I like both of the previous commentaries. All the time, I hear people complaining about either the people of or the woes of this particular generation. You’d really want 33% more people to be entranced by the need for constant digital connection? You’d want 33% more people to be added to the already cutthroat college admissions competition, only for her to be strapped with crippling debt by the time she gets her diploma? Do you want 33% more people to be added to the unemployed young adult demographic? Or 33% more parents struggling to overcome the fees required to take care of these would-be young adults? I don’t get it.
The strongest pro-choice argument I’ve ever seen.
Also, does that mean she would have “liked” Facbeook, like liked it with a thumbs up on a Facebook page, or just liked the platform, or… wait, I’m confused.
Sorry for the delay; I wasn’t ignoring the question, I was literally avoiding it, haha. The whole time I was worrying if you were going to judge me or if you were going to go on a spiel about how wrong I was but I finally realized you are, in fact, anonymous and you asked a very straightforward question about my opinion that you deserve a reply to. So I set out this morning convinced to answer this appropriately; I’m afraid I don’t think I can answer this one eloquently, though.
I am pro-choice. To be honest with you, this issue is one of the ones I am more pliant on, but there is one thing I am vehemently adamant about: life does not begin at conception. Maybe you’d rather listen to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow explain it; it’s ten minutes of lovely clarification. But if you’re going to forgo that, I will summarize: If life begins the moment sperm reaches the egg, anything that prevents that egg from attaching to the uterine lining, and eventually being birthed, is murder. Hormonal birth control (‘the’ pill and morning-after pills), IUDs, those ring birth control methods, and essentially, a miscarriage would all be considered murder. I can only imagine the confliction conservative women must be facing.
And something that I find quite interesting is the fact that the G.O.P. tends to advocate for a ‘small’ government. They don’t want restrictions on corporations, wealth, whatever. But when it comes to what you do with your own body, personal freedom seems to not be a priority. Also, when you sent this message, I was in the middle of reorganizing my archived Newsweeks. I always get sidetracked doing this, so I came across an article about a late-term abortion provider. (read it online here) At exactly this time in 2009, there were less than ten doctors in the country that could provide this service, with said doctors boasting abortion licenses in multiple states to help women all over the country. And it’s really terrifying what pro-lifers are willing to do to showcase their disapproval of abortion clinics: physician murder, threats to their loved ones, vandalization of both their personal property and that of the clinic’s. I’m trying to be objective here, but on the other hand, it seems pro-choicers just want to send knitted uteruses to their Congressmen. ;) (Pet was very giddy about this movement.)
Okay, let’s wrap this up with my favorite reproductive rights picket sign.
It’s a bit late, but this headline has reappeared on both my Newsfeed and Dashboard, so… can we talk about how seriously unfunny this is? I am not closely affiliated to any religion and I respect Pastafarianism and the messages they are promoting, but wow, too far dude. It undermines the legitimate work of counter-religious/pro-atheist actions. It’s just another action that those cliché political conservatives are able to point at and argue that the youth of today are not able to take politics seriously. Trust me, I heard the arguments that (the youth-driven) Occupy Wallstreet movement was a joke— that the young only want to have fun, wreck havoc, and undermine the work of the people actually trying to alter laws they find unethical. It’s disconcerting because you know there were young adults out in those Occupy demonstrations trying to send a serious political message. But because of the actions of some kids who ‘wanted to have some fun’, the whole movement was looked down upon by extreme right-wingers. This undermines the license system (there is a reason headgear is traditionally not permitted to be worn in ID photos!), people who are thankful that they are able to wear religious headgear in these photos, and atheists all over. Apparently he was trying to send a political message by doing this. What message?! The lack of religious freedom?You’re trying to send a message by poking fun at the religious freedom people do have? I’m not a fan of mindless ‘humor.’ Maybe my sense of humor is waning, but you don’t understand how frustrating it is to be grouped with people like this.
As a side (not-so-serious) note, O-M-G: this guy looks too much like Greg Kinnear.
I finally finished Marx’s CommMani which I paired with, for good measure, a couple of Rand essays from one of her mini-anthologies. I think I like the idea of double-reading, especially with books that create such a harsh juxtaposition.
Since I was little, my dad has subtly introduced me to concepts from communism and socialism, but also of capitalism. The leftist in me clearly favored socialist theories. But I didn’t understand why he spoke from such an impersonal angle— always third-person and trying his best to not enter his personal views… until about seventh grade. By that time, I began hearing the ugly jokes about communism that kids started to throw around. It’s definitely a hard issue to discuss.
