Okay, he may be giving the government the same backdoor key to your privacy that he's selling to advertisers, and yes, you're nothing more than inventory to him, and for sure, he gives credence to the adage that white guys can't dance, but at least Mark Zuckerberg made an appearance on the Facebook float at yesterday's gay pride parade in San Francisco.
Maybe this is what Robin Thicke means by "domesticate you" and Blurred Lines!
(Surprisingly SF Pride's Board didn't make Zuckerberg a Grand Marshal. By fiat. Like they rescinded Bradley Manning. And given how they open their legs for corporate sponsors quicker than you can say "Sell Out".
Despite their efforts to minimize the whole Bradley Manning thing, the fact that Daniel Ellsberg substituted for him in the largest non-corporate contingent of the parade was testament to the fact that there are still plenty of gay people who recognize that civil disobedience, like whistleblowing, is part of the gentic makeup. Like sexual orientation.)
Die Antwoord my vriend, is blowing in the wind...Ninja, Yolandi
Once again, here we are, scratching our heads as our brains prepare us for a media onslaught of round-the-clock coverage of yet another mass shooting by another deranged gunman who, no matter how you slice it, shouldn’t have had access to the kind weaponry that appears to have been used by 20-year old Adam Lanza to shoot dead 20 small children and six adults, including his mother, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
If you’re wondering who is responsible for this tragedy, look in the mirror. And then demand a fucking conversation about gun control. And mental health care. And poverty. And priorities. And how these things are intertwined in this ugly equation.
If you accept the bullshit that now isn’t the time to discuss it, you are the problem. Get off your ass and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
When tragedy strikes a community, our desire to make sense of it as human beings, is complex, but unfortunately, our experience, garnered from an increasing number of mass-killing spree incidents has taught us a thing ot two.
Any lie ever uttered from the mouth of a politician is sure to be followed by a justification involving their altruistic desire to “protect the children.”
Thankfully not all of us are able to fully grasp the unspeakable grief the families of these dead children are going through, and will live with for the rest of their lives.
Thankfully not all of us have to keep our emotions in check to the degree the parents of these children, who witnessed or heard the mayhem unfold, must. To have to figure out how to provide answers to questions none of us really understand, and be careful to avoid unconsciously transferring their anxiety.
There are those who believe, with good intention, that speaking out right now is insensitive. That calling out our culpability and complacency when it comes to gun violence is “pushing an agenda,” or taking advantage of the tragedy.
Perhaps if you’re Kmart – tweeting prayers and #Fab15Toys.
But in fact, now is the time to ask hard questions. If pushing our own agendas is about reducing gun violence and senseless killings, the best thing we can do to honor the memory of those innocent victims is to do everything in our power to keep it from happening again.
The 20 (so far) children killed in Connecticut this morning were between the ages of 5 – 10 years old. It may be difficult for them to understand the connections between mental health, gun violence, and poverty, but let’s not pretend, to ourselves, that there isn’t one.
For once, let’s explore ways to protect our children with the same ferocity anti-choice politicians do fetuses. Let’s try regulating guns with the same fervor conservatives do women’s bodies.
On a personal level, I am angry and feel responsible for my relative complacency.
But I also recall that Americans tend to have very short memories, and I don’t think I am even capable of keeping quiet as those who are in a position to act continue to fail. Offering prayers and platitudes and bullshit.
“We need moms and dads helping raise kids,” said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in response to a question from an audience member about gun control that not one of the media moderators deemed important enough to address, suggesting, without a shred of evidence that children born out of wedlock were more likely to resort to gun violence. Whilst agreeing to sign a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality. And while he may be licking his wounds in Disneyland, his position is alive and well and thriving in Republicanland.
I fully support giving the families of these victims the space and privacy to grieve as they see fit, outside the glare of the media, who have already sickened me to the stomach by interviewing an repeatedly airing interviews with kids still so traumatized they are barely capable of speaking between their gasps.
But I can mourn and respect the families and act at the same time.
For once, let’s explore ways to protect our children with the same ferocity we do fetuses. Let’s try regulating guns with the same fervor we do women’s bodies. Or people from marrying the ones they love.
