… And I’m all out of bubblegum

“In science fiction, if somebody tells you that everything you know is a lie and that you need to follow him down the rabbit hole, he’s probably telling the truth. But in the real world? He’s trying to con you.”

What Happens to 3 out of 4 Girls After Leafing Through a Fashion Mag for 3 Minutes?” (via)

“The framers thought not just purchase mandates but medical insurance mandates were perfectly proper indeed.”

The students in UCLA’s undocumented immigrant club struggle for an education others take for granted, getting by without financial aid, traditional IDs, even a place to live.” (via)

“With many in our society screaming about government spending, it is nice to see that sometimes that spending does go to save lives.”

“Cristian Fernandez was charged as an adult at age 12 for murder 1, which carries a life sentence.”

No one ever did anything to make sure the boy was safe.”

“By 1971, when Congress passed the Comprehensive Child Development Act, Nixon, eager to solidify connections with conservative Christian voters who had contributed to his 1968 victory, vetoed it.”

“Do you ever worry that by encouraging people to chase their dreams, you’re actually encouraging someone to do something irresponsible?

“Between 2008 and 2011, 26 major American corporations paid no net federal income taxes despite bringing in billions in profits.”

“And if there’s anything I’ve learned from years of Bible reading, it is that God is always on the side of the oppressed.”

How to close the gender gap: Prevent women from voting.

The Top Campaign Finance Tools for Local News Sites

(Post title marks the birthday of Rowdy Roddy Piper. If you haven’t yet seen They Live, you should get on that.)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The mainstream media is one of the best. It has a vested interest in
    accuracy and has all sorts of internal controls to ensure that nothing
    goes to press without being carefully checked. On the occasions where
    the mainstream media gets something partially wrong, it generally
    retracts it.

    Someone’s overly optimistic there.

  • AnonymousSam

    Optimistic is putting it lightly. I’d say that sentence has about as much in common with reality as saying that Hurricane Katrina was a passing inconvenience that briefly irritated people along the coast before quickly dissipating to allow everyone to get back to their daily routines without undue interruption.

  • Tybult

    The mainstream media is one of the best. It has a vested interest in accuracy and has all sorts of internal controls to ensure that nothing goes to press without being carefully checked. On the occasions where the mainstream media gets something partially wrong, it generally retracts it.

    There are some generally trustworthy sources in the mainstream media.

    But when I see a blanket statement like this, I start seeing red.
    How many stories about WMDs in Iraq were carefully checked before being sent out? How many retractions have been issued by news shows about their role in that monstrosity?
    How many anonymous government sources are quoted on a daily basis by NYT and TIME journalists?

    How hard did they try to shove Sarah Palin down our throats? Did we ever get apologies for that? When I google it, I see a whole lot of reporters apologizing to Sarah Palin, but no admission that they fell for an obvious grifter, moron, and compulsive liar.

    How about the months of coverage of Michael Jackson’s and Anna Nicole Smith’s deaths? Or whatever white girl got murdered in Barbados recently? Do I get an apology for having my time wasted on trivialities?

    (To pick three of dozens of examples.)

  • nirrti

    Media also goes out of its way to further the narrative of the “super dangerous black person”. Every single time I turn on the local news and hear about a crime, I cringe because I know every crime reported will feature a mugshot of a black face. Sometimes, I’m like, “Please be white please be white” just so I don’t have this constant reminder that people like me are “what’s wrong with this country”.

    They rarely show stories of black people doing positive things even though I witness them happening all the time. Of course when people continuously see that, they believe all black people do is rob, shoot each other, and steal….and they treat us accordingly.

  • Tonio

    I didn’t realize that Voter ID laws disproportionally affect women because of the social tradition of taking husbands’ last names. Another good reason to ditch the tradition and switch society’s default to women keeping their names. 

  • Lori

     

    Another good reason to ditch the tradition and switch society’s default to women keeping their names.  

    I think it’s a far better reason to drop Voter ID laws. If a woman wants to take her husband’s name when she gets married I don’t have to agree with the tradition to think that it shouldn’t cost her her right to vote.

  • Tonio

    I have no objection to individual women choosing to take their husband’s names, and you’re absolutely right that this shouldn’t cost them the right to vote. My point is that there’s no valid reason to have the taking of the name as a social norm. It dates from a time when women had no legal status other than wives, which was also the mentality behind denying them the vote.

