In November, Congress Cut Food Stamps For Nearly 50 Million People, And Even More Cuts Are On The Table.

If I had a large amount of money I should found a hospital for those whose grip upon the world is so tenuous that they can be severely offended by words and phrases yet remain all unoffended by the injustice, violence and oppression that howls daily

Stephen Fry (via elledark)

Yesterday somebody on Facebook told me that feminism elevates women at the expense of men, that its agenda to validate women emasculates us guys.

He was right.

For men, the rise of feminism has relegated us to second-class status. Inequality and discrimination have become part of our everyday lives.

Because of feminism, men can no longer walk down the street without fear of being catcalled, harassed, or even sexually assaulted by women. When he is assaulted, the man is blamed – the way he dressed he was “asking for it”.

Because of feminism, there are no major Christian conferences about how to act like men, where thousands of men can celebrate their manliness and Jesus (and perhaps poke fun at female stereotypes).

Because of feminism, church stages and spotlights are often dominated by women. Men are encouraged to just serve in the nursery or kitchen. Sometimes men are even told to stay silent in church.

Because of feminism, women make more money than man in the same jobs.

Because of feminism, it’s hard to find a movie with a heroic male lead anymore. Most blockbusters feature a brave woman who saves the world and gets a token man as a trophy for her accomplishments.

Because of feminism, women’s professional sports are a massively profitable enterprise where women are globally idolized. Men only appear briefly, before commercial breaks, when they’re objectified for their bodies.

Because of feminism, all birth control is covered for women without question or debate, while men have to fight to get insurance companies to pay for their Viagra prescriptions. When men do speak up about this, leaders of the “family friendly” right wing labels them “sluts” and “whores”.

Because of feminism, the male body is constantly under public scrutiny. If a man appears topless on TV, it’s a national scandal resulting in huge fines and boycotts. Bloggers regularly write about how we need to be more mindful of the ways our clothing choices tempt women to sin. Satirists insist that shorts “aren’t really pants” and then men should cover up because “nobody wants to see that”.

Because of feminism, men are not represented in the White House, and women hold over 80% of the seats in Congress. When a man runs for office, his physical appearance and clothing choices are discussed almost as much as his policies and ideas.

Because of feminism, men must fight for a voice in the public sphere. In issues of theology, politics, science, and philosophy, the female perspective is often considered default, normal, and unbiased. Male perspectives are dismissed for being too subjective or too emotional. When we speak up, we are often dismissed as angry, rebellious, subversive, or dangerous.

But stay strong, bros.

One day we’ll all be equal.

(source)

“You may not agree with a woman, but to criticize her appearance — as opposed to her ideas or actions — isn’t doing anyone any favors, least of all you. Insulting a woman’s looks when they have nothing to do with the issue at hand implies a lack of comprehension on your part, an inability to engage in high-level thinking. You may think she’s ugly, but everyone else thinks you’re an idiot.”

Hilary Clinton says like an absolute legend. It’s a bit too normal how appearances are criticised and the degree to which such criticisms are perceived as valid.

It always says more about you than me and I’m glad Hilary found the words to explain it coherently. . 

(via chrystallclear)

I just learned that this is not a Hilary Clinton quote--it's a quote from an article by Erin Gloria Ryan which was published May 9, 2012 on Jezebel. I'm still reblogging, because I completely agree with the sentiment.  

Learn Stuff! // LINK

[threepanelsoul]

Planned Parenthood is not selling organs.

Fetuses don’t have organs that are worthwhile to anyone. Most organs are developing throughout all 40 weeks. Most abortions (89% in 2010) happen in the 1st trimester/12 weeks. (For amount comparison: A fetus is 3 inches long and 1oz in weight at the end of the first trimester.)

Fetuses do have fetal tissue, which can be used to make stem cells.

Stem cells are used to find cures and treatments for various diseases (like diabetes and Parkinson’s) and injuries (like crushed spinal cords.)

Fetal tissue has already been used to make many of our vaccines.

Planned Parenthood performs abortions and - if the patient permits it - donates the fetal tissue to organizations who wish to use it.

This includes people who need abortions for health reasons.

There are people who have lost their wanted pregnancies due to disease and conditions.

They may choose to donate fetal tissue to help others from suffering through the same heartache.

As noted above, fetal stem cells do a lot of good. Even if the person chooses a “therapeutic” abortion, they may donate the fetal tissue to help people with diseases, conditions, and injuries that may benefit from research.

Planned Parenthood is charging for storage, handling, and transportation of the specimen.

At $30 to $100, that’s a pretty minimal cost and reasonable.

Also, it’s perfectly legal.

Seriously, research that needs/uses fetal tissue may help hundreds, maybe thousands, of people.

Planned Parenthood isn’t nefarious.

Fetal tissue may be the key to treating and curing diseases,conditions, and injuries that affect thousands and their families.

Abortion is going to happen, anyway. Fetuses are going to die, anyway. Their tissue can help people.

