You hear so many people (most of them conservatives) bitching about how we are too politically correct these days. Waaaaa waaa.
Read this story about the most shocking conservative statements of 2006 and you'll see these people clearly have no problem saying hateful, stupid things without any factual backing or really-- any point.
Pretty sure some of these people are going straight to hell for their cruelty.
My personal fave is Rush Limbaugh going on about the obesity crisis-- blaming it on democrats, liberals and welfare.... um, Rush, looked in a mirror lately?
Monday, December 25, 2006
Friday, December 22, 2006
Sexism and conservatives
One reason I am so bitterly angry towards conservatives is that they are so un-ashamedly sexist. But in all fairness, we have a lot of conservative women to blame for this. Take the ladies at the Eagle Forum who have this to say about honorable women serving in our military,
"Pregnancy and sea time are incompatible. If women become pregnant, they must eventually depart the ship.... Could you imagine a monthly pregnancy screening for women assigned to submarines? Close quarters with mixed crews produce romantic relationships. Our culture has given up on sexual purity, so why do we expect people will magically become `professional' and abstinent once they are recruited? Shipboard romances affect good order and discipline and ruin marriages. The Navy discriminates against obesity, illness, disability, age, and yes, sex. The military's mission is to effectively fight wars, not be an equal opportunity employer pandering to every special interest group. Should we make submarines handicapped accessible?"
Wow, forced pregnancy screenings and comparing military women to whores who bust up the good, honest marriages of all the male navy officers. PLUS comparing women to people with a handicap? Gee whiz. What a fabulous article.
Or the musings of Ann Coulter:
"I think women should be armed but should not be allowed to vote. The problem with women voting is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
How silly, spending money on taking care of children and education? Good to know Miss Coulter is pro-life until your kid comes out of the womb, then that sucker is on its own. And it's so nice that she's still for that quaint little idea of women being so silly about money. We should go back to the good old days when father knows best gave the little woman some money for groceries and went out and voted for her!
Well women promoting sexism hit a new low in this piece:
Mary Grabar writes "The Girls on the View"
"After watching The View and following the inane statements made on the program, I’ve come to the conclusion that it really is true what Aristotle, Saint Paul, and John Milton said: Women, without male guidance, are illogical, frivolous, and incapable of making any decisions beyond what to make for dinner."
Yes, judge ALL women EVERYWHERE by four or five talk show hosts. Let's make assumptions on all black people based on Oprah. Or wait, let's judge all Muslims based on Osama bin Laden... oh wait, Ann Coulter already does that ("Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'Kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and answer to the name Muhammad'.")
Mary Grabar goes on to say...
"This was the danger of giving women the vote. The danger to conservatives (and the survival of this country) is the voting bloc of single women, i.e., those who lack the guidance of a man in the form of a husband or intellectual mentor."
I don't think I even need to justify this sort of stupidity. Let's make a blanket statement and back it up with no evidence. Men = smart, rational thinking. Women = silly, unreasonable and needing men to guide them. Brilliant.
Grabar goes on to make fun of women on the View for having cleavage (she compares them to prostitutes), makes fun of stay at home moms and male college English professors who teach female authors and "sit down to pee." Ahhh, such mature dialogue.
Grabar talks about how she hates hanging out with women because they just want to squeal and talk about frivolous things-- unlike men:
"Men, on the other hand, are quite capable of holding forth intelligently among themselves, as commentators have done through the years. You don’t have men squealing “Oh, I love your tie!” as they set to embark on a discussion about the future of free world."
Another statement that is based on stereotype, not fact. Grabar is merely recycling years of misogynist rhetoric "Women are silly, they can't hold real discussions or vote or do anything without a man." There's no proof for this, especially considering many studies show that men and women score equally on logic tests and women are kicking men's butts as far as furthering their education. 58% of college students in America are WOMEN.
I'm not trying to argue that women are smarter or better. I think these arguments are a waste of time. But it is important to remember these facts when you start to hear the mindless drivel conservatives are spouting.
Grabar is 100% hypocrite because halfway through the article she talks about some idiotic personality test which proves she's not the typical, stupid, squealing female.
