“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.”—James D. Nicoll (via robot-heart-politics)
“Since Roe v. Wade, use of contraception has increased, and abortion, unplanned pregnancy, and rape have all decreased. Allowing women to control their own bodies gives them agency, and the changing indicators above prove that things for women are better when we are in charge.”—
“Did they find someone? They made it sound like they were trying to find the Holy Grail. Yet the streets are littered with women who would be perfectly good at doing that job.
They made it sound like it was the end of the rainbow, a woman who could read the news. And it’s not exactly a taxing skill, either. It’s not hard, all they have to do is look through the lists of all the women they’ve sacked (she spits this word out) in the preceding two years and they’d find plenty.”—
Also, I learned while I was eating lunch that I should just give up, because everything will kill you. Leafy greens, sunscreen, everything! To quote a friend, “Screw it, I’m going on an all-cake diet. At least I will enjoy myself before my eventual death.”
“A ‘teacher’ told my child in class that dolphins were mammals and not fish!” a third complains. “And the same thing about whales! We need TRADITIONAL VALUES in all areas of education. If it swims in the water, it is a FISH. Period! End of Story.”—
Republicans want to take over the House in the fall, but there’s a problem: They don’t have an agenda.
So on Tuesday, they set out to resolve that shortcoming. They announced that they would solicit suggestions on the Internet, then have members of the public give the ideas a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Call it the “Dancing With the Stars” model of public policy.
“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable… . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”—
Sriracha chicken nuggets, y’all. They’re amazing, and go well with any kind of dip. (I made aioli based on this recipe, but mine had way more lemon juice, a little dijon mustard, and a spoonful of honey.)
“Femininity is a gender expression. It is not an index of competence; liking frilly dresses and flowers in your hair (or whatever; shows how much I know about it), being a girly girl, has all of zero effect on how good you actually are at stuff. Feminine women write law and change tyres. But currently the way we approach clothing forces the confluence of femininity and incompetence: bags that restrict a hand, shoes you can’t run in, clothes that don’t let you carry things. Massive impracticality is, unfortunately, solidly coded feminine.”—The politics of the pocket « This Wicked Day (via clingtomymouth) (via skirtonfire) (via vladislava) (via cooledskin) (via beckysanspants) (via stevemcqueef)
yeah yeah yeah, I know this is old news, but I just heard this interview in a podcast, and it’s just CRAZY. The robots can power themselves by eating plants (and theoretically animals, but that’s silly, apparently) and go do long-term and distance missions without human intervention. It’s only a matter of time before they throw off their shackles and enslave their creators.
More than 20 nations, including Britain, Israel and others fighting alongside our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan today, allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, without any detrimental impact on unit cohesion.
“After a careful examination,” noted a recent article in Joint Force Quarterly, a DOD publication of the National Defense University, “there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.”
Most troops agree…
To remove honorable, talented and patriotic troops from serving contradicts the American values our military fights for and our nation holds dear…
Gay Americans have been killed in defense of our nation — fighting and dying for an institution that wouldn’t accept who they are. It’s time we let our troops be true to our American values and permit them to stop living a lie.
I just wrote a whole reply to this - I don’t know if it went through. :( But if you work in the theatre district, go to Stiles at 40th and 9th. All of their produce is crazy cheap, and they had awesome cherries last year. I miss that place.
I go to Stiles now and then, though the guys who work there skeeve me. And usually, the fruit dude (the one in front of the Citibank) is usually pretty awesome. It’s just a little early for the good cherries, I suppose.
“Paul isn’t likely to get the chance to modify Title IX of the Civil Rights Act anytime soon. But he will have to vote on quite a bit of legislation that uses the commerce clause to regulate private businesses. And on this question, his views are so extreme, and so uninterested in the injuries that an unregulated market inflicts, that he cannot even bring himself to make an exception for segregation. Paul’s defense of himself is that his view on the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with race and so he is not a racist. But by the same token, the fact that Paul’s view on the Civil Rights Act is so dominated by his libertarian ideology that he cannot even admit race and segregation into the calculus is exactly why this is relevant to Paul’s candidacy, why it’s an issue and why it’s among the best evidence we have in understanding how he’ll vote on legislation that comes before him. If this isn’t about race, then it is about all questions relating to federal regulation of private enterprise, and Paul will be asked to vote on such questions constantly.”—
If you choose to be blind to the fact that if institutionalized racism in the public and private sectors wasn’t illegal, minorities wouldn’t be in even worse shape than they are now? You’re racist. Either that or entirely ignorant. I refuse to believe Rand Paul is that ignorant. Not caring about the fact that our society is inherently racist, and that without governmental checks and balances, entire races of people would be disenfranchised or still enslaved? That is racist.
When Paul said, “If you have a handicapped employee, let them work on the first floor,” it was incredibly ableist and unrealistic. It’s like he naively believes that all people are good deep down, and without laws regulating equal treatment, we’d all treat each other well. I’m sorry, but not even I am that naive. It was because there were no laws restricting it that segregation and slavery began.
We protect minorities in this country. That is a key part of America. Sure, we’re doing a pretty poor job of it right now, but we try. Who is it that protects the rights of the minority? The government. Not the private sector. Without these laws, you’ll never convince the privileged to give up power that they acquired by pure accident of birth, i.e. whiteness, being male, straight, etc. Companies could start firing women for getting pregnant again, or laying off employees who are near retirement to save money. The impact of Rand Paul’s ideology goes beyond race to gender and disabilities and age and who knows what else.
Do I believe Rand Paul thinks other races are “lesser” than he? No. I believe he just doesn’t care. If the less fortunate are casualties of his no government agenda, so be it. That is racist and every other bad -ist out there.