Update: Three Interesting, if Unrelated, Items (Previously Just Two)

Update: Three Interesting, if Unrelated Items

I'm not going to write about this. This particular post, I feel, is full. But, I do strongly encourage you read this post on racismreview.com honoring the abolitionist John Brown's birthday.
________________________________

My comments will come in italics:

Sex-starved Kenyan Sues over Boycott

I won't lie. As much as anything else, this is hilarious! But, above that, this indicates the power women have in regards to sex when we work as a group. Now. I know "Momma got needs," and so the fact that the boycott was only a week kinda worked in women's favor. It it was a year-long boycott or an indefinite boycott, maybe enough women would've fallen off the band wagon to make the other women's celibacy kind of pointless. I don't know. But women do have power in regards to sex when we work as a group. This applies to the US to the extent that, and here's something maybe politically incorrect, not all females having pre-marital and even marital sex really want to. They just want to be in a relationship. Undoubtedly this affects teenagers and maybe women in their early twenties more than it could maybe apply to other women. That said, how many of you unmarried ladies are having sex when you really don't want to, even if you do want to have sex? I guess I'm saying that more women want to wait to have sex, even if they don't necessarily want to wait till marriage. And if more women stuck to their guns, I think some of the pressure to have sex, especially on young girls, would lift. I could be wrong. I'm stating this completely from opinion with not a lot of scientific research.

I would also like to point out that this indicates the power women have when we work together, period, for anything. Sex may be the most apparent thing that occurs to women in regard to shared power, but here in the US, we have substantial political clout. Remember, women make up the majority of voters. Whatever we want, if we worked together, we could get. More days for family leave. Affirmative action. Equal pay. More vacation days. The US works more days out of the year than any other industrialized nation. The English and French don't understand how we maintain emotional and mental health with only 2 weeks of paid vacation. I don't think we do. And we certainly don't maintain any kind of political health. People are so busy and tired from one day to the next, they don't really pay attention to what's going on in their local, state, and federal governments. They don't really pay attention to policy debates. Sound bites stand in for substantative arguments.

Take healthcare, for example. The conservatives don't want public healthcare just for its own sake. Not that it's bad. Not about keeping government small. They just don't want public healthcare taking money from the large and power insurance companies. Have you heard these people? They'll go for healthcare reform so long as there's not the option to buy into government provide healthcare competing with the various private options. Two problems with this: 1) whatever happened to the concept of free market competition? 2) I thought anything provided by the government was substantially inferior to anything provided by the private sector. Why the worry about government insurance competing with private insurance? But what the publicans will say is that they don't want state beauracracy making decisions that doctors and patients should be making. If more voters would think about it, that argument is empty. First off, no one's suggesting government beauracracy make decisions that doctors should be making. Secondly, it's not like private insurance cos aren't denying claims and costing people their lives all the time. That's part of what's keep the cost of private insurance so high! Paying to have enough people to deny claims.

And speaking of healthcare and women, if enough women worked together to get single-payer healthcare, we could have it. I am woman, here me roar!

Story Highlights

• Kenyan sues activists, claims recent sex ban affected his marriage
• Women were urged to withhold sex to force political reform
• Activists not worried about lawsuit, claim sex boycott worked

NAIROBI, Kenya (CNN) -- A Kenyan man has sued activists who called on women to boycott sex to protest the growing divide in the nation's coalition government.

James Kimondo said the seven-day sex ban, which ended this week, resulted in stress, mental anguish, backaches and lack of sleep, his lawyer told the state-run Kenya Broadcasting Corp.

The lawsuit filed Friday claims lack of conjugal rights affected Kimondo's marriage and seeks undisclosed damages from the G-10, an umbrella group for women's activists, KBC said.

The women's caucus caused a national debate when it urged women to withhold sex to protest increasingly frosty relations between President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga.

Citizens of the east African nation are frustrated by a shaky coalition government, which was formed after post-election violence killed more than 1,000 people in 2008. The wrangling between Kibaki and Odinga has sparked fears of more violence.

Gender activists say they are not worried about the lawsuit.

"I have not been served with the papers, but I was told they are coming and I am eagerly waiting," said Ann Njogu, executive, director of Centers for Rights Education and Awareness. "It will be interesting to see the face of a man who is not willing to abstain for the sake of his country."

Despite the lawsuit, Njogu said, the boycott was successful.

"The principal leaders met as a result of the boycott, and I understand that they are setting up reforms to look into the country's internal security," she said.

Plans are under way for women activists to meet with Kibaki and Odinga, according to Njogu.

CNN's Faith Karimi contributed to this report.

All About Kenya
____________________________________

God Kept Him from Going Broke

CNN's Betty Nguyen sits down with Rev. Michael Beckwith about turning to God during these rough financial times.

To answer your question, you probably recognize this guy from being on Oprah.

Now, I make no secrets about my faith. And so I share this with you for two good reasons. One is that I truly believe God will speak to us if we'll only listen. And by listen, I mean sit down sometimes and listen they way you would listen to your significant other, or to your child, or to birds. I hardly think the problem is that God isn't speaking. I think the problem is that we aren't listening. And no. I'm not talking about "hearing voices," though some do. But I don't mean "hearing God," the way people make jokes that it's okay to talk to God, but not okay if God talks to you. No. I'm not talking about scizophrenic hallucinations. I'm talking about listening to God, hearing God speak in those quiet moments that we have to ourselves. Though, working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, I guess I can understand how most people don't have time for a quiet moment to hear God speak to them. But watch what can happen when you do listen:



The other reason I posted this video is to share the thought of investing your values and beliefs. Invest in green companies. Companies with unions. Companies that do right by others. That's the only way, or at least one of very few ways, we'll get Big Business to pay attention to the needs of people. And, it's a demonstration of Christianity in action. Affecting the world by the way we invest is something Christians ought to do. Now, if you ask me, this will only work if you're trying to "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." God will only bless the efforts that truly represent his call for justice and righteousness. I think the failure of abstinence-only education should serve as an indication that God won't bless efforts to force our moral standards on others. But, "forcing" people to serve and help others I believe is okay.