http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3522764?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
Sent from my iPhone
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Another Civil War
Rather than open fire on a military installation, the conservative strategy in the current civil war is to first shut down Congress and then the federal government. That's what happened with gun control background checks: 45 Senators, mostly conservatives, refused to let the legislation come up for a vote. The same intransigence will kill immigration reform in the House of Representatives. In the fall there will be a total shutdown when conservatives block raising the debt-limit ceiling.
As Robert Reich recently pointed out, shutting down Congress moves the locus of legislative action to the states.
This means many blue states are moving further left, while red states are heading rightward. In effect, America is splitting apart without going through all the trouble of a civil war.
As Robert Reich recently pointed out, shutting down Congress moves the locus of legislative action to the states.
This means many blue states are moving further left, while red states are heading rightward. In effect, America is splitting apart without going through all the trouble of a civil war.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
GOP STILL OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY
THE BLOG
Why the GOP Can't Learn
Robert ReichJun 19, 2013
It's as if they didn't learn a thing from the 2012 elections. Republicans are on the same suicide mission as before -- trying to block immigration reform (if they can't scuttle it in the Senate, they're ready to in the House), roll back the clock on abortion rights (they're pushing federal and state legislation to ban abortions in the first 22 weeks), and stop gay marriage wherever possible.
As almost everyone knows by now, this puts them on the wrong side of history. America is becoming more ethnically diverse, women are gaining economic and political power, and young people are more socially libertarian than ever before.
Why can't Republicans learn?
It's no answer to say their "base" -- ever older, whiter, more rural and male -- won't budge. The Democratic Party of the 1990s simply ignored its old base and became New Democrats, spearheading a North American Free Trade Act (to the chagrin of organized labor), performance standards in classrooms (resisted by teachers' unions) and welfare reform and crime control (upsetting traditional liberals).
The real answer is the Republican base is far more entrenched, institutionally, than was the old Democratic base. And its power is concentrated in certain states -- most of the old Confederacy plus Arizona, Alaska, Indiana, and Wisconsin -- which together exert more of a choke-hold on the Republican national party machinery than the old Democrats, spread widely but thinly over many states, exerted on the Democratic Party.
These Republican states are more homogenous and conspicuously less like the rest of America than the urbanized regions of the country that are growing more rapidly. Senators and representatives from these states naturally reflect the dominant views of their constituents -- on immigration, abortion, and gay marriage, as well as guns, marijuana, race, and dozens of other salient issues. But these views are increasingly out of step with where most of the nation is heading.
This state-centered, relatively homogenous GOP structure effectively prevents the Party from changing its stripes. Despite all the post-election rhetoric about the necessity for change emanating from GOP leaders who aspire to the national stage, the national stage isn't really what the GOP is most interested in or attuned to. It's directed inward rather than outward, to its state constituents rather than to the nation.
This structure also blocks any would-be "New Republicans" such as Chris Christie from gaining the kind of power inside the party that a New Democrat like Bill Clinton received in 1992. The only way they'd be able to attract a following inside the Party would be to commit themselves to policies they'd have to abandon immediately upon getting nominated, as Mitt Romney did with disastrous results.
It's true that by 1992 Democrats were far more desperate to win the presidency -- having been in the wilderness for twelve years -- than today's GOP appears to be. Nonetheless it's doubtful the GOP will be willing to eschew its old base even if it loses the presidency again in 2016, because without its collection of relatively homogenous states, there just isn't much of a GOP.
The greater likelihood is a steady eclipse of the Republican Party at the national level, even as it becomes more entrenched in particular states. Those states can be expected to become regressive islands of backwardness within a nation growing steadily more progressive.
The GOP's national role will be primarily negative -- seeking to block, delay, and filibuster measures that will eventually become the law of the land in any event, while simultaneously preaching "states' rights" and praying for conservative majorities on the Supreme Court.
In other words, more of the same.
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
Why the GOP Can't Learn
Robert ReichJun 19, 2013
It's as if they didn't learn a thing from the 2012 elections. Republicans are on the same suicide mission as before -- trying to block immigration reform (if they can't scuttle it in the Senate, they're ready to in the House), roll back the clock on abortion rights (they're pushing federal and state legislation to ban abortions in the first 22 weeks), and stop gay marriage wherever possible.
As almost everyone knows by now, this puts them on the wrong side of history. America is becoming more ethnically diverse, women are gaining economic and political power, and young people are more socially libertarian than ever before.
Why can't Republicans learn?
It's no answer to say their "base" -- ever older, whiter, more rural and male -- won't budge. The Democratic Party of the 1990s simply ignored its old base and became New Democrats, spearheading a North American Free Trade Act (to the chagrin of organized labor), performance standards in classrooms (resisted by teachers' unions) and welfare reform and crime control (upsetting traditional liberals).
