so iran, a country that literally and openly does some of the most barbaric government-mandated acts against women in the world, has won some sort of half-assed u.n. general assembly vote to retain (not acquire, see the link) it's seat, for another five years (until 2015), on the commission on the status of women, aka the women's rights commission. and when i say rights, i mean the idea that people deserve a standard of fair treatment from their government and society. does the iranian government even know what women's rights are? or rights in general? the worst part of this: they've had this seat since 1990. literally, for 20 years. no wonder this is a commission that seems to go nowhere. it's like the commission hired a driver who decided to take a baseball bat to the car.
there is a world of things wrong with this. for some reason, the u.s. could lobby to keep iran out of the human rights council, but not this one. not sure how that works. not sure why the u.s. even has to lobby to keep iran off of either council. the government of iran has a long, and well video-recorded history (and present) of using violence, prison, and execution to trap its citizens in a theocratic hell. but this is not the first time the u.s. has forgotten about women's rights, simply because it decided to take what it could get. remember the iraqi constitution? remember the revoking of secular family law? as right wingers pat themselves on the back for noticing the irony of this situation, one must ask: where the fuck were you when iraqi women were getting fucked?
Friday, April 30, 2010
spill, baby, spill
how's that pathetic excuse for an energy policy workin' out for ya', sarah? here's how it's workin' out for the rest of us, you betcha':
do ya' see where it says "wildlife refuge" to the left and top? yep. that's what's fucked. the only thing i still want to know is what exactly god's punishing us for this time. come on, pat robertson, i can't hardly wait.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
maybe girls are just smarter
nicholas kristoff is one of my favorite columnists of all time. if anyone is aware of the wars and poverty that currently plague africa, or the scourge of sexual slavery, it's because they read it in a nicholas kristoff column or talked to somebody who did. now nicholas kristoff had decided to turn to his fellow male americans, and ask his readers why they are slipping behind girls in various academic categories, especially ones requiring reading. being the sister of five boys, my first inclination is to point out that guys just don't care about schoolwork as much as girls do. after spending 3/4 of a year in the same french class as my two-years older brother and easily outscoring him, i thought that i had seen this firsthand. but i now realize, after reading the responses that nicholas received, that i only believe that because feminazis forced me to listen to their man-hating diatribes (i have no memory of the incident, but i could have just repressed it). so, to sum up nicholas' readers:
1- boys don't do things that don't personally interest them. since girls will stick with a boring assignment to get it done or because there might be some educational purpose in the work, let them keep doing that. but save the cool, interesting, hands-on stuff for the boys.
2- making a boy sit down, shut up, and listen to a woman tell him something is an insult to his penis, and may make it shrink by as much as 2" over the course of his educational career. the same goes for teachers who want some order in the class. i had previously thought they were doing that because disruptions to class keep their classmates from learning. i now realize that when teachers tell johnny to be quiet and pay attention, they're trying to emasculate johnny so jane will run the world and bring us the nanny state. attention spans are highly overrated, and may be a marxist plot to sap our young men of their essence.
3- boys need more exercise and fresh air than girls. we know this because girls don't complain about being indoors, which means that there's definitely nothing wrong. and let's face it, it's not like there are any playground activities they could do, like jump roping or hopscotch, that they could do without the boys. giving boys the extra activity they need while girls sit inside reading will also nip that whole title 9 thing in the bud.
4- anything written by a woman is chick lit. it should not be taught as if it's a valuable contribution to english-language literature. also, boys seem uninterested in female authors, which is a great indicator of their non-contribution to literature in general. it's not like jane eyre or pride and prejudice have interesting male characters. and besides, the male characters are only a part of the main female characters' stories. that is definitely feminazism. the feminazis want to destroy our natural and god-ordained society by showing women in the lead of a narrative for a change. definitely marxist.
5- make sure your boys get in plenty of video games. it's not like you could require your sons to spend evenings and weekends getting fresh air and exercise. also make sure that every time someone calls your son a sissy for reading anything except tom clancy, you point out to your son that he is, in fact, a sissy. and maybe a marxist. when you're son brings home excellent grades, remind him that football is more important and will get him laid more.
well, these are all great ideas. let's go back to keeping girls more dormant than boys, ghettoizing their contributions to literature, and maintaining boys' naturally aggressive behavior, and watch boys excel. and if some girls get sexually harassed, think women have made no contributions to literature, etc., all the better.