  • Lori

     The mentality leading to denying voting is “reduce the number of likely Democrats voters in order to keep Republicans in control”. The social norm of women changing their name when they get married (and sometimes taking back their original name when they get divorced) makes it easier to disenfranchise women with these laws, but the laws aren’t about that.

  • aunursa

    “In science fiction, if somebody tells you that everything you know is a lie and that you need to follow him down the rabbit hole, he’s probably telling the truth.

    There are several websites that offer advice for what to do if you find yourself in a horror movie.  But I can’t find any sites that offer advice for what to do if you find yourself in a conspiracy movie or nothing-is-as-it-seems movie.

  • Tonio

    Sorry, I meant the original motive behind keeping the vote from women, not the modern-day one of trying to take it away. Requiring women to take their husband’s names and keeping the vote from them were both ways of excluding them from the legal franchise. The former entailed women having legal status only through their husbands, or effectively being the property of their husbands. Note that I’m not describing a modern woman’s choice to take her husband’s name, but this being an official or unofficial requirement.

  • aunursa

    “The framers thought not just purchase mandates but medical insurance mandates were perfectly proper indeed.”

    He cites…

    “a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen.”

    Eugene Volokh responds: “As David Kopel noted two years ago, this law … actually looks a lot like a payroll tax, earmarked for health care, not a mandate to buy health insurance. Ship owners were required to pay a flat sum to the government for each sailor, which they could deduct from the sailor’s wages, and the money would go to fund a local hospital for injured and disabled sailors. But nothing in the statute suggested — as would be the case with a requirement to buy insurance — that the sailor must present some proof of payment when he shows up at a hospital, or that the sailor would be penalized for refusing to pay. (A ship owner could be fined for refusing to pay the money, but that sounds like a normal fine for nonpayment of a tax.)”

    He also cites…

    In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them.

    Randy Barnett responds: “Of course, this was an exercise of Congress’s militia power, and the militia duty traditionally required members to provide their own weapons.  Contrary to Elhauge’s characterization of this as a “purchase mandate,” guns could be gifts or borrowed or inherited.  There was no requirement that they be purchased.  Challengers to the mandate have never denied that Congress has the power to require persons to do things.  I have long listed the draft, jury duty, the filing of a tax return, and service on a posse, as examples of fundamental duties of citizenship that are owed to the government in return to the protection it affords to citizens. …  But just because the federal government has the power to make you fight and die for your country does not entail that it has the totalitarian power to make you do anything less than this.”

  • histrogeek

    Not buying the whole “internal checks” ideal on the mainstream media. The Washington (courtier) media thinks nothing of reporting without contradicting blazingly obvious lies, or even mentioning them again if it would justly undermine the credibility of some particular source (i.e. important, powerful person).
    On the other hand, I suppose “accuracy” applies to accurately reporting what is/was said and without commentary. (makes me nauseous just thinking of that justification)

    Meanwhile, “They Live!” Ah what a fine piece of American cinema. I remember when it came out in 1988 or 89 (get off my lawn you kids). After the Dukkakis/Bush I bruiser (for Dukkakis) it was nice to see progressives stomping heads. I’ll never forget the Chicago Reader headline for the review “Liberals Kick Ass!” Good times (OK not really).

  • Magic_Cracker

    But I can’t find any sites that offer advice for what to do if you find yourself in a conspiracy movie or nothing-is-as-it-seems movie.

    That’s because there’s little you can do, according to the movies anyway. I’m hard-pressed to think one of one movie where the heroes actually defeat the systems of control.MEGASPOILERS.To reel off a few:Matrix Revolutions ends with Neo brokering a truce with the machines, returning the world to it’s pre-Matrix equilibrium, with the sole concession being that any human who wants to be unplugged will be unplugged (to live the rest of their life, without amenities, underground, on a thoroughly despoiled and poisoned Earth).The Adjustment Bureau ends with the protagonist and his love interest being allowed (by the conspiracy) to be together, but the sinister beings who have manipulated the human race for its entire history are still alive and well and doing their thing.eXistenZ ends with a defiant act of murderous terrorism that succeeds in killing two people and leaves in place the technology that allows for “the most effective deforming of reality” in the history of the world. Videodrome ends in the protagonist’s suicide, and Total Recall just ends.

    The only movies I can think of with a “happy” endings are Alphaville and Logan’s Run, both of which end with the destruction of their respective control computers (and in the case of the latter, the destruction of the entire City of Domes), but they roll credits before we can see what post-control life is like for the survivors. They Live‘s similarly explode-y happy ending hinges on the assumption that as soon the humans see who the enemy is (i.e., attain class consciousness) they will rebel en masse.