The real answer is the Republican base is far more entrenched, institutionally, than was the old Democratic base. And its power is concentrated in certain states -- most of the old Confederacy plus Arizona, Alaska, Indiana, and Wisconsin -- which together exert more of a choke-hold on the Republican national party machinery than the old Democrats, spread widely but thinly over many states, exerted on the Democratic Party.
These Republican states are more homogenous and conspicuously less like the rest of America than the urbanized regions of the country that are growing more rapidly. Senators and representatives from these states naturally reflect the dominant views of their constituents -- on immigration, abortion, and gay marriage, as well as guns, marijuana, race, and dozens of other salient issues. But these views are increasingly out of step with where most of the nation is heading.
This state-centered, relatively homogenous GOP structure effectively prevents the Party from changing its stripes. Despite all the post-election rhetoric about the necessity for change emanating from GOP leaders who aspire to the national stage, the national stage isn't really what the GOP is most interested in or attuned to. It's directed inward rather than outward, to its state constituents rather than to the nation.
This structure also blocks any would-be "New Republicans" such as Chris Christie from gaining the kind of power inside the party that a New Democrat like Bill Clinton received in 1992. The only way they'd be able to attract a following inside the Party would be to commit themselves to policies they'd have to abandon immediately upon getting nominated, as Mitt Romney did with disastrous results.
It's true that by 1992 Democrats were far more desperate to win the presidency -- having been in the wilderness for twelve years -- than today's GOP appears to be. Nonetheless it's doubtful the GOP will be willing to eschew its old base even if it loses the presidency again in 2016, because without its collection of relatively homogenous states, there just isn't much of a GOP.
The greater likelihood is a steady eclipse of the Republican Party at the national level, even as it becomes more entrenched in particular states. Those states can be expected to become regressive islands of backwardness within a nation growing steadily more progressive.
The GOP's national role will be primarily negative -- seeking to block, delay, and filibuster measures that will eventually become the law of the land in any event, while simultaneously preaching "states' rights" and praying for conservative majorities on the Supreme Court.
In other words, more of the same.
ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
ANARCHY FOR THE USA !!!
“But what about human nature? Can it be changed? And if not, will it endure under Anarchism?
Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?
John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?
Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.
Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.
This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.”
― Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays
tags: anarchism, human-nature 26 people liked it like
“At one time in the world there were woods that no one owned”
― Cormac McCarthy, Child of God
tags: anarchism, nature, property 25 people liked it
Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?
John Burroughs has stated that experimental study of animals in captivity is absolutely useless. Their character, their habits, their appetites undergo a complete transformation when torn from their soil in field and forest. With human nature caged in a narrow space, whipped daily into submission, how can we speak of its potentialities?
Freedom, expansion, opportunity, and, above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.
Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.
This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.”
― Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays
tags: anarchism, human-nature 26 people liked it like
“At one time in the world there were woods that no one owned”
― Cormac McCarthy, Child of God
tags: anarchism, nature, property 25 people liked it
WHAT'S NEXT? A PINK TRIANGLE!?!
USING THE RESTROOM IS NOT A CRIME
An Arizona State representative wants to throw trans people in jail and fine them if they use the "wrong" public bathroom. Stop the bill now!
29,667 people have supported this campaign
SIGN
Seriously? A rogue Arizona State representative, John Kavanagh, wants to pass a bill that would throw trans people in jail for using public restrooms. We need to stop him now!
If the bill passes with his amendment, police could stop any woman trying to use a women's restroom. She'd have to show proof that she's a woman, and if she doesn't have ID or the gender on her ID doesn't match her gender identity because she's trans – 6 months jail and a $2,500 fine.
When asked why the bill targeted trans people he explained that it's because he thinks "they're weird."
The law would lead to extreme gender policing – anyone gender non-conforming would need ID just to be in public, just in case. Already trans people face extreme violence and discrimination in public spaces – this bill makes it even less safe to be a trans person in Arizona.
Tell the Arizona State Legislature to uphold the rights of trans people!
SIGN
An Arizona State representative wants to throw trans people in jail and fine them if they use the "wrong" public bathroom. Stop the bill now!
29,667 people have supported this campaign
SIGN
Seriously? A rogue Arizona State representative, John Kavanagh, wants to pass a bill that would throw trans people in jail for using public restrooms. We need to stop him now!
If the bill passes with his amendment, police could stop any woman trying to use a women's restroom. She'd have to show proof that she's a woman, and if she doesn't have ID or the gender on her ID doesn't match her gender identity because she's trans – 6 months jail and a $2,500 fine.
