- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 08:50
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Nathilus posted:
LOL. That read like a masterful troll. I don't understand why he chose Xanadu though. I understand it has connotations of a strange and far away land given its orientalist beginnings in the western consciousness but doesn't it also carry connotations of bucolic yet highly ordered bliss? It doesn't fit the metaphor.
Being an overpaid hack it was probably the most foreign sounding name he could think of "Gee don't we live in some strange country with all this twittering and sexting, It's almost like we're in some sort of uhhh, Xanadu!"
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2011 01:02
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
And here's a goodie
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/123663169.html
quote:
The headline on a June 10 commentary by Jack Schneider says that "History bends in the hands of ideologues," meaning conservatives like Sarah Palin. But why should I believe anything a college historian tells me when more than 90 percent of them are far-left liberals and have their own agendas when it comes to history?
I can read the same history books that Schneider does, but it doesn't mean I believe everything I read. The only way we can really know what took place is to own a time machine. Does Schneider have one?
Any event that happened in history always has a bias. After a battle or other historical event, even those who were involved will look at the situation differently than others who shared the experience. So whom do you want to believe?
Our politically correct college professors are constantly coming up with "new" evidence (that dang time machine again) concerning our country's history, trying to shed a more liberal light onto it. Where are they finding all this new information that makes our old history books so obsolete?
And speaking of history, our president once said we had 57 states, and that his uncle freed a concentration camp in Poland after World War II, when it was actually freed by Soviet troops. But naturally, our intelligent professors and the news media conveniently glossed over this.
Conservative politicians are not the only ones trying to manipulate history, there is a lot of that going around in the halls of ivy, too.
Kind of explains why Americans seem to score so poorly on basic knowledge of History
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2011 01:11
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
quote:
Free at last, he blames America first
Article by: JONATHAN GURWITZ , San Antonio Express-News
Perhaps Iran should have held at least one of those American hikers on trumped up charges a little bit longer
Perhaps a few more years in Tehran's dreaded Evin prison might help educate Shane Bauer about the differences between a country ruled by democratic laws and one ruled by repressive religious fanatics.
On July 21, 2009, Bauer and two friends were hiking in Iraqi Kurdistan when they were arrested by Iranian border guards. Whether they actually crossed the unmarked border remains an open question.
But in a country where women can be beaten for "immodesty" and gays are routinely hanged, crossing an arbitrary border is a serious matter -- particularly if you carry an American passport.
So Bauer and his companions were hustled off to Tehran, where prosecutors charged them with illegal entry and espionage.
Thus began a new round in a cruel game in which Iranian authorities excel -- hostage taking. After 14 months of high-level diplomacy, appeals from President Obama and the payment of a $500,000 ransom by the Sultan of Oman, Sarah Shourd was released last September.
Bauer and Joshua Fattal remained in Evin prison, a dungeon for thousands of Iranian dissidents, women activists and religious minorities where torture and murder are routine.
In an interview with the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, journalist Saeed Pourheydar recounted his own mistreatment during two months in Evin and those of others who were there much longer.
"Sometimes I was physically tortured, which included beatings during interrogations, sleep deprivation, once throwing me inside a cold water barrel, or keeping me naked outside in the cold," Pourheydar said.
"Beatings, urinating on the prisoner's head and face, hanging the prisoner by his feet, flogging, using electric shockers, hitting sensitive spots on one's body, and one case of horrible rape using glue, were parts of the physical torture my friends told me about."
Twelve more months of diplomacy and the payment of another $1 million from the sultan finally secured the freedom of Bauer and Fattal.
From the safety of Oman, Bauer issued a statement: "Two years in prison is too long, and we sincerely hope for the freedom of other political prisoners and other unjustly imprisoned people in America and Iran."
Political prisoners in America? Bauer was just getting started.
Upon reaching American soil after 26 months in an Iranian hellhole, Bauer offered up a manifesto of cringe-inducing, left-wing pieties.
"The irony is that Sarah, Josh and I oppose U.S. policies toward Iran which perpetuate this hostility," he said.
He allowed that conditions at Guantanamo Bay, where Defense Department procedures require that clean gloves be put on in full view of detainees prior to handling a Qur'an, are comparable to Evin.
He thanked a long list of people, including Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn, Muhammad Ali, Noam Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan and Yusuf Islam, the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, before mentioning that some U.S. officials also worked on his release.
You might be inclined to believe that Bauer is merely showing symptoms of the Stockholm syndrome.
But the moral equivalence and the smug belief that a blame-America-first philosophy entitles you to immunity in Iran's capricious justice system is precisely what you would expect to hear from someone who earned a degree in Peace and Conflict Studies at Berkeley, as Bauer did.
Welcome home to America, Shane, a nation where even ungrateful jerks have the constitutional right to malign it.
That ungrateful bastard had the nerve to thank Muhammed Ali before our troops!
And who's ever heard of torture and murder in American prisons?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2011 19:42
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Orange Devil posted:
When did Chavez become a dictator anyway?
"Well you see called George Bush the devil and an anonymous source just told me that helped Hezbollah build a giant, high tech underground fortress beneath Caracas. Also I don't really know anything about Latin American politics or history, but I did see Clear and Present Danger"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2011 20:44
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
You see the real problem behind unemployment is that college graduates are not willing to become ditch diggers or join the military.
http://www.startribune.com/business/134150043.html
quote:
I fear that the biggest risk threatening America's exceptional character is that more Americans would rather complain about the lack of job than go find one.
If you regard this as blasphemy, then tell me how a nation with more than 14 million people not working can have one single illegal immigrant fixing a roof , mowing a lawn, cutting a hog, washing a dish or changing a nursing home bed?
Some perspective is helpful to understand my fear about America's declining character.
During the height of the Great Depression, each of my parents left their respective Minnesota farms because the farm couldn't afford to feed them. My father took his eighth-grade education all the way to the 220-mile Colorado River aqueduct project.
While the better-paid digging crew jobs were filled, jobs were available to feed the 30,000 workers through a portable field kitchen. My father worked that backbreaking, 4 a.m.-to-11 p.m. job for two years, eventually saving enough money to return to Minnesota and start a business.
My mother, with a high school education, got a room in a boarding house in town. She took one job as a waitress, another as a store clerk and a third selling cosmetics door-to-door on straight commission. When she and my father married, he taught her how to cook while she withdrew from her savings the final $500 they needed to open the family business in 1938.
Forty years later I came home from a very active role in the Vietnam War battle known as the Tet Offensive. Naturally, I thought I had earned a vacation. My Depression-hardened mother had other ideas. After her fourth day of coming home from work and still finding me doing nothing, she said, "Well bum, how was your day?"
"OK, OK," I replied, "I will go get a job!"
She said: "That would be terrific. Now let's have some supper."
So with that personal history let's work through the following questions together and you decide if you too think America's character is at risk.
Roofs, restaurants and rose bushes: I'm not faulting the illegal immigrant for showing up to work. The 80-acre Larkin farm was procured from the sweat of immigrant great-grandfather Larkin who was brought here to build James J. Hill's railroad. I am faulting the 14 million unemployed Americans who daily walk past the roof, restaurant and rose-bush jobs.