    I’m almost inclined to think it’s a function of the 2-hour movie format since most of the movie is taken up with discovering and explaining the conspiracy and organizing resistance, leaving just enough time for an action-packed climax, but not a complete dismantlement of the illusion.

    Then again, the Matrix trilogy takes three movies to end up where it began, and other long-form entrants to the genre fare little better. The 1960s’ Prisoner ends with #6 blowing the shit out of the Village and returning to London without ever learning who was behind it all, and the 2009 remake ends with #6 selling out and becoming the new #2.

    In short, the lesson of these movies seems to be that if you live. In a world. Where reality. Is not. What it seems. The best thing you can do is not find out.

  • hf

     Matrix Revolutions ends with Neo brokering a truce with the machines,

    What do you mean? That movie ends with Neo agreeing to a truce with his human creators, who designed the Outer Matrix to make the Neo program sympathize with humans. Also, it proved he would sacrifice himself to protect his easily-threatened people (notably Trinity, who I assume the creators remembered to back up).

  • Benjamin Lee

    Contrary to Elhauge’s characterization of this as a “purchase mandate,” guns could be gifts or borrowed or inherited.

    Yes.  You only had to have a gun available.  Similarly, you only have to be covered by health insurance under this law.  If you’re already covered, you do not have to go out and buy another plan.

  • Tonio

     http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_policy/2012/04/romney_s_nra_speech_his_narrow_selfish_scary_definition_of_freedom_.html

    Despite my revulsion at Spitzer’s treatment of his wife, he makes and excellent point here:

    Here is a small story not widely enough known: Mary Brown,
    who went to court to challenge the bill and whose name was on the
    litigation that made it all the way to the Supreme Court, claimed at the
    time she filed the suit, through her attorneys, that she “doesn’t have
    insurance. She doesn’t want to pay for it. And she doesn’t want the
    government to tell her she has to have it.” Mary Brown and her husband
    went bankrupt, leaving behind many debts, including $4,500 in medical
    bills. She will not pay those bills, but we taxpayers will.

    That is exactly why the individual mandate was designed, based on the
    conservative notion that all people should share in covering their own
    costs and not leave those costs to taxpayers. The Heritage Society, Newt
    Gingrich, even Mitt Romney all understood this when not in the vortex
    of a political campaign.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    But I can’t find any sites that offer advice for what to do if you find yourself in a conspiracy movie or nothing-is-as-it-seems movie.

    Let’s start with a list of conspiracy/nothing-is-as-it-seems movies.

    Videodrome
    The Game
    Inception
    Momento
    Enemy of the State
    Total Recall
    Conspiracy Theory

    Now, let’s see… advice based on those…

    #1: Be stingy with information! Sooner or later, one of your friends/co-workers/companions/new allies will say something that they have no way of knowing unless they’re with “the enemy”. Alternatively, be selective in who knows what; if you only tell one person about your childhood pet, when that bit of data pops up, you know who squealed.

    #2: Take notes! Also, with enough people talking to you, two of them (at least) will give conflicting information.  One or both of those people is lying, and until you know who, trust neither!

    #3: Never share notes! Odds are, the person you confide in will be in on the conspiracy. Instead, use the ‘be selective’ idea above.

    #4: Consider the possibility that you are not the hero, and that you might not even be a very good person. Finishing your goal or your mission or your quest might not be a good thing!

    #4a: as a consequence, realize that people who “really know you” or “know the real you” might not be nice people either, and may not have your best intentions at heart.

    #5: the mundane elements of your life that you are familiar with and take for granted will likely turn out to be some of your best assets against conspiracy, since your enemies are likely “big picture” people who don’t pay attention to your boring neighbors, the bus schedule, or where the photo-radar van is parked on Tuesday.

  • Magic_Cracker

    I had no idea they were human creators. I thought they were high-level programs, perhaps based on human creators, working to maintain the system  and that Neo had been co-opted from before the beginning of the first film.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    they roll credits before we can see what post-control life is like for the survivors. 

    And Wall-E‘s credits animation shows a very unlikely post-control life. The fact that there was one living plant doesn’t change the fact that the world is still covered in garbage, and all those people whose bodies appear to have developed in low-G (despite everything on the ship acting like they had normal gravity) and who don’t even know how to get their own food aren’t going to be happy farmers.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Even Tripods by John Christopher ends up jvgu zhghny fhfcvpvba nzbat uhznaf er-rzretvat nsgre gur qrsrng bs gur Gevcbqf’ “Znfgref”.