So, from previous experience and reading opinions on the Interwebz (mainly RonPaulForums, don’t ask), it’s obvious that the number one argument against communism is the dissolution of individuality. Big, big, big issue. Both my Chinese teacher (who read Mao’s Little Red Book back when it was popular, if you know what I mean) and my dad agree that despite the fact that China as a whole has an impeccable work ethic, the edge America has over them is huge: creativity, individuality, and an immense pride in their work. I guess this is loosely where ideas of socialism and more specifically, democratic socialism come in. But for me, this is not enough. Why should people who work hard for their money have upwards of thirty percent income taxes? My APUSH teacher assured us they would still be in the upper rung of society, but it just doesn’t seem fair— a bit classist. Would someone care to explain the repercussions or downfalls of a fixed income tax? (but don’t be fooled, my view on taxes is definitely another left-leaning facet of my personality, see: May 2011, but if income taxes are raised, it would make sense for them to rise across the board, right?) ’Tax-cuts-for-the-rich’ would obviously be out of the question because that doesn’t even make sense, but drastic tax cuts to help small businesses and ease certain aspects of the below-the-poverty-line population’s lives sounds like a plan. And indubitably, this idea would call for stricter regulation of businesses to prevent monopolies and large conglomerates.
We’re doing political cartoons for APUSH and my friend let me use the ‘U.S.-Israeli Relations’ card she picked and I’m so excited. I was going to add a facet for the amount of U.S. aid sent to Israel versus the amount sent to Palestine, but then I laughed at myself because wowzzz, did I really just expect to aggregate parallel results on this subject? Just the idea of ‘aid’ is subjective. ಠ_ಠ
I’d like to think that the story about Rob Reich dating Hil in college before she went out with Bill is true and he’s still secretly bitter over everything because why else would he suggest for her to switch places with Biden to join Obama on the 2012 ticket? Haha, I keeed. But if Obama loses in November, I can already hear the “if only he stayed with Biden…” Anyway, despite the quite interesting proposal, I think she’s breaking wonderful diplomatic ground in her own right through her work as Sec of State. ALTHOUGH, I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE HER AS WORLD BANK PREZ; ALL THAT SPECULATION RAISED MY HOPES QUITE HIGH. But, Yong Kim is cool too. ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ
Obama had already repealed DADT, stopped defense of DOMA, and even made progress towards extending work benefits for LGBT employees, but the one-sentence confession of his opinion got ten times more press than all of that. My first impression of the hype was that it was merely political— an attempt to gain more voters. I honestly was not particularly surprised. But, my APUSH teacher brought up a very good point: it will definitely turn off a number of his supporters and I’m sure he was aware of that. The majority of the LGBTQ community was already in support of Obama, so maybe it wasn’t all said for personal gain. ;) Just kidding, I love him and he’s even greater in my eyes for finally taking a firm stance on the topic. It’s eerily similar to when Kennedy was able to announce his position supporting African American civil rights after three years of on-the-fence statements.
I had a wonderful conversation with one of my more politically conservative friends last week. Somehow we ended up talking about feminism, which led to talks about birth control and abortion. I really emphasize with her feelings of political confliction. Her friends agree with Romney on the idea that life begins at contraception. Well, it turns out my friend has been on the pill for two months. (she believes in abortion in special instances like rape, but I’m interested in her thoughts on morning-after contraception— what a toughie!) I’m disappointed because our bipartisan government makes it difficult for a conservative to support women’s reproductive freedom, especially in a time when said rights are in such debate. And also, what about that all-male birth control panel? You should be able to add some women who are as equally, if not more, qualified to discuss the issue, right?
People need to stop with this ‘Hil Clinton, au naturale’ thing. If I was involved in last week’s Guangcheng incident and had to be in India this week, I wouldn’t bother with hair or eye makeup either. If she was a guy, would this even be brought up? I think WaPo’s Annie Groer puts it best in her article on Ann Romney’s blouse.
“But America seems to be of two minds when it comes to how women who wield, or are wed to, power ought to dress. We want them to look good, be stylish, command respect and by the way, not take fashion too seriously or spend conspicuously on clothing, shoes and accessories, even if these women earned their own money.”
And it’s sad because this isn’t only limited to our views on American female politicians; in fact, it’s not merely an American view. What about those German and British U.S. ambassadors’ wives and their video slandering Syria’s Asma al-Assad? It’s almost always a lose-lose. Anyway, some right-wing comments on Politico about Hil’s appearance are ridiculous. When she spends money on her look, she’s accused of being too highbrow-elitist. But when she doesn’t… these comments happen.
There’s an article in a March 2010 Newsweek where Congressman Paul Ryan outlined his proposals for the national debt panel that was coming up. The two-page spread was (and is) really interesting to me because I rarely read right-wing propositions. (Yet I check Al Jazeera English weekly— does this mean something?) He clearly stated he did not support a national health care plan (big surprise there…), but his Medicare one is pretty interesting: “… turn Medicare into a health-care program like the one enjoyed by members of Congress; they will receive a voucher and will be able to choose from a list of Medicare-certified insurance plans that best suit their needs.” I don’t agree with a majority of the points he tries to make in the article (his Social Security proposal is also based on the personal Social Security plans of Congressmen— awk), but that’s beside the point.
