By David Seaman

Judge Napolitano on FOX Business Network has a great on-air rhetorical device, “What if?”

I’m going to blatantly steal — er, borrow — that device for this column because it does a brilliant job of covering one’s ass completely, while still pointing out obvious truths. Here goes, take a deep breath.

WHAT IF your government has lost all legitimacy to lead?

WHAT IF the media, once the American people’s last safeguard against corruption, is now corruption personified?

WHAT IF there was a protest of thousands of people converging on Capitol Hill tonight, January 17th, 2012, and the corporate broadcast media barely even mentioned it as of 1:12pm Eastern, save for a below-the-fold hat tip on msnbc.com?

WHAT IF there is a quiet battle brewing right now between dying TV broadcasting dinosaurs, and vibrant Internet companies like Google, Facebook, and Reddit?

WHAT IF that battle finally becomes public knowledge tomorrow morning, when the homepage of Google.com will display a message blasting the SOPA/PIPA Internet censorship legislation that Congress seems absolutely hell-bent on passing in one way or another, regardless of how many phone calls they receive from outraged constituents.

WHAT IF there was a separate battle, waged online and via telephone by tens of thousands of Americans…a battle we’ve already lost?

WHAT IF that battle was a desperate cry against the NDAA’s indefinite detention provisions, which President Obama quietly signed into law on New Year’s Eve, while the rest of us were drunk and distracted?

WHAT IF, as a result, your own government — according to some of the planet’s foremost legal minds — now has the very real ability to detain you without trial, access to an attorney, and without bringing formal charges against you.

WHAT IF suspicion alone is enough.

AND WHAT IF some government insiders, such as Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, have gone on record stating they believe this indefinite detention power will be used to silence political protesters, including Occupiers.

Makes today’s Occupy Congress seem rather important given all of that context, no? So where’s the media attention?

Image courtesy of Dustin M. Slaughter

David Seaman is an independent journalist. He has been a lively guest on CNN Headline News, FOX News, ABC News Digital, among others, and on his humble YouTube channel, DavidSeamanOnline. Some say he was recently censored by a certain large media corporation for posting a little too much truth… For more, find him on G+ and Twitter.

by Yashar Ali

At a holiday party this year, I noticed an R. Kelly song playing on my friend’s iPod. I looked at two of my (male) friends who were standing nearby and asked, “You guys are listening to R. Kelly?”

One of them responded, “Yeah, so what?”

“He seduced under-age girls and I’ve seen the video of him peeing on one of them. Remember when he (illegally) married Aaliyah (R&B singer who is now deceased) when she was 15 and he was 30?”

“I separate the music from the person,” the same friend said.

“Oh god–I’m sure you listen to Chris Brown too,” I said with frustration in my voice.

My other friend chimed in and confirmed, defiantly, “Yeah! I do.”

Here is a reminder: in 2009, singer and dancer Chris Brown was charged and convicted for beating, biting, and choking his girlfriend, singer Rihanna, while they were in a car in Los Angeles. With respect to R. Kelly, in 2002 he was indicted on multiple counts of possessing and filming child pornography, and through years of legal maneuvering, was able to have the charges dropped when the then 14 year-old girl refused to testify against him. She, in fact, told people that it was consensual. He was able to avoid jail by making multiple cash settlements, including one to the girl in the video.

Of course, Chris Brown and R. Kelly aren’t the only examples of male artists who abuse women. We need to look no further than Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson as examples of men who still get chances despite their abuse of women.

How many people tagged their tweets with “#winning” during Charlie Sheen’s summer meltdown? How obsessively was his narcissistic tour cheered and celebrated by both men and women? Ignoring the fact that over years and years, Charlie Sheen has been accused and imprisoned for terrorizing the women in his life, I take no great pleasure in saying that his punishments would have been more severe had some of his accusers not been sex workers.

Mel Gibson readily admits, on tape, to beating his girlfriend Oksana and he has yet to be driven out of the film business. Major movie studios, like Warner Brothers, still want to be in business with him.

This idea of separating the artistry from the person is perfectly plausible if the artist, when guilty of making mistakes, is truly repentant. And it’s also plausible when these mistakes do not cause physical harm on other people.

But, I (and all of us), must draw the line at supporting and enriching men who are pedophiles, in Kelly’s case, and virtually unrepentant domestic abusers in the case of Brown, Sheen, and Gibson. There is a difference between an artist who makes mistakes and an artist who abuses women (or men) and lacks any sense of remorse.