"No I’m not a typical woman. I read philosophy. I hate to shop. I don’t care what I’m wearing. Nothing in my house is coordinated."
Yes, cause all females like to shop and only care about their home decorations and clothes --- and they NEVER read philosophy!
Gee Mary, maybe women aren't dumb, you're just an uppity bitch with a superiority complex. I too find the View impossible to watch, but I wouldn't presume to judge the value of all women based on four celebrities on a talk show, aimed at bringing in viewers not making huge, profound intellectual statements.
The most troubling thoughts come in the comment sections in these articles. All the conservative men who share these beliefs about women being silly, child-like and in need of men to guide them, finally feel comfortable expressing their views-- because, after all, a woman said it first.
The biggest irony is that both conservative men and women argue that a women's place is in the home taking care of the children. What does it say that you trust the most important job -- bringing up the future generation--to people you don't trust to make adult, intelligent decisions.
Their argument makes no freakin' sense!
Update at 3:30-- read this also for more great insight... Damn Feministe, they always say it better :)
"Pregnancy and sea time are incompatible. If women become pregnant, they must eventually depart the ship.... Could you imagine a monthly pregnancy screening for women assigned to submarines? Close quarters with mixed crews produce romantic relationships. Our culture has given up on sexual purity, so why do we expect people will magically become `professional' and abstinent once they are recruited? Shipboard romances affect good order and discipline and ruin marriages. The Navy discriminates against obesity, illness, disability, age, and yes, sex. The military's mission is to effectively fight wars, not be an equal opportunity employer pandering to every special interest group. Should we make submarines handicapped accessible?"
Wow, forced pregnancy screenings and comparing military women to whores who bust up the good, honest marriages of all the male navy officers. PLUS comparing women to people with a handicap? Gee whiz. What a fabulous article.
Or the musings of Ann Coulter:
"I think women should be armed but should not be allowed to vote. The problem with women voting is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
How silly, spending money on taking care of children and education? Good to know Miss Coulter is pro-life until your kid comes out of the womb, then that sucker is on its own. And it's so nice that she's still for that quaint little idea of women being so silly about money. We should go back to the good old days when father knows best gave the little woman some money for groceries and went out and voted for her!
Well women promoting sexism hit a new low in this piece:
Mary Grabar writes "The Girls on the View"
"After watching The View and following the inane statements made on the program, I’ve come to the conclusion that it really is true what Aristotle, Saint Paul, and John Milton said: Women, without male guidance, are illogical, frivolous, and incapable of making any decisions beyond what to make for dinner."
Yes, judge ALL women EVERYWHERE by four or five talk show hosts. Let's make assumptions on all black people based on Oprah. Or wait, let's judge all Muslims based on Osama bin Laden... oh wait, Ann Coulter already does that ("Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity, as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'Kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and answer to the name Muhammad'.")
Mary Grabar goes on to say...
"This was the danger of giving women the vote. The danger to conservatives (and the survival of this country) is the voting bloc of single women, i.e., those who lack the guidance of a man in the form of a husband or intellectual mentor."
I don't think I even need to justify this sort of stupidity. Let's make a blanket statement and back it up with no evidence. Men = smart, rational thinking. Women = silly, unreasonable and needing men to guide them. Brilliant.
Grabar goes on to make fun of women on the View for having cleavage (she compares them to prostitutes), makes fun of stay at home moms and male college English professors who teach female authors and "sit down to pee." Ahhh, such mature dialogue.
Grabar talks about how she hates hanging out with women because they just want to squeal and talk about frivolous things-- unlike men:
"Men, on the other hand, are quite capable of holding forth intelligently among themselves, as commentators have done through the years. You don’t have men squealing “Oh, I love your tie!” as they set to embark on a discussion about the future of free world."
Another statement that is based on stereotype, not fact. Grabar is merely recycling years of misogynist rhetoric "Women are silly, they can't hold real discussions or vote or do anything without a man." There's no proof for this, especially considering many studies show that men and women score equally on logic tests and women are kicking men's butts as far as furthering their education. 58% of college students in America are WOMEN.
