Something is amiss. Most Americans know this â they can feel it deep down inside â even if they donât know what it is, things just donât seem right. The signs are everywhere. The headlines are true…
In response to Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries not wanting “not so cool” kids or women who wear size large to wear his company’s clothes, Greg Karber has come up with a funny and creative way to readjust the Abercrombie & Fitch brand.
Yeahhhh… I have some serious issues with this #FitchtheHomeless thing. I get the idea: stick it to Abercrombie! But the method for sticking it is to say, “You want cool people to wear your clothes, so HAHAHA look at all the gross and uncool homeless people wearing them!” That’s the message you’re trying to send with this, right? That is exploitation. I am pro-giving clothes to the homeless and pro-telling Abercrombie to shove it, but this particular combination is flat-out wrong.
Instead, start giving Abercrombie clothes to the parents of teenagers. Kids are one polo-shirt-wearing soccer mom away from never going near that stank store ever again.
When Mayor Michael Nutter signed legislation Thursday to afford equal rights to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, he said he hoped Philadelphia would become “the most LGBT-friendly” city in the world.
One piece of that comprehnsive legislation will forever…
Seriously, if we believe a 14 year old is too immature to know how to take a pill, do we really think she’s adult enough to handle an unwanted pregnancy?
The truth is that the age restriction is completely arbitrary, tied only to our puritanical comfort levels. And listen, I get it; I think it’s fair to say that most people are uncomfortable with the idea of a 14 year old having sex. But here’s the thing - access to Plan B isn’t about keeping a 14 year old from having sex - by the time she gets to the pharmacy, that ship has sailed - it’s about keeping a 14 year old who has already had sex from getting pregnant. And despite what urban legend (or past embarrassing FDA memos) may tell you, making emergency contraception more available is not more likely to make young teens have sex - it will just make them less likely to end up pregnant.
We can’t let our discomfort with teen sex trump young people’s right to sexual and reproductive health and we can’t continue to let politics trump science. If we care about young women’s health and bodily autonomy and integrity, we’ll drop all age restrictions from emergency contraception. Anything less isn’t just illogical - it’s immoral.
My "Father beats daughters for twerking video" response
I got bare-ass spankings as a child from my step-dad. Once the belt on a clothed behind from my dad. I was also struck with wooden spoons, wet rags, hairbrushes, or whatever was handy at the time by my mom. My grandmom confirms her daughters’ claims that she wielded her infamous yardstick against them many times.
While there are a few other disciplinary experiences I had that went beyond the aforementioned (and were abusive) I firmly believe this video* and the experiences I referred to do not represent illegal action by a parent against a child.
That said, I’d like to believe that if I were in this situation**, I’d have avoided reacting physically like this man and gotten creative instead. Rather than remembering his knee-jerk reaction, his daughters could have benefited greatly from learning a different lesson than just “ouch.” Extreme physical pain fades quickly, but intense intellectual learning takes effort and lasts a lifetime.
Therefore, I might have grounded them immediately (no TV, unsupervised computer time, or communication with friends outside of school except via written letter). Their freedom from these restrictions could be gained once they each earn an A grade on their individual 5-page persuasive papers against the sexualization of children.
What do you consider to be an appropriate parental response?
You asked for advice, so here goes. I hope this inspires you (all) to re-think a few statements you (may) have made and/or behaviors you (may) have practiced…
1. Being an open book is great and will only turn off those with whom you’re not compatible. Keep that up! Being self-deprecating is a turn off to many (with whom you may otherwise be compatible), and is often mis/interpreted as a behavior those lacking in self-esteem tend to practice. Stop that.
2. Being sensual on a first date means not much more than licking your own lips, making eye contact with and perhaps hugging or non-sexually touching your date. Being sexual on a first date means you’re screwing up your chances of forging a friendship-based relationship by screwing someone before befriending them.
3. Being comfortable is not the same thing as letting your apartment become uncomfortable for company. Clean the space because it’s healthy and you’re worth it, then be comfortable enjoying it with others to show them you’re healthy and think they’re worth it too.
4. Being tired is just like being bored; boring people are bored; tiring people are tired. Energy is sometimes like motivation, that’s when you need to fake it until you can make it yourself. Putting the onus squarely on your dates to provide you with the energy or motivation to go out is placing too much of a burden on other people. It’s not a very attractive excuse and it’s not even a good reason for people with auto-immune disorders. Keeping the balance between inertia and action is even more important for your health. Perhaps you’d enjoy hula hooping or some other form of playful exercise that doesn’t require such intense physical movement as more typical work outs.
5. Change the way you look at things, and change the way things look. You’re not looking outside of your type at all of the men around you, so you’re not finding lots of available men around you. Yes, people do that (date people they’re not instantly attracted to). Try it sometime! When you see beyond someone’s external shell to reveal their inner core they look a million times more attractive to you on the surface. It’s magical. Like most magic (being neutral and natural) the opposite is also true (gross insides make for ugly outsides on even the hottest folks).
6. What’s heavier than your body will ever be is the effect of low self-esteem on your psyche. That albatross around your neck is more overweight than you’ll ever be, and nowhere near as beautiful as you’ll always be (and perhaps never see without changing your perspective and behavior). Take off that necklace if you want to see what’s really in the mirror and feel what’s really in your heart. When you learn to love yourself, you’ll attract the same from others. Here’s an exercise to practice: look in the mirror daily and before you walk away, praise some part of yourself.