Both of my friends at that party are two of the biggest supporters of my writing about women. In fact, they have read almost all of my work and have been helpful to me beyond what a good friendship calls for. They are also both close to their respective mothers – they are really good men, which is why I have shared this experience with you. It would be much easier to dismiss their feelings if they didn’t treat the women in their life with respect, if they weren’t fundamentally good people.

For me, this is ultimately about one question: how can men and women stand by and separate what happened to women like Rihanna, from the women in our own lives? We shouldn’t. In our culture, we tend to compartmentalize the trauma others face as a coping mechanism of sorts. It’s a way to shield ourselves from their pain, and also a way to avoid having to help or being held accountable for not helping.

Separating the artist from the music is a convenient way to avoid looking at Chris Brown’s abuse of Rihanna, but the only way to deal with an injustice is avoid this separation, to absorb and understand the pain. That’s the way in which we have always solved or worked to solve injustices: to understand and acknowledge the inter-connectivity.

For purposes of this column, I’m going to focus on Chris Brown, who has come out virtually unscathed from his domestic abuse charges. He is back in action, with a hit album, a tour, and recently as a recipient of three Grammy nominations. His passionate fan base, mostly made up of young girls, is stronger than ever.

I’m a big believer in second, third, fourth chances. I believe most people are fundamentally good and also fundamentally flawed. But I’ll readily admit that when it comes to domestic violence, I find it difficult to forget and move on.

Why?

We now know that the 2009 instance in the car wasn’t the first time Chris Brown had assaulted Rihanna. There is rarely a case of a man hitting a woman just once. Ultimately, domestic violence is not just about the physical assault, but the consistent manipulation, emotional abuse, imposition of fear in the victim. It’s about terrorizing their entire life.

Still, despite every privilege and opportunity, Chris Brown, in my mind, has blown his second chance – for those folks who were interested in giving him one.

Chris Brown could have led a revolution in the way in which we see, treat, and handle domestic violence in our country and served as a beacon of hope for the millions of women and girls who worship him and face abuse. More importantly, he could have spoken directly to the millions of men, who like him, were born into an endless cycle of abuse, witnessing their mothers getting abused and then abusing women themselves.

After he beat, choked, and bit Rihanna, in early 2009, he took an entire week to release a proper statement of apology. A couple of weeks after the incident, he reunited with Rihanna in Miami, and flexed his biceps for the paparazzi while riding a wave runner. A disgusting pose given that those same biceps allowed him to bludgeon Rihanna’s face.

He later went on to fulfill his debt to the court system in Los Angeles County, and since, has done nothing of note to deal with or combat domestic violence. In fact, he has done what millions of men and women do every day in our country, he has demanded to have the issue of domestic violence swept under the rug.

That is why he doesn’t deserve our attention or business.

Chris Brown has moved on – on his own terms, on a shockingly narcissistic level. His behavior is that of an unrepentant man.

In 2010, Chris Brown was on Good Morning America to promote his latest album. When questioned by Robin Roberts about the 2009 incident, he answered coldly: “It’s not a big deal to me now, that situation…I’m past that in my life, today is the album day, so everyone go out and get that album.”

That’s nice. I’m so glad that beating the face of the woman whom you claimed to love is not a big deal anymore to YOU.

Brown later went on to trash his dressing room at the show, breaking a window, after Robin Roberts asked him that one question about the Rihanna situation.

One the same day, he posted this tweet (which was later deleted) on his Twitter account: “I’m so over people bring this past s**t up!!..”

He’s sick of people bringing the past up? Instead of using every moment as a teachable one, instead of addressing the past and confronting his demons, he attacked those who questioned him.

Chris Brown has been enriched not just by men like my friends, but by a legion of young women and girls who follow his every move. What kind of message is he sending to them when he continually mishandles the Rihanna incident(s)? What kind of message are we sending to these same young girls when we repeatedly support him? Hit a woman and you can still be a millionaire superstar?

Apparently and problematically, there is: Boston Public Health Commission conducted a survey of 200 teenagers and found that 46 percent saw Rihanna as responsible for what happened; 52 percent said both bore responsibility, despite knowing that Rihanna’s injuries required hospital treatment. Startling numbers.