I'm not trying to argue that women are smarter or better. I think these arguments are a waste of time. But it is important to remember these facts when you start to hear the mindless drivel conservatives are spouting.
Grabar is 100% hypocrite because halfway through the article she talks about some idiotic personality test which proves she's not the typical, stupid, squealing female.
"No I’m not a typical woman. I read philosophy. I hate to shop. I don’t care what I’m wearing. Nothing in my house is coordinated."
Yes, cause all females like to shop and only care about their home decorations and clothes --- and they NEVER read philosophy!
Gee Mary, maybe women aren't dumb, you're just an uppity bitch with a superiority complex. I too find the View impossible to watch, but I wouldn't presume to judge the value of all women based on four celebrities on a talk show, aimed at bringing in viewers not making huge, profound intellectual statements.
The most troubling thoughts come in the comment sections in these articles. All the conservative men who share these beliefs about women being silly, child-like and in need of men to guide them, finally feel comfortable expressing their views-- because, after all, a woman said it first.
The biggest irony is that both conservative men and women argue that a women's place is in the home taking care of the children. What does it say that you trust the most important job -- bringing up the future generation--to people you don't trust to make adult, intelligent decisions.
Their argument makes no freakin' sense!
Update at 3:30-- read this also for more great insight... Damn Feministe, they always say it better :)
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Reality Check Time
Man, I wish President Bush read the news from time to time...
A new study explains how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time. Interviews were conducted with more than 38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women -- in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth. The finding: 95 percent of Americans had premarital sex!
Shocker? Not really. We know that humans are sexual beings and that people are curious and experience dramatic hormone changes as young adults. What's more, people wait longer to get married, instead choosing to perhaps have long term, live-in relationships. Plus-- sex isn't exactly an "unfun" activity.
This study is exciting because it proves that all those loudmouth conservatives don't know what the deuce they're talking about when they wax idiotic about the "chaste days of the past generation."
"The study found women virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex, even those born decades ago. Among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44."
These findings only serve to deepen my frustration because when has clear reasoning ever worked with our current administration? Um never... like appointing Dr. Eric Keroack to oversee all family planning funds. This man said contraception was "DEMEANING" to women. Um, earth to Keroack-- 95% of American women use contraception at some point during their reproductive years.
Clearly this type of leadership is not interested in facts, just promoting more and more crap to satisfy the crazy religious right movement.
People have sex before they're married. So let's stop wasting HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars telling them not to, and start giving them information to keep them safer!
A new study explains how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time. Interviews were conducted with more than 38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women -- in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth. The finding: 95 percent of Americans had premarital sex!
Shocker? Not really. We know that humans are sexual beings and that people are curious and experience dramatic hormone changes as young adults. What's more, people wait longer to get married, instead choosing to perhaps have long term, live-in relationships. Plus-- sex isn't exactly an "unfun" activity.
This study is exciting because it proves that all those loudmouth conservatives don't know what the deuce they're talking about when they wax idiotic about the "chaste days of the past generation."
"The study found women virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex, even those born decades ago. Among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44."
These findings only serve to deepen my frustration because when has clear reasoning ever worked with our current administration? Um never... like appointing Dr. Eric Keroack to oversee all family planning funds. This man said contraception was "DEMEANING" to women. Um, earth to Keroack-- 95% of American women use contraception at some point during their reproductive years.
Clearly this type of leadership is not interested in facts, just promoting more and more crap to satisfy the crazy religious right movement.
People have sex before they're married. So let's stop wasting HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars telling them not to, and start giving them information to keep them safer!
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Disgusting
"If you take out uncovered meat and the cats come and eat it, whose fault is it-- the cats or the uncovered meat?"
-Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, a Muslim cleric in Australia, on female rape victims who do not wear traditional Islamic clothing. (He has since apologized for the remark).
-Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, a Muslim cleric in Australia, on female rape victims who do not wear traditional Islamic clothing. (He has since apologized for the remark).
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Duke Lacrosse
I read the news last night. And an "anonymous" (who else?) was all too giddy to point it out this morning as well.