When the 2012 Presidential candidates were beginning to actively campaign, I was pretty interested that Ron Paul’s name was on the expanding list of nominees. (Since he ran in 2008, I’ve been intrigued by his colorful character, radical ideas, and political party identity crisis— that’s my favorite!) Then I recalled the article. “Hmmm, ‘Paul’… I think he wrote a guest article for Newsweek…” I was confused for a while because the points made in the article were not parallel to Ron Paul’s positions. I recall pulling out my whole stack of 2010 Newsweeks and sifting through all of them to find the article. The author byline cleared it up quickly and I was disappointed I wasted my time on something that proved fruitless.
Fast-forward, well, two years. Everyone is freaking out over Mitt’s choice of a Vice President to add to his ticket. Guess who’s one of the Veep picks? Paul Ryan! I guess he might end up being a contender in the 2012 elections after all. Ha-ha.
Asma al-Assad is basically modern-day Syria’s Marie Antoinette. It’s sad to see all the support she used to have disappear so abruptly. But in response to the above gif… Women are expected to look presentable, yet they aren’t supposed to be openly concerned about their style? What about Middleton, Diana, Tymoshenko, Hillary Clinton (so what if she wants to spend money on her hair?!), Jackie O., and even Thatcher (pearls + power suits!)? Yes, they pay attention to their presentation, but does it provide basis to question the love they have for their country?
“This is not a U.N. product, this is not done by us as spouses; this is done by us as women who care.” If you cared, you would attempt to help Syria directly. If you cared, you would take the time to set up a diplomatic meeting- reaching out to her and supporting her, you would NOT make a video defacing her reputation. Because I get it, Syria is going through major civil unrest and it’s frankly disappointing that Asma isn’t more public at a time like this (yeah, it can definitely be viewed as selfish and suspicious), but come on, these ambassadors’ wives are mature adults; they don’t need to make others look bad in an attempt to ‘help’.
“Some women care for style, and some women care for their people” is one of the messages in a video created by wives of U.N. ambassadors from Britain and Germany appealing to Asma al-Assad, the wife with a penchant for glamour of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, who the west holds responsible for the current uprisings in Syria. The video is billed as an International Letter & Petition to al-Assad.
There’s a section about Jesse Jackson during the sixties in my APUSH textbook and seriously, this whole time I thought he was a right-wing extremist or something. I suppose I’ve been unknowingly harboring resentment towards him because of those comments he made about Obama in ‘08. I never really looked into it (or bothered look him up!!! Ugh, what’s wrong with me?), but I vaguely remember them and my own mind took it from there. I’m glad I got those preconceived notions (whose existence I’ve never actually acknowledged) sorted out because he’s really rad, Obama comments and my previous ignorance notwithstanding. Then again… I remember this picture I found on Tim Conway’s KFI page last year… Ironic.
This makes me happy, but it neither excites me nor gives me hope for the election. Are we talking about the same Romney— who seems to not understand the repercussions (which will affect us females way more than him) of saying ‘life begins at conception’? Also, good riddance, Santorum, but we all knew from the beginning that Romney should be the GOP’s frontrunner; Rick sliding past Mitt with thirty-four votes at Iowa was clearly just a minor setback. And let’s not talk about Gingrich because it’s obvious he’s more businessman/professional lobbier than a politician.
I need to get my hands on a copy! Suu Kyi and Burma’s revolution have not gotten sufficient attention. I’m sure anyone would be inspired after reading up on her, but I’m more anxious about her run for Parliament. Not only regarding the possible danger to her life (it was a miracle she survived the assassination attempt in ’03), but in a time where government officials and politicians are generally viewed as letter-of-the-law and corrupt, it’s interesting to imagine the long-term effect it will have on her reputation as her people’s guiding light. For example, it’s difficult to imagine that if Ghandi had the opportunity to become a politician in India before his death, his iconic reputation would have fared procedural politics.
The term ‘poverty line’ is used too often in economics. Who are we to discern what families are able to live with or without? Is mere survival enough to live ‘at the poverty line’? But if it isn’t, how much ‘extra’ material things and money are we supposed to allow a family to have before we deem them to be ‘well off’? How far are we supposed to let families and individuals scrounge for bare necessities before we step in? (and what can be considered necessities?) I think because we live in a first world country, people either assume families just can’t live without certain things or they assume everyone on welfare and food stamps is selfish and lazy. It’s a thin line that we should work harder to respect. I strongly believe in the spirit of federal help and it’s hard to imagine a government aid system that could function without prehensile people taking advantage of it, but I’m uncomfortable with our current aid organizations.