“Those who are calling for tax hikes as a part of these debt discussions either have amnesia about the fate of similar votes just six months ago — when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress as well as the White House — or they’re acting in bad faith, since we all know that including massive, job-killing tax hikes would be a poison pill.”
“I intend to ask the president what he’s prepared to do, outside of raising taxes, about the massive deficits and debt that have accumulated on his watch” - Mitch McConnell, today.
Since McConnell is so concerned about “amnesia,” let me refresh his memory: The Kentucky Republican voted for the Bush tax cuts, and added the costs to the national debt. McConnell then voted to finance the war in Afghanistan by adding the costs to the national debt. He then voted to put the costs of the war in Iraq onto the national debt. McConnell supported a massive expansion of the government’s role in health care, Medicare Part D, and voted to pile all of its costs right onto the national debt, and then backed the financial industry bailout, and added the bill to the national debt. All the while, McConnell had no qualms about voting to raise the debt limit, over and over again, without conditions.
But now the oft-confused Minority Leader is demanding (a) that Obama clean up McConnell’s mess; and (b) do so in a way McConnell finds ideologically pleasing.
Tell you what, Mitch. Republicans concerned about who’s responsible for the fiscal mess the GOP created should take a look at this chart, recently put together by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
When Republicans are done looking at it, they can start by apologizing.
“This ‘freedom’ will include much more than a perpetual pansexual pagan party. It will, and already does, include libel, slander, intimidation, corruption of youth, revolt in congregations, suppression of parental rights, revision of language, disease, loss of employment and loss of life. Oh, and did I mention public sex, the porn explosion and public nudity? Welcome to entitlement sex.”—
Linda Harvey, founder of Columbus, Ohio-based Mission America. Read the rest (if you must) here.
“Perpetual pansexual pagan party” does have some marvelous alliteration and a catchy vibe to it, no? Someone needs to make Linda’s worst fears come true and just play some disco while holding up a banner reading “Perpetual pansexual pagan party here!” while she’s doing her radio show. Check it out, there’s plenty of public sidewalk and a Frisch’s right across the way. So win?
I high fived him after I got let out (albeit somewhat slopilly, I was high on the drugs they gave me). I spent the rest of the day in London eating ice cream, getting a burger, walking around a massive toy store and generally having a damn good time.
The day after, I went to the pub, got pissed, and partied with my friends in celebration of it all. The day after that, I went to the arcade. Within the following weeks, I had a lot of sex, with my partner, and with others.
Not once since my abortion have I ever thought about it as a bad thing, or in a bad way. Not once have I felt mournful or remorseful or anything remotely negative, outside of “shit, that cost a lotta money”.
Call me a bad person, call me a ‘baby killer’, call me whatever. But fact of the matter is, I got a doctor to remove something that was only just considered a fetus (9 weeks), that would have resulted in me being wheelchair bound, suicidal, and full of dysphoria. When I found out I was pregnant I went on a drink and drug bender and punched myself in the stomach because it was the only way I could get through the dysphoria without trying to kill myself in a more overt manner. I even rang up NHS Direct (a UK health helpline) to see if I could get an emergency abortion for psychological reasons.
There is not a single fibre of my body that would have been happy about continuing that pregnancy, not one iota of my being that wanted a child, and so I did what was best and aborted. And I refuse to feel guilty about that.
LOVE this. I’m sick to death of supposed pro-choice allies constantly painting abortion as this enormously difficult, heartbreaking decision. If I was pregnant I would terminate that shit in a fucking second.
“Fifteen to eighteen percent of girls under twelve now wear mascara, eyeliner and lipstick regularly; eating disorders are up and self-esteem is down; and twenty-five percent of young American women would rather win America’s Next Top Model than the Nobel Peace Prize. Even bright, successful college women say they’d rather be hot than smart. A Miami mom just died from cosmetic surgery, leaving behind two teenagers. This keeps happening, and it breaks my heart.
Teaching girls that their appearance is the first thing you notice tells them that looks are more important than anything. It sets them up for dieting at age 5 and foundation at age 11 and boob jobs at 17 and Botox at 23. As our cultural imperative for girls to be hot 24/7 has become the new normal, American women have become increasingly unhappy. What’s missing? A life of meaning, a life of ideas and reading books and being valued for our thoughts and accomplishments.”—“How To Talk To Little Girls” by Lisa Bloom (via twofish)
Barker, in 1995. This was the first picture I can remember taking of anything ever.