Duke lacrosse players have been cleared of DNA charges. While semen was found on the victim, it did not match any of the lacrosse players. This is surely the beginning of the end of this case. What was already an uphill battle: Word of two minority women (who were of course, "hos" because they made their money stripping) against TEAM FULL of prestigious college athletes. It was already a he-said/she-said situation. Now that the scientific evidence sides with the men, the victim has nothing left.
What's more, the statement is questionable since the woman said she had not had sex with another man. But can you blame her? Everyone was already labeling her a whore.
It looks very likely that this attack did not happen, or if an attack was made, we have not gotten the correct details. However, if "anonymous" was trying to make me feel guilty for supporting this woman in her accusation, he'll never get that out of me.
The job of an advocate is simple. When a woman says she was raped the first thing you do is believe her. Bringing forward a rape accusation is a very difficult thing to do. People are going to put you through a battery of questions and an embarrassing physical exam. It's reliving a humiliation and violation and going through shame and guilt while people try and poke holes in your story. Police officers, they have things to look for when questioning a victim. Does her story line up, make sense, is their evidence etc. It's not like any Jane Doe can bring rape allegation on any guy she wants--- a common misconception that many people hold.
There was physical evidence that a crime occurred in the Duke case. Scratch marks, bruising etc. I do not feel guilty for standing up for a woman who was outnumbered & would not have been able to defend herself. I frankly am still not 100% convinced a crime did not occur. The accuser may have been mistaken; her attackers could have been wearing condoms. While the DNA evidence is a good indicator that a crime did not occur, I know based on stats, false rape accusations are very rare.
Whatever the outcome, no one came out of this any "luckier." Not the woman, not the players, (certainly not the coach who had to resign) nor the community. What it did bring to light was the difficulty in proving rape and the underlining dangerous misogyny in many male "team-think" situations. For proof, find the e-mail sent by Duke lacrosse player, Ryan McFadyen:
I’ve decided to have some strippers over… all are welcome. However there will be no nudity. I plan on killing the bitches as soon as they walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.
Maybe this entire situation will cause some men to think twice before hiring women to work as sex objects/entertainment. Maybe they will learn that joking about cutting a woman's skin off is not light-hearted banter.
Hopefully this won't become another stat that "anonymous" folks try and throw in my face when I talk about the prevelance of rape. Because even if this was a 100% false statement by a malicious woman seeking money... it doesn’t change the facts. Rape is a huge problem, not just in America, but around the world. And the vast majority of women's statements are true---- even though some anonymous folks might try and make you believe differently.
Duke lacrosse players have been cleared of DNA charges. While semen was found on the victim, it did not match any of the lacrosse players. This is surely the beginning of the end of this case. What was already an uphill battle: Word of two minority women (who were of course, "hos" because they made their money stripping) against TEAM FULL of prestigious college athletes. It was already a he-said/she-said situation. Now that the scientific evidence sides with the men, the victim has nothing left.
What's more, the statement is questionable since the woman said she had not had sex with another man. But can you blame her? Everyone was already labeling her a whore.
It looks very likely that this attack did not happen, or if an attack was made, we have not gotten the correct details. However, if "anonymous" was trying to make me feel guilty for supporting this woman in her accusation, he'll never get that out of me.
The job of an advocate is simple. When a woman says she was raped the first thing you do is believe her. Bringing forward a rape accusation is a very difficult thing to do. People are going to put you through a battery of questions and an embarrassing physical exam. It's reliving a humiliation and violation and going through shame and guilt while people try and poke holes in your story. Police officers, they have things to look for when questioning a victim. Does her story line up, make sense, is their evidence etc. It's not like any Jane Doe can bring rape allegation on any guy she wants--- a common misconception that many people hold.
There was physical evidence that a crime occurred in the Duke case. Scratch marks, bruising etc. I do not feel guilty for standing up for a woman who was outnumbered & would not have been able to defend herself. I frankly am still not 100% convinced a crime did not occur. The accuser may have been mistaken; her attackers could have been wearing condoms. While the DNA evidence is a good indicator that a crime did not occur, I know based on stats, false rape accusations are very rare.
