people think government should be the only one to grant freedoms

I love Tumblr feminism but it is so damn West-centric. 

I realise, I realise perfectly, that women get raped and murdered and tortured in the West too. And I am in NO WAY undermining any of that. But feminism is such a complex issue and I’ve come to realise that feminism for one woman is not feminism for the other. 

For one woman, feminism is the right to wear the tightest, shortest clothes and not be degraded or attacked for it. For another woman, it is literally the right to be born. No feminism is more or less “valid”. Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that your rights are any less important. But feminism is so layered, and I find that–at least on tumblr–much of feminism’s other sides aren’t talked about as much. 

I can only speak reliably for women of my own country. 

It is honestly dangerous for me to be out of the house, alone, after a certain time of night. It’s risky for me to get wet in the rain because I’d look “sexy” and therefore I’m “asking for it”. In the burning heat of summer, I have to think twice about wearing anything short or sleeveless or in any way comfortable, because it would be “indecent” of me. It’s dangerous for me to wear a skirt, or a dress, unless I’m moving from a car to an indoor area, I’m cat-called on my way to college when I’m literally just wearing a pair of jeans and a t-shirt, it’s dangerous for me to enter a taxi alone because I’m at the driver’s mercy, it’s dangerous for me to turn a man down because I could literally HAVE ACID THROWN ON MY FACE, and when I talk about issues like rape, powerful men in powerful offices in the country literally try to blame anything else but the rapist, including (and this is what an actual politician said), “spicy chinese food that gives men fire”. In my country it’s illegal for pregnant women to do a sex determination procedure because most people, when finding out that the unborn child is female, abort her. Doctors take bribes and do the test anyway. Aborted female foetuses are often fed to stray dogs or thrown into sewers. Female babies that are born are often murdered. There are places where local village councils don’t allow women to own mobile phones because it would give them too much freedom. Women are pulled out of school–children!–and young college students, to get married, because a woman’s only job is to give birth to a boy, and why not start right after her body is able to carry a baby, right? Martial rape isn’t against the crime, because some lawyers and judges literally can’t wrap their head around the fact that married women can be raped by their husbands.  Lesbians–they’re not even allowed the freedom to have sex. (Section 377). Trans women, are of course, not even considered human beings. 

And as bad as the women in my country have it, I realise that I am, in fact constitutionally, granted SO much more freedom than women of other countries. The law gives me the right to wear what I want, go where I please, drive a car, be alone. The law gives me freedom, even if my society does not. As a cis, straight woman, I am not considered an abomination against nature. And therefore when I read about the lives of women in countries worse of than mine, I am reminded that I am, in fact, endlessly privileged. My nationality grants me equal status with a man, my parents–progressive and feminist as they are–give me freedoms that even some of my friends don’t have (such as the freedom to choose the man I marry), my education and financial status give me the freedom to dream of what I can be in the future. I am lucky.

Feminism for women in my country is when a girl’s father tells me, “I’m going to educate my daughter like a boy, I want her to become a government servant.” I don’t think, how dare he choose a profession for his daughter, she has the right to choose! I think, wow, he’s giving her an education. 

Feminism for a woman in my country is when I tell my Australian cousin that, “it’s actually getting MUCH better. Child marriage has reduced.”

Feminism is when I have to explain to a New Zealander that, my father doesn’t force me to do anything. He doesn’t dictate the clothes I wear or where I go, or who I meet. I listen to him because I love and respect his judgement, and I know that when he looks at the crop top I’m wearing and asks, in badly-hidden surprise, “You’re wearing that?” it’s not because he has a problem with me showing skin, it’s because he’s terrified of me getting raped or killed. And when I talk about boys with my mother, it’s not because she’s forcing me to get married at the age of 18 to a man of her choosing, it’s because I have a crush and I want someone to talk to. That is more than what I can say for over 50% of my friends. 

No “version” of feminism is inherently more valid than the other. But Western feminism tends to discuss issues like equal pay and sexualisation in media, which are literally so far out of the issues women from less liberated societies face. And I believe that those women deserved to be acknowledged as well. 

Feminism should be about all women, of all backgrounds, otherwise we might as well not bother. 

Captain America 76th Anniversary Celebration Post

The very first Captain America comic has a release date of March 1941, so in order to celebrate the 76th Anniversary of our beloved Steven Grant Rogers, I have asked Tumblr users to submit their favorite Cap comic panels, art, quotes, pictures, meta, gifs, and/or write-ups on what Captain America means to them. And here is what Cap’s fans have to say… (please feel free to reblog and add your own favorite Steve Rogers moments, etc. to this post).

Keep reading

delusionandfaith  asked:

Since you said you liked third person POV maybe you can work something with this: Dany comes to Winterfell to get to know her nephew and prepare for war. She doesn't miss how Jon looks at the Lady of Winterfell. But her nephew is not as courageous in love as he is on the battlefield. Dany decides to intervene - by talking about possible matches for them.

yes i live for this

daenerys stormborn, queen of the andals and the first men, mother of dragons and maker of matches

While at first wary of forging an alliance with the Starks—and even more so when the truth of the King in the North’s parentage had become known—Daenerys had been properly convinced by her Hand, who had vouched for the family so wholeheartedly that she couldn’t refuse. She had come to know Tyrion Lannister’s counsel to be indispensable, and it was clear from the start that Jon Snow has no designs on the Iron Throne. He is focused on the war that winter has brought, and when it’s over he wants nothing but to stay in the North where he belongs.

Keep reading

alliecat-person  asked:

As someone who is a year away from a PhD I'm quite happy to discuss history with anyone who is open to it. But what galls me about mpoc is that they end up saying that academic expertise--which many of us have spent years acquiring--means nothing, all while claiming expertise for themselves on a wide array of subjects. Apparently their manner of acquiring expertise is valid, while those of us who have passed exams, presented our work, etc., are just part of repressive, monolithic academia.

The problem itself is of course, broader than you, or I, or MPOC, but it illustrates some of the current issues rather well. The example of MPOC copying the wikipedia bibliography for muslims in Spain to back their claim that Queen Urraca was a perfect example. You don’t need any training to copy something from wikipedia – but of course, a lot of what they copy is from academics – it is part of that system. 

Same with the databases they use - none of the research is original (and it doesn’t have to be! That’d be far too much work for a hobby) but at the same time, those were all created and researched by academics. 

So the first problem is – academia has terrible PR. It’s associated with class, racial divides, capitalistic loans, and really boring and dry material. And these things are true. Some of the stuff that comes out is dreadfully dull or dense and hard to read and nothing makes those parts less boring or less complex, you just learn to handle those things better. 

But you can’t claim everything is the ivory tower, or that everyone is part of a repressive hierarchy. I tell my friends it’s the bell hooks effect on tumblr – people like radical discourse when it says what they want to say, when they believe that those people are backing up things they believe, and when a punchy quote catches their eye – but if they think something is complex or elitist they disregard it as only for the ivory tower. But bell hooks is an academic, bell hooks is a PhD and a professor, and is a great feminist theorist. Even if bell hooks’s place in academia has been to challenge it, she is a part of that process. The bell hooks popular among people who spurn academia and elitist language is the same bell hooks who writes about feminist theory and teaches classes at a university. 