Unemployment insurance: The U.S. Department of Labor issued a report that said unemployment insurance is a disincentive to seek new work. And yet, the only successful "jobs programs" presented by the Obama administration have been to borrow more money and extend unemployment benefits. I see Americans' desire to work being slowly euthanized with larger and longer unemployment benefits.
Unskilled labor: Would any out-of-work Americans take these jobs? In the 1970s, I taught defensive driving to big-city cab drivers. They were diversity squared, trying to feed families with these jobs. Properly driving a cab is hard work and it was once the source of income for many an American "in between opportunities." Not so any more.
Military careers: I just sat through another college graduation ceremony. Out of several hundred graduates that day, only three were on their way to officer candidate school, where they will be paid to learn about leadership and commitment. Meanwhile, most of their classmates will be moving back home to complain about their student loans.
Shifting careers: Millions of new customers are overwhelming the already-understaffed U.S. health care delivery system. Yet foreign-born workers are necessary to fill the open slots. Why? Analysts report that the health care industry's 24/7 staffing needs, coupled with its never-ending pressure on support staff labor costs, are leading Americans to conclude -- "not for me."
My parents were almost penniless when they were booted off their family farms. And yet, in the middle of the Great Depression, they thrived through work. America will again thrive and be great when each of us, and especially the Occupy Wall Street protester seen carrying the sign, "One more MBA without a job," understands that successfully finding work is less about a person's education level and more about a person's character.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2011 23:44
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Sometimes the letters to the editor in the local paper sound like they came Pawnee Indiana.
quote:
Alas and alack! Steve Berg implies that "Minneapolis/St. Paul" has blended into "Minnesota" and become invisible compared to Seattle, Chicago and Atlanta ("Which is of these is not like the others?" Nov. 20).
He surmises that we're culturally deficient compared with these cities and have ceased to be "up-and-coming." Berg and his "East Coast children" seem to be ashamed of what time-warped Minnesota has to offer.
Frankly, I don't care about being cosmopolitan. Seattle, Chicago and Atlanta have more serial killers, which Berg failed to mention.
Serial Killers, the new urban blight.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2011 23:59
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
This is horrible on so many levels
http://news.yahoo.com/poor-black-kid-122507789.html
quote:
President Obama gave an excellent speech last week in Kansas about inequality in America.
“This is the defining issue of our time.” He said. “This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what’s at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.”
He’s right. The spread between rich and poor has gotten wider over the decades. And the opportunities for the 99% have become harder to realize.
The President's speech got me thinking. My kids are no smarter than similar kids their age from the inner city. My kids have it much easier than their counterparts from West Philadelphia. The world is not fair to those kids mainly because they had the misfortune of being born two miles away into a more difficult part of the world and with a skin color that makes realizing the opportunities that the President spoke about that much harder. This is a fact. In 2011.
I am not a poor black kid. I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for me. But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. It doesn’t mean that there are no opportunities for them. Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind. I don’t believe that. I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed. Still. In 2011. Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia.
It takes brains. It takes hard work. It takes a little luck. And a little help from others. It takes the ability and the know-how to use the resources that are available. Like technology. As a person who sells and has worked with technology all my life I also know this.
If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. I would make it my #1 priority to be able to read sufficiently. I wouldn’t care if I was a student at the worst public middle school in the worst inner city. Even the worst have their best. And the very best students, even at the worst schools, have more opportunities. Getting good grades is the key to having more options. With good grades you can choose different, better paths. If you do poorly in school, particularly in a lousy school, you’re severely limiting the limited opportunities you have.
And I would use the technology available to me as a student. I know a few school teachers and they tell me that many inner city parents usually have or can afford cheap computers and internet service nowadays. That because (and sadly) it’s oftentimes a necessary thing to keep their kids safe at home then on the streets. And libraries and schools have computers available too. Computers can be purchased cheaply at outlets like TigerDirect and Dell’s Outlet. Professional organizations like accountants and architects often offer used computers from their members, sometimes at no cost at all.
If I was a poor black kid I’d use the free technology available to help me study. I’d become expert at Google Scholar. I’d visit study sites like SparkNotes and CliffsNotes to help me understand books. I’d watch relevant teachings on Academic Earth, TED and the Khan Academy. (I say relevant because some of these lectures may not be related to my work or too advanced for my age. But there are plenty of videos on these sites that are suitable to my studies and would help me stand out.) I would also, when possible, get my books for free at Project Gutenberg and learn how to do research at the CIA World Factbook and Wikipedia to help me with my studies.
I would use homework tools like Backpack, and Diigo to help me store and share my work with other classmates. I would use Skype to study with other students who also want to do well in my school. I would take advantage of study websites like Evernote, Study Rails, Flashcard Machine, Quizlet, and free online calculators. Is this easy? No it’s not. It’s hard. It takes a special kind of kid to succeed. And to succeed even with these tools is much harder for a black kid from West Philadelphia than a white kid from the suburbs. But it’s not impossible. The tools are there. The technology is there. And the opportunities there.
In Philadelphia, there are nationally recognized magnet schools like Central, Girls High and Masterman. These schools are free. But they are hard to get in to. You need good grades and good test scores. And there are also other good magnet and charter schools in the city. You also need good grades to get into those. In a school system that is so broken these are bright spots. Getting into one of these schools opens up a world of opportunities. More than 90% of the kids that go to Central go on to college. I would use the internet to research each one of these schools so I could find out how I could be admitted. I would find out the names of the admissions people and go to meet with them. If I was a poor black kid I would make it my goal to get into one of these schools.
Or even a private school. Most private schools I know are filled to the brim with the 1%. That’s because these schools are exclusive and expensive, costing anywhere between $20 and $50k per year. But there’s a secret about them. Most have scholarship programs. Most have boards of trustees that want to give opportunities to kids that can’t afford the tuition. Many would provide funding for not only tuition but also for transportation or even boarding. Trust me, they want to show diversity. They want to show smiling, smart kids of many different colors and races on their fundraising brochures. If I was a poor black kid I’d be using technology to research these schools on the internet too and making them know that I exist and that I get good grades want to go to their school.
And once admitted to one of these schools the first person I’d introduce myself to would be the school’s guidance counselor. This is the person who will one day help me go to a college. This is the person who knows everything there is to know about financial aid, grants, minority programs and the like. This is the person who may also know of job programs and co-op learning opportunities that I could participate in. This is the person who could help me get summer employment at a law firm or a business owned by the 1% where I could meet people and show off my stuff.
If I was a poor black kid I would get technical. I would learn software. I would learn how to write code. I would seek out courses in my high school that teaches these skills or figure out where to learn more online. I would study on my own. I would make sure my writing and communication skills stay polished.
Because a poor black kid who gets good grades, has a part time job and becomes proficient with a technical skill will go to college. There is financial aid available. There are programs available. And no matter what he or she majors in that person will have opportunities. They will find jobs in a country of business owners like me who are starved for smart, skilled people. They will succeed.