1- boys don't do things that don't personally interest them. since girls will stick with a boring assignment to get it done or because there might be some educational purpose in the work, let them keep doing that. but save the cool, interesting, hands-on stuff for the boys.
2- making a boy sit down, shut up, and listen to a woman tell him something is an insult to his penis, and may make it shrink by as much as 2" over the course of his educational career. the same goes for teachers who want some order in the class. i had previously thought they were doing that because disruptions to class keep their classmates from learning. i now realize that when teachers tell johnny to be quiet and pay attention, they're trying to emasculate johnny so jane will run the world and bring us the nanny state. attention spans are highly overrated, and may be a marxist plot to sap our young men of their essence.
3- boys need more exercise and fresh air than girls. we know this because girls don't complain about being indoors, which means that there's definitely nothing wrong. and let's face it, it's not like there are any playground activities they could do, like jump roping or hopscotch, that they could do without the boys. giving boys the extra activity they need while girls sit inside reading will also nip that whole title 9 thing in the bud.
4- anything written by a woman is chick lit. it should not be taught as if it's a valuable contribution to english-language literature. also, boys seem uninterested in female authors, which is a great indicator of their non-contribution to literature in general. it's not like jane eyre or pride and prejudice have interesting male characters. and besides, the male characters are only a part of the main female characters' stories. that is definitely feminazism. the feminazis want to destroy our natural and god-ordained society by showing women in the lead of a narrative for a change. definitely marxist.
5- make sure your boys get in plenty of video games. it's not like you could require your sons to spend evenings and weekends getting fresh air and exercise. also make sure that every time someone calls your son a sissy for reading anything except tom clancy, you point out to your son that he is, in fact, a sissy. and maybe a marxist. when you're son brings home excellent grades, remind him that football is more important and will get him laid more.
well, these are all great ideas. let's go back to keeping girls more dormant than boys, ghettoizing their contributions to literature, and maintaining boys' naturally aggressive behavior, and watch boys excel. and if some girls get sexually harassed, think women have made no contributions to literature, etc., all the better.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
social justice v. charity
before i get into the differences, i think i should note to conservatives that we did get glenn beck's message- doing anything beyond voluntary charity is communism, or socialism or fascism. since these ism's are blended together so seamlessly in glenn beck's mind, it's a little difficult to tell whether social justice will lead to killing jews, killing capitalists, or soul-crushing bureaucracy. or will it lead to all three? who knows? more importantly, who cares?
i think it's important to note that countries like france, britain, canada, post-war germany, to name a few, went, at least mostly, down the social justice path. so far, no communism, socialism, or fascism. no concentration camps or gulags. just bureaucracy. which, for all its negatives, puts people to work. and longer life spans. and some sweet-ass vacation time. for all of conservatives' attacks on our government-maintained safety nets, i don't see these fuckers moving to places that lack them, just complaining about their fellow americans who need them.
i guess now would be a good time to describe why glenn beck has pissed off a lot of christians who normally might agree with him. christians, traditionally, have considered it one of their church's duties to support and administer programs for the poor. and, technically, glenn beck doesn't seem to have a problem with this because apparently it's voluntary to give to christian charities. but many other christians go further. there is a branch of christianity that interprets the teachings of jesus to avoid wealth and give to others even when it's a sacrifice to oneself. these christians believe that charity from your excesses is only to impress others instead of actually fostering the sense of unselfishness jesus christ came to spread. some catholics took this even further to develop liberation theology, which supported the human rights of the poor against the property rights of the rich, especially in latin america. combined with the catholic worker movement, liberals and those even more leftist in catholicism have kind of carved an unofficial (and unapproved) niche for themselves. but even pope john paul 2, while no fan of communism, was also no fan of unregulated capitalism and unrestrained greed. his cyclical on treatment of workers makes andy stern of the seiu look like a libertarian. martin luther king considered it his christian duty to examine the causes of poverty itself, and attempt to eliminate them. king called this "a revolution in values", and he called on his supporters to not just fling coins at beggars, but to restructure a system which produced beggars (which is why the right should think twice before insisting MLK actually acted on conservative values). mormons actually require members of their congregations to donate, or tithe, 10% of their yearly income. they actually have to state to their bishop that they've tithed every year. this is not voluntary if you want to belong to a mormon congregation. even muslims are also in on the act, requiring all muslims to contribute a minimum percentage of their wealth to charity, and to show hospitality to strangers. this is not considered voluntary in islam. these contributions are considered a part of improving one's soul and one of islam's five pillars. social justice has a long history in various religious beliefs, including christianity. glenn beck may want to pause before he chalks social justice up to marx and hitler.