I don’t want to give the impression that only men should be held accountable for listening to and supporting artists like Chris Brown. As I’ve mentioned, women and young girls are a big part of his fan base and in supporting him, women are inadvertently fueling the success of a man who disrespects them and helping further erase domestic violence from being a major and visible issue.

The overall statistics on domestic violence are astonishing (and keep in mind these are reported numbers only, many girls and women don’t report or discuss the abuse they have sustained): nearly 1 in 5 teenage girls who have been in a relationship said a boyfriend threatened violence or self-harm if presented with a breakup. Worldwide, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused during her lifetime.

Of course we continue to hear Chris Brown’s songs, because radio programmers (which, surprise, surprise, are dominated by men) allow these songs to remain on the radio, thus adding to the collective popularity. But programmers are also just doing what we want – they wouldn’t be airing songs we don’t want to hear.

This idea that we shouldn’t support men who do bad things to women becomes increasingly inconvenient for our entertainment consumption with the increase in exposure of bad behavior thanks to the internet. The days of abuse and related activities remaining behind closed doors are virtually over. There is power in using our collective ability to consume media, music, entertainment as a tool and a weapon. And by voting with our dollars and eyes away from Chris Brown and artists who abuse women, we can shift the dynamics of how we, as a society, deal with domestic abuse.

But I’m not immune to this inconvenience…

Sometimes I find myself running across a Chris Brown or R. Kelly song on the car radio when I’m driving (I can’t say the same of Charlie Sheen or Mel Gibson). For a split second, I want to keep the song on…for some reason, it’s just the perfect beat at the perfect time on my drive.

But, unlike my friends, I can’t separate the music from the men, because the image of Rihanna’s bloody and beaten face comes across my mind and the video I’ve seen of R. Kelly urinating on an underage girl is seared into my brain.

And as good as their music sounds, when I think of those images, I think of the women in my life who have loved me and made me who I am. How would I feel if my women friends and colleagues were hurt by men like R. Kelly and Chris Brown, who weren’t repentant in any real way?

I wouldn’t stand for it.

And neither would my two friends at that holiday party. Like me, they love and respect the women in their life.

Listening to or buying Chris Brown’s music or cheering on Charlie Sheen may seem like an innocuous act. It’s just a song or a TV show, right? But when we support these men in any way, even if it’s just listening to the radio, we are adding to the collective attention heaped on the artist. We are adding strength to the ripple effect that allows artists like Chris Brown to succeed and become even more successful.

I hope something changes, because until good men like my friends, refuse to support bad men who harm women, until they see that the harm done to one woman, is harm done to every woman…

Nothing is gonna change.

Yashar Ali is a Los Angeles-based columnist, commentator, and political veteran whose writings about women, gender inequality, political heroism, and society are showcased on his website, The Current Conscience. Please follow him on Twitter and join him on Facebook.

He will be soon releasing our first short e-book, entitled, A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not Crazy — How We Teach Men That Women Are Crazy and How We Convince Women To Ignore Their Instincts. If you are interested and want to be notified when the book is released, please click here to sign-up.

Related Posts:
You Don’t Drink? What’s Wrong With You?
You’re An Unavailable Man? Fantastic! When Are We Getting Married?
When Everything Is On His Terms
Now…Give Your Uncle A Kiss
The Modern Day Version of “Just The Tip”
Men Who E-Maintain Women
He Doesn’t Deserve Your Validation: Putting The Fake Orgasm Out of Business
A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not Crazy
Why Don’t We Have More Women in Public Office? Look at Who’s Running the Campaigns

by RedBstrd

Recently, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Moscow, Russia to voice discontent with parliamentary elections that they argue – with good reason – were rigged. These protests have attracted notice from both an international audience and the Kremlin – which claims that they represent unrest spurred on by foreign agitators within the US State Department, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Unlike much of the protest within Russia since 1991, those who added their voices to the calls for new elections were not simply Communist Party pensioners railing against a social system which has no use for the elderly. Instead, the 60,000 protesters tended to be young, college educated, and organizing through social networking sites.

