Bush expects you to save thousands of dollars if you ever want to see a doctor
Who thinks this is going to die faster than Social Security Privatization did?
The Staff was really just a big stick…Anyway, it was capped by an elaborate headpiece with a carving of the sun at the top. What you had to do was take the Staff to a special map room in Tanis--it had the whole city laid out in miniature on the floor. When you placed the Staff in a certain spot in this room, at a certain time of day, the sun would shine through a hole here in the headpiece and then send a beam of light down here—to the map--giving you the location of the Well of the Souls...
The Senate voted, 72 to 25, to shut off debate and hold a vote on confirmation Tuesday morning. Sixty votes are needed to shut off debate, and 41 to keep one going, so opponents of the nominee fell far short this afternoon.
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Burns (R-MT), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Were you at all worried that there's a danger in saying, Wait a minute, why are we devaluing this male style? -- that you might be cutting into the gains that feminism has made?
I came of age in the late '60s and early '70s, which is right at the time that things were changing radically, and I never felt feminism to be a threat. Now, I know there were some angry people, angry women in particular, who I thought were sometimes wielding a broad brush by saying that you can't trust any man, that all men want is sex, or that they are uniformly dangerous and abusive, but I never really felt angered by that because I believed that, in the bigger picture, both men and women stood to gain from the larger feminist goals of equality and removing biology as destiny.
I've seen that in my own life. I married somebody who has her own career, who's very good at what she does. She also supports me at times as I'm chasing my dream of writing books. So my philosophy is that we can be pro-female and pro-male and pro-relationship if we are reasonable with each other. And I sense that women, even very strongly feminist-oriented women, are open to hearing what men have to say.
What animates the radical right, in other words, is not so much a specific liberal belief about stem-cell research here or gay civil unions there; on an abstract level, it’s not about any specific liberal issues at all. Rather, it’s about the very existence of areas of political and intellectual independence that do not answer directly and favorably to the state.
"What we are really talking about here is...whether or not it's OK to be gay or homosexual in this state. On whether or not it's appropriate to be discriminating against or to discriminate against someone because of that."
We were just four women who believed that what we were doing was the right thing and it was nothing to be ashamed of. The room wasn't filled with the scent of vigiliant martyrdom, of people hell bent on making a political statement about feminism and women's rights. It was a room that smelled of women who just were: this is what we do. We choose to give birth or not and we talk about our underwear, doable men, whether we like our jobs, the latest forms of birth control, the weather, and if the ex was every really any good in bed and why did we put up with it for so long.
That last sentence gave me a mental image of a woman sitting at a table with a baby in a high chair on one side and her husband on the other and she’s spoon-feeding them both, but making sure always to feed her husband first lest he squall and throw the bowl of cereal to the ground. This article would work well as a way to convince men to embrace feminism, I think, since it’s such an appealing alternative to looking like a big ass like Morris here comes across as.
When people congratulate me for all I’ve done despite my circumstances I am reminded that I’ve only done what I would have been expected to do regardless considering my family history, class, and educational status. Sure, it was difficult. Sometimes it is still difficult, but I know no other kind of adult life. I had no other expectations for myself than to move through the college experience and get a degree — maybe another — and planned on doing so as long as I had the resources necessary to get me here.
The second has to do with the right's hatred of educated people and of intelligence. Hence, liberals are called ivory-tower professors and the academia is portrayed as one vast gigantic worm factory; the nest from which all liberals slither outwards. It's a bad thing to be smart in this country. This is where the Republican party funnels the subconscious hatred based on class: not against the true powers of the society, the corporations, but against those scruffy academics. How dare they make fifty thousand a year teaching! How dare they! And the wingnut answer is to destroy the universities and to replace them with trade schools where students will not be upset by anything they learn.
But at the same time liberals are really, really stupid. That is why they are liberals! I keep getting this one from trolls all the time, but even Tom deLay agreed with this idea in a radio interview I heard. Liberals are thick. They just don't get it that human nature is unalterably whatever the current conservative powers believe it should be and that only the few worthy ones can rule the masses which will be held down with religion.
I was surprised that so much of your book was about Gloria Feldt, Ellie Smeal, Catharine MacKinnon. Only at the very end do you mention someone like Rebecca Walker.
Are you asking about [why I didn't discuss] twenty- or thirtysomething feminism?
Yes. The MacKinnon quote about how "all heterosexual intercourse is rape" is old news. There has been a whole other wave of sex-positive feminism in part in response to ideas like that.