For me this isn’t about pushing an agenda. It’s simply about saying enough is enough.
And doing something about it. For real. Right now.
This is the time for this conversation.
The following article was published on The New Civil Rights Movement website on December 14, 2012.
As the world contemplates the notion of Syrian missiles being prepped with serin, and the latest Israeli announcement to expand building on settlements in the wake of the Palestinian statehood resolution at the United Nations has the world on shpilkes, San Francisco Supervisor, Scott Wiener -- better known for his war on the global menace of public nudity in the Castro -- is becoming as popular at City Hall as Bibi Netanyahu at the White House.
His signature legislation – the requirement that a naked person place a towlette of sorts between the anus and the seating – makes good hygienic sense. If that had ever been a problem.
Critics charge that his actions and proposals demonstrate a callous disregard for the homeless (who he views as littering his district by their mere presence), and label him as just a shill for developers and dowtown money interests, looking to gentrify San Francisco at the expense of everything that makes the city unique.
Scott Wiener's lack of engagement, and unwillingness to meet with constituent groups he views with disdain or that aren't about him, is well documented. His approach to governance is to shove something down the throat rather than garner consensus. Activists expect this of him.
But even shills need to do their homework, and they style of shoving radical proposals in the face of San Franciscans doesn't always work as planned. Sometimes arrogance overtakes common sense. And sometimes a failure to keep oneself in check results in consequences that aren't quite planned for.
The conservative Planning Commission, in the form of an unanimous resolution, is demanding that the Supervisor get the hell of the high horse he rode in on and respectfully listen, negotiate and compromise with his opponents. From the San Francisco Planning Department Resolution No. 18754, on November 29, 2012:
MOVED, that the PC hereby recommends that Supervisor Wiener 1) engage the public; 2) consider this Commission’s recommendations, including: (a) clarify the first discretionary action, (b) to consider extending appeal period, and (c) to default to a longer appeal period for actions that are not noticed; and then 3) bring a revised version of the Ordinance which takes this input into account back to the Planning Commission for consideration.
San Francisco's Planning Commission, for better or worse, is considered very favorable toward developers and downtown interests. Their goal is to promote smart growth. In their own words:
The Planning Commission consists of seven members appointed by the Mayor and the President of the Board of Supervisors to help plan for growth and development in San Francisco. Members of the Planning Commission provide an invaluable service to the City. They advise the Mayor, City Council and City departments on San Francisco's long-range goals, policies and programs on a broad array of issues related to land use, transportation, and neighborhood planning.
Following the Planning Commission hearing on November 298th, where enraged citizens lined up for 90 minutes to slam Wiener, it became clear that Wiener's problem is as much process as it is substance.
"There definitely was a lack of process” when Wiener put together his plan," said Commissioner Cindy Wu. "We wouldn't have had this reaction if there was more outreach."
This isn't just another of the increasing number of groups of constituents beginning to take Wiener to task. These aren't activists wondering why a Supervisor is frequently one of the parties in disputes rather than mediating them. These are Wiener’s people. Supposedly.
Even political opportunists like Michigan’s Rick Snyder know that before overreaching you secure the support of your base. What kind of arrogant, dismissive conduct must Wiener be exhibiting to warrant a resolution calling on him to act and behave like a Supervisor?
Welcome to Amateur Hour, San Francisco. At your expense.
In what appears to be an act of heavy-handed political retribution, longtime activist, muckraker and citizen journalist Michael Petrelis today surrendered to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department in response to the District Attorney issuing a warrant for his arrest, after being charged with allegedly violating the privacy of Supervisor Scott Wiener.
The DA alleged Petrelis broke Section 647(j) sub-section (1) of the penal code.
A simmering feud between the Supervisor and Petrelis over a range of issues from public nudity to control over the rainbow flag in Harvey Milk Plaza has raged for over two years. The charge stems from a photograph Petrelis snapped, and subsequently published on his blog, of the supervisor at a wash basin in a public restroom at City Hall on Friday, October 26.
Petrelis voluntarily turned himself in for booking on Thursday afternoon, was cited and released. Petrelis paid a bail bondsman $100.