why is glenn beck so pissed about social justice anyway, and why would he think churches should shun it, and people should shun churches that practice it? because it's compelled by law. oh, my stars and garters! social justice is when you decide you've had enough of an economic system in which people who do the grunt work of a company make poverty wages. social justice is when you demand that health insurance companies do the job we pay them to do, or the government will step in and do the job better. social justice is when you decide that some money in taxes to support school lunches is better than seeing kids go hungry. social justice demands that our economic system value something besides profit. social justice sees people as more important than profit, and that our economic system must provide for us, not the other way around. we don't have to support unregulated, unprotected capitalism if all we have to show for it are fat cats and slums.
social justice does not denigrate charity. in fact, involving oneself in charitable acts is one way in which people learn about social justice. some who involve themselves in charitable programs see too many decent people who are not afraid of hard work but have bosses who are afraid of paying living wages. some see too many people thrown away by our economy from sickness, drug addiction, and the loss of one paycheck. social justice is what you do when you realize that private charities are not equipped to provide the help needed to everyone who needs it, especially in hard times when private charities cannot muster the donations to meet the need. that is why our government, which can compel you through fines and possibly jail time, maintains a safety net of its own. this safety net is not voluntary- giving to it doesn't make you look good for your friends, or get one into heaven. however, this safety net is always there, whether the rich want to pay for it or not.
long story short- if you belong to a church which administers and supports various charitable programs, and your church has not come to question an economic system that treats rush limbaugh better than your own neighbors (who actually do something productive, instead of selling ads on a radio show)- then i'm asking you- how can your church not add 2+2 and get 4? how can any institution which spends time with the poor not see the numerous roadblocks our economic system puts in their way? record company profits through layoffs and poverty wages are great for stockbrokers, but end up placing a huge strain on our secular and religious charities. poverty wages and easy credit nearly destroyed our economy, which also puts a huge strain on charities. which charities don't see this? and even worse, which charities see this and choose to do nothing about it because they can't find a bible verse explicitly telling them to? i guess somebody thinks he can get through the eye of a needle.
i think it's important to note that countries like france, britain, canada, post-war germany, to name a few, went, at least mostly, down the social justice path. so far, no communism, socialism, or fascism. no concentration camps or gulags. just bureaucracy. which, for all its negatives, puts people to work. and longer life spans. and some sweet-ass vacation time. for all of conservatives' attacks on our government-maintained safety nets, i don't see these fuckers moving to places that lack them, just complaining about their fellow americans who need them.
i guess now would be a good time to describe why glenn beck has pissed off a lot of christians who normally might agree with him. christians, traditionally, have considered it one of their church's duties to support and administer programs for the poor. and, technically, glenn beck doesn't seem to have a problem with this because apparently it's voluntary to give to christian charities. but many other christians go further. there is a branch of christianity that interprets the teachings of jesus to avoid wealth and give to others even when it's a sacrifice to oneself. these christians believe that charity from your excesses is only to impress others instead of actually fostering the sense of unselfishness jesus christ came to spread. some catholics took this even further to develop liberation theology, which supported the human rights of the poor against the property rights of the rich, especially in latin america. combined with the catholic worker movement, liberals and those even more leftist in catholicism have kind of carved an unofficial (and unapproved) niche for themselves. but even pope john paul 2, while no fan of communism, was also no fan of unregulated capitalism and unrestrained greed. his cyclical on treatment of workers makes andy stern of the seiu look like a libertarian. martin luther king considered it his christian duty to examine the causes of poverty itself, and attempt to eliminate them. king called this "a revolution in values", and he called on his supporters to not just fling coins at beggars, but to restructure a system which produced beggars (which is why the right should think twice before insisting MLK actually acted on conservative values). mormons actually require members of their congregations to donate, or tithe, 10% of their yearly income. they actually have to state to their bishop that they've tithed every year. this is not voluntary if you want to belong to a mormon congregation. even muslims are also in on the act, requiring all muslims to contribute a minimum percentage of their wealth to charity, and to show hospitality to strangers. this is not considered voluntary in islam. these contributions are considered a part of improving one's soul and one of islam's five pillars. social justice has a long history in various religious beliefs, including christianity. glenn beck may want to pause before he chalks social justice up to marx and hitler.