I know you'll do me the favor of talking about the book I wrote. And "What Does the Future of Feminism Hold?" ain't my book. I've been arguing with them since the '70s. That's where I got onboard. It's been 30 years. What has feminism wrought? It's not "What will the third wave look like?" Not "What are the promising movements in feminism?" It's "What has feminism wrought over the past 30 years?"
But I think it's fair to cite the AAUW [American Association of University Women]; I think it's fair to cite NOW; [criticizing stay-at-home mothers] is what they're all about! ... I say, "You've got to make your own choices for your own family." They don't say that. They say there's one responsible choice: You're hurting your child and yourself and women more broadly if you make the choice [to stay home]. So there is no choice for feminists. They denigrate motherhood.
NOW actively supports full rights for homemakers and recognition of the economic value of the vital services they perform for family and society. We also support legislation and programs reflecting the reality of marriage as an equal economic partnership.
As for public policy, I hate to be a nerd. But who pays? The majority of families with young children get by on one full-time salary. High-income couples qualify for the dependent-care tax credit. The family struggling to get by on one full-time salary is arguably subsidizing the day-care choices, the career choices, of the more affluent couples.
Fine. But why is that parent necessarily the mother? Why can't we get used to the idea that it would be just as good for kids to be home with dads?
Who wants that? Why would we do that?
I know lots of men and women who --
I think women who really want that ought to find a guy who wants it. I don't see why there's any big movement needed for this. If some woman really feels very strongly that things ought to be divvied up that way I think she ought to do what that woman [Hirshman] suggested in the American Prospect: marry a starving artist or marry a liberal. Marry the guy who feels that way and do your own thing!
But social expectations make that --
Society will never, ever, ever, ever validate it. Ever. Ever. So, next question. [Because] now we're baying at the moon: Damn, life's unfair! Damn! Life's unfair!
Life's unfair and there's no room for progress?
Room for progress is limitless! We're talking about little trade-offs.
You're accepting that society won't ever validate a man who stays home! That's a big trade-off!
But it's not my opinion! Find me one. Find me one in the history of recorded mankind. You know what's funny to me? Whatever men do, as I understand it, is the status job in that society. Like if they gathered [instead of hunted] in some damn society, then gathering would be the status job because men were doing it.
But that's exactly the problem! To say that it's been true historically without exception doesn't make it right!
They care more about [status] than we do. But that's also why they care more about paid work. And obviously I'm talking broadly here. There are women who dance circles around guys, make them look like slugs. But [there are] recent stories about women being handed keys to the executive washroom and going, "Eh, I really don't want it!"
You quote Karl Zinsmeister as describing how men need to be "lured" and "corralled" into being nurturers, using that quote in a passage about the centrality of men in the family. If fathers are so naturally central to the family, why do they need to be lured or corralled? Isn't that a darker view of men's impulses than you argue feminists have?
No, no. Impregnating women? Really natural! Hangin' around? Not necessarily natural! That was [the woman's] job. Her job was to hang around.
So then why do we need them? Why is it so bad -- in your view -- to have fatherless households?
Because there's tons kids learn from their fathers! Look what happens to boys who don't have fathers! They become hyper-male; they don't have male role models, they're joining gangs. They bristle against the matriarchy they're in. The data is incredible about fatherless boys.
I saw all the time as a mother of sons why boys need fathers. It would ruin my day if they didn't get an invitation to a first grade party! [My husband] would be like, "Kate, lighten up, they'll be fine." They really need fathers. And fathers have to feel needed.
But you and I come from a privileged place in that we have careers you can "take time off from." There are few jobs that offer that. What about women who want to protect themselves economically but don't have jobs you can take time off from?
So then maybe they won't. But opinion data tells us that they want to.
In your chapter about divorce you write, "when the traditional values of self-sacrifice and duty lose to conflict with the feminist doctrine of self-fulfillment and personal autonomy, children pay a very steep price." Is your take that people in unhappy marriages should stay in those marriages?
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice, and that when they fail to do this they become dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is merely a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, where the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substance-filled positive peace, where all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
Michelle Bachelet, who was elected Sunday as president of this male-dominated, prosperous and deeply religious nation of 16 million, is a woman and an agnostic, a guitar-strumming child of the 60's, a former exile who spent part of her childhood in the United States, and a physician who has never before held elective office.
Even though Democrats thought from the beginning that they had little hope of defeating the nomination, they were dismayed that a nominee with such clear conservative views - in particular a written record of opposition to abortion rights - appeared to be stirring little opposition.