Whatever the outcome, no one came out of this any "luckier." Not the woman, not the players, (certainly not the coach who had to resign) nor the community. What it did bring to light was the difficulty in proving rape and the underlining dangerous misogyny in many male "team-think" situations. For proof, find the e-mail sent by Duke lacrosse player, Ryan McFadyen:
I’ve decided to have some strippers over… all are welcome. However there will be no nudity. I plan on killing the bitches as soon as they walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.
Maybe this entire situation will cause some men to think twice before hiring women to work as sex objects/entertainment. Maybe they will learn that joking about cutting a woman's skin off is not light-hearted banter.
Hopefully this won't become another stat that "anonymous" folks try and throw in my face when I talk about the prevelance of rape. Because even if this was a 100% false statement by a malicious woman seeking money... it doesn’t change the facts. Rape is a huge problem, not just in America, but around the world. And the vast majority of women's statements are true---- even though some anonymous folks might try and make you believe differently.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
On Fox News, you're just a whore
Last night I was (stupidly) watching FOX news. They were covering the story out of Ipswich, England where five women (all supposedly prostitutes) have turned up dead near a creek. Chillingly, these five women have all been murdered within 10 days, causing some in England to dub the culprit the "ripper." Clearly, things are not safe for women, especially sex workers, until this murderer is found.
What really pissed me off was that in the 5+ minutes that Fox covered this story, they REFUSED to call these women anything but "prostitutes." At one point the anchor even said "hookers" -- gee, why not "hos" while you're at it?
I told myself they were just focusing on the women's profession since it was clearly a factor in the killer choosing his victims. But today on CNN.com, I read their story which was much more friendly in language:
-- "who is behind the suspected killings of five women -- all believed to be prostitutes"
-- "Police do not expect to identify the two unidentified women on Wednesday"
-- "The other three victims have been identified as Gemma Adams, 25; Tania Nicol, 19 and Anneli Alderton, 24"
-- "We know that they're all young females, probably all prostitutes"
While this story clearly identified that it was suspected all these women were prostitutes, it still managed to refer to them as "women" and "victims" from time to time. Rather than stubbornly painting them as anti-human, sex objects as Fox News did in their broadcast.
But what else can you expect from Fox-- they're a bunch of republican hookers if you ask me.
What really pissed me off was that in the 5+ minutes that Fox covered this story, they REFUSED to call these women anything but "prostitutes." At one point the anchor even said "hookers" -- gee, why not "hos" while you're at it?
I told myself they were just focusing on the women's profession since it was clearly a factor in the killer choosing his victims. But today on CNN.com, I read their story which was much more friendly in language:
-- "who is behind the suspected killings of five women -- all believed to be prostitutes"
-- "Police do not expect to identify the two unidentified women on Wednesday"
-- "The other three victims have been identified as Gemma Adams, 25; Tania Nicol, 19 and Anneli Alderton, 24"
-- "We know that they're all young females, probably all prostitutes"
While this story clearly identified that it was suspected all these women were prostitutes, it still managed to refer to them as "women" and "victims" from time to time. Rather than stubbornly painting them as anti-human, sex objects as Fox News did in their broadcast.
But what else can you expect from Fox-- they're a bunch of republican hookers if you ask me.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Why pro-choice and Christian do not contradict
I haven't been to a church service in ages. I went every Wednesday this past summer -- an amazing track record for me, but it didn't hurt that I lived next door to a church. Now that school has started, I mostly attend for holidays or weddings etc. I am going through this whole period in life where I feel strongly against organized religion and in particular my branch of the church. I haven't seen my church make enough of a stand on important social issues and its been too frustrating for me. I'm young and too impatient to watch change come about slowly.
I still feel like I'm continuing a relationship with God but I kind of need to do it on my own for awhile. Anyway, I spend a lot of time praying while I walk to class. Today I thanked God for giving us a medically safe abortion procedure. Wacky huh? But I just realized lately how much of a gift it is for some women. To have a safe, clean and trustworthy environment go to when they need to terminate a pregnancy.
On my campus, I have organized a few pro-choice events. Now I am becoming known as a public figure who supports choice. Consequently, women, some who I've never met before, are approaching me. Some face to face, some through e-mail but all tellling me their story. Their courage is inspiring. And I thank God that they choose to share with me.