It can be jarring for me to be accused of things regarding my education as if I had everything handed to me. I worked hard to be the first in my mother’s family to earn a BA. I had two jobs. I paid for school  mostly myself with loans. I had a pell grant. I spent my first year in college in the TRIO government program for first gen and low income students. (Had I stayed at that university, I would have pursued the McNair Program for POC students). I applied to colleges mostly through fee waivers, and only visited the universities that paid to fly me out for diversity recruitment because my mother had no money, and we were going to lose our house.

You don’t accidentally end up a biracial/mexican woman who gets into graduate school. You make a conscious choice to fight tooth and nail against your circumstances, to succeed academically and personally, and pray someone will fund you once you get in. So I got asked “should history be kept only to people with the power and resources to get a degree?” and that I think, shocked me. I’ve spent most of my undergraduate career A.) struggling to pay for it with debt and B.) convincing people to take a chance on my abilities and C.) working for non-profits and public institutions because like most scholars, I’m not in this field for money. If I wanted to play keepaway, I’d get an MBA. 

This goes back to PR – we’re not all people who are fundamentally good at being concise, and learning the language and diction of our disciplines sometimes complicates what we’re saying. People believe they aren’t welcome in those spaces or have a fear of feeling stupid – and we don’t always clear that up properly. We also don’t always tell people that most of us find the freedom of information and knowledge to be a fundamental part of democracy. 

However, it’s easier and easier to access the “languages” if you will – to look up terms on wikipedia, on the plain english wiki, to google something and find answers, and to ask people to “translate”. No one knows everything. 

Neither side will succeed if we blame those who beat stacked odds against them to get a degree, or demean those who can’t, didn’t, or chose not to. 

so i’ve had a lot of questions about compulsory voting in my askbox lately, mostly because i spend a lot of time complaining about voter turnout numbers in the north american election. so here’s me attempting to explain compulsory voting in australia in 4 minutes. the real challenge is if any of you can understand me. filmed with only the best HD potato.

transcripty kind of thing under the cut; i was working off these notes if you’re having trouble understanding me.

Keep reading

Let me talk about my love for Steven Grant Rogers

Warning: Super long post showing why we should all protect Steve Rogers.

1. Origin

I’m gonna start with one of Steve’s well-known quotes from Steve Rogers: Super-Soldier #3.

“… Those beatings… and that scared, sickly little Steve Rogers… That was where the man I became was really born. Not in the fires of war. Not in a secret government lab. But inside a sense of justice.”

Steve Rogers, the first Captain America, was created by two Jewish guys who wanted to take a solid stand against Nazism in a then neutral United States. They created a 90 lb. cutie whose only wish was to be admitted in the army to fight against Nazis. We’re talking about a guy who symbolizes opportunity for deserving persons with disabilities, an undying love for country and freedom, and compassion for hate victims. Steve was created as political propaganda against Hitler who took his brand of National Socialism to the extreme, he was made for a political reason and I love that. You cannot fully discuss Captain America without politics, his comics are meant to capture the zeitgeist. He was made in the image of Hitler’s perfect Aryan (a tall, muscular, blue-eyed blond male) which was a spit in Hitler’s face, and that’s awesome. I want my favorite superhero to be politically and socially aware and relevant. With Captain America, I was immediately sold. Really, thank you Joe Simon, Jack Kirby, and Marvel for this marvelous (pardon the pun) creation.

2. Values

Steve is patriotic and he knows that true patriotism doesn’t mean blind loyalty to the government

 or jingoism.

“America is made up of a multitude of different ethnic groups, each of which has had its own part to contribute to American culture.”

Steve even gave up the mantle of Captain America when he disagreed with the government, he even became Nomad and later on, The Captain. And we all know that he’s a staunch advocate of anti-registration in Civil War, so how left can he get? He was juxtaposed with John Walker (the jingoistic Super Patriot who temporarily became Captain America) to show how different true patriotism is from xenophobic jingoism. Captain America’s weapon is a shield, he was meant to defend, not to pre-empt. It’s called national defense for a reason.

He loves freedom and he’s not at all trying to hide it. He even called killing, the taking of life, as the ultimate deprivation of freedom (he says this in Volume 1 but I forgot which issue). Yes, he tends to think about things in terms of freedom, that’s the kind of liberty-loving man that he is.

He invokes the Constitution aka the fundamental law of the United States against baddies,

and the baddies invoke it against him.

3. Superpower

Superpower? What superpower? The guy runs on modified steroids to keep his physique (he works hard for it as I will later mention but without that serum, he can’t be a soldier and/or Captain America). Steve’s superpower is his skill (hi there Batman), his strategist mindset and tactician mentality. He is a super-soldier.

4. Personality

Steve is definitely an introvert,

and he’s also known for long speeches that were even carried over to the MCU in the form of the “the price of freedom is high” speech.

He’s a good example of an introvert who is opinionated and well-spoken, traits that some people still consider are exclusive to extroverts.

Steve is concerned about being a proper gentleman, being a guy from the 40s and all.

Kids love him and he loves them so much, he even takes black kids to the Avengers mansion as a special treat.

Oh, we know Steve is polite, but he’s not a pushover. This man was willing to go toe-to-toe with his friend, Tony Stark, and a lot of other friends in Civil War over a political debate. He did not compromise when his beloved freedom was on the line.

He starts a moral debate with the Punisher and punched the guy… through a wall.

Steve holds ethics seminars for Avengers when he deems necessary.

No one kind of cares about a guy, dressed in red, white, and blue tights, who gives out superhero ethics lectures but he fills that role so passionately that he actually scheduled a seminar and genuinely expected other Avengers to attend. 

If you’ve earned his trust, he will accept you for who you are, even if you killed someone for revenge. He’ll tell you to stand trial in a court of law but he’ll support you through it, as he said to Diamondback (Rachel Leighton).

Although he’s very self-righteous, he knows when not to force his beliefs on someone.

Steve never gives up, not in wars, not in people. Don’t get me started on his loyalty to close friends like Bucky, and that extends to non-A-list friends like Fabian Stankiewicz who he saved from suicide.

“Don’t you know me by now, Fabian? I don’t desert my teammates. If they want you to go, I’m going with you.”

He never stops fighting.

And last but not least, he’s absolutely adorkable, emphasis on dork.

5. Representation

Steve Rogers, able-bodied, Christian, presumably heterosexual (because no other sexuality is explicitly shown or stated in canon, I personally agree with a bisexual Steve) white male, hello Mr. Privilege.  Despite that, Steve has befriended members of minorities.

Steve’s second partner and best friend is Sam Wilson, the Falcon. As I said, he visited Sam’s neighborhood and brought some black kids to the Avengers mansion (I cannot weep at this more). He doesn’t care about superficial (racial, sexual) differences.

He treats his girlfriends, Peggy and Sharon Carter, Bernie Rosenthal (Jewish, mind you), Rachel Leighton, and others with respect and has generally maintained good relations with his exes (I’ll discuss how he fails with women later). 

His childhood buddy was a gay guy named Arnold Roth who was in love with another guy named Michael, and it is shown how Steve openly approves of the homosexual relationship.

… They can’t corrupt your love for Michael with their lies anymore than they can corrupt my love for Bernie! Do you hear me Arnie? They’re the Pariahs! They’re the disease!” - Steve on homophobes.

Here’s a link to a wonderfully detailed post about Arnie, Steve’s gay BFF.

Steve does not take his capable body for granted because he knows how it felt to be a person with disabilities, chronic illnesses that practically rendered him physically incapable, until his early twenties.