President Obama was right in his speech last week. The division between rich and poor is a national problem. But the biggest challenge we face isn’t inequality. It’s ignorance. So many kids from West Philadelphia don’t even know these opportunities exist for them. Many come from single-parent families whose mom or dad (or in many cases their grand mom) is working two jobs to survive and are just (understandably) too plain tired to do anything else in the few short hours they’re home. Many have teachers who are overburdened and too stressed to find the time to help every kid that needs it. Many of these kids don’t have the brains to figure this out themselves – like my kids. Except that my kids are just lucky enough to have parents and a well-funded school system around to push them in the right direction.
Technology can help these kids. But only if the kids want to be helped. Yes, there is much inequality. But the opportunity is still there in this country for those that are smart enough to go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 00:25
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
https://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/137316293.html
quote:Once again (this time in Wednesday's newspaper), the Star Tribune has printed a letter that attacks people by labeling them as hateful because they take a position against homosexuality. The paper should at least have required the letter writer to provide the reason for using that label.
Those wanting to change a societal norm about homosexuality have the burden to show the reason for this major alteration. They need to provide civil answers to questions like these:
1) Were our ancestors all dumb and bigoted because they thought homosexuality was wrong? Some may think that accepting homosexuality is innovative and progressive, but others say abandoning our previous norm may be presumptuous on our part. In other words, our ancestors might have been right, and we might be wrong.
2) Don't our sexual organs exist for reproduction? How does homosexuality square with that?
3) It is no secret that the human sex drive is a lot stronger than is needed for reproduction. Do we just give into those desires, or do we try to control them? The ancients told us that controlling our physical desires is one of the things that distinguish us from the beasts. Sexual desires, if not controlled, easily lead us into trouble.
4) Most everyone still agrees that humans can take their sexuality to where it is morally wrong. Almost all will agree that, among other things, adultery, pedophilia and bestiality are wrong. Why should homosexuality, which was once included in this group, be moved to normal sexuality?
Is it based on an argument that there is no moral choice involved in homosexuality; that it is a product of nature?
Couldn't others in the group above use the same argument -- they just couldn't help themselves -- they were born with those desires? Why does the nature argument work for homosexuality but not the others?
5)Prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted. Why is it going to work this time when all the other appearances failed? Changes in norms require universal acceptance. Why should we go down this road again when many, probably a majority, will always see homosexuality as going against nature, not normal? Can't we learn from the past that prevalent homosexuality will not work in society?
6) Here's one religious question, directed not toward those practicing homosexuality but toward those who support others who do. Should we be trying to encourage others to repent of a wrong, or pat them on the back as they go down a road that could lead to perdition?
The supportive group may consider themselves full of justice and love, but if there is a God who is opposed to homosexuality, as many religions claim, they may be doing indescribable harm to those they are patting on the back, and most likely to themselves.
• • •
These are nonhateful questions that need to be answered by those wanting to change an ancient norm. Calling your opponent vile names may work in the short term.
Many propagandists have used that technique very successfully. But if the underlying idea is not based on truth, it is doomed to fail.
If all you have is name-calling, you have no valid position. If truth is on your side, answer these questions in a civil manner.
* * *
Dan Nye lives in Edina.
I'm just asking non-hateful questions, but isn't homosexuality pretty much similar to pedophilia and bestiality?
Also what the hell does this guy mean when he says "Prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted." Does he think was there some kind of mass extinction in human history caused by homosexuality, or is it just "Gay sex caused the fall of the Roman Empire"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2012 03:16
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Here's a really wienery editorial.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/138590849.html
quote:
The glitter bandits need to permanently holster their confetti ammo. It's just a matter of time before armed security mistakenly believes a gay-rights activist is pulling a weapon instead of getting ready to douse a politician with sparkly stuff. Someone is going to get hurt.
Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney was the latest high-profile politician to get "glitter-bombed." The former Massachusetts governor twice had confetti flung at him at close range on Wednesday during a Minnesota campaign stop. Romney managed to look festive instead of flustered, joking that his new sparkly hairdo was a good way to celebrate his recent Florida primary win.
Romney joins a long list of conservatives who've been glittered in Minnesota and elsewhere: among them, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Minnesota Republican U.S. Reps. Michele Bachmann and Erik Paulsen. A news release sent out Wednesday by Minnesota activists to trumpet the Romney glittering vowed that "more glitter actions are certain to follow.''
That's a mistake. Further glitterings, especially of presidential candidates, place everyone at campaign rallies at risk. Security officers must make instantaneous judgments about suspicious-looking people who get close to the candidates and their families. Whether it's highly trained Secret Service officers or local law enforcement, it's incredibly difficult in those split-seconds to distinguish someone drawing a weapon from someone pulling out a hidden bag of confetti.
It's not hard to imagine an anxious officer firing a gun, especially when there's often no weapons screening of early campaign crowds. That the activists were able to get so close to Romney and his family Wednesday demonstrates how vulnerable the candidates are and why security is edgy.
There's a tendency by some to dismiss the glitterings as a high-spirited twist on civil disobedience. But it is unacceptable to put others in harm's way to make a political point. There's also a bullying side to the glitterings that undermines the gay-rights cause.
Glitterings are intended to intimidate and publicly humiliate people -- a reason why activists post unflattering videos of politicians cringing as they're glittered. This may feel like a small measure of justice for those who've battled a lifetime of prejudice because of their sexual orientation, but that's not cause for more intimidating behavior.
Glittering's mean-spiritedness only reinforces those who oppose gay rights, and it does nothing to win converts from those still on the fence. Activists need to ditch the dust. This is a risky, losing strategy.
Oh no those politicians might be slightly inconvenienced we need to take this kind of bullying seriously 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2012 00:27
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/144989015.html
quote:As a conservative, I am a strong believer in personal responsibility: You make the decisions; you take the consequences. Big government shouldn't be able to force you to buy health insurance. But if you make the decision to have no insurance, you need to take the consequence of having no health care unless you can pay for it out of pocket. Don't expect me (through my insurance premiums or my taxes) to pay for it for you.
The laws on the books (before Obamacare) force emergency rooms to treat people who come in whether they can afford it or not. This isn't freedom, or free-market capitalism; it is just government health care for freeloaders. As soon as the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare, I hope and expect that the true conservatives in Congress will pass a "No Care for Freeloaders" law -- if you don't have insurance and don't have a big wad of cash in your back pocket, you sit outside the hospital doors and stay sick, or die if that's what it comes to. At least you will die proud to have kept your liberty.
This just might have the same effect as the "individual mandate," since no rational person would decide not to get health insurance if they had to live or die with the consequences. If the court does strike down Obamacare, "No Care for Freeloaders" might just be our only path to universal and efficient health care.
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, ST. LOUIS PARK
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2012 22:14
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Jack of Hearts posted:
I'm So Bored With MLK
This is from a few months back on that same site, but I don't think I've seen it posted. This site is a fuckin' goldmine. I gotta give credit to the author of this piece for being at once unspeakably worthless and yet capable of using The Clash in his title.
e: Having read a bunch of his columns, Jim Goad is just the thing for this thread. His combination of smugness, racism, and overall worthlessness as a human being is actually so perfect that I cannot look away. It's...it's beautiful.