I wish (all of) you well in life, love and everything else. I hope my words are read with the love they have been written.
Unsurprisingly, a Wall Street Journal opinion writer thinks poor people don’t need a raise. He says that if you factor in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), *technically* poor people are already making $9 an hour.
When you’re poor, you can’t pay the electric company by saying, “Well, in April of next year I’ll get a sweet tax return check!” When you are poor, you need money up front, in your bank account, every two weeks. The phrase “living paycheck to paycheck” comes to mind. When you’re not poor, it’s easy to wait a few months for the government to pay you back for the money they borrowed. A few thousand bucks at tax return time? Sweet. But poor people don’t have the luxury of waiting for a once-yearly bump to their income.
Poor people do not necessarily have access to someone who can do their taxes. If you’re rich, you can pay a high-level tax professional to comb over your receipts and help you write off $77,000 in horse expenses (remember Mitt Romney, guys? He got $77k in tax breaks for his wife’s horse. True story). That tax person can also show you how to put your money into bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands so that you don’t have to pay taxes on it at all. America!
But these tax guys charge a lot. Last year, my boss’s sister (an accountant) did my taxes for me, and at the “family and friends” rate, I still paid over $100. Poor families cannot afford $100 to *possibly* find more tax breaks they’re entitled to. I’m going to have to plead ignorance on one point: I do not know if the 1040 EZ includes the EITC, or if you have to file differently to get it. Google is pulling up lots of documentation on taxes that I can barely comprehend. But the point still stands that many poor people miss out on tax breaks because they don’t know about them. That was the one - ONE - advantage of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan: it would have simplified the tax code. Right now, tax knowledge is a real ivory tower thing. Saying “But poor people already get a tax credit that increases their yearly salary” is ignorant of that fact.
Fuck you, buddy. Just fuck you. Fuck you and your “well technically poor people are already coddled with $9 an hour salaries!” bullshit. Fuck you and your tax code shit. People deserve $9 an hour. Maybe more than that. $9 an hour per paycheck, not per year. Fuck you.
4. When the minimum wage increases “poor” people lose their jobs.
“The results… indicate that higher minimum wages are associated with shortened unemployment durations…
With state and year effects, a $0.50 increase in the minimum wage is associated with approximately a 35 percent increase in the hazard (or probability of becoming employed) for male recipients and a 50 percent increase for female recipients.”
But kudos for making shit up because it sounded right
A Berkeley study from 2010 found “no detectable employment losses” from increasing the minimum wage. So yeah no, increasing the minimum wage will not cause people to lose their jobs.
“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”—
I vote we stop using the term “pro-life” and change to “pro-birth”, and every time someone asks “What does that mean?”, you can explain this and the other racialized, classist, misogynist, body policing, rape culture reinforcing bullshit behind “pro-life” dogma.
Speaking for myself, I would not be surprised to find it true – aliens probably do exist, and are avoiding us for reasons of their own. Speaking for our species, I don’t think the human race is prepared to accept an Other, when we haven’t yet accepted each other (i.e., racism, nationalism, etc.).
Perhaps being faced with the necessity of accepting this Other would force us to accept each other (in order to band together against the Other before coming to accept Them maybe). In our current us vs. them dynamic, however, I’m doubtful of the success due to the poor timing.
I hope the calendar renewal, the ongoing shift in consciousness, is one where we as a species begin to see ourselves as interdependent beings living on earth who work toward our best collective interests for the sake of mankind’s humanity and Earth’s sustainable progress. Individually and at large, when we fully accept ourselves, then we can truly accept another.
This quote from the article’s closing paragraph was the ONE part that resonated strongly with me:
“inner peace, love and cooperation are important starting points to developing a world where we can all thrive”
So I’m thankful I read that, at least, and that it inspired me to think about the topic of mankind and aliens together for the first time in a while.
Pretty much everyone’s seen E.T., right? (Probably the first time I thought about this…) I wonder how many of those people believe in aliens today, and how many of them might be ready to accept that kind of Other. Hmmm.
After I just finished eating a delicious breakfast (good any time of day or night!) that I had delivered, I got a caller who said simply “Delivery” to which I responded “I just had a delivery and you’re not outside” while I looked through my door’s window.
When he hung up without a word, I had a panicky movie-scene thought that he could have followed the delivery driver from before (perhaps even getting my number from him) and was playfully alerting me to his watchful eyes before he planned to come to the door and terrorize me. The cat gazed at the door suddenly and intently, so I over-reactionally went to the kitchen to get a knife.
Then, to act naturally, I called him back to say “That was rude.” He replied “I apologize for hanging up without saying I had the wrong number, but I was so busy with the delivery and had to rush to dial again. I’m sorry.” Putting down the knife and picking up the corners of my mouth, I said “Well, thank you. Have a good night.”
#randomparanoidthoughtsofawomanwhoishomealone (did I do that right?)
I just don’t understand the desire to “vote the party line” when we are all individuals in our personal politics and practices. Do you really want each of those people you just voted for to do those particular jobs, or did you take the lazy way out and not research anyone to just blindly “do your duty” on election day? Something else? I just don’t get it…