While the numbers on Prospekt Akademika Sakharova seem to have fallen short of the 120,000-200,000 turnout figures that some activists have offered, these protests are the largest that Russia has seen since the end of the Soviet system. Likewise, they are the longest lived, snowballing from small rallies into the mass protests in Moscow’s Bolotnaia Square on December 10th and the even larger December 24th protest. Incensed at the results from the December 4th parliamentary results, which emerged amid a storm of Youtube videos of ballot-stuffing, Russian blogger Aleksei Navalny helped organize a rally against Putin’s United Russia party, which he labeled “the party of crooks and thieves.” This rally attracted a few thousand people and drew condemnation from government officials. Navalny became an internet sensation when Duma member Konstantin Rykov labeled the blogger a “cocksucking sheep.” Whether by accident or hack, President Medvedev’s twitter account repeated the slur. A number of these smaller protests led to the December 10th mass rally, which drew praise from famous Russians such as Gorbachev and Kasparov, and encouraged similar protests in St. Petersburg, Vladivostok, and many other Russian cities. The celebrity voices were joined by Russians less well known outside of the country, such as Boris Nemtsov (a liberal politician), Boris Akunin (an author), and Aleksei Kudrin (the former finance minister).

The election results were a clear rebuke to Vladimir Putin, offering only 49% of the popular vote and barely over 50% of the parliamentary seats to United Russia, despite over 5300 cases of documented voting fraud (according to Russian election monitor Golos) and implausible turnout. According to official numbers, for instance, the war-torn Chechnya had a 99% turnout and 99% of those who voted did so for United Russia, including 90% of those registered for the social democratic A Just Russia party.


[..]

By 99Percent

It was a casual Sunday and I found myself walking through the local video game store. I’m always on the lookout for games that are influenced by real-world events, geopolitics or other revolutionary ideas as presented in digital form. While I’m still waiting for the ultimate game that portrays presidential elections, an upcoming release by a major global gaming studio has caught my eye and for possibly the wrong reasons.

Ubisoft is updating Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six series with a new sequel in 2013. Only this time, the baddies aren’t mysterious investment bank-type Arabs pointing Kalashnikovs. After seemingly an entire generation of blowing up Muslims, we’re finally getting a reprieve from the barrage of first-person-shooters that portray all of the Middle East as though it were one big underground weapons market.

So who (or what) has become the latest enemy of the state to be deemed a necessary kill for Clancy disciples in the video game world?

It just might be the 99 Percent.

You knew this would happen sooner or later. According to early press reports and box art, the enemy of America now comes from within. Rainbow Six: Patriots is a squad-based game that paints those who fight for economic inequality as a terrorist threat.

Early simulated clips that may or may not make the final release are indeed astounding. The opening scene of the first working imagery officially released portrays a home invasion – complete with the physical assault of the mother of a newborn baby – as undertaken by a band of anti-corporate zealots. Here’s a snippet of dialogue from a YouTube preview as released by Ubisoft…

“You really did cash in on everyone else getting foreclosed didn’t you? Today, you’re going to make up for that…”

Wow. I guess we’ve all been waiting for a blockbuster shooter that paints the 1 percent as victims. Thanks Tom Clancy. If violence again rears it’s ugly head at future protests, I guess we’ll know who is throwing fuel on the fire.

For those that don’t feel like watching the preview footage, what unfolds then is an exercise in violence gone amok as an apparently American-born, kevlar-vest wearing terrorist known within the game as a “True Patriot” proceeds to strap an explosive device on a docile target. It all ends in more violence as the well-armed hero Rainbow Six team can’t seem to solve the bomb problem, so they throw the target off a bridge in New York City which may or may not be the George Washington.

Given that some consider video games like these to be military trainers, many of the people whose voices gave birth to the Occupy movement are likely to be revolted and disgusted that some of their protest messages may now be fodder for what could turn out to be a very violent and very scary simulation.

Worse, does this game further encourage the militarization of domestic policing with respect to the portrayal of anti-establishment protesters?

The “True Patriot” moniker given the American terrorists in this game seems like a mix of Tea Party and Occupy movements. Granted, the game is in very early in development, but this ripped-from-the-headlines approach should upset some of the 99 Percent who hold nonviolent civil disobedience to be one of the founding principles that helped shine a spotlight on a progressive voice of unity.

If the new terror threat is indeed an underclass emboldened by cries of “this is what democracy looks like,” we’re all going to be in a lot more trouble than we think. By the end of many of the Occupy encampments, some of the public opinion voiced against those protesting was clearly being molded by a media that sought to vilify the Occupy movement as a stinking underbelly that needed to be held under the boot of a police state.