Jim Goad is human trash
http://exiledonline.com/jim-goad-begs-mark-ames-answer-me-please-jim-goads-mother-responds-in-an-exiled-exclusive/
Borneo Jimmy fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Apr 8, 2012
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2012 21:17
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/165790326.html
quote:America, please get out and vote in your primaries. Vote for Democrats or Republicans, but most important, vote moderate. We have tried the experiment of my-way-or-the-highway political extremes. Now is the time to do what works. Keep the moderate candidates on the ballot.
The nation is facing some very difficult challenges, and we need to elect people who are not afraid to make the difficult decisions and compromise. We cannot afford another four years of failures in Congress.
You cannot wait until November: Only voters have the power to fix Congress, and without a fix we will have four years of failure. If you do not want to see gridlock, uncertainty and a dysfunctional government, vote for change.
I beg you, for the sake of the country, to please vote moderate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2012 23:09
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577623882621734906.html
quote:We've Got Labor Day. Why Not Corporation Day?
It's high time we honored the industrialist pioneers, business barons and tycoons—the job creators—of our nation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2012 22:22
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/171252671.html
quote:I do not agree with how Mitt Romney delivered the message about the "47 percent." But the truth is, many of us have had similar conversations with friends. The difference is that we were not secretly filmed.
Having nearly half of American households receiving some type of government check is simply not sustainable. Yet that number will continue to rise. More and more baby boomers are entering retirement. I am in my early 40s, and my generation is the smallest out there and will be depended on, along with Gen Y behind us, to carry a big burden. Where is the money going to come from?
It is about time these issues get talked about. Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, risk losing votes talking about these things, and I am sure President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are smiling. But we are bankrupting ourselves, partly with programs that were designed to be short-term and help those in need for a short time.
Too many healthy American adults are on disability who should not be. I have heard it all -- my back hurts, I was in an accident, I get tired too easily, etc., etc.
Why do I not have compassion for them? Two reasons. First, when I go into my local Target store, I often run into a store employee who is in a wheelchair, a man who cannot walk or even use his arms or hands very well. He has trouble speaking clearly. Yet he manages to put on his Target badge and proudly ask me if I need help finding anything. Twice he has led me to what I was looking for. If he can do it, I think most can, and I think most employers are very accommodating for those with disabilities.
Second, my back hurts from time to time. I am tired. I work long hours. And frankly, my health is not perfect. But I work, and I do it proudly, and do not expect someone else to take care of me.
Having nearly 50 million Americans on food stamps is a tragedy. This number has grown tremendously, and the benefits have increased. We all know this is a problem but don't want to address it. The program is being abused, plain and simple. Fraud is occurring; recent articles noted that Minnesota has one of the highest levels of fraud on electronic benefit transfer cards.
Grocery stores across the nation open at midnight, when EBT cards get loaded, and run sales. Store managers and department managers will tell you (though not on a microphone or in front of a camera) that carts get loaded with lobster tails, crab legs, steaks, shrimp. This is abuse. If you need food stamps, great, but use them to buy flour, cereal, chicken, fish, fruits and vegetables and milk and cheese. Someone who is working hard and struggles to buy ground beef certainly does not need to see someone on the dole buying steak and lobster. It is an insult.
Medicare and Social Security were designed to supplement income upon retirement and for those who lost a spouse and have children to take care of. Two good programs with great intentions. However, over the past 60 or so years, things have changed.
People are living longer. The average American lived to about 65 at the end of World War II; today, the average is near 80. A 15-year increase, and 15 more years per person of cost. The age is now rising for full benefits, and for my generation we are looking at 70, with likely another increase coming before we retire. That will partially solve the problem, but remember, we are a much smaller generation. To fix a problem, you have to go after everything and get to the heart of the matter. Current recipients of these programs are rising fast, and those claiming benefits are living longer.
The big argument rises here: "I earned it." "They earned it." There are clear and hard-to-take answers for this: "No, they did not, and no, you did not." I know it hurts. It hurts to say it. I don't like it. But few have paid enough taxes into the program to sustain their benefits much beyond five years, in particular those in poor health requiring a lot of medical attention.
Today, when someone is 88 and their knee starts giving out, we give them surgery -- often expensive, major surgery and aftercare. I remember, growing up, seeing many elderly walking with canes; today, those canes have all but disappeared. Please do not misunderstand me, I want our seniors to be comfortable and live well. But I also want to make sure we can pay for it and do not bankrupt ourselves in the process.
Ask yourselves a hard question: Would you rather see a few more canes, or would you rather see America bankrupt and a situation like Greece's or Spain's emerging? I think we all know the answer is obvious; it is just hard to say. It is even harder to debate and discuss and solve, but it needs to be done.
----------------------------
Will Nagle lives in Apple Valley.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2012 16:46
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/329585/sesame-nation-mark-steyn
quote:Unlike Mitt, I loathe Sesame Street. It bears primary responsibility for what the Canadian blogger Binky calls the de-monsterization of childhood — the idea that there are no evil monsters out there at the edges of the map, just shaggy creatures who look a little funny and can sometimes be a bit grouchy about it because people prejudge them until they learn to celebrate diversity and help Cranky the Friendly Monster go recycling. That is not unrelated to the infantilization of our society. Marinate three generations of Americans in that pabulum and it’s no surprise you wind up with unprotected diplomats dragged to their deaths from their “safe house” in Benghazi. Or as J. Scott Gration, the president’s special envoy to Sudan, said in 2009, in the most explicit Sesamization of American foreign policy: “We’ve got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes . . . ” The butchers of Darfur aren’t blood-drenched machete-wielding genocidal killers but just Cookie Monsters whom we haven’t given enough cookies. I’m not saying there’s a direct line between Bert & Ernie and Barack & Hillary . . . well, actually I am.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2012 20:54
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/174277401.html
quote:
Just looking at the names, conservative and liberal (or progressive), it's logical to assume that the first group is going to be more apt to resist change: change in policy, style, fashion, technology, tradition, religion, etc. Sometimes what we discover via science is the trigger for such change. So it makes sense that, at times, conservatives might also be apt to deny certain findings.
Indeed, that's the conventional wisdom.
It's why books like this are written: "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science -- and Reality," by Chris Mooney.
However, when we enter politics, another wrinkle gets introduced: ideology -- how one believes the world should be. And ideology seems to mean more today than in the recent past. People are more active and reactive, more jumpy and fearful of who gets elected or that bill getting passed or the Supreme Court deciding one way or another. In the realm of that emotion, it's revealed that ideology creates enemies of science from all sides.
I recently saw this headline from Slate.com succinctly making this very point: "GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left."
GMO refers to genetically modified foods. The headline attacks progressives who rally against such food despite little evidence that it is bad for us to eat. It compares GMO opponents to the politically conservative-minded who deny evidence of climate change.
There are all sorts of other examples.
Stereotypically ...
Conservatives don't like:
• The science behind evolution.
• The science behind climate change.
• The science behind man-made climate change.
• The science showing the benefits of universal health care or any number of other government-funded programs.
• The science showing the benefits of treatment over incarceration for addicts.
• The science showing that homosexuality is not a choice (but they do then like the science showing how race and gender imprint certain behavioral attributes).
Liberals don't like:
• The science behind the safety of genetically modified foods.
• The science behind the impact one's genes has on intelligence, behavior and personality -- with the notable behavioral exception of sexual orientation.
• The science showing that the income gap between men and women is largely explained by gender roles in marriage.
• New technology that allows humans to consume at the level we currently are (Stephen Levitt, author of "Freakonomics," postulates that among this population there's an urge to see humanity be punished for what we've done to the Earth.)
There are wrinkles within this wrinkle. First, it's not exactly apples to apples, because liberals' problems with science sometimes go the other way: misusing scientific data to promote a cause later revealed to be bogus. Such scares historically have involved climate change and the supposed shortages of food, oil, forests and minerals.
This article from Reason.com introduces us to some of these wrinkles: "Conservatives Don't Care About Science. (Neither Do Liberals.)"
Second, one could go into economics. It's not as hard a science, though, so I didn't mention the shortcomings on both sides regarding the ignoring or misunderstanding of data and/or concepts such as economic growth, job creation, fair taxation and deficit spending.
Third, there are some issues such as vaccines and The Bailouts which see members of the right and left in agreement in their dissent -- albeit for entirely different reasons: concern of government reach vs. concern for corporate influence.
Whether economics, the use of science for one's own agenda, or good ol' science denial, I think it all boils down to what you're most afraid of -- afraid of change, afraid of being taken advantage of, afraid of others being exploited, afraid of being invaded -- that dictates your acceptance of truth vs. your insistence that your ideology is the way of the world.
In conclusion, people in general aren't very willing to undig their heels from the ground, even when given evidence that their ideas are wrong. My challenge to you is to recognize when you're digging in your heels at the expense of truth, for the sake of your ideology.
Why don't liberals understand  ?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2012 19:23
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Jesus Christ, people are still promoting that bullshit from "The Bell Curve?"
I also love how he touts GMO foods but thinks food shortages are some leftist hoax.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2012 06:54
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
quote:At the eighth-grade level, students were instructed on lesbian sex, including the use of sex toys.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2012 03:58
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
quote:Both major political parties profess great concern for our children and grandchildren. How concerned are they, really? Conservatives stand on "no new taxes" and liberals counter with "no spending reductions." Unfortunately, the truth is we have promised ourselves more than we can deliver. Our government has continued (and accelerated) its deficit spending. Do we really comprehend the nature and scope of these deficits?
The projected federal deficit for 2012 is $1.2 trillion. Let's put that big number in perspective with a paradigm shift. The IDS Center in downtown Minneapolis has an assessed value of $177.6 million. Therefore, the Treasury must borrow additional funds this year equal to what would be necessary to purchase 6,756 IDS Centers. That is the value of 134 such buildings in each of the 50 states. That is in just one year.
Since Americans cannot fathom paying for their own lives and indulgences, we need to change the paradigm, so that instead of vague references to an incomprehensible trillion-dollar annual federal deficit, Minnesotans see their children being buried each year under another 134 IDS Centers. This is no longer a debate. It is a financial and moral disaster.
Yes, this metaphor is much more comprehensible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2012 21:27
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Here's another awful article from Nick Kristof
quote:Op-Ed Columnist
Profiting From a Child’s Illiteracy
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: December 7, 2012
THIS is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability.
Many people in hillside mobile homes here are poor and desperate, and a $698 monthly check per child from the Supplemental Security Income program goes a long way — and those checks continue until the child turns 18.
“The kids get taken out of the program because the parents are going to lose the check,” said Billie Oaks, who runs a literacy program here in Breathitt County, a poor part of Kentucky. “It’s heartbreaking.”
This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.
Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.
Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.
Most wrenching of all are the parents who think it’s best if a child stays illiterate, because then the family may be able to claim a disability check each month.
“One of the ways you get on this program is having problems in school,” notes Richard V. Burkhauser, a Cornell University economist who co-wrote a book last year about these disability programs. “If you do better in school, you threaten the income of the parents. It’s a terrible incentive.”
About four decades ago, most of the children S.S.I. covered had severe physical handicaps or mental retardation that made it difficult for parents to hold jobs — about 1 percent of all poor children. But now 55 percent of the disabilities it covers are fuzzier intellectual disabilities short of mental retardation, where the diagnosis is less clear-cut. More than 1.2 million children across America — a full 8 percent of all low-income children — are now enrolled in S.S.I. as disabled, at an annual cost of more than $9 billion.
That is a burden on taxpayers, of course, but it can be even worse for children whose families have a huge stake in their failing in school. Those kids may never recover: a 2009 study found that nearly two-thirds of these children make the transition at age 18 into S.S.I. for the adult disabled. They may never hold a job in their entire lives and are condemned to a life of poverty on the dole — and that’s the outcome of a program intended to fight poverty.
THERE’S no doubt that some families with seriously disabled children receive a lifeline from S.S.I. But the bottom line is that we shouldn’t try to fight poverty with a program that sometimes perpetuates it.
A local school district official, Melanie Stevens, puts it this way: “The greatest challenge we face as educators is how to break that dependency on government. In second grade, they have a dream. In seventh grade, they have a plan.”
There’s a danger in drawing too firm conclusions about an issue — fighting poverty — that is as complex as human beings themselves. I’m no expert on domestic poverty. But for me, a tentative lesson from the field is that while we need safety nets, the focus should be instead on creating opportunity — and, still more difficult, on creating an environment that leads people to seize opportunities.
Oh and guess what this self appointed savior of women around the world has to say about a woman pregnant with twins who is about to lose her job
quote: Look, there are no magic wands, and helping people is hard. One woman I met, Anastasia McCormick, told me that her $500 car had just broken down and she had to walk two miles each way to her job at a pizza restaurant. That’s going to get harder because she’s pregnant with twins, due in April.
At some point, Ms. McCormick won’t be able to hold that job anymore, and then she’ll have trouble paying the bills. She has rented a washer and dryer, but she’s behind in payments, and they may soon be hauled back. “I got a ‘discontinue’ notice on the electric,” she added, “but you get a month to pay up.” Life is like that for her, a roller coaster partly of her own making.
I don’t want to write anybody off, but I admit that efforts to help Ms. McCormick may end with a mixed record. But those twin boys she’s carrying? There’s time to transform their lives, and they — and millions like them — should be a national priority. They’re too small to fail.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 04:02
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Reminder that he had own documentary on PBS about "Turning Oppression into
Opportunity for Women Worldwide" http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/half-the-sky/ but still peddles in stereotypes about "welfare queens"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 04:31
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/183251542.html
quote:As a 25-year member of the Minnesota Association of Public Employees (MAPE), I applaud Michigan's adoption of a right-to-work law ("Michigan passes sweeping limits on union power," Dec. 12). I have no right to "free association" in Minnesota. I am forced to belong to and pay dues to a union that does not represent my political or personal values.
Public unions in particular are the most insidious form of unionism. MAPE is "negotiating" with the very governor it helped elect with lots of union dollars. Additionally, many members of public unions have little appreciation for the burden to taxpayers in supporting our retirement, salaries and benefits, nor do they account for the economic realities of the private economy at this time.
This aside, the real issue is if unions are so great, why must people be forced to join? If unions offer legitimate benefits and add value, why can't they stand on their merits and principles? Why are they so afraid of free choice? Simple answer -- in the case of public unions, they don't add value. Primarily, they launder money for the Democratic Party. "Right to work" means the end of this stranglehold.
DEBORAH JOHNSON, ROSEMOUNT
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 21:45
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Former Israeli prison guard and Iraq war cheerleader Jeffery Goldberg reminds us that the Iraq war wasn't so bad because you know Saddam was a bad guy and we had to do something about it!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-08/was-the-iraq-invasion-worthwhile-ask-an-iraqi-jeffrey-goldberg.html
quote:Was the Iraq Invasion Worthwhile? Ask an Iraqi
By Jeffrey Goldberg 2013-04-08T22:00:35Z
In a recent interview with the New York Times, the writer Toni Morrison said, “I dare you to tell me a sane reason we went to Iraq.”
Her request is not unreasonable. We’ve heard similar arguments a lot over the past few weeks, as we marked the 10th anniversary of the war. There is widespread agreement that the American invasion of Iraq was provoked by a series of lies, neuroses, venalities and delusions.
And so much of what has happened over the past 10 years in Iraq has been undeniably disastrous. The cost in Iraqi and American blood and treasure is appalling, and the damage done to our country’s reputation -- and to the ideas that animate liberal interventionism -- may be irreparable. (Just ask the people of Syria, who are struggling against tyranny without much help from the U.S.)
One thing I’ve noticed over the past two weeks, however, is that Iraqis themselves haven’t often been asked about their opinion of the war. Iraq, after President George W. Bush failed to accomplish his mission, was a place of violence and chaos, but before the invasion, it was a charnel house. Saddam Hussein’s regime murdered as many as 1 million Iraqis in its years in absolute power. Many Americans forget this. Most Iraqis don’t.
Torture Chambers
The New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins, who wrote the best book on Iraq (“The Forever War”), recently recalled a visit, shortly after the invasion, to one of Saddam’s torture chambers, a place called Al Hakemiya. He met a man there who identified himself as Al-Musawi. The two visited a room where Al-Musawi’s “arms had been nearly torn from their sockets.” He had been hung from the ceiling and electrocuted.
“Today, in 2013 -- a decade later -- it’s not fashionable to suggest that the American invasion of Iraq served any useful purpose,” Filkins continued. “But what are we to make of Iraqis like Al-Musawi? Or of torture chambers like Al Hakemiya? Where do we place them in our memories? And, more important, how should they shape our judgment of the war we waged?”
His suggestion: “Ask the Iraqis -- that is, if anyone, in this moment of American navel-gazing, can be bothered to do so.”
I took Filkins’s charge to heart, and asked another graduate of Saddam’s torture chambers, a man named Barham Salih, what he thought of the invasion, 10 years on.
Today, Salih is the chairman of the board of the American University of Iraq in Sulaimani, which provides a liberal education in a place not previously known for such a phenomenon. In recent years, Salih has served as both the deputy prime minister of Iraq and as prime minister of the Kurdish regional government. He was in the camp of people who argued that Saddam’s decision to commit genocide against Iraqi Kurds (sometimes with chemical weapons) in the late 1980s made his removal a moral imperative.
I asked him if he thought the invasion was worth it.
“From the perspective of the Kurdish people -- and I dare say the majority of the Iraqi people -- it was worth it,” he said. “War is never a good option, but given our history and the brutality of Saddam’s regime, it may have been the only other option to end the genocidal campaign waged by Saddam against the Kurds and other communities in Iraq.”
Here is where his answer became a lament. “I must admit, however, that 10 years on, Iraq’s transition is, to say the least, characterized by unrealized expectations, both for Iraqis and for our American liberators. Iraq is not the friendly democracy that the U.S. had hoped for, and it is far from the secure, inclusive democracy that Iraqis deserved and aspired to.”
‘Inherent Danger’
He went on to blame Iraqis, rather than Americans, for the failures of the past decade. “Much can be said about U.S. missteps and miscalculations in this process, but there is no denying that Iraqi political leadership bears prime responsibility for squandering a unique opportunity to deliver to their people. This has been nothing short of a drastic failure of leadership on our part! The Kurdistan region offers hope that all is not lost in Iraq.”
I asked Salih to answer the argument that the Kurds -- who make up almost 20 percent of Iraq’s population -- were, by 2003, mainly living in relative safety in a region protected by an American-enforced no-fly zone. In other words, the invasion wasn’t a humanitarian necessity at that moment.
“All Iraqis lived under a regime that had complete disdain for human life,” he said. “Executions and killings continued at will. Thousands of Iraqis were being sent to the mass graves. The Kurds were never safe as they knew that Saddam could at any time decide to reconquer the no-fly zone.”
He went on, “Saddam was a menace to the Kurds, to the other Iraqi communities, and an inherent danger to the region. He was, from our perspective in this part of the world, a grave and mortal danger that we could never be safe from while he was still around.”
I take Toni Morrison’s beliefs seriously. The serial and tragic mistakes of the Bush administration, and the naivete of people like me, make questioning the value of the invasion necessary. I thought that Iraq, with competent American help, could make the transition to at least semi-democracy, even after suffering such physical and psychological damage during the bleak years of Saddam’s reign. But those who believe the invasion was an act of insanity -- especially those who fashion themselves as advocates for human rights, dignity and liberation -- should at least ask Saddam’s many victims for their opinion on the matter before rendering final judgment.
I would encourage Morrison, too, to talk to Iraqi victims. I’m sure the American University in Sulaimani would be happy to give her a visiting professorship.
oh hey and what about that awesome American university of Iraq?
http://www.alternet.org/story/148443/i_was_a_professor_at_the_horribly_corrupt_american_university_of_iraq..._until_the_neocons_fired_me
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/11/06/inside-the-american-university-of-iraq/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 22:13
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Here's a pure injection of crazy straight from the Huffington Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rakhi-kumar/michelle-obama-beyonce_b_3120434.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
quote:Dear Michelle Obama,
I'm addressing this to you because I admire you. Because you're smart and a mum to two young girls. And you're the First Lady of the USA. And because you were recently quoted as saying that Beyonce is a great 'role model' to your two daughters, and because you recently tweeted, after the Superbowl, that you were 'so proud' of her. I'm writing because everything you do is admired and emulated by so many; but when you endorse a recording artist like Beyonce, I see the most misogynistic aspects of the music industry (that prefers girls to be no more complex than dolls) interpret your comments as a seal of approval for the thoughtless cultural currency that they flood the youth market with. I'm writing because I think it's time to stop suggesting to very young girls that ultimate feminine success - in the music industry or anywhere else - comes with the need, or the expectation for them to undress.