I said goodbye to him today for what will probably be the last time. He’s 16 years old. That’s 6 years longer than most dogs of his breed live. He’s blind, mostly deaf, and has really bad arthritis. He can’t use the dog door anymore.
The next time I’ll be out is Christmukkah, and while I really really really hope he’ll make it ‘til then… I don’t want to be overly optimistic.
I can’t tell if I’m crying more at the realization that I’m now a grown-up heading off to grad school or at the sadness that the last little piece of my childhood is dying. It’s really both.
Perhaps the only good thing about modern Republican economic thought is how easy it is to recite its pillars: tax increases always make the economy worse, tax cuts always make the economy boom, and public investment will always make the economy worse.
But pesky facts keep getting in the way.
In 1982, Reagan raised taxes and the right assured Americans this would be a disaster. The right was wrong, and the economy boomed.
In 1993, Clinton raised taxes and the right was even more certain this would be a disaster. The right was wrong again, and we instead saw the longest and strongest sustained recovery in recent memory.
In 2001, Bush slashed taxes and the right swore up and down this would work wonders. The right was wrong again, and the Bush policy failed spectacularly in every possible way.
In 2009, Obama spent heavily to turn the economy around and the right predicted a disaster. The right was wrong, and conditions improved almost immediately. The economy that had been in a tailspin, hemorrhaging jobs, began growing and creating jobs.
How do Republicans explain this? That’s not a rhetorical question. I seriously want to know how and why they believe their uninterrupted track record of failure should be overlooked. Indeed, here we are in 2011, and the same conservatives — in many cases, literally the self-same people — are still convinced that if we only follow their advice this time, and ignore history, economists, and common sense, we’ll be amazed by the results.
“The U.S. has not just misplaced its priorities. When the most powerful country ever to inhabit the earth finds it so easy to plunge into the horror of warfare but almost impossible to find adequate work for its people or to properly educate its young, it has lost its way entirely.”—Bob Herbert’s final column for The New York Times. (via northamericanscum)
The following day, I attended a workshop about preventing gender violence, facilitated by Katz. There, he posed a question to all of the men in the room: “Men, what things do you do to protect yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?”
Not one man, including myself, could quickly answer the question. Finally, one man raised his hand and said, “Nothing.” Then Katz asked the women, “What things do you do to protect yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?” Nearly all of the women in the room raised their hand. One by one, each woman testified:
“I don’t make eye contact with men when I walk down the street,” said one.
“I don’t put my drink down at parties,” said another.
“I use the buddy system when I go to parties.”
“I cross the street when I see a group of guys walking in my direction.”
“I use my keys as a potential weapon.”
The women went on for several minutes, until their side of the blackboard was completely filled with responses. The men’s side of the blackboard was blank. I was stunned. I had never heard a group of women say these things before. I thought about all of the women in my life — including my mother, sister and girlfriend — and realized that I had a lot to learn about gender.
I can’t comment on posts. Even liking them is difficult and most times I have to actually go to the person’s page via the bookmark thing just to like it. I also can’t reblog unless I go to the actual page.
It’s difficult me to write this post, because, well, I like Ryking’s political commentary a lot of the time, but I also try to be a male feminist, not to mention I am one of the worst people I know when it comes to writing. That being said, I have encountered and am following a group of feminist on tumblr who I believe represent what feminism really stands for. I am, however, following a group of people who have to resort to debating what I would call extreme feminists.
Then I saw STFUFauxminists post about feminist extremist not existing.
I agree, to a certain extent, that feminist extremist do not exist, when you think about the current feminist paradigm. However, there are people who march under the label of “feminist” but do not specifically march for the same causes. They do not wish for equality, but an inverted version of current society, with female privileges instead of male privileges, making males the oppressed and submissive group. And these people are, in my opinion, who Ryking were addressing.
(refer to their point of dreaming of a matriarchy).
I also believe that Ryking brought up another point which “extreme feminist” seem to abuse, the use of the male privileges refutation.
Yes, male privileges exist. Yes, they do bias male’s views on certain issues.
No, they do not instantly render all arguments and points males make moot and pointless/worthless.
Just because one has male privileges does not suddenly make their argument worthless. Countless times I have seem such “extreme feminist” (I do not think it is correct to use the word feminazi) dismiss valid criticisms and points because the person who proposed such views and brought them into the discussion were male and therefore had male privileges.