“I am dealing with this legal matter head on,” said Petrelis following his ordeal. “Today I voluntarily surrendered to the San Francisco sheriff. I have a court date set for December 5th at 9 am, and I look forward to it.”
Petrelis was at City Hall staging a photo-op for visiting gay Honduran dignitary Erick Martinez, an activist whose life has been threatened by the rightwing junta ruling his country. Through Petrelis’ political organizing, Martinez was introduced to gay Supervisor David Campos and bisexual Supervisor Christina Olague, in front of the Harvey Milk Bust in the Grand Rotunda on the second floor.
Petrelis had been taking photographs of the activities in the Grand Rotunda before he walked into the public men’s room noticed Wiener and proceeded to photograph him. An image of Wiener standing in front of the sink, holding a toothbrush later appeared on Petrelis’ blog.
Two weeks after the photo appeared on is blog, in what looks like an act of political retribution, Wiener appears to have abused his power as a San Francisco Supervisor by involving the sheriff’s department, who in turn assigned two senior detectives to investigate the Petrelis.
“I am surprised the DA charged this case,” said Petrelis’ attorney, Derek St. Pierre.
A local fight over control of the giant rainbow flag that flies over the Castro, located in Harvey Milk Plaza, has been simmering for over two years between activists and the politically powerful Merchants of Upper Market and Castro (MUMC), over an alleged “agreement” with the city’s Department of Public Works (DPW),
At a September 11th commemoration in honor of Mark Bingham, a microphone was intercepted by Petrelis, an organizer of the event, before Wiener reached it. Excoriating him for his hypocrisy and lack of leadership, in front of media hordes, San Francisco mayor, Ed Lee, and other San Francisco power brokers, Wiener’s subsequent speech was an excruciating, cringe-inducing embarrassment. One Wiener was likely to forget any time soon. A meeting between activists and DPW scheduled for October 26, 2011 at City Hall was abruptly cancelled at Wiener’s behest.
More recently, Wiener has been under considerable fire for the anti-nudity legislation he authored, the erosion of San Francisco’s once-powerful Sunshine laws, and his opposition to free Muni rides for minors.
For decades Petrelis has been living with HIV/AIDS, while fighting for many domestic and international human battles on behalf of LGBT persons and people with AIDS, and is a staunch transparency advocate known for pushing sunshine and government accountability concerns, often to the displeasure of politicians and city agencies.
California Penal Code Section 647
(j) (1) Any person who looks through a hole or opening, into, or otherwise views, by means of any instrumentality, including, but not limited to, a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camera, motion picture camera, camcorder, or mobile phone, the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside. This subdivision shall not apply to those areas of a private business used to count currency or other negotiable instruments.
Just a few weeks ago, Chick-Fil-A was just another fast food joint, and certainly not one at the center of the marriage equality debate. Sure, activists in the know were well aware of the Christian identified company’s homophobic tendencies as their foundation pumped serious coinage into the coffers of some of the more notoriously and virulently anti-gay entities hell-bent on making people unhappy and actively seeking to deny them their rights (if not torture, bully them or drive them to suicide).
After being confronted about the ramifications of his company’ support for bigotry under the guise of traditional marriage, the company’s president, Dan Cathy — one of those deluded men who genuinely believes his heterosexual propensity for pussy makes him superior somehow, qualifying him to cherry-pick portions of the bible that nourish his hate and bigotry – rather than distance his company from his personally held hatred, declared Chick-Fil-A “guilty as charged.”
The New Civil Rights Movement editor, David Badash, who has been covering the increasingly polarizing issue from the outset, observes the mixed results as “big city mayors from San Francisco to Boston to Chicago to New York have all weighed in on banning Chick-Fil-A from their cities.”
And we can debate whether it’s appropriate for mayors or politicians to get involved, just like we did when politicians decided that despite the American constitution, it was okay to violate the First Amendment rights of Muslim Americans from building a community center in downtown Manhattan because it might irrationally upset people. There’s no harm in them expressing their disgust. Denying Chick-Fil-A permits to do business in the absence of demonstrably prejudicial hiring practices or conduct, however, is an overreaction, and frankly, a big mistake.
Some (my own friends included), flummoxed by the boycott, have been asking questions such as: “Can I eat there without supporting their position?…. like you eating a pork chop doesn’t affect me as a Jew ….and does not make you anti-Semitic.”