When Beyonce kicked off her Mrs. Carter Show World Tour two nights ago, wearing her sheer bodysuit with nipples showing, to me she performed the final degradation of her talent; a retrogressive transformation that has taken someone stellar and otherworldly, and made them into something dreadfully familiar and sad.
Variations of Beyonce's body suit can be found in brothels, strip clubs and red light districts across the world - where sex is for sale and it happens to be dispensed through a woman's body. That she is a human being with feelings and dreams, perhaps a sister, a mother, a leader, a teacher, a student - ALWAYS - a daughter - all of this can be forgotten. In those surroundings a suit like Beyonce's would look far from glamorous. Maybe just downright heartbreaking as a woman somewhere becomes an object, available for the gratification of a desire - at a price dictated by her 'managers'.
Next time you're presented with a shortlist of people in popular culture who you should spend time with or commend, think about how many young girls want to be just like Beyonce: Beyonce who sings 'Bow Down Bitch' and wears sheer bodysuits and high heels, singing about making money and being independent.
Remember that in the USA, the average age of a girl when she is trafficked for sex for the first time is 13.
Remember that she's often brought into the 'life' by drug dealers who promise her a celebrity lifestyle, clothes like the ones Beyonce wears, and situations where she can live like Queen Bey: looking hot, being desired by alpha males, wielding power over others with her body and sexuality.
Understand that in an obscene act of manipulation by the young men who will pimp them, for a very short amount of time - maybe only for a half an hour in one of their early encounters - young girls who are trafficked do actually get to taste the experience that they have identified as ultimate feminine success: they get given hot pants or body suits like the one Beyonce's dancing in, they dance for men who find them alluring, and for a very short time, these very young girls are convinced that they've made it - only to be assaulted, abused and sometimes murdered in the years ahead, by the men who they thought wanted them.
Beyonce, performing in sheer body suits, nipples displayed, mouth open, high heels and sheer tights, shaking her butt on stage, can no longer be held by world leaders as an icon of female success.
Because for as long as she is, we are feeding a demonic myth that women must make themselves sexually available to enjoy ultimate success. And it is demonic because the impact this myth has on those most vulnerable young girls who fall pray to, is unimaginably horrible.
It can take years of a young girl's life away from her when she tries to escape a life of abuse at home by believing promises of money and glamor, sexual allure and power - a life just like the most successful women in the world; only to be sold for sex, beaten, and made addicted to drugs. It can take a chance of an educated, secure future away from her; and sometimes, if she can't find an exit - it can take her very life away from her.
Beyonce is a singer and a songwriter. She doesn't need to wear see through clothes or body suits to sing. We know that because we've seen her singing accapella in a hospital in a pair of jeans and a T-shirt and - and she sounded like a celestial being from a different dimension.
She doesn't have to do this. She's choosing to. And she's not the first or only one woman to do it. And like the many women who have played this game the way they have, her reasons may be economic, artistic, personal or even misunderstood.
But whatever her reasons, her influence cannot be underestimated or misunderstood.
And it's time that young girls were sent a different message. A more refined, intelligent message. A message that engaged them at the level of their intellect and potential because implicit in our message to them should be the acknowledgement that they are naturally brilliant and that we believe that they are capable of everything -without ever having to undress to achieve their success.
The work here is to re etch the self image and self worth of young girls who think that sexualizing themselves is necessary to be powerful or successful.
So please - let it be known that Beyonce is not a role model.
She may have a lot of money, and she may have enormous influence.
But she can no longer be called a role model.
(Unless you think it would be really cool for Sasha or Malia to follow her example and sing songs for people on a stage whilst wearing sheer gold glitter bodysuits detailing the contours of their body, under the management of their daddy and/or their husband).
Instead, call out those who deliberately allow their sexual identity to eclipse the genius of their spirit and sacredness of their soul. Tell young girls that they are more than that. Engage with artists who sing, dance, write, design, perform - but whose presentation centers on showcasing the brilliance of their brain, not their body.
If I had daughters I'd tell them to pass on the Beyonce show because when you're wearing a sheer see through body suit with nipples on display, no matter how much gold thread in it - I don't see any light coming out of it. I just see a glowing ball of soullessness.
I'd say to my girls - all that's gold doesn't glitter. Let's find something genuinely luminous...and take them to a Lorna Simpson exhibition, or a C.C White concert, or hand them a Zadie Smith book.
tl;dr Beyonce's clothing will enfluence young teenage girls to become prostitutes.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 17:30
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
Are there people who still think Foreign Policy is a serious magazine?
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/28/would_martin_luther_king_have_supported_a_syrian_intervention
quote:
n January of 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr., en route to Jamaica for a vacation, picked up a copy of Ramparts magazine and sat down to read a story about the plight of Vietnam's children. According to his assistant, Bernard Lee, King froze as he saw the photos -- including one of a Vietnamese mother holding her dead child -- that accompanied the story. It was then, Lee claims, that King made up his mind to forcefully oppose the war in Vietnam.
The story of King's conversion into an anti-war activist is one worth considering today, amid war rumblings over Syria and commemorations in Washington of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Had he not been assassinated, King may well have woken up one day last week and been equally horrified at the images of dead Syrian children in the arms of their mothers.
While King had always been broadly opposed to the war in Vietnam, the tactical realities of the civil rights movement made outspoken opposition to the war dangerous. King and his broad coalition of civil rights groups were reliant on a cooperative federal government to enforce anti-discrimination provisions in recalcitrant Southern states. Wary of antagonizing his allies in the White House -- during both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations -- King bit his tongue as the war in Vietnam escalated.
But realities on the ground -- both in the United States and in Vietnam -- soon changed King's calculus. The waning of the civil rights movement in the late 1960s -- and the rise of a more militant Black Power movement hostile to King's message of non-violence -- freed King from the tactical considerations that had made opposition to the war difficult. And as a larger number of black Americans were sent to Vietnam to defend freedoms that they were denied at home, King could no longer stay silent in the face of what he viewed as a deeply immoral war.
Prior to his anti-war activism, King had adopted a more sweeping worldview that foreshadowed his stance on Vietnam. The Atlanta minister was well aware that he lived in revolutionary times. By this he meant not just the push for racial equality in the United States, but also the broader anti-colonial struggle playing out against the background of his own efforts. Around the world, oppressed people were throwing off the yoke of colonialism, and King fully embraced the movement. Early in the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955, for instance, King saw the protest as part of an "overall movement in the world in which oppressed people are revolting against ... imperialism and colonialism." In short, black liberation in the United States and in Africa were movements against similar forces.
It is intriguing to consider, then, what King would have made of today's revolutionary times. As during the period of decolonization, the Arab Spring has unleashed a new wave of revolutions in which oppressed people have clamored for rights long denied them. Though the toppled regimes in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen did not stand for outright racist oppression, the yearning for freedom and the speed with which the revolutions spread bear similarities to the 1960s.
