Monday, January 19, 2015

SAR #15019

Everything ends badly: otherwise it wouldn’t end.” Brian Flanagan

Worst. Idea. Ever: The Republicans Obama has found a way to repair and improve deteriorating US roads, bridges, water systems and such - "promote public-private investment.  That is, sell the country off a piece at a time, like Thatcherite England.

Balance of Powers: Over 80% of Americans want food labels to indicate the presence of GMO ingredients. Way over 50% of politicians have accepted money from the GMO designers and frankefood manufacturers, so guess what's not going to happen. 
The Long Arm Of The Law: British cops have finally arrested a high ranking political figure for rape of a child. No, not a Member of Parliament or a high ranking member of the Establishment, nope. An American. Boorish people, those Yanks. 
Words Matter: A new study reports that a majority of American public school students are poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. Note that it did not say that these kids and their families are living in poverty, just that they meet the federal guidelines for the assistance. Give the Republicans a year or two and then it will be “live in poverty”. The right will still not want them to eat, but at least they'll be poor enough to qualify for an occasional meal. And no, it is not because of all the immigrant kids.

Qualifications: New Afghan President Ghani has nominated Mohammad Yaqub Haidari to be minister of agriculture, in which position he would oversee opium growing. Mr. Haidari's prime qualification to take part in the ongoing looting of Afghanistan is a ten-year inclusion on Interpol's most-wanted list.

Incredible: The incredible story of the young boy who died, went to heaven and then came back and wrote a book about was... incredible. the first clue may have been that the author's name was Malarkey.

ROI: Do you remember all those pre-election TV spots where Republican candidates explained why it was important that they be sent to Washington in order to abolish anything standing in the way of the banks having another go at gambling with the taxpayers' money? Me neither, but they've already mounted two attacks on the laws put in place protect us at least a little bit from the banksters.

Things We Already Knew: The lesson to be learned from the outcry over the Charlie Hebdo killings is simple: if you want the world's attention you have to kill white people. 
Dear Diary: In defending our freedoms, Obama and Cameron insist that all electronic communications must be accessible to government agents. It will be quite all right to encrypt your data and communications as long as the government has “backdoor” access to the encrypted matter.

Priorities: The Republicans once again think they have been sent to Washington to make sure that no woman gets to decide anything for herself, certainly she cannot be trusted to decide if she should have a child – that decision should be left up to chance and to conservative, uptight white guys sitting around in Washington fantasizing about lewd women. 
Onanism: President Obama wants to reduce taxes on the middle class, eliminate the “trust-fund loophole" beloved of the Wall Street rich, raise the top capital-gains tax rate to 28% and add a new fee on banks with assets over $50 billion. He also would like a little respect from Sara Palin. None of this is going to happen.

Porn O'Graphic: Saddam's Statue Falls In a remarkable display of cynicism support for freedom of speech in France, if not in their own countries, 40 world leaders joined more than one million people marching through the streets of Paris. Or maybe not.


Anonymous said...

How telling that the man waits until he has Republican control of both Houses of Congress to put forth tax legislation -- now the situation (he helped make) clearly "excuses" him from not being able enact the legislation. He can't help trying to put on a show for the people, whom he already sold out during his first 100 days in office.

Cornel West had Obama's act nailed down; "A Rockefeller Republican in blackface."

Anonymous said...

to make sure that no woman gets to decide anything for herself, certainly she cannot be trusted to decide if she should have a child

The argument used to justify charging child maintenance to men when a woman with whom they have sex decides unilaterally to have a child from them: that if they don't want to run the risk that a woman will have their child and thus put on the the obligation to pay then they should just stop having vaginal sex with women. In the case of men it is called the "you could have kept your pants on" arguments.

Equally, women can decide for themselves to not have a child simply by stopping having vaginal sex with men. Women have reproductive freedom and can make their own choices about having vaginal sex or not.

Charles Kingsley Michaelson, III said...

Oh, nonsense. You are repeating the view that "vaginal intercourse" should solely be undertaken with the intent of having children. Sorry, Pope Francis, but mother nature rather cleverly designed humans in a way that not only makes sex for fun possible, but inevitable.

And accidental pregnancy is an inevitable by-product. And as a Social-Secuirty drawing unwanted chld who would have been aborted if it'd been legal, let me tell you that being an unwanted child makes for an interesting life. Hard, too, for more years than seemed possible.

Anonymous said...

Oh, nonsense. You are repeating the view that "vaginal intercourse" should solely be undertaken with the intent of having children.

Absolutely no, and that is a total misunderstanding and a woman-hating one at that.

You seem to deny that women have reproductive freedom: that they can choose to have sex with the risk of having children, or not have sex, or have it without the risk of having children, as they decide on their own.

You seem to have the impression that women are mindless sex crazed animals that cannot stop themselves from having sex and running the risk of having children, or are too dumb to realize with which type of sex they risk having children or not.

But women are free to choose. Choose sex and which sex and with whom, and are intelligent, self aware persons, capable of making a choice based on realizing the risk of consequences and take responsibility for that risk.

If men men have the intelligence and sense of responsibility to decide to "keep their pants on" if they want zero risk of a woman choosing to have their child, then women have the same intelligence and ability to be responsible to choose having zero risk to have a child from a man. It is all about *choice*.

Anybody that argues otherwise must think that women are irresponsible sex mad animals, inferior to men, incapable of making their own *choice* as to when, why and with whom they have sex.

And accidental pregnancy is an inevitable by-product

Men are told when a woman they have sex with decides to have a child from them without their consent that there are no accidental pregnancies: they could have have kept their pants on.

Anonymous said...

not only makes sex for fun possible, but inevitable.

Apart from this describing women as out of control sex maniacs who cannot choose for themselves how to exercise their reproductive rights, it is also heteronormative: women can well choose to have sex with other women, if they want to avoid running the risk of pregnancy, and they have the reproductive right to do so. It is all about choice.