You can’t separate the two. Eating a pork chop doesn’t affect anyone other than the eater and the pig (unless you bought the pork chop at Chick-Fil-A).
Christian beliefs — not all, but particularly those selectively applied as relating to sexual orientation, (since adultery and children born out of wedlock or eating shellfish are somehow more forgivable, despite the Bible spelling out equally dire consequences) — are about specifically and deliberately denying rights to a group of people for who they are.
Most believe that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice, and despite it being a legitimate social choice, let’s go with that for now – (think carefully — do you remember choosing to be straight?)
Eating at Chick-Fil-A — actively giving money to and supporting a company that in turn gives significant sums of money to groups that perpetrate ugly and unconscionable acts (like electrocute children showing signs of gender non-conformity, or spread vile and baseless rumors that are so hurtful and damaging to young people, the suicide rate among gay and lesbian teens is significantly higher than those of their straight counterparts), makes you complicit in that, even if that’s not how you feel or what you believe.
Imagine if instead of gay people, Chick-Fil-A decided to give money to organizations that sought to demonize Hispanics and deny them the same rights that everyone else enjoys on simply the way they were born.
Or if their foundation was giving money to anti-Semitic organizations that exported hatred in the form of books and programs to countries like Syria or Saudi Arabia, where they were used to enact legislation that criminalized Judaism and punished those even supporting Jews to long hard prison sentences and the death penalty. Because that’s exactly what the organizations that Chick-Fil-A is actively financing are doing.
So while the President of Chick-Fil-A is entitled to his personal beliefs, as ugly, judgmental and dangerous as they may be, and when confronted about the accusations — in the name of his company — deemed the company “guilty as charged,” he made a choice, and threw down a gauntlet.
And in so doing, he changed the conversation and dynamic from being about whether he is entitled to his own personal beliefs, to actively directing profits from his company to destroy and deny basic rights to a whole group of people, who like everyone else in the country, are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, many of whom in the service of their country, and protecting those ideals, are willing to put their lives on the line to ensure them.
And so even if you’re straight and love Chick-Fil-A, you have a choice, and ultimately it requires making a sacrifice. You can’t pretend that spending money there doesn’t support the dangerous organizations that the company actively funds and sponsors.
There’s no way to spin this other than to acknowledge that you’re choosing to support a hateful and dangerous agenda in every bite of a Chicken-Fil-A meal you choose to eat.
And unlike the sexual orientation of the millions Dan Cathy despises and deems himself superior to, the choice is yours.
As the Trayvon Martin story shows no signs of disipating any time soon, vigilantes spring into action and the racists start finding defenses, parallels and reasons as to why we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions, and asking why Obama didn't comment on this case or that, there are a few important reasons why Trayvon Martin's story is different from others.
1. Setting aside race, the notion that a 220 pound bully, in flagrant disregard of the instruction to stop following him, pursued Trayvon Martin because he "looked suspicious" carrying his Skittles and iced tea, then turned around and claimed to have felt threatened enough to kill him in "self defense" is absurd on its face. Regardless of whether Trayvon Martin was black, white or Hispanic and whether George Zimmerman was black, white or Hispanic.
2. The "stand your ground" law was thrust into the spotlight because of the absurdity that it could be abused to the extent that Zimmerman, despite his previous history and the fact that he was chasing Martin, was not arrested, finger-printed or sufficiently interrogated before being set free -- gun and all -- and to this day, has been free from any legal consequences whatsoever surrounding the killing.
3. The fact that a young black man in a hoodie is in and of itself enough to warrant suspicion on behalf of someone like George Zimmerman is symbolic of a much broader perspective, where black kids and youngsters -- particularly, but not exclusively male -- are burdened by an inherent prejudice that renders their mere existence a threat.
4. The combination and conflation of the above three points precipitated a conversation and dialog that was waiting to be had. The fact that a young, unarmed kid can be gunned down without so much as a slap on the wrist, resulted in a swell of outrage that manifested itself in the form of protests, vigils and things like the MillionHoodieMarch across the country turned this story into an international one.