King may have found common cause with anti-colonial efforts, but he also grew disappointed with the violent turn that accompanied decolonization. Early in his career, King had traveled to India and tried to absorb the lessons of Gandhi's non-violent, anti-imperialist struggle -- rules that he applied to his own movement and hoped would spread around the world. When they did not, King's views became more radical. His commitment to non-violence remained, of course, but the violent reactions to the civil rights movement in America and armed struggles for independence elsewhere convinced King that the problems he sought to eradicate -- racism, poverty, and militarism -- were more deeply rooted than he had realized. This led him to conclude, in 1967, that there existed the "need for a radical restructuring of the architecture of American society."
In April of that year, King delivered his well-known denunciation of the American war in Southeast Asia -- a semon given at the Riverside Church in New York City and titled, "Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence." In a speech that may have had as much to do with uniting his sputtering civil rights movement with the anti-war movement as it did with shedding his reluctance to make the war a central element of his activism, King condemned the United States as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." Vietnam, King argued, threatened to corrupt the soul of America, as nowhere was the stark divergence between American values and actions more evident.
The speech generated the anticipated reaction at the White House. Upon reading the sermon, one aide reportedly exclaimed, "My God, King has given a speech on Vietnam that goes right down the commie line!"
For its time, King's speech was certainly radical. By openly sympathizing with Ho Chi Minh, King made no friends among the Washington establishment. But King had few options in denouncing the war: Expanding war-time expenses threatened to defund Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty and undermine the central achievement of the civil rights movement. As he put it later in 1967: "Here we spend thirty-five billion dollars a year to fight this terrible war in Vietnam and just the other day the Congress refused to vote forty-four million to get rid of rats in the slums and the ghettoes of our country." In his desire to ensure that war-time expenditures would not cannibalize social programs, King has something in common with President Obama, who has worked to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to "focus on nation-building here at home."
But amid soaring casualties and allegations of chemical weapons use in Syria, would King support airstrikes against the Assad regime? Like Obama, King would in all likelihood have sympathized with the rebels working to unseat Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. But he would also have deplored their tactics. In King's day, the idea of humanitarian intervention had not yet taken hold, so it's difficult to evaluate how King would have responded to the use of nerve gas against civilians. He certainly would have been outraged, but would he have supported the use of retaliatory force? Given King's commitment to non-violence, it seems unlikely.
Still, it is important to remember that King was no outright pacifist. He was an avid student of the theologian and philosopher Reinhold Niebuhr, who argued that in the face of tyranny and violence an armed response can sometimes be justified. Niebuhr is also one of Obama's favorite philosophers. In 2007, when asked what he had taken away from Niebuhr, Obama offered something of a prescient preview of his often-militarist foreign policy: "I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world"; that "we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate these things, but we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction"; that "we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naive idealism to bitter realism."
It's a foreign policy King might have gotten behind.
While indeed King opposed America's war in Vietnam, but maaaaaaabyeeeeee hypothetically, you know he would totally get behind bombing Syria with drones and cruise missiles.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2013 19:48
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
This woman would've had a good point if she had not chosen the worst analogy possible
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/226825631.html
quote:According to some theories, Tony Blair (former British Prime Minister) supported the United States in Iraq not only because he wanted to preserve the special relationship, but also because he believed going to war was morally right. He supported the war without regards to his party’s support.
The Iraq war is in no way, shape, or form, similar to the government shutdown, but Blair’s approach to it is still one to be admired. Boehner needs to forget about being in good standing with Republicans, and do what is morally right for this country.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2013 03:32
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
The Washington Post is usually terrible and full of poo poo when it comes to Latin America but this one is truly shameless
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mexicos-oil-breakthrough-opens-the-door/2013/12/15/7f0393e6-6414-11e3-91b3-f2bb96304e34_story.html
quote:WHILE CONGRESS was congratulating itself on reaching a minimalist bipartisan deal on the budget, Mexico demonstrated how a more functional democracy can tackle a nation’s biggest and most sensitive problems. The ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and the opposition National Action Party (PAN) joined last week to pass a constitutional amendment dismantling what, for Mexico, is the mother of all political third rails: the state’s monopoly on oil production. While the fight’s not entirely over and its benefits won’t be seen for several years, the action is a triumph for President Enrique Peña Nieto, and it opens the door for a Mexican economic takeoff.
Using terms like functional or democracy to describe Mexico would have been far-fetched not so long ago. Not until the 1990s did the country have genuinely free and competitive elections, and when the PRI was finally ousted from power by the PAN, the result was gridlock that left long-festering problems unaddressed. Chief among them was the state oil monopoly Pemex, which lacked the capital or expertise to develop new fields offshore but which was prevented from partnering with multinationals by a constitutional commitment to nationalization considered sacrosanct by two generations of Mexicans. With reform blocked, Mexico’s oil production declined by a quarter in the last decade, and exports to the United States declined by a third.
Mr. Peña Nieto, who took office a year ago, managed to break the impasse by fashioning Mexico’s version of a grand bargain with the PAN and left-wing legislators. The parties agreed on and passed a series of groundbreaking reforms in education, taxation, banking and telecommunications. Among the key results was to break the stifling power of Mexico’s corrupt teachers unions and expose private telephone and television conglomerates to competition.
While some of those reforms were watered down as they moved through Mexico’s congress, the oil reform was made more ambitious, thanks to pressure from the PAN and the counterproductive decision of leftists to adopt a strategy of intransigence. Foreign firms will be able to partner with Pemex, to explore and drill for oil, and to book expected revenues from production for accounting purposes, a key to obtaining financing. The notoriously inefficient Mexican firm will have a revamped governance that eliminates union members from its board. Private companies also will compete to supply electricity to the national grid, which should lower energy costs for consumers and industry.
The courage of the reform program can be seen in Mr. Peña Nieto’s lackluster opinion polls: The payoff will mostly be in the longer term, so most Mexicans have yet to see tangible improvements. Economic growth has been lackluster in the past year and the drug war — the focus of Mexico’s most recent previous president — drags on. It’s still possible that the oil reform could be stopped — it must be ratified by Mexican states and implemented in legislation — and it’s possible opponents will succeed in winning approval for a referendum.
For now, however, Mr. Peña Nieto and his coalition can savor a historic breakthrough that positions Mexico to restore its place as a major oil producer, attract billions in investment and modernize its economy. As Venezuela’s economy implodes and Brazil’s growth stalls, Mexico is becoming the Latin oil producer to watch — and a model of how democracy can serve a developing country.
Calling a corrupt gangster state privitizing public services as "democracy in action" is a bit of a stretch.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2013 05:48
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2024 08:50
|
|
- Borneo Jimmy
- Feb 27, 2007
-
by Smythe
|
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/245282681.html
quote:You’ve got to be kidding. At what point have I become responsible for feeding the neighbor kid? Children need to be taught that if they don’t have any money, they can’t eat. Now, if parents are unable to supply the minimum money for their children to eat lunch, they most likely are unable to supply their children with any type of parenting, and shouldn’t have children, or their children should be removed from them.
If you disagree, I hope that you will pay for my McDonald’s the next time I walk in without any cash.
Bret Collier, Big Lake
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2014 11:04
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2011 00:16