6. Career choices

Steve is Captain America full-time, he is a soldier, and I love war stories. I love reading those not for the military stuff, but for the raw emotion going through the minds of young victims of trauma and survivor’s guilt, particularly described in detail by great authors. I could read a whole issue focusing on Steve’s thoughts and I’ll love it, there’s just something different about how war veterans think. That’s right folks, Captain America broods, a lot.

Steve is also an artist, he is good at sketching.

I love how this is also shown in the movies, in Captain America: The First Avenger (a dancing monkey) and in The Avengers (a structure), and in the Avengers Assemble cartoon (he paints!). It takes a lot of passion and skill to be an artist but most of all, you can’t be an artist without emotions to express.


1. Desperate times, desperate measures

He brushed the legal system aside when it’s Bucky (he brushes everything aside when it’s Bucky),

he was even willing to kill the Red Skull with one punch when Bucky’s life was threatened.

Steve, man of principle, throws away principles when his close friends are involved, there’s a sort of hypocrisy there. Of course he has valid reasons, but that just shows how human he can be.

So desperate he was in Civil War that he dealt with Wilson Fisk, the Kingpin,

and accepted Punisher into #TeamCap. Luke Cage knows exactly what I’m talking about.

2. Not truthful to his exes

For the love of God, Steve needs to drop it to his exes that he’s dumped them for someone else. This is the source of the infamous Peggy-Sharon tension, because we all know Steve hid his relationship with Sharon from Peggy (and Peggy was Sharon’s older sister at that time..!),

and he almost did it again with Bernie who kept pursuing him during his relationship with Diamondback. 

He just can’t straight up tell the girl to stop hoping because he’s already taken, that’s not being nice, that’s deception and insensitivity.

Remember when Steve proposed to Sharon the first time he met her, when he didn’t even know her name?

That is downright creepy.

3. Self-centered

Aside from his self-righteousness, he kind of puts the spotlight on himself at inappropriate times.

I know it’s selfless to take the blame but sometimes it’s best to just listen, especially when someone’s grieving. Steve could take Listening 101 from a certain Clark Kent.

4. Judgmental

If Steve finds out your favorite is problematic, you can bet he’s judged you. 

He’s sincerely disappointed with people’s fascination with characters like Wolverine and Punisher, imagine his reaction when he finds out you like Deadpool.

When he started dating Diamondback, he was uneasy with the fact that she wasn’t his usual type. Basically, he’s judged her based on the partly shaved pink hair (well, and the criminal record). When she let the shaved part grow and dyed her hair brown, he said she looked… normal.

I love both Steve’s good traits and his flaws, come on, what’s a character without weaknesses. He sets the moral standard for Marvel superheroes.

Sometimes I think it’s scary that he’s put on such a high moral pedestal that other characters might not be critical of his decisions and actions. They say Steve’s always right but he’s human, he can make bad decisions and be wrong too, just like any of us.

With all that said, I can’t think of a character I love more than Steve Rogers. I like soldiers and artists, and I am madly in love with soldier-artists.

Overthrowing a Government / Changing the System

Lately there are been stories, specifically dystopian stories, about overthrowing governments. It sounds easy to do, those stories portray the struggles of the MC and their revolutionary friends, but in reality things aren’t as easy as infiltrating a facility or shooting a couple of arrows or guns. You’ll see, overthrowing a government isn’t the same as changing the system.  Let me tell you a story about it.

Some years ago, let’s say 41 years ago, my country entered into a state of fear. The democratic government was overthrown by the military and they assumed control over the country and its people. About 17 years later their story was over and democracy was rising again, or at least that’s what we thought. We’ve had four governments of the center wing, the democrats; one government of the right wing, and now we’re living under another center government. Things haven’t changed much, just with saying we still have the same constitution the military created for its government you can see how some things remain the same. That’s the long story short about changing a government without changing the system. Some things are better, there’s “freedom” to get out of your house at the time you want; you can meet with more than three or five people; you can go out without fearing if you were coming back at all, or fearing about the people you love. There’s still people missing, people who were killed and no one knows where they are; the perpetrators of horrible crimes are still free, and some people still support the dictatorship millions of people lived under. The form has changed but not the substance.

Now we live in a democracy or as I like to call it, a broken democracy. People born in the 90’s are the children of this transition, I am one of them, aware of the things that happened to your family, crying every Christmas because someone isn’t coming back; our parents teaching us the forbidden songs they used to listen; one of your relatives saying as a joke they were stopped by the military only to be asked for a light but deep down knowing they might not be there; listening to people saying the military should be back on the streets; knowing the stories of people who were detained and survived; things that shape the way you see your world around you, and the most important thing, knowing that politicians don’t care about it, or few care. But I’m getting off topic.

A country, or a state, is like a bridge, some people go in one direction, some people in other, some try to direct the traffic, some people fall, some are thrown, and some stay in their places. To change the system you have to burn down the bridge and build a new one. But you can’t burn a bridge on your own, you need help, and to get help you need people. More people, better. Another example, a country is like a pyramid, on the top you’ll find the government, then, the business people (though I believe the switch places from time to time), then you’ll have the workers, people who work on offices, schools, colleges, hospitals, media, people like you and me. People who didn’t have a golden cradle but we didn’t have the worst either. At the bottom you’ll have people who work on things you wouldn’t, people who collect the trash, people who clean the streets, farmers, people who work on the same places than you but you never notice. When you remove the top of the pyramid you lost something, but rebuilding a small part is easy, but when you break the bottom, everything else falls.

Another story from my country. Last year 70% of garbage collectors went on a strike, affecting six regions. The strike started a Monday, by Tuesday there were already twelve thousands tons of garbage on streets and the dumps were shut down. The same day the government initiated negotiations with the garbage collector syndicates; there were also rumors about the government declaring State of Emergency in case the strike kept going. By Wednesday morning both parties signed an agreement. In less than two days they moved the entire government to solve a problem that affects all of us. Two days. The people we truly depend on are the people we don’t think about, people who do the things we take for granted. Not every day we need a lawyer, not every day we need a medic, not every day we need an engineer. I’d love to tell you that is one, or both, of your parents who put the food in your table, they pay for it, they earned the money to buy it, but in many cases the food was in the place they bought it from not because of them, but because of people who work their asses of everyday to feed all of us barely feeding themselves. The same goes for the health system, the transportation system, the clothes you dress with, the technology you use, the same computer I’m writing on right now. If all of them stop working for one day, one single day, things would go down. I can assure you that. Last Friday the subway system had a problem in my city, the most populated city of my country. Three of five subway lines stopped working due to a reactor failure. The three lines who transport the most account of people. The subway closed all entries on 06:33 am and the system was restored the same hour on Saturday. We all had to use busses for transportation, but they weren’t enough, plus, the streets soon collapsed. The loss on the market was huge; hospitals, shopping centers, offices, schools, colleges, they were all affected by something none of us can control. Imagine people doing it on purpose.

To change a system, a social system, you have to change the way people think. The habitus, as Bourdieu would call it. The way we see the world and the way we do things. To change a system people have to go in one direction, from bottom to top. If you go from the top it won’t work. Empathy works on people who are on the same place as you, or worst, but not better. There still be people who won’t want to change anything, don’t forget about them. The fear of change is a big fear. But it takes one person to face reality and embrace the change so others can follow.