why is glenn beck so pissed about social justice anyway, and why would he think churches should shun it, and people should shun churches that practice it? because it's compelled by law. oh, my stars and garters! social justice is when you decide you've had enough of an economic system in which people who do the grunt work of a company make poverty wages. social justice is when you demand that health insurance companies do the job we pay them to do, or the government will step in and do the job better. social justice is when you decide that some money in taxes to support school lunches is better than seeing kids go hungry. social justice demands that our economic system value something besides profit. social justice sees people as more important than profit, and that our economic system must provide for us, not the other way around. we don't have to support unregulated, unprotected capitalism if all we have to show for it are fat cats and slums.
social justice does not denigrate charity. in fact, involving oneself in charitable acts is one way in which people learn about social justice. some who involve themselves in charitable programs see too many decent people who are not afraid of hard work but have bosses who are afraid of paying living wages. some see too many people thrown away by our economy from sickness, drug addiction, and the loss of one paycheck. social justice is what you do when you realize that private charities are not equipped to provide the help needed to everyone who needs it, especially in hard times when private charities cannot muster the donations to meet the need. that is why our government, which can compel you through fines and possibly jail time, maintains a safety net of its own. this safety net is not voluntary- giving to it doesn't make you look good for your friends, or get one into heaven. however, this safety net is always there, whether the rich want to pay for it or not.
long story short- if you belong to a church which administers and supports various charitable programs, and your church has not come to question an economic system that treats rush limbaugh better than your own neighbors (who actually do something productive, instead of selling ads on a radio show)- then i'm asking you- how can your church not add 2+2 and get 4? how can any institution which spends time with the poor not see the numerous roadblocks our economic system puts in their way? record company profits through layoffs and poverty wages are great for stockbrokers, but end up placing a huge strain on our secular and religious charities. poverty wages and easy credit nearly destroyed our economy, which also puts a huge strain on charities. which charities don't see this? and even worse, which charities see this and choose to do nothing about it because they can't find a bible verse explicitly telling them to? i guess somebody thinks he can get through the eye of a needle.
Monday, January 18, 2010
just ignore all the tinfoil hats
conservatives have spent the last month on a global warming binge. ever since winter came about a month late like it has for the last three years, conservatives have used the seasonal temperature drop to make you dumber "argue" that the moon landing was faked global warming is a hoax so the u.n. can create a one-world government through the hollywood elite. in addition, the stealing liberating of emails from a british university has set afire anyone who can't thoroughly read or research anything. this is the stupidest shit ever, especially since nasa can actually show you the data on worldwide average temperatures, sea level rises, and carbon dioxide concentrations and their rise. in a widget for the mac. and i have yet to see sean hannity's explanation for march-like temperatures in january in new york.
this leads to my point. in the last few years, conservatism has become dominated by conspiracy theories. global warming is a hoax. evolution is a conspiracy by atheists to wipe out christianity. obama was really born in kenya. taxes are a plot to destroy innovation and punish the rich. mexican illegal immigrants will return the southwestern u.s. to mexico. there's a nafta superhighway linking mexico and the u.s. and it somehow wipes out u.s. sovereignity. abortions cause breast cancer. the gays want toprovide safety for gay kids "recruit" your kids. the hollywood elite wants you to hate america. martin luther king was a communist. joe mccarthy was right, and was crucified by liberals. saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and syria helped hide them (or we found them). iran is definitely developing nuclear weapons. valerie plame was not a covert agent, and scooter libby's prosecution was political. joe wilson was sent on a tantalizing junket to niger by his wife, valerie plame. the clintons killed vince foster. it seems these days that whatever the conservative position, there's a conspiracy theory that supports it.