Asked if he had any hope that Democrats could slow President Bush's effort to push the court to the right, [former Clinton administration official] Mr. Klain responded: "No. The only thing that will fix this is a Democratic president and more vacancies. It takes a long time to make these kinds of changes and it's going to take a long time to undo them."
"You either need a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate or moderate Republicans who will break ranks when it's a conservative nominee," Mr. Schumer [D-NY, and member of the Judiciary Committee] said. "We don't have any of those three. The only tool we have is the filibuster, which is a very difficult tool to use, and with only 45 Democrats, it's harder than it was last term."
“Is your mother right when she says that you personally strongly oppose a woman’s right to choose abortion? What do you personally think of gay rights? What do you personally think of affirmative action?”
He couldn’t say, “Well, I can’t give you those answers because it will come before me.” No, no, no, no. You’ve told us that your personal views are irrelevant. We think they’re relevant, so give us the answers. I think it’s a very, very hard question for him to duck.
The panel also advised them, participants said, that Democratic senators could oppose even nominees with strong credentials on the grounds that the White House was trying to push the courts in a conservative direction, a strategy that now seems to have failed the party.
Asked how they might stop the shift, Stephanie Cutter, a senior Democratic Senate aide, sighed and responded: "Win. Win in 2006."
The Maryland legislature passed a law Thursday that would require Wal-Mart Stores to increase spending on employee health insurance, a measure that is expected to be a model for other states.
She's a person, not a plaything. Respect her, flirt with her, let things happen, and they will.
5) If we go out for dinner on the first date, I will not let you pay. If you really want, I will let you leave the tip, but that's all. This is not meant to imply that you can't afford to pay or that I expect something from you: it's just the gentlemanly thing to do. If you disagree with this, let's talk about it: it'll make for good dinner conversation. But I still won't let you pay.
8) I will not have sex with you on the first date. It's quite likely that I won't have sex with you on the second, third, or fourth date either. Unless I trust you and feel something for you, I don't want to sleep with you, and it will take a few dates before we get to that point. For those of you who can jump into bed with a stranger right away, I don't think that you're inferior to me in any way: I'm not one of those judgmental moralizing types. In fact, I'll admit that at times I'm envious of you. But that's not how I am, and you've got to be true to yourself (or to put it more colloquially, you've gotta keep it real).
12) Once we have reached the point where I can call you my girlfriend, I will try my best to rearrange my schedule so that I can spend time with you. I have some hobbies that take up quite a bit of my time, but I will make sure not to neglect you.
16) I will want you to come to temple with me at some point if we've gotten serious. I'm a practicing Reform Jew (although I'm only half-Jewish: my dad's Catholic), and Judaism is something that's important to me.
17) If I mention to you that I think another woman is attractive, I will immediately follow that by saying that she's an ugly hag compared to you, and you are the most beautiful woman I've ever seen.
Without overturning Roe, they will attempt to pass new laws that will make it in practice impossible for many or most women to get abortions. And most of these laws will be 'stealth' abortion bans, laws designed to seem moderate or reasonable on the surface (and therefore protecting Republican congressfolks from voter backlash) while actually banning a wide range of abortion procedures. (The Federal 'partial birth' abortion (PBA) ban is a classic example of a 'stealth' ban; they marketed it as applying only to a single uncommon procedure performed post-viability, but the PBA ban's text could cover a wide range of procedures, mostly pre-viability).
And if the Republicans continue to control Congress, many of those laws will happen at the federal level, meaning that even abortion-rights meccas like New York state will be subject to the new regulations. Contrary to what many people say, the destruction of Roe (whether it's actually overturned, as Amanda expects, or instead whittled down to a shell, as I expect) will not mean it'll be up to the individual states to decide.
Over and over again, the ads and the games they sell build up women of strength – both physical and mental – only to ascribe that power to a facet of their sexuality. It turns their power into something pornographic. Into something that will titillate the assumedly male players in order to give them the thrill of controlling a powerful woman and the aspect of a woman that supposedly makes her powerful: her sexuality.
A bill filed this week in the Indiana House would make abortion illegal--even for victims of rape and incest. How lovely.
House Bill 1096, proposed by Rep. Troy A. Woodruff, would only allow for abortion if a woman’s health or life would be “permanently impaired.” The bill would make it a felony to perform any other abortions; doctors who did could face up to eight years in prison.
The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people.