It is undeniably true that there are certain members within the tumblr feminist community who will use the “male privilege” argument as an argument of its own, rather than use it as an explanation as to where it applies and to specifically what argument it thus renders incorrect due to the bias of male privileges. Rather, they will apply it to a person and then claim ALL their views are incorrect.
One example I would like to point out is Anticapitalist’s post about the 3 things feminist don’t do. Although I disagree with some of the points within that post, one of them was something which I believe was true, the view of the draft and feminism.
I’m not American, and I do not know how the draft system works in the US with great detail. However, I am Korean and I do know about the Korean system of mandatory military service for males. Never have I ever seen feminists claiming that only having males do military service mandatory for 2 years was sexist and that females should also be included within the service. I have seen feminists actually argue the opposite, saying that it equals out the playing field due to the fact that while males are doing their service, their female counterparts may graduate from college, or get a job and thus build up more experience, thus creating an argument contradictory from their stance of equality for all sexes.
One my disregard this point by saying, “It’s Korea, who gives a fuck?”. However, the fact that it’s Korea did not stop an international outcry on the rural practice of aborting a child if she’s female, which then caused the government to pass a law making it illegal for a doctor to tell a pregnant women if the fetus she is carrying’s sex is male or female.
Nor has it stopped the international outcry against the cultural dish of dog meat soup, leading to a distortion of what actually happens, cultural stereotypes, and many bad glances at the words “I’m Korean.”
The fact of the matter is, in my views, that there is a certain group, parading under the banner of “feminists” who are not, in the canon definition, exactly feminists, and I do believe that it is part of the job of the feminist to community to identify when someone fits said description, even if their stance benefits females as a whole. I was introduced to feminism by the stance that it was for the equality of males and females, not the beating down of males so that females could then be the dominant sex.
/Ramblings and bad analysis with bad conclusion
I’m going to tread lightly here, because I like you and your blog a lot.
There was an excellent refutation of each and every point made by ryking by mirkwood. If you haven’t read it already, I highly recommend it. I’m not going to reiterate everything they said. I’m only going to refute your post.
I need to start off by saying that, as a Jewish person who has personally experienced the pain associated with what the Nazis did –actually, fuck that. As a human being with a memory, the use of the term feminazi is never acceptable. The term Nazi being attached to anything other than the original term it came from (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) is wrong in so many ways.
I understand that you stated that in your post, but I think that should be the first thing from that post by ryking to be acknowledged and not the existence of extreme feminism. No matter how extreme some people who claim to be feminists are, they have never systematically murdered, maimed, tortured, experimented on, degraded, dehumanized, and destroyed millions of people and their families. Using such a term minimizes those atrocities and minimizes the pain and suffering of anyone and everyone connected to those who experienced actual Nazis. The fact that anyone, no matter how witty or entertaining their blog is otherwise, can throw that term out so lightly, defend the use of it, and then make Hitler jokes in retaliation to criticism is absolutely and positively disgusting.
Also, ya know who coined the term “feminazi?” Rush Limbaugh and his bff Tom Hazlett. So for someone (as ryking does) who claims to be a liberal and frequently uses Limbaugh as a figure to mock to use the very term Limbaugh coined in a misogynistic attempt to silence women is beyond hypocritical.
Okay, now on to the issue of extreme feminism. Yes, there are some man-hating feminists out there. But guess what? They don’t adequately represent the cause that is feminism. They are actually anti-feminists in that their hatred of men ignores the ‘equality’ tenet at the basis of feminism, and erases people that do not identify as male or female. If you want to see an example of what feminism isn’t, watch “The Wicker Man.” I’m pretty sure that’s what people mean when they talk about extreme feminists. Even if these are the people that ryking was addressing, there is no need to call them feminazis.
Also, them “dreaming of a matriarchy” who the fuck does ryking think he is? Can he really see into the minds of people and judge what they dream of? That’s some of the most privileged bullshit I’ve ever heard. I mean seriously, a privileged man telling women they dream of matriarchy is the same as a privileged white person telling a group of POC they dream of [insert name of reversely privileged society here]; it’s possible some do, but the majority likely does not and assuming that the ones who do are somehow similar to Nazis is despicable.
No, just because one has male privilege doesn’t mean that their arguments are worthless. It makes them less valid because they aren’t coming from someone who has personally experienced anything other than that privilege. Men can and do still experience a form of sexism stemming from these gender binary roles society has created, about which men can form arguments because it is a form of oppression they have experienced. However the moment a man tries to tell a woman why it’s okay for her to be paid less on average than a male counterpart, or he tries to tell her (as ryking did) that she should be more than satisfied with the 19th amendment, his argument is worthless until he checks his privilege. There are always valid criticisms to be made of any position in any movement, but such criticisms should be made with respect and come from a perspective that takes into account the position of those not privileged.
