help for a group of people that sorely need it.

There are far too many of those who’ve helped along the way to list by name but my gratitude for each and every one of you is boundless.

I will be focusing my efforts on setting up a program for abused men in my local area of Yuma, Arizona. Under the auspices of the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women, I will establish first an online presence, (at least part of that will be a blog here at Blog-City)  and then an in-person peer counseling group. We’ll see where it goes from there.

Otherwise, about six weeks ago, I launched a blog on cooking, the Elementary Chef, and just yesterday was asked to contribute material to Dean’s World, which is much more widely-read than the DLJ ever was. On Dean’s World I’ll be chronicling my efforts to get my abused men’s program up and running, as well as other things that present themselves.

Happy trails!

Renew! Redocorate! Rework!

08-16-06 9:12 A GMT-07

I've got a couple of book projects that need finishing, one of which is a resource manual for DAHM.  As you know, things are changing rapidly, as evidenced by these stories:

Wife charged with murder

Wife of former Seahawk Chad Eaton arrested

I'm also going to be doing some re-working of the blog, as Blog City has upgraded to a new version.

I have to say something here…

08-11-06 11:59 P GMT-07

There is yet another hunger strike by a disenfranchised father going on. I have been asked to support this action, and have ignored all requests.

That’s because this particular strategy has been proven wrong, not only by many good Irishmen in 1981 who might now be more concerned with the antics of their grandchildren had they lived. Also by a disenfranchised father I knew for some time.

His name was Len Miskulin. You will not remember him, since his work and his quest was to no avail. All that happened with Len was that he lost his kids, and lost his health.

He hung on for some 53 days, if memory serves. He had some publicity for a time, since he was the first; at least in the UK. He came out of it so damaged he told me if he’d known how bad it was he’d try something else.

It’s been about five years, and I’ve lost track, but if I could find him and drag Len here to the US, I’m sure he’d tell anyone trying this radical stunt to STOP!!!

Today there are far more effective ways to influence public opinion. On a personal level, the reality is that this kind of stunt only causes harm. You might get a couple of media mentions, but the truth is nobody today wants to hear about divorced men acting so irresponsibly they can’t even consider their own health.

That’s the way it plays.

Why on Earth would any court want to allow a man with so little concern for life to be the custodian of his children?

How does this make any sense???

It really doesn’t.

I know I got a lot of extremely angry and barely coherent e-mails from a guy. I remember asking a perfectly civil question, and he came back with nonsense. I was supposed to buy his full package without question.

Gentlemen, there are so many fucking loose cannons in this movement I despair of ever being able to make positive gain.

Now there are claimed anti-feminists supporting insanity, I have no idea what to think.

The mothers and wives of the 1981 Irish protestors had no benefits. Nowt but the body comin out after death.

Dave Winer is Right About Sexism

08-11-06 2:43 A GMT-07

Like a lot of other things, he's right about this, too.

Maybe I assign too much wonderfulness to this guy, but he was my blogfather in actuality. One day in early 2003, a media newsletter I got had a reference to Scripting News. Being a non-programmer myself, i wondered why it was this kind of deep geek lore merited a place among media references.

So I went, and read, and drank that particular Kool-aid. I've been a blogger ever since.

Entirely separate from anything Dave has ever done, I used my blog to work for men's rights, father's rights, and the most important : unserved victims of domestic violence. These were things I'd already been working on. I just used the blog to go further.

Even though we've exchanged a few e-mails over time, he still isn't quite sure who I am. That's OK, I really can't expect somebody who likely gets hundreds of real e-mails every day to focus on one quirky lady.

Yesterday he said this:

Men know what we have to do, we've had it drilled into us for at least a generation. But there's a long to-do-list for women, and because men have been forced into silence on this subject, that list hasn't had a chance to develop. Liz, it's time to bend over backwards to create safety for men to speak on this subject. Many of your colleagues are already doing this. There are still a few standouts, and you are one of them. No more gender-bashing, lecturing and name-calling, and no more tolerance for that. I will consider what you have said. Now it would be great if you would do the same.

The man understands the ideals of equality, and expects women to do the same. He is far more diplomatic and decent than I would be in the same situation.

As a woman of education and influence, I feel diminished and insulted by events such as BlogHer, because that is precisely what they are designed to do. They have been created in order to congregate angry women who feel the rules of society don't apply to them, add fuel to their discomfiture, and eventually verify their paranoid fears of an oppressive patriarchy.

They are certainly divisive. Feminism has always been about division, and disdain for those who will not believe. I wish those otherwise-intelligent, and decent women who have bought that mess of pottage that feminism really is would recognize that it's time to stop hating, time to stop blaming, and most important : time to stop setting women up as any kind of special class of anything!

...and let the rest of us live our lives with our men in peace.

There's a quite easy test to apply: if you think something said about a man is funny, try replacing a woman in there. If you think it's hateful when applied to a woman -- bingo! It's sexist.

I'm old enough to know that there are far more bad, hateful things being said about men today then there ever were said about women in the last forty years.

Nobody has any right to diss an entire class of people. Nor to make any presumptions about them.

I thank God that Dave Winer had the cojones to bring it up.

Storyblogging Carnival Needs Help

08-11-06 1:42 A GMT-07

Doc Rampage reports that only one entry was sent this time. That's not nearly enough! c'mon, kids, put on your writing boots and compose!

Remember, a short story can be as little as 500 words. That's called flash fiction. Everything does NOT hafta be a 30,000 word Heinlein piece.

Send here;

Dave Gudeman
http://docrampage.blogspot.com/

 

Category: Writing

Journalist shield laws

posted 03-18-06

Things have changed a lot since I was in college at the tag end of the 1960s. Journalism was still a profession, not a priesthood, and Woodward and Bernstein hadn’t yet made their big splash that changed everything.

We believed then, and this is what we were taught, that using a confidential source could be problematic. If we wanted to build reputations as being those who took confidentiality seriously, then we’d better be prepared at some point, to go to jail to protect a source if that’s what it took.

Somehow, over time, journalists and others got the idea that they were above the law and/or were somehow protected in keeping their chosen confidential sources secret. Whether it was a case of law enforcement entities respecting “journalistic integrity,” or if there simply weren’t any cases big enough to make an issue of it, I don’t know, but the basic facts of the situation have not changed.

If you have information about a crime, and refuse to reveal it, then you’re obstructing justice. It’s up to the individual to decide which is more important – the integrity of the source, or your need to stay out of jail. Each case to be decided on its own merits.

Do journalists need some special privilege that sets them apart from everybody else, in order to do their jobs well?

I don’t think so. Furthermore, I think that enacting any kind of shield law opens a door to all kinds of exploitation and could obscure truth even more than it already has been. There’s no guarantee that all those who define their activities as journalism are going to have good principles or high moral standards.

Finally – and here’s the kicker – if you look at the definition of  “covered persons” in the bill, it shows pretty clearly that it has not been thoroughly considered from all angles.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term `covered person' means--
(A) an entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that--
(i) publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical;
(ii) operates a radio or television broadcast station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or
(iii) operates a news agency or wire service;
(B) a parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such an entity; or
(C) an employee, contractor, or other person who gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for such an entity.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/s340.html#hr581

A “covered person” could mean anybody. Literally anybody. Including criminals with blogs.

If you’ve been reading my stuff for any length of time, you might be aware that my standard position on any proposed law is: Just because you make a law about something, doesn’t make the problem go away.

In this case, I think it would create problems where none existed before. And I think the term “problems” is a vast understatement.

Hat tip to Amy Ridenour

tags: