Links of Great Interest: In which Maria has computer problems?

Signal Boost: Get Limbaugh off AFN.

Signal Boost: Blue Cross Blue Shield denies policy holder continued care.

Looking for bellydance swag?

Go Vermont!

Orange goo mystery solved.

How Ayn Rand became the Right’s Marx.

On the pricing of healthcare

More on this Kony 2012 campaign.

The military and sexual assault.

Santorum must not be a very happy person.

Go Lakotas!

Sarah Palin continues to mess around the idea of running for Pres.

A bit about bra bands

The first vertical forest

From SunlessNick, a link on modern day slavery:

Modern Day Slavery in New York.

The fallout from Rush’s anti-woman tirade.

FOOD FOREST! I guess Seattle’s the place to be in a zombie apocalypse.

Why not gender neutral clothes?

How Defying Gravity would have ended.

More on the slut-shaming of a politically active college student.

Does America hate children? Yes.

From Casey:

From FeministFreedomFighters on Tumblr, a post explaining the
difference between open and close-minded scientists, creationists and
feminists…which made me give a massive side-eye. I’m perfectly
content being a “close-minded” feminist since men DO NOT experience
sexism in “equal and parallel ways” with women, fuck you very much.

From Jenn:

Limbaugh calls a woman a “slut” and “prostitute” for advocating health care coverage for contraception, and people actually take offense? As in, people other than us “feminazis”? Is that even possible? The cynic in me finds that so implausible that I wonder if this is actually HIS publicity machine stirring it up for their own agenda.

Hooray for Pudding the Cat!

Birth control is great for everyone.

This story makes me feel gross. She’s a tax payer too.

More on the TSA nude body scanner.

Comments

  1. says

    I was appalled to learn Limpballs had ever been on AFN. That’s not “diverse”, as they apparently claim is the purpose of it. That’s just hate mongering.

    BTW, since they are being so diverse, can someone tell me when they play feminist and anti-racist talk radio on AFN? *tumbleweed rolls by*

    What I wanna know is: if a state adopts the idea that corporations are people, and also that fertilized eggs are people, then what’s the corporate equivalent of abortional homicide? I mean, like, if I THINK about starting a corp, but then decide there’s a better way to do my business, am I a murderer?

    LOVE the link on pricing of medical care in US, because it debunks the accepted ideas that (a) we just use more medical services and (b) the high price we pay is funding great research to a degree that makes the tradeoff worthwhile. It’s just totally unnecessary profiteering, and everyone who defends it should be one of the unfortunate people who get terrifically and very expensively sick.

    Also love the link about Kony, because I looked at that briefly the other day, and it had a feel of “Let’s find a black guy that will rile people up and make them send us money – people hate black guys, and I’m sure we can find one who’s doing bad stuff”. Kony is sadly not remotely unique, so their singling him out for this profitable “awareness” campaign just struck me as using racism for profit.

    Good for these women fighting the military’s tolerance of sexual assault! This quote chilled me to the bone: “One woman says she tried to commit suicide after being raped inside her home by a senior officer and his civilian friend.” Jesus Christ.

    Go Lakotas, indeed! Awesome!

    Re: childism. I don’t know why it escaped 90% of the commenters, because the answer is so obvious to anyone who has, like, observed children ever. Discipline – the setting and non-violent enforcement of *consistent* limits – is an important part of nurturing a child. I’ve seen children whose parents refuse ever to say “no” to them, and you can tell they are CRAVING a good no. They need to know somebody’s in control, because otherwise they think they have to be, and that’s parentification (think Saffy on AbFab) and it’s a really bad thing. The problem is, we’ve had such a lengthy culture of abuse toward kids that most people don’t realize discipline is simply (a) telling kids how it’s going to be and (b) creating reasonable, applicable consequences when they don’t do as they were told. And (c) not being a huge hypocrite. It takes work and some creative thinking, so naturally a lot of lazybrains are really bad at it. Which is why they shouldn’t have kids.

  2. Azzy says

    When I heard about Limbaugh calling Fluke a slut and a prostitute, the only thing going through my mind was, “And? So? Even if she IS both of those, that still makes her more qualified to offer an opinion on the issue than a bunch of elderly male virgins who don’t pay taxes.”

    Re: Kony, I saw only half of that piece of shit documentary. There were honestly moments where I was just thinking, “for fuck’s sake, will you TELL ME what’s going on in Uganda already? I don’t give a crap about your kid!” and I just… I gave up. It reeked of “condescending white people missing the point”. But I had no idea how damaging IC really was until someone on Tumblr pointed it out. I hope to fuck that this Kony fad meets its timely demise soon. Blah.

    Also Pudding is a good cat name. I approve.

  3. SunlessNick says

    I’m with Casey on the open-minded/bigoted feminist. I also note that most feminists of my acquaintance do maintain that patriarchy hurts men, and write about it far more thoughtfully than most MRA’s do. Maybe it should be open-minded/bigoted readers of feminism.

    Azzy,

    “And? So? Even if she IS both of those, that still makes her more qualified to offer an opinion on the issue than a bunch of elderly male virgins who don’t pay taxes.”

    Well put.

  4. Dani says

    Thanks for the Kony link. The more I read and research, the more this screams “White Man’s Burden”; plus, I don’t trust ANY intervening military to “help” another nation without some ulterior motive – the world just doesn’t work that way.

  5. says

    JT,

    It’s okay to leave relevant links in threads, but we do prefer they be emailed to us (especially if they’re actually intended as submissions for next week’s LOGI) because we don’t all see every comment, but we do read every email. :) And this looks like a link I think we should feature in a post.

  6. nicky p says

    Ayn Rand is always kind of confusing to me. If wealth is right and the rich have no social obligation to assist the poor, etc., then why should the poor behave any differently toward the rich? If it is within their collective selfish interest to pull their resources together, form governments and laws, and “take advantage of the wealthy,” then aren’t they adhering to her philosophy more than anyone else is? If the poor deserve to die because they are poor, then don’t the rich deserve to be shackled by the poor that they lack the resources and wealth to “escape” from?

    Maybe her philosophy isn’t confusing insomuch as it is childish. According to Rand, the rich have the right to use their power in any way that they please for their own self interests. When the poor play by the same rules, acting in their individual self-interests but using the collective power they have that comes not only in the form of monetary wealth, but in the form of social pressure, protest, etc. she says that’s unfair. The entire philosophy of objectivism can basically be surmised as, “I’m taking my toys and going home! You guys are cheating! Waahhhhh!”

  7. SunlessNick says

    Fundamentally, Rand’s morality is based on identity. “Good” for her is that rich people get to do what they want, poor people get to have it done to them. She adds some dispensation for narcissists and sociopaths – a few get to be honorary rich people, like that child-rapist she wrote an article gushing over.

  8. MaggieCat says

    nicky p:Maybe her philosophy isn’t confusing insomuch as it is childish. According to Rand, the rich have the right to use their power in any way that they please for their own self interests. When the poor play by the same rules, acting in their individual self-interests but using the collective power they have that comes not only in the form of monetary wealth, but in the form of social pressure, protest, etc. she says that’s unfair. The entire philosophy of objectivism can basically be surmised as, “I’m taking my toys and going home! You guys are cheating! Waahhhhh!”

    ‘Childish’ is exactly what I always thought. As much as I dislike Ayn Rand (which is a lot, and not just because I’d like those hours of my life spent reading and writing a paper about Anthem back) it’s worth remembering how she was affected by the Russian Revolution. Her family had money and property before that which was seized by the Bolsheviks, and she was old enough to realize why it was going on (12/13 or so) and it seems like she never ever got over it. Then one of the reasons she was allowed to go to college was because after the revolution the universities were opened up… but then there was a purge of “class enemies” — students with bourgeois backgrounds — not long before she graduated and only the fact that seniors were allowed to finish kept her there. It’s even worth noting that ‘Bolsheviks’ comes from the word for ‘majority’ (compared to the more moderate faction of the Revolutionary party, the Mensheviks ‘minority’).

    Any power the working class exerts will necessarily be less about self-interest than collective good because the group’s power comes from numbers. I suspect ‘collective good’ was something of a trigger word for Rand, so clearly the working majority consists of big mean bullies picking on those rare individuals who worked hard for their money because they wish they had the ability/fortitude to walk over other people to get to what they want. It’s like the “you’re just JEALOUS!!!1!1!” of economic policies.

  9. Red says

    What REALLY rackles me about that first article abou Rush’s behavior are the people DEFENDING him. One poster is going on and on about how ‘it’s all a liberal ploy to silence Rush!’ This same poster is going on about Rush apologized (if you really wanna call what he said an ‘apology’) and that we ‘should be happy’ with it.

    Tell ya what; I’ll be happy when Rush man’s up and makes a REAL apology, not one where he claims he was ‘trying to make a joke’ and doesn’t blame other people for how they rightly reacted AND when he apologizes DIRECTLY to the young woman and makes NO EXCUSES for what he said.

    It’s pathetic and sad how these people are making excuses for this man. Because ‘sticking it to the liberals’ is clearly of greater importance to them than someone who has a measure of ethics, who NEVER would have said such a thing in the first place.

  10. Cloudtigress says

    Mini-rant on a minor point of irritation:

    Is it possible, when people are talking about Creationism, to possibly acknowledge that it comes in a lot more flavors than “Strident Fundamentalist Christian Young Earther”? Believe it or not, there a lot of flavors of Creationism that have no problem folding ‘God created the world/universe and humans’ and ‘world/universe is billions and billions of years old; humans created using evolution’ together. This Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Earth_creationism) gives a decent overview of many of the Old Earth flavors that exist. Just bugs me sometimes to see one of my beliefs so mischaracterized sometimes just for the sake of higher ratings.

    (Yes, I know this is a very very very minor complaint when it comes to mischaracterizing beliefs in the media, but it still bugs me. And this complaint is directed more at that feminist Tumbler link than anything.)

  11. Casey says

    Cloudtigress,

    LOL, wow I didn’t realize what I believed in before I became atheist/agnostic-ish (ie, God created the universe…BILLIONS OF YEARS AGO and also evolution) actually had a name. I’d like to think most moderate Christians believe in Old Earth Creationism.

  12. Casey says

    Cloudtigress,

    Wow, I didn’t realize what I believed in before I became more atheist/agnostic-y actually had a name. I’d like to think that most moderate Christians are of the Old Earth Creationist variety.

  13. says

    Cloudtigress,

    First off, that was a quote from an email, not our usage – just to be clear.

    That said, I’m a little confused. You’re speaking of a non mainstream usage of the term as if it IS mainstream and we just haven’t bothered to educate ourselves. I have never heard the term old earther in my life. And I grew up Christian, with the teaching that evolution was not incompatible with Genesis, and taking Genesis literally was missing the whole spiritual truth of the story, and we used the term “creationists” to strictly refer to people who didn’t believe in evolution. I checked to make sure I’m not remembering this totally wrong, and it seems this is the common usage. See here:

    As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term “anti-evolutionists” became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term “creationism” first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist disbelief in human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups, such as old earth creationists and evolutionary creationists, who believed in various concepts of creation.[3]

    So if your movement is trying to redefine the terminology, that’s fine, but I’m not sure how you’re asking us to assist? How would you like us to phrase it? Because, for example, “creationists who don’t believe in evolution” is redundant in mainstream usage. The obstacle your group faces in this redefinition is that the vast majority of people who believe in creation stories AND scientific theories of the world’s history do not call themselves “creationists”, and would be vaguely insulted or confused if you called them that.

  14. Cloudtigress says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    Sorry. My post was more of me venting a bit rather than a call to action. For some reason that Tumbler link just bugged me enough to post a gripe about it.

    I think the old earther term came about to allow those who had no problem with putting billion year timelines and God together in a positive manner to distinguish themselves from the folks whose worldview doesn’t allow them to think God could do something in less than a few thousand years/outside there ability to comprehend. Still, I see I’ll have to look more into this (i.e. terms to call my beliefs), since it was only just last year that I discovered that there was an actual separation -with actual terms- between those who believe in God and a few-thousand-year-old universe and those who believe in God and a several-billion-year-old one. Still got a lot of reading/research to do, on top of everything else I want to do in life.

  15. says

    Cloudtigress,

    *nods* I think it’s an American peculiarity that we use “pro” sounding terms when what we really mean is “anti-(something).” Like “pro-life” isn’t really pro-life at all – what happens to the born is of no interest, and most support killing the fetus they fought so hard to save on those occasions where an unwanted child becomes a criminal. It’s really “anti-abortion.” Similarly, “creationism” has not come to mean “those who believe in creation” with no reference to what else they do or don’t believe in, but rather “anti-evolution.”

    Very Orwellian, really.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.