I’ve been involved in feminist causes since I was 16. So while that’s only 8 years and there are many other tumblrers who’ve undoubtedly been involved for far longer, I’m going off my own personal experience here when I say that feminists do vehemently oppose the draft. I believe STFU Fauxminists and STFU Sexists have made posts about this before that were excellent and I can’t write as well as them, so I’m just going to give my own short spiel here. I don’t give a shit if it’s the US, Korea, or Mars, forcing someone to join the military against their will is not right. I don’t know who these “feminists” are that are saying it evens out the playing field because I’ve never heard of such a thing. Real feminists advocate men’s liberation because the current gender roles are just as harmful to men as they are women, and completely disregard the existence of people not strictly binary. That whole “even out the playing field” argument from people who claim to be feminists sounds like people who claimed they weren’t racists when they advocated “separate makes it equal” for schools, bathrooms, and everything else: complete and utter bullshit.
I’m guessing (not sure) why the female fetus thing got more attention is because there is also a strongly anti-choice undertone to religious Western culture; a strongly anti-choice undertone that also translates into further misogyny (do you see how it’s all connected?).
Regardless of that, I don’t see how this is related to the use of the word “feminazi” because those people clearly aren’t feminists. They are something else who parade under that banner. Calling them feminazis does nothing other than, as I’ve addressed above, erase and minimize horrific history, combine these anti-feminists with feminists to create a ridiculous judgment from a position of privilege, and reinforce the popular notion that feminists are bad.
Feminists are not bad. I know that you know that. I read your blog whenever I’m on tumblr. You wouldn’t be following me if you thought feminists were bad. I get that. I think you’re just mistaken. Anyone can claim to be a feminist just as anyone can claim to not be racist. That doesn’t make it true. People who claim to be feminists but want to “beat men down” are not feminists. They’re not feminazis.
Probably right after Toddlers & Tiaras and before My Strange Addiction.
by the way...
If you could be a student of any university in the world right now, where would you enroll?
Ooh, I will be DVRing this soon.
I’d probably have to say Washington DC (where I’m already going) or Geneva. My dream is to either work for the USEPA or the UN IPCC, but since I don’t speak French (I only took a semester in high school) I’d be useless in Switzerland.
I feel like I have just completed a Bachelor's degree in How People Suck and are Slowly Killing Themselves and Poisoning the Biosphere
AKA environmental science and policy. Not sure I could have picked a more depressing field of study.
And now I’ll be getting a graduate degree in How to Research and Write Environmental Policies that Republicans Will Shit On Because Unregulated Corporations and Policing Sexuality are More Important Than Clean Air.
OP, sidebar. (Ha! I thought you would appreciate that!)
Do not go to law school unless you don’t care about how much money you make, or don’t care about how happy you will be if you can make enough money. I’m serious. People put themselves through hell to go to med school because it will likely enable them to get a good job. This is not the case for lawyers. I’m serious.
Unless you have a specific passion that requires a law degree (like if you want to be a public defender or work for the Southern Poverty Law Center/ACLU or charter a program that provides bilingual legal aid to immigrants), don’t. go. to. law. school.
There are too many lawyers and not enough jobs and the jobs that *are* hiring absolutely forbid creative thinking or having-a-conscience. JUST FYI.
reblogged for EXCELLENT ADVICE THAT I TRY TO PASS ON TO EVERYONE! When I was considering going into law, every single lawyer I talked to said, “Not worth it.” Every single one. I would actually venture to say this about most grad programs. Unless it’s very cheap, or you have a burning desire (preferably both), it’s a REALLY GOOD IDEA to pause a little bit before making that huge of an investment. (via liquornspice)
I just opted out of going to law school. I took the LSAT, applied and everything. I even got in a few places.
Instead I’m going for my MPP simply because it’s cheaper, less competitive, and I’m more likely to find a job when I get out. I really just don’t have $40,000 to blow every year for the next three years just on tuition, especially when there’s no guarantee I’ll have a job at the end of it. For my MPP, I’m paying $10,000 each year for 2 years with the possibility of getting a paid job as a TA and/or some kind of grant money. There are also lots of ways I can get the tuition waived by working at the USEPA which will be a short train ride away from my school (GMU in Arlington).
All in all the MPP is proving to be the better choice.