Today a girl came up to me and thanked me on behalf of her mother who had been raped 20 some years ago and had to obtain an abortion. Then the girl thanked me again because she herself was in the position of an unwanted pregnancy and was seeking abortion.
One woman told me she had been medically sterilized only to become one of the tiny statistics of women who still become pregnant.
They have thanked our campus group for being vocal in supporting choice because it gives them hope, or shows them that there are people who understand.
It is a blessing that women in our society are (currently) guaranteed a safe way out. I will protect that right until my dying breath because now I know.... even more than I did before... that this right is essential for every woman.
Before I heard that stat that 'one in three' women will get an abortion in her lifetime. I could never believe it. Now I do and all I can do is pray to God in thankfullness that our science has given women options. And also pray that people continue to speak out and protect these essential freedoms.
Wonder what the church would think of that prayer? Ha!
I still feel like I'm continuing a relationship with God but I kind of need to do it on my own for awhile. Anyway, I spend a lot of time praying while I walk to class. Today I thanked God for giving us a medically safe abortion procedure. Wacky huh? But I just realized lately how much of a gift it is for some women. To have a safe, clean and trustworthy environment go to when they need to terminate a pregnancy.
On my campus, I have organized a few pro-choice events. Now I am becoming known as a public figure who supports choice. Consequently, women, some who I've never met before, are approaching me. Some face to face, some through e-mail but all tellling me their story. Their courage is inspiring. And I thank God that they choose to share with me.
Today a girl came up to me and thanked me on behalf of her mother who had been raped 20 some years ago and had to obtain an abortion. Then the girl thanked me again because she herself was in the position of an unwanted pregnancy and was seeking abortion.
One woman told me she had been medically sterilized only to become one of the tiny statistics of women who still become pregnant.
They have thanked our campus group for being vocal in supporting choice because it gives them hope, or shows them that there are people who understand.
It is a blessing that women in our society are (currently) guaranteed a safe way out. I will protect that right until my dying breath because now I know.... even more than I did before... that this right is essential for every woman.
Before I heard that stat that 'one in three' women will get an abortion in her lifetime. I could never believe it. Now I do and all I can do is pray to God in thankfullness that our science has given women options. And also pray that people continue to speak out and protect these essential freedoms.
Wonder what the church would think of that prayer? Ha!
Monday, December 04, 2006
Very troubling
This story is so chilling
An excellent example of how domestic violence can sometimes be incited by women against men. It's uncomfortable to acknowledge but it does happen.
An excellent example of how domestic violence can sometimes be incited by women against men. It's uncomfortable to acknowledge but it does happen.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Sorry, but this made me smile
Woman Sentenced for Condom Explosives
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) — A former strip club waitress was sentenced Wednesday to five years of supervised release after she pleaded guilty to mailing threatening letters and flammable material, including condoms filled with a potentially explosive mixture, court documents said.
The documents said Kimberly Lynn Dasilva, 49, of Hull, mailed the condoms to a television station, strip clubs where she had worked and other places, saying she was tired of being mistreated by men. In May, she pleaded guilty to mailing threatening communications and a violation of injurious articles as nonmailable.
U.S. District Judge George O'Toole sentenced Dasilva to the supervised release with conditions, including not contacting victims, receiving mental health counseling and treatment, performing 500 hours of community service and refraining from alcohol.
None of the condoms exploded. Dasilva told investigators she did not think they would explode.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
The Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) — A former strip club waitress was sentenced Wednesday to five years of supervised release after she pleaded guilty to mailing threatening letters and flammable material, including condoms filled with a potentially explosive mixture, court documents said.
The documents said Kimberly Lynn Dasilva, 49, of Hull, mailed the condoms to a television station, strip clubs where she had worked and other places, saying she was tired of being mistreated by men. In May, she pleaded guilty to mailing threatening communications and a violation of injurious articles as nonmailable.
U.S. District Judge George O'Toole sentenced Dasilva to the supervised release with conditions, including not contacting victims, receiving mental health counseling and treatment, performing 500 hours of community service and refraining from alcohol.
None of the condoms exploded. Dasilva told investigators she did not think they would explode.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