    ( http://www.rot13.com/index.php to decipher )

  • VMink


    The 1960s’ Prisonerends with #6 machine gunning a bunch of people (as “All You Need Is Love” plays on the jukebox), blowing the shit out of the Village, and returning to London without ever learning who was behind it all,…

    It’s even worse.  With dead-now-alive #2 returning to the halls of power (Parliament) and the butler simply transferring loyalty to #6, and the door to #6′s home opening and closing just like one from the Village, there’s an uncomfortable status quo being maintained, like #6/John Drake never really escaped from the Village.  Which brings up an even more uncomfortable realization: He never really “went” to the Village; the Village was with him all the time.  He just faceplanted into the systems of control and their less subtle machinations as soon as he stopped being a part of the system.

    Which really makes the new Prisoner all the more sinister in its cynicism, doesn’t it?

    … Yes, I really liked The Prisoner.  Why do you ask?

  • Magic_Cracker

    Also, re: Videodrome: Don’t watch TV, and if you watch TV don’t climb into one!

  • Tricksterson

    Yeah but Lori’s idea is more doable.

  • Tricksterson

    If you mean the Oracle and the Architect that’s the impression I got too.  Also that they were the basis for the Father God and Mother Goddess archetypes but if I get started on the symbolism behind the movies I may never stop.

  • Tricksterson

    If you stay for the credits the camera pulls back to reveal a whole hella lot of plants with the implication that it’s the garbage covered, polluted area that an anomaly.

  • VMink

    I went away with a different impression of the Architect and the Oracle: The Architect was the Gnostic Demiurge and the Oracle was Sophia.  Alternatively, the Architect was an avatar of Order, and the Oracle was an avatar of Chaos.  Transgressively, the Architect was God and the Oracle was the Devil.

  • friendly reader

     That doesn’t change the issue that everyone can barely walk. Muscle atrophy like that doesn’t fix itself overnight.

    TBH, though, I never really thought of that when I was watching Wall-E… because I didn’t care about any of the human characters, just the robots. I think that’s why, in the end, I never loved that movie as much as a lot of people. Once it stopped being about the robots and tried to make me care about the human characters, I lost my investment in it.

  • P J Evans

     And also they tend to assume that stories they get from ‘government sources’ are truthful. Without putting any effort into checking with any other sources.

  • Turcano

    I think, as in many things, Dave Barry’s assessment of mainstream journalism is much more accurate:

    As Abraham Lincoln once said, Journalism is the first rough draft of history. Or possibly it was Thomas Edison who said that. I’m pretty sure somebody said it, because you often hear journalists quote it in an effort to explain how
    come they get everything wrong.

  • Tybult

    I haven’t been able to figure which I hate more, the anonymous official who is trying to feed us a line about how dangerous Iran is, or the anonymous official who has something to say about, say, health care legislation but is simply too cowardly to attach their name to it.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Ironically, that “first draft” thing could be a powerful descriptive method of explaining how history is “constructed”, if you will, rather than a sloppy excuse for failing to do due diligence.

    If you read William Shirer’s Berlin Diaries or other news writeups from the 1930s, the thing that jumps out at you is how nobody seemed to quite have the right idea about the inner workings of the Nazi government, and rampant speculation centered around which mover and shaker in Hitler’s inner echelons might do thing X or Y.

    In retrospect, of course, the “and now we know” renders a lot of that stuff massively inaccurate or incomplete (i.e. the fanciful notion of a power bloc in Hitler’s cabinet or in the Reichswehr suddenly mounting a coup d’etat when his personal charisma and prestige was such that any attempt had a built-in psychological expectation-of-failure component to it), but it’s where we’d start if we knew nothing else about the historical evolution of the Third Reich – the “first draft”, if you will.

    But that first draft assumes the media reporters themselves did their due diligence, which they’re tending to fall down on these days. People in the media have mea culpa-ed about quite a few things, but it’s interesting how they don’t apologize for the fact that they’ve created false narratives which still have staying power, even today. Like the way they helped trash Clinton’s health insurance reform proposal, which ended up being so watered down all it did was help expand the scourge of HMOs in the USA. But everybody will tell you about the OMGHarry and Louise ads, and how scaaaaaary Clinton’s proposal must have been because FEAR.