Primer for those who still don’t understand in the wake of the arrest of, incarceration of, and likely murder of Sandra Bland in TX: 1. Asking a cop why they are stopping you/ticketing you is your right. They do not have the right to arrest you for asking, beat you for asking or in any way mistreat you for asking that question. 2. You have the right to say whatever you wish to a cop in response to being stopped. ANYTHING at all, so long as it does not constitute a threat of harm. You can cuss a cop, yell at a cop, and call a cop a fascist pig or a racist if you like. I do not recommend it, you shouldn’t do it (because sadly cops don’t care about the Constitution in far too many cases, and thus, might beat or kill you), and it’s not very nice I suppose (even when deserved), but it is NOT illegal to do so. 3. Refusing to put out a cigarette when asked by a cop is not a criminal offense either. The cop has no lawful right to arrest you for smoking or “disobeying” an order to stop smoking. Only if you are already being arrested for an actual crime and putting out the cigarette is necessary to affect the arrest, can such a request be considered lawful and can failure to do so constitute “resisting arrest.” But refusing to put the cigarette out, in and of itself, does not constitute a crime. 4. If you do any of the above, the cop still does not have the right to beat you or arrest you. And if you end up beaten or killed, it is not your fault. It is entirely and only the cop’s fault. They should be arrested, tried, convicted and jailed. Your “arrogance” or “attitude” is not grounds for brutality, ever. 5. None of the above is made any less true by the fact that “cops have a hard job and put their lives on the line.” That is entirely irrelevant and has no bearing on the rights of the people or the limitations on police power. 6. Any cop who disagrees with the previous points is not qualified to be a cop and should be summarily dismissed from their jobs. Any cop who can’t handle being challenged as to their authority, or who in any way disregards the rights of the people is not qualified to be a cop and should be summarily dismissed from their jobs. 7. Anyone at all who disagrees with these previous points has contempt for the Constitution and would clearly be more comfortable in a police state. Yet these are the same people who think “government regulation” of industry is tyranny, or that the IRS is equivalent to the Nazi SS or that Obamacare is totalitarianism. So they don’t mind actual authoritarian actions (so long as they are worked out mostly on the bodies of black folks and/or the poor), but God forbid government try and ensure health care, or collect taxes from the rich or try and limit pollution. THEN they scream about big brother and how awful the state is…

Tim Wise (via la-lobalita)

I had a feeling this guy was going to take the honors today.

Asshole of the Day, November 19, 2013: Tom Brower

by TeaPartyCat (Follow @TeaPartyCat)

Hawaii state Rep. Tom Brower has decided who deserves to have possessions and, more importantly, who doesn’t. And despite being a lawmaker, he decided the law wasn’t enough, so he has been going around town smashing the possessions of the homeless with a sledgehammer. Really.

Much like Batkid, Hawaii has found its own superhero. Except that instead of protecting the powerless from harm, he roams the streets with a sledgehammer and looks for homeless people in order to literally smash their possessions.

Remarkably, this vigilante isn’t just some random Hawaiian, but five-term State Rep. Tom Brower (D).

Noting that he’s “disgusted” with homeless people, Brower told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser about his own personal brand of “justice”: “If I see shopping carts that I can’t identify, I will destroy them so they can’t be pushed on the streets.” Brower has waged this campaign for two weeks, estimating that he’s smashed about 30 shopping carts in the process.

You see, he’s disgusted with homeless people, so that justifies his actions in his own mind. And he’s such an asshole that he thinks telling a newspaper is going to make him a hero. Let’s hope Hawaiian voters see him for the bully he really is.

After we posted the nomination of Rep. Brower, this reply came from Twitter which sums it all up:

@assholeofday Compassionate to homeless? No. Returned carts to stores that paid for them? No. Destroys property? Yes. Just a common criminal

— Heather (@SunLovingMama)

November 19, 2013

Just a common criminal. And we hope this asshole of the day is locked up.

Full story: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/19/2966371/hawaii-homeless-smash/

The number of Americans who are poor enough to qualify for food stamps has increased by a disturbing 30 million in the last 13 years. In 2000, 17 million Americans were receiving food stamps; in 2013, the number is 47 million. Hoping to stir up racial tensions, far-right AM radio talk show hosts and Fox News wingnuts try to paint food stamp recipients as strictly or mostly people of color. But the facts don’t bear that out. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, roughly half of food stamp recipients are non-Hispanic whites (in Ohio, it’s around 65%). So when Republicans vote to cut food stamps, many of the people they are hurting are white. OnSeptember 19, Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to slash billions of dollars from the U.S. food stamp program during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s description of Obama as the “food stamp president” was obviously designed to inflame racial tensions and paint African Americans as freeloaders, but Gingrich neglected to mention that many of the people he considers freeloaders are actually white. When Republicans and the Tea Party contribute to hunger by attacking food stamps, people of color aren’t the only ones who suffer: Republicans are physically harming their own base. Slashing food stamp benefits won’t harm the Koch brothers or JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, but it will definitely harm poor whites in a place like McDowell County, West Virginia, which is 94% white (according to the U.S. Census Bureau), rural and has a life expectancy of only 63.9 for males and 72.9 for females (according to a report that the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington released in July 2013). If life expectancy is any indication, the economic conditions for white males in McDowell County aren’t much better than the economic conditions in Haiti, where, according to the World Health Organization, males have a life expectancy of 62. In contrast to McDowell County, that study showed a life expectancy of 81.4 for males and 85.0 for females in Marin County, California—which is affluent and heavily Democratic.

Owsley County, Kentucky is another example of a place that is predominantly white (97.6%), heavily Republican (Romney won 81% of the vote in Owsley County in 2012) and full of poverty. Bloomberg News has reported that in 2011, 52% of the county’s residents were receiving food stamps—which Rep. Hal Rogers, the Republican who represents Owsley County, voted in favor of slashing. From Kentucky to Mississippi to West Virginia, Republicans who were elected by an abundance of poor whites have voted in favoring of cutting food stamps.

There is no shortage of data on life expectancy that shows a downward trend for poor whites. In September 2012, the New York Times reported that poorer white males were dying much younger than more affluent white males: according to the Times, life expectancy had fallen to 67.5 years for the least educated white males compared to 80.4 for the more educated white males. And theTimes reported that life expectancy was 73.5 for the less educated white females compared to 83.9 for the more educated white females—which is also bad news for the GOP because even though white males are more likely than white females to vote Republican, white females are more likely to vote Republican than African American or Hispanic females. And depriving either white males or white females of access to food and healthcare certainly isn’t going to help them live longer.