No one is denying that there are not similar, ugly, irrational incidents every day. If anything, Trayvon Martin's story became as huge as it did because it isn't just a one-off, freak accident. Regardless of whether Zimmerman once "actually caught one thief and aided in the apprehension of other criminals," his racist comments on the 911 tapes, from the arousal of suspicion to the epithets themselves, communicate clearly enough what his thinking was and why he chose to pursue Martin despite being told not to by the police dispatcher.
And whether Trayvon Martin was taller -- a towering 6'2" football player, as some allege -- than the pictures being flashed across TV screens suggest (he was still smaller and weighed considerably less than Zimmerman) or whether he was a model student or not (I was suspended from school, but it was never used as a justification to shoot me), the facts remain.
Trayvon Martin, armed with nothing but candy and an iced tea, was enjoying a walk in the rain, (wearing a hoodie as one in the rain might, typically) chatting to his girlfriend on his cell phone, was pursued, chased and shot dead for being black in the apparently wrong place, at the apparently wrong time, in the apparently wrong weather, in the apparently wrong clothes.
If current gun laws, current perceptions and issues relating to racial profiling, and the tragedy resulting from this "perfect storm" are thrust into the national dialog, perhaps his death may not be in vain.
As advertisers flee, Rush Limbaugh, in the worst attempt at spin control ever uttered by anyone facing a widespread public backlash, offered a half-hearted explanation for his unconscionable attack on a Georgetown University law student, Sandra Fluke.
Limbaugh, who triple-downed calling Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute over the course of three days, revealed, once again, a deep-rooted, ugly, cringe-worthy misogynist mind set and embarrassing ignorance of how birth control actually works, and basic English terminology.
While “slut” is generally used as a derogatory term for women considered sexually promiscuous (whereas sexual promiscuity in men is considered a back-slapping demonstration of masculine prowess), a prostitute is a sex worker—a person who is paid to provide sexual intercourse or other sex acts, usually as a means of livelihood when other options are limited. Slut and prostitute are no more interchangeable than ignorant and obese.
“She's having so much sex, she's going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them. I said, 'Well, what would you call someone who wants us to pay for her to have sex? What would you call that woman? You'd call 'em a slut, a prostitute or whatever," Limbaugh exploded in his sweaty tirade.
He later feigned remorse, stating “OK, she’s not a slut, she’s round-heeled.” The hypocrisy is standard fare for Limbaugh, as is the deliberate attack on women. And despite Limbaugh’s misinformation, in his attempt to stir outrage, he implies that he, and other taxpayers, are paying for contraception. Which is not the case. We don’t have universal healthcare in the United States. And insurance companies are happy to provide contraception as opposed to the multitude of serious health issues that birth control mitigates, unwanted pregnancy being just one.
On the other hand, illegally obtaining prescription drugs like oxycodone and hydrocodone which Limbaugh did to feed his addictions, violating Florida's doctor shopping laws, which Limbaugh did to feed his addictions, and forcing the expenditure of resources by drug enforcement agents, which Limbaugh did when caught smuggling Viagra from the Dominican Republic using a prescription that wasn’t in his name, does in fact, impact insurance companies, the costs of which are passed on to Limbaugh’s deluded listeners (and everyone else).
Then there’s the weight. A 270-pound body (yo-yoing up and down based on both gluttony and narcotics) is as unhealthy as it is expensive for everyone else. “When I want a steak or a huge slab of prime rib, which is frequently, I go to Ben Benson's Steak House on West 52nd,” Limbaugh once told Cigar Aficionado. "I think cigars are just a tremendous addition to the enjoyment of life," he stated in the same interview. If there’s one clear image that emerges, it’s that Rush Limbaugh will eat, smoke and fuck whatever his hedonistic mind tells him, consequences, costs or pseudo-morality be damned.
Limbaugh’s pathetic excuse to try and stem the hemorrhaging resulting from his Sandra Fluke comments is indicative of his cowardice and insincerity.
Pointing to a Romneyesque grueling three-hours-a-day work schedule, Limbaugh continues to believe he and the taxpayer are footing the bill for contraception. Oblivious to the costs of his gluttonous, hedonistic lifestyle choices. Or the costs to the state in providing pre and post natal resources for unwanted or unplanned pregnancies. Or the well being of children born to inadequate, unprepared mothers – or “sluts” as he would call them.