I believe many of you are familiar with Marvel’s Avengers, there’s a scene that takes place in Germany where Loki yells at a crowd to kneel, one man refuses to do it and he stays on his feet. “There are always men like you” he says. That man is, to me, one of the real heroes of the movie. A man with no super powers, no fighting skills, was capable of facing a demigod. Or like the movie A Bug’s Life, where the ants realized they are far more powerful than the locusts. That’s was a change in the system, that was a revolution, a rebellion. And they, in order to work, need people. Just people, a leader isn’t always necessary. People aren’t stupid, they know what’s happening to them. Don’t understimate them, and don’t take them for granted. Sometimes the only thing they need is a trigger, not someone to follow. The same with History, social History can’t be erased, it can be changed, forbidden, even forgotten, but never truly erased. Even burning down books isn’t a smart move, memory remains alive, not only the personal memory but the collective one.

Don’t overthrow your government without changing the system, otherwise things will remain the same and your characters will be at the beginning of your story once again.


“I am old enough to know that victory is often a thing deferred, and rarely at the summit of courage… What is at the summit of courage, I think, is freedom. The freedom that comes with the knowledge that no earthly think can break you.”

Paula Giddings has made her name and reputation carrying out a simple but formidable project, recovering the lost voices of silent generations of American black women. Giddings has put her strongest efforts into restoring and understanding the perspective of others in her two well-received, major books of social history, When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America and In Search of Sisterhood: Delta Sigma Theta and the Challenge of the Black Sorority Movement.Giddings credits her interest in language to her mother who taught her the importance of having a voice. Giddings has been recognized for her hard work by many group, including the National Coalition of 100 Black Women, the New York Urban League, and Bennett College in Greensboro, North Carolina–awarded her an honorary doctorate in human letters in 1990.

In Essence Giddings recalled one particularly formative experience from her childhood in the 1950s. She was the first black child to go to her privately run elementary school; the other children made fun of her African looks and taunted her with racial epithets, but Giddings did not respond. Her diffidence bothers her to this day. She wrote in Essence,”It was my first experience with the politics of difference, and my reaction, I am ashamed to say, was one of stunned silence.” In a process similar to ones she would document in her later work, she found her voice suddenly muted.

The white administrators were sympathetic enough to Giddings plight but were ineffectual in dealing with the childrens’ cruelty. Not knowing what to do, they approached Giddings’s mother, perhaps silently hoping she would remove her daughter from the school. Instead Mrs. Giddings asked to address the class. For the future writer, it was an important lesson. The author recollected inEssence, “She exuded such authority… that the kids fell in line right away.” Her mother a children’s book about dealing with differences to the class.

After finishing the book, Mrs. Giddings encouraged the children to speak up about their feelings of race. The youngsters, un-used to receiving such respect from an adult on such an important issue, were allowed to express openly the fears and prejudices that they were usually forced to suppress. The mother who had come in to help her daughter “find her voice” also performed the same service for her child’s tormentors.

When the dark feelings of the other children were brought out into the open and dealt with, they lost most of their virulence. Giddings compared what her mother did to an exorcism of “the monstrous images” that had come to dominate the children’s understanding of black people. It was an extraordinary experience, bringing the children to feel true remorse for the inhuman way they had been treating another human being; and for the little girl, Paula, the encounter between her mother and her classmates became an emblem for the dignity of the human voice and the power of the story teller’s art.

Giddings mother was no stranger to the educational system. The Giddings family had been active in education and civil rights for generations. Paula’s great-great-grandmother, a slave and daughter of her Virginia slave master, was taught “the rudiments of education, fine embroidery, and music, as well as the harsher lessons of being black and a woman in America,” according to the preface to Giddings’ Where and When I Enter. Both Paul’s parents were college educated, and both taught in the public school system. Her father also founded the local chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in Yonkers, New York. From a young age, Paula knew she wanted to write. She went to Howard University in Washington, DC, and became editor of the literary magazine Afro-American Review, but about this time she also began to move away from her own creative writing towards journalism and social history. Giddings graduated with an undergraduate degree in English in 1969.

The 1970s were a period of search for Giddings. After graduating, she worked as a Random House copy editor during an exciting time there, when its authors included the black political activists, Angela Davis and Stokely Carmichael. Toni Morrison, the eventual author of such acclaimed novels as Beloved, was also an editor there at the same time. After a couple of years Giddings and her mentor at Random House, Charles Harris, went to Howard University Press where she helped develop book ideas and took part in deciding what should be published as well as performing the usual grunge work associated with preparing a manuscript for publication.

The job was satisfying to her in many way, but Giddings remained restless. A desire to work overseas led her to open the Paris bureau of Encore American & World Wide News for famed publisher Ida Lewis in 1975. From Paris, Giddings not only covered Europe, she also traveled through Africa, reporting on news and interviewing such personages as Uganda’s notorious dictator, Idi Amin, and South African activist under apartheid, Winnie Mandela. Encore brought her back to New York in 1977 to work as an associate editor.

In 1979 Giddings reached an important turning point. While working on a program initiated by the U.S. government to produce a series of books on the historical experience of black women in America, Giddings came to realize how dramatically small was the documentation of the black female voice in our history. She became determined to do what she could to rectify the situation, and so began the research into the book that five years later would come out under the title, When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America.To write the book, Giddings searched out the hidden primary sources of the past, from diaries to letters and even to obscure novels. Along the way she received a Ford Foundation Grant to help her complete the project.

In the preface to When and Where I Enter Giddings noted that “despite the range and significance of our [black women’s] history, we have been perceived as token women in black texts and as token blacks in feminist ones.” Emergent themes in Giddings work include the relationship between sexism and racism, the effect of “double discrimination” on the basis of gender and race on black women, and the relevance of historical issues to contemporary life. Writing in the New York Times Book Review, Gloria Naylor described When and Where I Enter as the “narrative history of black women from the seventeenth century to the present” as “a labor of commitment and love—and it shows.” Naylor went on in her glowing review to call the work “jarringly fresh and challenging….” In fitting tribute to the woman who had protected her voice, Paula Giddings dedicated the book to her mother.

The response to the book was strong and very favorable. Her former colleague, Toni Morrison called When and WherelEnter, “History at its best.” Publishers Weekly predicted correctly that it would become a standard in its field and The Women’s Review of Books went so far as to call it the “best interpretation of black women and race and sex that we have.” The Book of the Month Club made it an alternate selection, and When and Where I Enter  was translated into several foreign languages. The success of the book not only made her a speaker much in demand on the lecture circuit, it also launched an academic career for her.

Giddings first academic post came in the mid-1980s at Atlanta’s Spelman College, where she was a United Negro College Fund Distinguished Scholar. Giddings also deeply immersed herself in traditional journalistic work. She went to work at Essence, a magazine aimed at black women, as both a contributing editor and editor of the publication’s book section. In 1987, the prestigious journalHarper’s, edited by Lewis Lapham, invited Giddings to take part in a forum on whether or not conditions for African Americans in the United States were improving.

Giddings comments inHarper’s tended to focus on the wedge that was perceived to be growing between middle class blacks and their underclass brothers and sisters. Troubled by this development, she pointed out that the differences between the classes were to some degree illusory since the “fate of all blacks is inseparable by class…. The black middle class will remain fragile as long as there’s a large and growing underclass.”

In 1988, Giddings followed up When and Where I Enter with In Search of Sisterhood: Delta Sigma Theta and the Challenge of the Black Sorority. The sorority differed from the “Greek” organization stereotype of initiation rituals, or hazing and raucous toga parties. Instead, Delta Sigma Theta, founded at Howard University in 1913, took the education of its members concerning political change and civil rights legislation as its mission from the very beginning

In the first year of its existence, the “Delts” joined 5,000 female protesters marching up Washington, DC’s Pennsylvania Avenue to bring to the government their demand that women receive the right to vote. A member herself, other famous members of Delta Sigma Theta include Barbara Jordan, a professor and former con-gresswoman from Texas, singer Lena Home, and the opera diva Leontyne Price. A more obscure but no less impressive alumna of the sorority is Sadie T. M. Alexander, the first woman of color to earn a doctorate in the United States.