it says something about a political movement when thecrap they take straight from their asses "facts" they use are not supported in peer-reviewed scientific journals, are flatly denied by investigators, have no evidence to support them, or rely on deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting others, notably scientists (see richard dawkins) and prominent liberals (see van jones). it says this political movement has no credibility. there comes a point where anyone in the conservative movement who still has a working brain and some desire to be an honest human being has to ask: is it us? when your ignorant ranting "facts" have to come from a site that claims all other information is wrong, and only your site can be trusted, because the liberals have taken over everything else, then there's no reason why anyone should take your retarded scribbles "facts" seriously. and if there's no reason to take your fucking lies "facts" seriously, then why take your opinions seriously, or listen at all?
finally, my point. we seem, in this country, to have decided that all opinions are equal. but that's not really what freedom means. in this country, anyone is definitely allowed to hold any opinion they please. if you want to think nafta was a terrible treaty, that's fine. but if you base that opinion on a superhighway that doesn't exist, that's not a real reason. if someone dislikes nafta because it caused a loss of manufacturing jobs and can provide evidence of these job losses, that's a real reason. and that opinion is better than the opinion based on the conspiracy theory.
conservatives have complained that liberals tend to believe their opinions are "better" than conservatives' opinions. well, our opinions are based on peer-reviewed scientific research, investigative reports with source material, non-partisan fact-checking, non-partisan government watchdogs, confirmed journalists' reports, and confirmations from the state of hawaii. conservative opinions are based on firmly believing that the entire mass media is run by a cabal of liberals out to deny creedence to ignorant bigots "the truth", and therefore only information sources run by their fellow travelers can be trusted and are the only source of true stupidity "truth".
so excuse us if we pat ourselves on our backs for having done some fucking homework. excuse us for paying attention during the class on the scientific method and how it prevents or detects stupid mistakes and hoaxes. excuse us for using exhaustive investigations done by disinterested government officials or prosecutors. excuse us for insisting that reports by journalists be confirmed before ranting about them. if you could bother to do any of the above even for about five minutes, maybe one day i'll treat your opinions with a little respect. but only a little.
this leads to my point. in the last few years, conservatism has become dominated by conspiracy theories. global warming is a hoax. evolution is a conspiracy by atheists to wipe out christianity. obama was really born in kenya. taxes are a plot to destroy innovation and punish the rich. mexican illegal immigrants will return the southwestern u.s. to mexico. there's a nafta superhighway linking mexico and the u.s. and it somehow wipes out u.s. sovereignity. abortions cause breast cancer. the gays want to
it says something about a political movement when the
finally, my point. we seem, in this country, to have decided that all opinions are equal. but that's not really what freedom means. in this country, anyone is definitely allowed to hold any opinion they please. if you want to think nafta was a terrible treaty, that's fine. but if you base that opinion on a superhighway that doesn't exist, that's not a real reason. if someone dislikes nafta because it caused a loss of manufacturing jobs and can provide evidence of these job losses, that's a real reason. and that opinion is better than the opinion based on the conspiracy theory.
conservatives have complained that liberals tend to believe their opinions are "better" than conservatives' opinions. well, our opinions are based on peer-reviewed scientific research, investigative reports with source material, non-partisan fact-checking, non-partisan government watchdogs, confirmed journalists' reports, and confirmations from the state of hawaii. conservative opinions are based on firmly believing that the entire mass media is run by a cabal of liberals out to deny
so excuse us if we pat ourselves on our backs for having done some fucking homework. excuse us for paying attention during the class on the scientific method and how it prevents or detects stupid mistakes and hoaxes. excuse us for using exhaustive investigations done by disinterested government officials or prosecutors. excuse us for insisting that reports by journalists be confirmed before ranting about them. if you could bother to do any of the above even for about five minutes, maybe one day i'll treat your opinions with a little respect. but only a little.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)