If the next step is really to turn weapons – even the digital kind – upon this group, a new front has been opened up in an entertainment propaganda / information war that civic, cloud-based journalism may find impossible to counter.

Seems the 1 percent has quite a few tricks up their golden-cufflinked sleeves.

By Nicole Breanne

Mitt Romney is the frontrunner for the Republican ticket, followed very closely by, depending on which polling site you look at, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul. As a political correspondent that takes politics seriously I want to fucking hang myself, as a cynical, bitter, jaded, 99-percenter I am thrilled to watch the train wreck.

[..]

by Zach Roberts

There are many different kinds of press that cover OWS: the citizen journalist (personal blog, CNN ireporter/scab), the streamer (Livestream, Ustream, etc.), the social media micro-blogger/tweeter, and the pros who make their living from it. This may be one of the first large stories that all four types have worked together on for the most part with a common goal – getting the word out. It’s tough, there’s many factors working against all of us – the weather, the time of day, and the biggest problem – the police. Whatever your level, I’ve compiled a list of equipment that’ll keep you and what you’re witnessing covered.

1. Like the OWS protestor, Occupy journalists are at risk from pepper spray and tear gas – but we need to keep on working through it. A face mask with full facepiece that has a large unobstructed viewing area is therefore a great accessory to have on hand.

2. Come rain or shine journalists need to be there – and so does our gear. Pics or it didn’t happen – that’s the mantra. So you’ll need some rain covers. There are more expensive ones out there, but they take up room in your bag and once they’re wet you can’t put them back in your bag. The great thing about these is once the sun is shining again you can just chuck them in the trash – or hang them to dry if you’re a hippy.

3. Whether you’re a social journo or a pro, you’ll need to be tweeting/texting your followers/editors. And unless you work off a Blackberry (I mean, really who does?), you’ll need to be able to touch your screen. If you’re covering OWS in NYC, Chi-town, Boston or Anchorage (yes there is a OWS in Alaska), it gets cold out there – so you’ll need special touchscreen compatable gloves.

4. Speaking of phones, you’re gonna need something like the Samsung Vibrant with 5 MP camera / HD 720p camcorder and GPS. And, unless you’re grandfathered in on AT&T plan like I am, you won’t have unlimited bandwidth on your phone – unless you’re on the T-Mobile network. The streamers on the ground at #OWS tell me it’s the only way to go. Also the 4G speed will give you the quickest streaming and uploads for Twitpics. Make sure you get the Ustream and Tweetdeck apps.

5. The Nikon D7000 camera body is pricey – but when compared to the rigs the big pro’s use it’s a deal. It’s what I use to get shots like these. For a pro-sumer level camera, it’s built like a tank – but most importantly it shoots photos in the dark. No, not Blair Witch Project-style with green eyes, but with real colors that are almost better than what the human eye sees. To take full advantage of the camera’s sensor though you’ll want to pick up a lens with a wide 1.4 aperture – like this excellent Sigma 30mm 1.4 lens. It’s what I used to shoot video with down at Zuccotti Park.

6. Finally you’ll need some inspiration when you get hit with a bad case of writers block. For me it’s Laurie Penny’s book Penny Red. Hands down the best protest journalism I’ve read since…well, I’m not really sure when I’ve read better.

Related Posts

#D17 – Sitting on the Group W Bench – Arrested for Committing Journalism

Occupy Wall Street: The Cleansing of Zuccotti Park

Zach Roberts is a photojournalist for SuicideGirls, Greg Palast, and The Mudflats. His work on #OWS has appeared on The Guardian Online, in Portfolio, and now in a new book out by Alternet called The 99%: How the Occupy Wall Street Movement Is Changing America.

For more visit his website, Facebook, and Twitter.

by Yashar Ali

Every election season, I ask myself the same question: Why aren’t more women running for public office?

Over the past ten years, I have been hopeful for the prospect and rise of women political candidates. While I never studied the numbers, I felt like we were heading in the right direction.

I couldn’t be more wrong.

Reporter Kate Linthicum’s brilliant Los Angeles Times article sheds light on the City of Los Angeles’ problem with proper female representation on the city council. The fifteen-member council, which had five female members eleven years ago, currently has just one, Jan Perry.

Current statistics about women holding federal office are equally dismal: women hold fewer than 20 percent of House and Senate seats. The House faced its first decline in 30 years with respect to women members.