Critics were quick to praise In Search of Sisterhood.Writing in The Washington Post, Dorothy Gilliam gave Giddings “a hearty cheer for bringing to the fore yet another piece of overlooked black women’s history.” The Los Angeles Times said, the book “succeeds as a detailed study of an organization that has touched the lives of some of the most prominent black women in The Los Angeles Times said, the book “succeeds as a detailed study of an organization that has touched the lives of some of the most prominent black women in America.”

In the early 1990s, Giddings continued to juggle writing and teaching, beginning with a three-year fellowship at the Barnard Center for Research on Women. In 1991, the Women’s Project Productions of New York City commissioned her to write a one-act play, The Reunion, which was given a staged reading at one of New York City’s most famous theaters, the Judith Anderson. The same year, Giddings was invited back to Spelman as a visiting scholar, Rutgers University’s Douglass College asked her to chair their women’s studies program, and she was honored with a fellowship at the New York University Institute for Humanities.

Giddings spent 1992 as a visiting professor at Princeton University, a distinct honor in light of the fact she’d never earned an advanced degree and most Ivy League institutions usually hire graduate-degree wielding scholars. Other fellowships were bestowed upon her during the next few years, including one-year associations with the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation and the National Humanities Center in Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. The culmination of these experiences was an academic year spent as a visiting scholar with Phi Beta Kappa in 1995 to 1996.

An energetic woman, Giddings still found the time throughout her career participate as a high ranking member of such esteemed organizations as the International Association of Poets, Playwrights, Editors, Essayists, and Novelists (PEN); the Author’s League Foundation; the Author’s Guild of America; and Women’s WORLD (World Organization for Rights, Literature and Development), the latter being an anti-censorship group that she cofounded. After helping the National Book Award committee judge the nonfiction output of 1989, she also sat on the judging committee’s for PEN’s Gerard Fund Award in 1992 and the National Association of Colored People (NAACP) ACT-SO award as well as serving on various advisory committees for a number of academic institutions.

Despite all her other obligations, expressing herself with words remained Giddings number one priority and love. “For a black woman to write about black women is at once personal and an objective undertaking. It is personal,” she explained in the preface to When and Where I En ter, “because the women whose blood runs through my veins breathe admist the statistics. [It] is also an objective enterprise because one must put such experiences into historical context, find in them a rational meaning so that the forces that shape our own lives may be understood.” With that ethic in mind, Giddings was planning a biography of the former slave, outspoken journalist, and anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells-Bar-nett, who died in 1931. Always in the midst of a project, she also co-edited, with social critic Cornel West, an anthology of essays about Malcolm X entitled Regarding Malcolm X.As Giddings noted in an interview with Notable Black American Women, “I will write ‘till I say goodbye to this world. “


Liberia, the American Origins of an African Nation

Unfortunately, recent news of ebola and possible pandemics do not do paint Liberia in a good light.  When most Americans and perhaps Europeans think of Liberia, they tend to associate it with the deadly hemorrhagic disease, much in the same way Guyana is only known for the Jonestown Massacre.  This is unfortunate because Liberia has a unique history that most people are not aware of, and most unexpectedly it is an African nation that originates from America.

The origins of Liberia begin during the dark days of slavery in the United States.  One of the little known facts of United States history is that abolitionists were united in the idea of blacks having equality and total freedom.  There was a large faction within the abolitionist movement that believed that while slavery should be abolished, blacks were not equal with whites, blacks should never be granted full political and economic freedom, and that American society would never be peaceful unless both races lived a separated existence with white people in charge of things.  Today such a philosophy would be shocking and racist to most, akin to Jim Crow segregation, however in the 19th century this was considered a very popular and enlightened view. Thus, to these abolitionists the best solution to the race issue was to repatriate former slaves back to their homelands in Africa.  This was also a very popular idea, ardently supported by men such as James Monroe, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln.  Many other abolitionists supported the idea of repatriation because they believed that blacks would never be treated fairly in the US, and thus would have a better chance of living a full life in Africa.

In the 1820’s, an abolitionist group called the American Colonization Society began buying up large plots of land along the West African coast.  Their intent was to purchase the freedom of slaves from the south, then settle them in their newly created African territory which they named “Liberia”. Passage to Liberia was paid by the ACS, and they were stocked with a large supply of necessities such as food and clothing. Free black people were also allowed to become colonists as well. The first colony was settled in 1822.  From the 1820’s up to the American Civil War, thousands of freed slaves immigrated to Liberia. Other similar organizations sent thousands of more colonists to locations that would become a part of Liberia.

At first Liberia was considered an American colony and United States territory, however in 1847 Liberia declared itself independent.  Liberia established its own constitution based on the US Constitution and set up a system of government based upon the US Government.  Liberia’s capital was named “Monrovia” after US President James Monroe, one of the most ardent advocates of repatriation.  Even the Liberian flag (pictured above), was based upon the American Stars and Stripes, with 11 red and white strips symbolizing the signatories of the Liberian Declaration of Independence, the white star symbolizing the freedom given to ex-slaves, and the blue banner symbolizing the African mainland.

The settling of what were essentially foreign peoples in Liberia came with many unintended consequences.  As colonists settled the region and expanded, they often pushed out native African peoples.  Armed conflict between Americo-Liberians and native Africans was common, and over time the Americo-Liberians came to dominate.  By the 20th century, the Liberian political system, economy, and society was dominated by the Americo-Liberians despite the fact that they made up a small minority of the Liberian population.  This led to two extremely bloody and destructive civil wars occurring in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.  While today the country is at peace, unfortunately things are not all well in Liberia.  Along with the recent ebola outbreaks, Liberia has long suffered widespread poverty, crime, and government corruption.   Things are not looking to improve anytime soon.

This will be long but I will not put it under a cut so please bear with me.

Again, I am a Filipino and I’ve been a Mitang for more than 6 years. I loved Zhou Mi so much I can’t even describe how much. But then he went and posted that stupid photo on instagram and my feelings kind of changed.

Understanding Zhou Mi and other Chinese Idols/Celebs:

  • They grew up in China,  were educated in China, believes in China, and were raised to love China. Pretty much how all of us are taught to love our own countries. So pressure aside, let’s all suppose that they are patriotic Chinese Citizens, made to believe that the whole East Sea was Chinese territory.
  • Whatever their stand is, whether they actually support China’s claim to the territory or not, all Chinese celebs are kinda obliged to comment or post regarding the issue. Otherwise, their silence would be treated as agreeing with the tribunal ruling, thus they will be considered traitors and anti-patriotic. Remember that Chinese netizens are hardcore witch hunters and disagreeing basically means these idols are ruining their careers and possibly their whole life in China, which people should remember, is their HOME.
  • Zhou Mi has already been branded as Anti-China some time ago because of comments he made on a show. Prior to that, he had already received unreasonable hate from Chinese people. So yes, Zhou Mi was very much obliged to share that post.