    Or the way they salivated over the salacious revelations* surrounding Clinton’s indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky, elevating it from what should have been a minor scandal to an impeachable offence. Even now, people still believe that Clinton perjured himself (OMGIMPEACHABLE) when under certain legal technicalities, he did not**.

    The media could have done its job in heading off something like this to begin with by refusing to aid Gingrich and his fellow gangsters masquerading as politicians in being able to seek political cover for their radical agenda, which Clinton was determined to block as well as he could. But they didn’t, and then threw fuel on the fire of a populace steeped in moralistic finger wagging about the idea that you can tell a man’s character entirely from a single act unrelated to his Presidency. Especially when, unlike Richard Nixon, the act involved was essentially of a personal nature that affected exactly three people: Hillary, Bill, and Monica.

    Or, for that matter, aiding and abetting Bush’s Presidency by failing to fully report on the implications of the Supreme Court ruling regarding vote counts in Florida. If anyone was sharp enough they’d have noticed the ruling specifically asserted that it was for that special case only and was not intended to draw upon previous precedents nor set one. One might wonder if the juduciary were, in effect, being suborned to help steal an election and were finding ways to cover their rears.

    * “This is not about sex”, my ass. Ken Starr missed his calling as a hack porn novel writer.

    ** I suspect it would have driven the Republicans to sheer apoplexy had he proudly admitted to the best sex ever while on the stand, and it might even have been worth it, but one suspects that his marriage wouldn’t have survived that gambit.

  • Tricksterson

    With the Devil being the good guy (or gal in this case).  Because she defintely came off as more benevolent.

  • Tricksterson

    Actually I assumed Agent Smith was the devil.  He certainly  came off as such.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    Ironically, that “first draft” thing could be a powerful descriptive
    method of explaining how history is “constructed”, if you will, rather
    than a sloppy excuse for failing to do due diligence.

    That’s a very good point. I think that’s what the original speaker probably meant too.

    You’re right on the money on the media. They seem to really like these stupid narratives too, where every event can be treated as a sporting event without any impact on anything outside of what it does to some politician’s electoral prospects or one special interest’s fundraising efforts. A big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? That’ll really disappoint those environmentalists! A state introduces a law that requires women to justify their use of contraceptives to their employer? An outrage… to feminist groups! Dozens of people die in a brutal offensive in Afghanistan? Let’s talk about how that will affect President Obama’s poll numbers! As if it’s about nothing about scoring points, as if things like that don’t have an impact on the real world.

    I wonder what would happen if that approach was taken with every story. “Serial killer continues bloodthirsty rampage! What will this do to the Sheriff’s reelection campaign?” “California wildfires kill 13 people. Fire department humiliated!”

  • http://www.metagalacticllamas.com/ Triplanetary

    “In a move sure to cause controversy amongst proponents of remaining alive, local resident Bob Smith opened fire in a shopping mall today, killing five.”

  • Ursula L

    I think, as in many things, Dave Barry’s assessment of mainstream journalism is much more accurate:
    As Abraham Lincoln once said, Journalism is the first rough draft of history. Or possibly it was Thomas Edison who said that. I’m pretty sure somebody said it, because you often hear journalists quote it in an effort to explain how come they get everything wrong.

    You know, I have a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in history.

    And when writing, there was no excuse for getting the facts wrong, even in rough draft.

    The rough draft would have errors of grammar and style.  It would have omissions.  It would have unanswered questions and gaps.  It would have areas that needed more detail, and areas that had more detail than needed.  It would go off on tangents.  

    A piece of writing being a first draft excuses some mistakes.  It doesn’t excuse all mistakes. 

    The facts available, with citations, was the starting point.  

    “A picture of a trailer in the desert which the Bush administration says is a WMD factory” is not the same as “a picture of a WMD factory.”  It’s just a picture of “a trailer in the desert” with unsubstantiated commentary.  

  • Ursula L

    Sorry, I meant the original motive behind keeping the vote from women, not the modern-day one of trying to take it away. Requiring women to take their husband’s names and keeping the vote from them were both ways of excluding them from the legal franchise. The former entailed women having legal status only through their husbands, or effectively being the property of their husbands. Note that I’m not describing a modern woman’s choice to take her husband’s name, but this being an official or unofficial requirement.

    Like
    Reply

    At this point, I think you’re running into the problem parallel to the fact that the origins of a word is not the same as its modern meaning.  

    In the past, custom and law enforced women taking the last name of their husband.

    But a lot of other stuff grew up around that origin.  

    For a lot of women, they’ve spent their whole lives  thinking about and imagining the name change which would come with marriage.  