Or does Limbaugh reserve that term for women who use contraception only?
“My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”
His words, not their meaning. In his excuse, Limbaugh claims he didn’t expect his ugly tirade to rise to a Presidential level after the President called Sandra Fluke on Friday to commend her for her courage in testifying before congressional forum convened by Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (after a Republican-led House committee on women’s health issues, refused to hear her testimony, deferring to an all-male panel instead).
Yet Limbaugh ignores the fact that his show itself plays a political role – one that reaches into the heart of the Presidential primary.
Perhaps Mitt Romney’s shameful, tepid "not language I would have used" response demonstrates that the candidate still shares the sentiment. Perhaps he would have used a nicer word for “slut”.
Maybe Romney doesn’t want to offend Limbaugh, petrified, as all Republicans are, to dare cross him. Or could it be that their fortunes are inextricably linked. After all, Limbaugh’s fortune comes from his radio show on Clear Channel. And Clear Channel is owned by Bain Capital.
This kind of media/politician fraternization inter-fucking is about to destroy Rupert Murdoch once and for all, as the cozy relationship between David Cameron and Rebecca Brooks was exposed in sensational headlines in Britain last week, along with the unceremonious demotion of James Murdoch from News International.
The silent lack of condemnation from Republican leaders is as deafening as it is predictable. This cowardice is nothing new. And nor is their unbridled disrespect and condescension toward women.
Limbaugh’s derisive, condescending excuse as apology is not aimed at Sandra Fluke.
It’s to stop the backlash and the scrutiny a continued spotlight threatens to expose and the financial damage that could result.
And when someone compromises their moral certitude for the sole purpose of financial gain, we see all to clearly what a real whore look like.
Last week after the Pentagon announced new rules easing the ban on women serving in combat, Rick Santorum, having never served in the military, was forced to clarify his sexist position on women in combat – “where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved.”
When criticized and informed that the Pentagon’s position simply formalizes what has already been happening for some time, Santorum, having never served in the military, attempted to backpedal. As successfully as his condescension toward “blacks” was just a mistake for what he meant, nonsensically, as “blahs.”
“Men in our culture are focused on if a woman is in trouble, obviously, to react to try to help to protect and care for that person. That is something that is built in culturally,” was Santorum’s response, having never served in the military.
Then Fox News trotted out yet another right wing nutcase – Liz Trotta, (Ann Coulter’s great-grandmother?): “The sexual abuse report says that there’s been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults,” laughed Liz Trotta. “Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact…”
Here’s what we all expect. That regardless of where, be it in a war zone or in the privacy of one’s home, men are able to respect women enough to refrain from violently assaulting them sexually.
Maybe Liz Trotta (having never served in the military) thinks it’s okay to smack people around and thrust herself uncontrollably like a dog on heat whenever she’s sexually attracted to whoever the poor, wretched creature might be, but most of us can control our urges. And our obvious projecting.
“The budget for the Defense Department’s Sexual Assualt Preventions and Response Office leapt from $5 million in fiscal 2005 to more than $23 million in fiscal 201. Total Defense spending on sexual assault prevention and related now exceeds $113 million annually” Liz Trotta complained bitterly.
When challenged by Fox News’ Eric Shaw, that perhaps the people fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq deserve being protected Liz Trotta squawked, “That’s funny, I thought the mission of the army and the navy and four services was to defend and protect us, not the people who are fighting the war.”
Yep, violent rape. A real knee-slapper.
Unfortunately, this self-loathing, misogyny-spewing idiot -- for whom the billions being spent on the war are fine, but not the drop-in-the-bucket being spent to protect women being violently sexually abused -- is among the us being protected.
Many women in the military tonight are watching our backs, and unfortunately having to watch their own, so that Liz Trotta can spew her vomit.
As far as Liz Trotta is concerned, rape away guys. Rick Santorum will take care of the results. Until they’re born, of course. Then the women and children are on their own.
Liz Trotta, for whom the Holocaust was probably a giggle too, is nothing short of an ugly, disgusting embarrassment.
Even for Fox.