Now, on how disappointed I am:

  • These idols have been living in Korea for a long time. Granted, they probably wouldn’t have searched about how the world views their country nor studied political issues during their free time. However, one would expect that having freedom and access to information, they would be more informed and critical of any issue before posting anything on social media.
  • Posting to weibo was pretty much understandable. Posting to instagram is a whole different level of dumb. Instagram is basically their connection to their international fans - including the very same fans who are affected by China’s stubborn claim to the East Sea. There are rarely any Chinese citizens who would hunt them down on Instagram but there are many international fans who would be offended by their posts. So of all people, I am very disappointed with Mi and Victoria.
  • One would argue for freedom of expression and shit like that. But even if they actually believed China’s claim, they should have known of the damage that China has made to these SEA countries. They should have known that openly supporting China’s claim is also supporting the harassment of Vietnamese and Filipino fishermen in the islands.They should have known it is only natural for SEA fans to be upset. (Just today, after the UN Arbitrary court favored the claim of the Philippines, Filipino fishermen tried going to Scarborough. Chinese coast guard are still posted on the shoal and turned away the poor fishermen who are really just doing their livelihood)
  • As you all know, many Korean and Chinese ELF hate Zhou Mi. South East Asian fans are always the ones who stand by him each time O13s are trashing him. So for him to seemingly disregard this group of fans is very much upsetting.

Do I still support Zhou Mi?

Yes. But I am very disappointed in him.

  • Zhou Mi is a very kind person. fans who have met him can’t say otherwise. Also, he was my ray of light during the dark years of my life. His music helped me survive my depression. His smile was my sunshine and he has been my inspiration for so many years now. I probably won’t be who I am and where I am now if not for him. I can’t just stop liking him because of this.
  • If we suppose that he posted that photo out of obligation, I would be more at ease. But if he truly wholeheartedly supports the nine-dash line thing, then I’ll just consider him as ignorant.
  • And if he is ignorant, then I wish he would learn. I wish he would get educated about the issue.
  • My reasons for liking him is not based on his political views. I work with people who have opposing political views as me. I argued with company executives who support extra-judicial killings in my country. I think their beliefs are twisted, but I also know that they are good people. It’s just that their sense of justice and their sense of righteousness is different from mine. That doesn’t make them bad people.

I am a Filipino and my duty is to my country. Same as Zhou Mi is Chinese and his loyalty is to China. It doesn’t change the fact that he is a good, humble, and caring person. That’s how I knew him to be when I became his fan and I still want to believe on that.

I wish the fans who are hating on him right now would also calm down. You can be disappointed, angry, or even furious. No one is taking that away from you. But your energy spent on leaving hateful comments would not change anything. Only our respective governments can resolve the issue. I honestly d not trust our DFA Sec and our president on the bilateral talk with China, but we can only put our faith in them. Seriously, attacking celebs on social media will not get you those territories.

If by any chance, Zhou Mi makes further statement regarding the issue, then that would be the time to analyze and think thorough if I would still support him despite his stupidity.

For now, I will go watch his MV and listen to his song because man, if you haven’t heard it, you should. It’s really nice.

Dinner (to which she was only brought to) | Joaniarty, Joan Watson & Jamie Moriarty

mermaidandthedrunks mentioned something about Jamie Moriarty and Joan Watson sitting in a restaurant as a good writing exercise for me to attempt finding their voices…

I’m still not ready I think. But all the same, today was as good as any.

It’s for you though, Alex, for all the encouragement and kindness.



Dinner (to which she was only brought to) |

“What’s this?”

Joan does seem furious, of course. But she must get over it. The food is exquisite here, and some wine. Wine will do it. She nods to the Sommelier in that discreet gesture people bred into money learn from such a young age. She’s kept it, there are no prescription on these sort of things, even if you were brought up in a family fallen out of money.

Keep reading

Freedom of Speech

by Christopher Hitchens

We belong to a species that loves to make lists and award rankings and then argue about which or who should be all-time No. 1. I am sure I would admire the United States Bill of Rights just as much in principle in whatever order the amendments came, but I take a special pleasure in the fact that the first of them all is the one that guarantees freedom of speech. Granted, this is in no small part due to a point of pride in that it makes my own profession seem especially significant and regards it as requiring particular protection. But it is also because I could make the case that it is the essential liberty, without which all the other freedoms are either impossible to imagine or impossible to put into practice.

Those of us who take the amendment’s wording at face value — “Congress shall make no law … abridging …” — take it to mean no law.

No special circumstances, no emergency, no unforeseen contingency can dilute the plain and straightforward meaning of those words or that phrasing. We get ourselves called (and we proudly accept) a name that has a nice double meaning for me: First Amendment absolutists. Here’s why I like this quasi-ironic term. It commits us to an unshakable principle while it obliquely reminds us that absolutism is what the freedom of speech actually makes impossible.

From the predawn of human history, despots have relied on the idea that, quite literally, their word is law, or absolute. Pre-Roman and Roman emperors sought to cloak this in the idea that they themselves were suprahuman and had themselves deified in their own lifetimes.

Later tyrants claimed to rule by “the divine right of kings,” an assertion that didn’t end until the 18th century. All modern successors, from Hitler to Khomeini to Kim Jong-il, have insisted that only one man or one party or one book represents the absolute truth, and to challenge it is folly or worse. But all it takes is one little boy to blurt out the inconvenient truth that the emperor is as naked as the day he was born, and with that, the entire edifice of absolutism begins to crumble.

Grown-ups, of course, are more “sophisticated,” or the story wouldn’t be as potent as it is. Hardened by adulthood, they can always think of reasons to keep quiet and to keep others quiet as well. Should we, say, be able to discuss sex in print? Or publicly disagree with the government in time of war? Or offend the cherished ideas of others? The unfettered tongue and pen do not always produce results that make our lives easier or more comfortable.

Mark Twain once observed sardonically that Americans were careful to make very sparing use of their precious and much-boasted liberty. But even he, the most popular figure in the country at the time, took care to conceal some of his more scornful views on religion and expansionist foreign policy.

My own opinion is a very simple one. The right of others to free expression is part of my own. If someone’s voice is silenced, then I am deprived of the right to hear. Moreover, I have never met nor heard of anybody I would trust with the job of deciding in advance what it might be permissible for me or anyone else to say or read. That freedom of expression consists of being able to tell people what they may not wish to hear, and that it must extend, above all, to those who think differently is, to me, self-evident.

Of all the things I have ever written, the one that has gotten me the most unwelcome attention from people I respect is a series of essays defending the right of Holocaust deniers and other Nazi sympathizers to publish their views. I did this because I think a right is a right and also because if this right is denied to one faction, it will not stop there. (Laws originally passed in Europe to criminalize Holocaust denial are already being extended to suppress criticism of Islam, as a case in point.)

But I could also argue it pragmatically. Hitler’s Mein Kampf is a book that is banned in some countries and very hard to get in others. But the rare translated edition I possess was published by a group of German exiles at the New School in New York in 1938. It is complete and unexpurgated, with many pages of footnotes and cross-references. The Fuhrer’s enemies considered it of urgent importance that everybody study the book and understand the threat it contained. Alas, not enough people read it in time.

Almost all the celebrated free speech cases in the human record involve the strange concept of blasphemy, which is actually the simple concept that certain things just cannot be said or heard. The trial of Socrates involved the charge that his way of thinking caused young people to disrespect the gods. During the trial of Galileo, his findings about astronomy were held to subvert the religious dogma that our earth was the center and object of creation. The Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, involved the charge that Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species  was profane and immoral as well as untrue. We look back on these moments when the authorities, and often the mob as well, decided to blind and deafen themselves and others, and we shake our heads. But with what right? There are many contemporary threats to the principle and the practice of free expression. I would nominate the theocratic one as the most immediately dangerous.