Women hold fewer than 25 percent of seats in state legislatures. This sort of decline has not been seen in decades.

Why are we slipping back after so many years of slow but steady progress?

There exists real obstacles for prospective women politicians: media bias, lack of financial support, mediocre recruitment efforts, underfunded organizations built to help women run for public office.

I want to introduce a not-so-prominent problem: the serious deficiency of women in senior positions on political campaigns. With the exception of political fundraisers, you find very few women running campaigns or serving in top management spots.

The absence of women operating behind the scenes of political campaigns has been largely ignored. This is made clear by the complete absence of studies tracking the numbers of women working in politics. Open your newspaper and turn on your TV. You usually hear a senior-level male staffer speaking for candidates.

This isn’t just about my ideology. This is personal for me.

For the past two and half years, I worked for California Lieutenant Governor and former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. In my last position with him, I managed his 2010 race for Lieutenant Governor.

Lieutenant Governor Newsom and his wife, actress and documentary filmmaker, Jennifer Siebel Newsom (who made a brilliant documentary about women’s under-representation in positions of power and the limited and often disparaging portrayal of women in the media – see SG interview) expressed in this campaign their frustration and concern about the lack of women working on his campaigns.

Lieutenant Governor Newsom always asked, when we made hiring decisions, whether we could fill these posts with qualified women. This was not just a question for him. In his first year as mayor, he appointed San Francisco’s first female police chief and fire chief. He was also the first mayor to initiate gender analysis of budget cuts.

But I couldn’t find available and qualified women to take senior positions in his campaign. The few women I did know were already working on other campaigns.

Shawnda Westly, Executive Director of the California Democratic Party, saw a need to fix this problem in California. She, along with her colleague Robin Swanson, put their money where their mouth is, and launched a website called Political Women California.

Political Women California delivers a simple, but powerful mission: to give women working in politics a place to post their resumes so employers can find and hire them for campaigns, elections and political positions throughout California — and across the country.

Their site has been flooded with postings from women already working in politics in California. Even though I am not in the business of managing campaigns anymore, it helped me realize how many women are trying to work in politics.

Usually, people run for office after being exposed to a political campaign in one way or another. So the question is: how do we expect young women to motivate themselves to run for public office when all the people running campaigns are men?

This issue is not limited to Democrats. We need more women working on campaigns and in elective office across the political spectrum. Both parties should see the benefit of female leadership. But drawing from my personal experience, I want to speak to Democrats: There is no excuse. How can we demand equality for women in the workplace and fair wage laws, when we can’t manage to hire women for the campaigns professing these issues?

I spent the better part of two years working tirelessly for Hillary Clinton in her bid to be the 44th President of the United States. My passion for her candidacy was primarily based on my belief that she was the most qualified candidate for president. I felt her unique combination of experiences would serve our country incredibly well.

But there was another strong factor for my motivation. One I will not apologize for. I really wanted a woman president.

The dream I have for a woman president is not dead. However, if we don’t make conscious efforts to hire more women on political campaigns, we are not only limiting our talent pool, but we will also face an epidemic shortage of women running for office.

We must demand that candidates we support value diversity in their hiring practices. So, my message is for two people: the candidate and the campaign manager.

Next time you are walking through your campaign headquarters, take a look at the young woman who shows up everyday after her classes to volunteer. The same one who always pays her own way on public transportation to make phone calls and to help knock on doors. The same one that you are impressed by and think is better than half your paid staff. And probably the same one you take for granted. She could be president one day…if you give her a chance.

Yashar Ali is a Los Angeles-based columnist, commentator, and political veteran whose writings about women, gender inequality, political heroism, and society are showcased on his website, The Current Conscience. Please follow him on Twitter and join him on Facebook.

He will be soon releasing our first short e-book, entitled, A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not Crazy — How We Teach Men That Women Are Crazy and How We Convince Women To Ignore Their Instincts. If you are interested and want to be notified when the book is released, please click here to sign-up.

Related Posts:
You Don’t Drink? What’s Wrong With You?
You’re An Unavailable Man? Fantastic! When Are We Getting Married?
When Everything Is On His Terms
Now…Give Your Uncle A Kiss
The Modern Day Version of “Just The Tip”
Men Who E-Maintain Women
He Doesn’t Deserve Your Validation: Putting The Fake Orgasm Out of Business
A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not Crazy