When asked why the bill targeted trans people he explained that it's because he thinks "they're weird."
The law would lead to extreme gender policing – anyone gender non-conforming would need ID just to be in public, just in case. Already trans people face extreme violence and discrimination in public spaces – this bill makes it even less safe to be a trans person in Arizona.
Tell the Arizona State Legislature to uphold the rights of trans people!
SIGN
TO BE GOVERNED. P. J. Proudhon
“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.”
― Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
tags: anarchism, government 64 people liked it
General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.”
― Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
tags: anarchism, government 64 people liked it
Friday, June 14, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Fwd: You can't cure gay
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Andre and Jeremy, AllOut.org" <info@allout.org>
Date: June 7, 2013 5:10:15 PM EDT
To: sweetandsourjayne@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: You can't cure gay
Reply-To: "Andre and Jeremy, AllOut.org" <info@allout.org>
Jayne--
Apple just pulled a dangerous anti-gay app from their store, but Google is still holding out. A new app called "Setting Captives Free" lures in vulnerable people who are struggling with being gay, with an offer to 'cure' them. The app is still available via the Google Play store and we've just found a version that's designed for Google's popular internet browser, Chrome.A global outcry will get Google's attention. We want them to take down this harmful app before someone gets hurt, just like Apple did. Speak up by signing now, because love isn't a disease. Will you ask your friends and family to sign now? www.allout.org/gaycureapp
Click below to share on Facebook or Twitter:
Or forward the email below.
Thanks for going All Out,
Andre, Jeremy and the rest of the All Out team.
Why is Google distributing an app that tries to 'cure' people of being gay?
Tell Google to pull the anti-gay "Setting Captives Free" app from their stores immediately!
Sent 31 May 2013:
Dear Jayne,Less than 24 hours ago we launched a campaign to get Apple and Google to drop a dangerous app from their stores that thinks it can 'cure' people of being gay. The 60-day course tells gay people they are not "born this way" and offers to help find "freedom from the bondage of homosexuality."
And, after just 24 hours the app has disappeared from the iTunes store! Only Google is left with the harmful app still available in their online store. Tell Google to pull the app now: www.allout.org/gaycureapp
This amazing response came after 37,000 All Out members asked Apple and Google to pull the dangerous gay 'cure' app "Setting Captives Free" from their online stores. Google has a great reputation for doing what's right, if even more of us speak out they'll pull the app. Will you sign the petition to ask Google to join Apple and drop the gay 'cure' app?
If we all pitch in right now, we can get "Setting Captives Free" off of the two most popular places to download apps within 48-hours.
Help set a powerful precedent for others who want to push their harmful practices and make people think being gay is a disease or a sin. Sign now: www.allout.org/gaycureapp
Google has yanked apps like this before for violating their user agreement, which bans hate speech. If thousands of us sign right now, it will generate massive media buzz and pressure this major global company, who is proud of its pro-equality brand, to act quickly.
Tell Google – drop "Setting Captives Free" now before anyone else gets hurt:
www.allout.org/gaycureapp
Major health organizations like American Psychiatric Association and Pan-American Health Organization, as well as many governments, have denounced all gay 'cure' practices as dangerous and discriminatory. There's overwhelming evidence that these so-called treatments can cause terrible harm to lesbian, gay, bi, and trans people, or anyone forced to try to change who they are or who they love.
Google should be stopping hate like this at their gates. If "Setting Captives Free" gets away with it, soon others will be pushing their dangerous 'pray away the gay' practices further. We need to make it clear to these powerful global companies that they have to act fast and to pull this dangerous app and others like it from their stores immediately.
Ask Google to stop the hate and drop the app today:
www.allout.org/gaycureappAll Out members are known for standing against dangerous gay cures all over the world. Because we've spoken out, officials in Argentina, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and beyond have denounced gay cures. It's getting harder for anti-gay opponents to push their 'cure' agenda through governments, so now they're resorting to corporate channels.
Will you join in sending Google a clear message that they can't allow "Send Captives Free" to use their stores to spread the wrong-headed and dangerous message that being gay is a curable disease.
A TASTE OF HONEY
"A Taste of Honey" is a pop standard written by Bobby Scott and Ric Marlow. It was originally an instrumental track (or recurring theme) written for the 1960 Broadway version of the 1958 British play A Taste of Honey (which was also made into the film of the same name in 1961). Both the original and a cover by Herb Alpert in 1965 earned the song four Grammy Awards. A vocal version of the song, first recorded by Lenny Welch, became popular when it was recorded by the Beatles in 1963. Bobby Scott himself arranged and produced for Esther Ofarim a Vinyl LP titled "Is it really me!" containing the song.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