Ever since the religious dictator of Iran sponsored a murder campaign against a British-Indian novelist named Salman Rushdie, this time for authoring a work of fiction, there has been a perceptible constraint on the way people discuss the Islamic faith in public. For instance, when a newspaper in Denmark published some caricatures of the prophet Mohammed a few years ago, there was such an atmosphere of violence and intimidation that not a single mainstream media outlet in the United States felt able to reproduce the images so that people could form their own view. Some of this was simple fear. But some of it took a “softer” form of censorship. It was argued that tender sensibilities were involved — things like good community relations were at stake, and a diverse society requires that certain people not be offended.

Democracy and pluralism do indeed demand a certain commitment to good manners, but Islam is a religion that makes very large claims for itself and can hardly demand that such claims be immune from criticism. Besides, it’s much too easy to see how open-ended such a self-censorship would have to be. If I, for example, were to declare myself terribly wounded and upset by any dilution of the First Amendment (as indeed I am), I hope nobody would concede that this conferred any special privileges on me, especially if my claim of privilege were to be implicitly backed by a credible threat of violence.

Other attempts at abridging free expression also come dressed up in superficially attractive packaging. As an example, surely we should forbid child pornography? In a sense this is a red herring: Anybody involved in any way in using children for sex is already prosecutable for a multitude of extremely grave crimes. Free expression doesn’t really come into it. The censor is more likely to prosecute a book like Nabokov’s Lolita and yet have no power to challenge porn czars. And surely the spending of money isn’t a form of free speech, as our Supreme Court has more than once held it is, most recently, as pertaining to political campaign contributions.

I’m not so sure: The most impressive grassroots campaign of my lifetime — Senator Eugene McCarthy’s primary challenge to President Johnson in 1968 — was made possible by a few rich individuals who told him to go ahead and not worry about a slender war chest. And who is entitled to make the call about who may spend how much? Again, I haven’t been able to discover anybody to whom I would entrust that job.

The same objection applies to what is called hate speech. Here, again, there is no known way of gauging the influence of rhetoric on action. Try a thought experiment. Go back in time and force Sarah Palin, by law, to remove the “target” or “crosshair” symbols from certain electoral districts. Now are you confident that you will have soothed the churning mind of a youthful schizophrenic in Tucson, Arizona? I didn’t think so. Sane people can take a lot of militant rhetoric about politics. Insane people can be motivated by believing themselves to be characters in The Catcher in the Rye, a book I am glad is not banned.

“National security” is one of the oldest arguments here, for the good reason that it is always disputable. The purloining and dissemination of private documents written by other people, for example, is not always necessarily free expression, let alone free speech. It can also involve the exposure of third parties to danger, as appears to have been the case in the downloading of classified documents by Army private Bradley Manning and their use by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

We are all hypocrites here: I have myself written several articles based on Assange’s disclosures, while publicly disapproving of his tactics in acquiring the material in the first place. (And I didn’t need to read the list of terrorist-vulnerable facilities, including vaccine factories, that he dumped before me and who knows who else.) But in this age of ultrahacking, no law would have prevented these leaks, nor do such laws have much effect, and they never have. In a more slow-moving epoch, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and subjected certain editors to military censorship, though I have never seen it argued that he helped the war effort much by doing so.

The claim to possess exclusive truth is a vain one. And, as with other markets, the ones in ideas and information are damaged by distortion and don’t respond well to clumsy ad hoc manipulation. And speaking of markets, consider the work of the Indian economist Amartya Sen, who demonstrated that no substantial famine has ever occurred in a country that has uncensored information. Famines are almost invariably caused not by shortage of food but by stupid hoarding in times of crisis, practiced by governments that can disregard public opinion. Bear this in mind whenever you hear free expression described as a luxury.

In my career, I have visited dozens of countries undergoing crises of war or hardship or sectarian strife. I can say with as much certainty as is possible that, wherever the light of free debate and expression is extinguished, the darkness is very much deeper, more palpable, and more protracted. But the urge to shut out bad news or unwelcome opinions will always be a very strong one, which is why the battle to reaffirm freedom of speech needs to be refought in every generation.

A Court of War and Starlight: Part 54

(Read: Part I | II | III | IV | V | VI | VII | VIII | IX | X | XI | XII | XIII | XIV | XV | XVI | XVII | XVIII | XIX | XX | XXI | XXII | XXIII | XXIV | XXV | Nessian I | XXVI | XXVII | XXVIII | Elucien I | XXIX | XXX | XXXI | XXXII | XXXIII | XXXIV | XXXV | Elucien II | XXXVI | XXXVII | XXXVIII | Nessian II | XXXIX | XL | Feyrhys I | XLI | Elucien III | XLII | XLIII | Elucien IV | Nessian III | XLIV | XLV | XLVI | Elucien V | Azriel I | XLVII | XLVIII | XLIX | L | Elucien VI | Moriel I | LI | LII | LIII | LIV | LV | LVI | LVII | LVIII | LIX | LX | LXI | Nessian IV | LXII | LXIII | LXIV | LXV | LXVI | LXVII | LXIII | LXIX | LXX | LXXI | LXXII | LXXIII | LXXIV | LXXV | Epilogue )


The sea clapped against the rocky base of the Prison. Ravens and vultures swarmed in slow, ominous circles above the crown of the place, searching for any disposed corpses of inmates who had been killed by internal enemies. Such corpses were usually tossed into the sea, never given the dignity of a proper burial or rites of any kind. They were not considered worthy of such things–they were outside of our traditions, our religion, our rites. I had not decided this. Centuries, millennia of High Fae rule had dismissed them as extra, outsiders.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Why do you care so much about American politics if you don't live here? It's really fucking hurtful the way you're treating people who don't agree with all of your political views. You should be ashamed.

First off, I’m not personally commenting on the political posts I reblog. I’m just reblogging because I’m interested in what’s going on in America, showing what good is actually being done to try and make the country better regardless of all the badness that’s going on, as well as showing what bad is happening so people can see that there are problems that need to be solved. I’m not stating my political views; I’ve never said if I was socialist or conservative, and I can be either or both, just as much as anyone else can. 

Secondly it doesn’t matter where I live in the world. America is a global giant, one of if not the biggest countries in the planet in terms of international connections and economy. If America fucks up, the world is fucked up: the pervious Wall Street Crashes have proved that point fair and square (heck one of the crashes cause World War 2 to some extent). Other countries look to America as the peak of human achievement and they want to reach it too; they get the impression “if America does it, we should do it too!” In that case it’ll be “America is destroying homes and land to dig up oil, we should do that too!” “America is full of offensive selfish businessmen who seem to be the only ones building the economy, we should have that too!” “America is kicking out anyone who isn’t white, rich, straight, Christian or middle aged, we should do that too!” THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!! And even those countries that realise what Trump’s government is doing is wrong… can’t do anything about it. We’re too small. If we do anything to stop him, he’ll either make us broke or nuke us off the face of the earth. 

Thirdly I care about American politics because what’s going on in America is similar to other countries. The UK, where I live, is taking as big a radical step as America is, in terms of leaving the unity of other countries and their social values just so we can have a bit more money to spend on nothing. In the process those with less will get less and those with more will get more. The youth of the UK was cheated out of a brighter better future just like the American youth have been. 