    For example, my first initial is “U” and my second initial is “S”.  As a child I was teased that I ought to marry a man with the last initial of “A”, as that would make my initials “U.S.A.” which my classmates saw as cool and interesting, given that we live in the USA.  (My mother is Indian-from India, and my father is German, I never felt that my identity as a US citizen was my sole identifying characteristic in the world.  It certainly was never more defining of me than being human, even though the world surrounded me with the message that my sex and non-white status made me of questionable worth.)

    Questions about things like name changing have a lot of more consequences than those that flow strictly from current laws.  

    Little girls aren’t the same thing as adult activist feminists.  Whatever objections adult activist feminists and allies have towards women changing their name at marriage, it doesn’t completely change the reality of little girls being encouraged to imagine what their new name will be at marriage.

    If the progressive response to a law that says “if you change your name at marriage, you will loose your right to vote, unless you go through elaborate bureaucratic red-tape” is “so don’t change your mind so that you don’t interfere with laws allowing you to vote, and deal with all the social crap that comes with not changing your name” then the s0-called “progressive” response isn’t really progressive at all.

    When you’re oppressed, you play a constant balancing game between asserting your rights and the amount of energy it takes to assert your rights with the hope that your rights may be respected but also with the knowledge that your rights can be easily be completely overlooked by the people who actually control power, with absolutely no negative consequences to anyone except yourself and others in your position.  

    If you see oppression, it is really important to measure your response.  And one of the most important measures to pay attention to is whether the response you suggest demands work and sacrifice from the people being oppressed, rather than reformation and restitution from the oppressors and yourself.  

    Because it is easy to imagine responses that demand work and sacrifice from people who don’t have the power to enforce change, and then blame them when change doesn’t happen. 

    But it is hard work to demand change from the powerful who reap enormous benefit from the status-quo, but who face no negative consequences and a lot of ongoing rewards from perpetuating the problem.  

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/XKPYVYKGXJKOSC6CKNE74Y7IDY Sdfsdf

    The most preferred and fashionable michael kors handbagsavailable with us. The michael kors outlet handbags is most preferred official bags well suited for business trips. The michael kors outlet handbags  offer you most mature standard look to you.

  • Tonio

     

    If the progressive response to a law that says “if you change your
    name at marriage, you will loose your right to vote, unless you go
    through elaborate bureaucratic red-tape” is “so don’t change your mind
    so that you don’t interfere with laws allowing you to vote, and deal
    with all the social crap that comes with not changing your name” then
    the s0-called “progressive” response isn’t really progressive at all.

    But that’s not the response I’m making. I’m saying that society should change so that women taking their husbands’ names isn’t a norm or a tradition or an expectation. Our culture shouldn’t be encouraging little girls to imagine what their new name will be at marriage.

    You’re right that defying that tradition does involve work and sacrifice, and I’m not necessarily saying that all women should defy it. My point that there should be no tradition there to defy in the first place. Society shouldn’t care whether a woman keeps her name or takes her husband’s. There’s no valid reason for that inequality, just as there would be no reason to have a norm where wives kept their names but husbands adopted their wives’ names.

  • Tricksterson

    Okay, we’ve been invaded by a spambot.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    But in all cases it should be easy to get identifcation proving one is who one says one is, and thereby prove that one can vote.

    I keep being reminded of America 2014 and how, in that book, Republicans used massive vote suppression to secure supermajorities in the House and the Senate and thereby implement their entire agenda.

    You’d  think Obama and the Dems wouldn’t be allowing this to happen, but they seem to be, for some reason.

  • Tonio

    But in all cases it should be easy to get identifcation proving one is who one says one is, and thereby prove that one can vote.

    No disagreement there. I wasn’t suggesting that doing away with the sexist tradition would be a substitute for making it easier to vote or to obtain proof of identity. Both the tradition and the impact of Voter ID laws on women are types of male privilege.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

     

    “A picture of a trailer in the desert which the Bush administration says
    is a WMD factory” is not the same as “a picture of a WMD factory.”
     It’s just “a picture of a trailer in the desert” with unsubstantiated
    commentary.

    I’m reminded of an e-mail passed around a few years ago featuring photos of fighter jets that had been hidden under the sands of an Iraqi desert. The e-mail was captioned “No WMDs, huh?”

    Because apparently fighter jets that had clearly been mothballed for long-term, hidden storage somehow qualify as weapons of mass destruction.

  • squashed

    I don’t 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X