Granted it is depressing looking at politics, looking at how democracy crumbles and that the world isn’t as kind as the books we read as children said it is. And I wouldn’t usually put anything political on the blog unless it involves violence and needs attention because injustice is being done and problems need to be solved… but unfortunately that is what’s happening. People are getting hurt, discriminated, violated, cheated by those who think they’re gods. Plus I’m more interested in the take on climate change by politics; oil-mongering, money grabbing, climate-change sceptics should not be in power over a country that is one of the biggest polluters in the world!! 

It’s got to the point now where there is no right-wing, left-wing politics. There is no politics; it’s become reality.

Ripping up the natural land for a pointless fossil fuel, putting people out of jobs, keeping the jobless jobless, disadvantaging people because of their race/gender/sexuality/religion/disabilities/age/intelligence, and silencing those who need to speak isn’t capitalist. IT’S INHUMANE. 

Caring for human rights and the freedom of speech isn’t socialist/anti-capitalist. It’s common sense.

And I am not ashamed for having common sense. 

Before Episode VII came out, my brother wrote a theory on the prequels and he’s been dying for people to read it. Since he does not have a tumblr, he’s asked that I post it on here. Warning, it’s incredibly long, but incredibly worth it. Especially if you are a believer that the prequels sucked.

By: Shane O’Leary.

Star Wars: The Theory of the Prequels
I would like to preface this article by saying that my theory is based almost entirely on the movies and not the extended universe. While I may reference an Old Republic book or simply allude to a fact that is stated outside of the movies, I am by no means dependent on the EU nor may my theory be compatible with some aspects of it. I am specifically basing this on what is seen in episodes 1-6. Also, this is NOT a justification for the terrible dialogue, abusively boring political scenes, and poor acting of the cast. Those aspects of the movie are unredeemable in my opinion. My entire purpose is to show that the storyline, as well as the message, in the prequels is not only compatible with what is found in the original trilogy, but it serves to strengthen the ideas found in them and paints a very clear picture about the message of the Jedi and how one properly uses the force.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

can u tell me what's going with hong kong ? is jackson okay?

Hello anon!

If you mean physically, then Jackson and his family are okay. As for emotionally? No. What is happening in Hong Kong right now is a fight for democracy that involves emotions from hundreds of years ago, in a territory torn between Western & Oriental ideals. I’m going to try to be as non-biased as possible, but being a Hong Kong citizen myself, it is extremely difficult for me to be partial to this situation and I apologize if I say something in a manner that may offend anyone. I can’t apologize, however, for my opinions on what I feel my homeland needs. 

On July 1, 1997, Hong Kong was relinquished back to China. No longer a colony of the UK, the Sino-British Joint Declaration indicated that there would be a “One Country, Two Systems” policy enacted within Hong Kong. What this means is that China’s socialist government system would not be practised in Hong Kong, and that the British capitalist system used in the country would be retained for 50 years. This promise of autonomy and an democratic election was stipulated in Hong Kong Basic Law. 

However, despite this promise, after 17 years I am watching as there are teenagers, exactly the same age as me, being attacked by tear gas because they are fighting for their rights. I am watching as my peers and my schoolmates are standing outside in the midst of “peaceful protests” even though they know that the reaction they are going to receive is anything but peaceful. 

Many of the largest radio & TV broadcasting stations in Hong Kong are in fact under the control of the pro-Communist government in mainland China. An example of this was that on the anniversary day of the bloody 1989 Tiananmen Square Democracy Protests, a FREE K-pop concert was planned by said broadcasting station + governmental affiliates so that students would watch the concert instead of remembering the thousands of people that died on that day. 

Likewise, there are pro-Communist movements being instilled in children’s classes. This is especially dangerous as many children (and even adults, for god’s sakes) are not yet taught to discern bias, and often adopt political stances without understanding how they function in reality. Yes - Communism as a governmental system has its benefits, which was why it was so appealing and spread to so many devastated countries post-World War II. But when you are encouraging children to praise a certain political system & to agree with it completely, you end up creating a cult of personality. You are no longer trying to make a political system work - you have ended up creating a form of hero worship that encourages children, the people of the future, to blindly follow rather than think. And this is why those that do think, those that have considered and pondered about the consequences are being silenced at this moment. 

As I’m trying to open up the conflict to both sides, I’m not saying that Communism is bad. I also feel that people should understand why China is attempting to exert and maintain its governmental influence over Hong Kong. Regardless of the system that Hong Kong is currently using, it is still part of China. It cannot be separated from China - that is like saying Quebec should be separated from Canada. Although it is a dream of many nationalists fuelled by the desire to have their own separate identity, economically it isn’t ideal. Hong Kong can’t yet survive on its own, especially as it is so interconnected with China in terms of culture and heritage. Also remember that the Chinese government is concerned over the fact that the Occupy movement in Hong Kong may also inspire those seeking independence for Taiwan - another issue that has been unresolved since Mao’s ascent as Leader of the PRC. 

My stance is that I wish democracy could exist not only for Hong Kong, but also for other countries in the world. I realize that democracy isn’t free of corruption or crime, but I endorse democracy because it encourages people to think. You have a choice. And many times, having a choice is much harder than being forced to pick one system. But if you have a choice, that choice is yours - and this freedom is currently being taken away from Hong Kong citizens even though it was promised to them 17 years ago.  

I am 17. I am as old as the promise that Hong Kong would receive democracy. And I truly, truly hope that in my lifetime, this promise will be fulfilled. I pray that in 2017, I will see China grant the freedom that my country has been waiting for - for universal suffrage and the protection of all Hong Kong people’s rights to vote. 

Ted Cruz explains the danger of Obama's scheme to regulate the internet

An excellent op-ed in the Washington Post today by Ted Cruz.  The freedom of the internet is at stake, and Ted Cruz isn’t going to let it go without a fight. 

from WaPo:

Four basic principles should guide policymakers, in a bipartisan manner, to preserve America’s leadership role in developing the future of the Internet.

First, we must abandon the idea of further taxing Internet access and sales. At this very moment, online retailers face an enormous threat because Washington may pass a massive, new Internet sales tax during the next two months, in the lame-duck session of Congress. As the hashtag puts it, #NoNetTax.

Such a tax would force online retailers to comply with every sales tax jurisdiction in the country. There are more than 9,600 state and local sales tax jurisdictions across the nation. Forcing small online retailers to track all of them, keep records and collect the taxes, or risk being penalized for noncompliance by distant governments over whom they have no control, is simply not fair.

But lobbyists in Washington love the Internet sales tax because it benefits big business at the expense of the mom-and-pop online retailers — many of whom are women, minorities or young people struggling to achieve the American dream.

It would be a crying shame if the first thing Republicans do after winning a historic election is return to Washington and pass an unprecedented, massive new tax requirement — up to $340 billion over 10 years — on Internet sales nationwide.

Instead, the new Republican Congress, when it is sworn in, should demonstrate its commitment to a free, thriving Internet by making permanent the ban, originally signed into law by President Bill Clinton, on imposing any additional taxes on Internet access.

Second, we should dismiss all plans to give nations hostile to human rights and democracy more influence over Internet policy.

This year, the Obama administration took steps to end its contract with ICANN, a California nonprofit organization that manages basic Internet functions, including the creation of Web addresses and domain names. Once this contract expires, ICANN will be governed by a global, multi-stakeholder community that could grant nations such as Iran, Russia and China more authority over the rules and regulations that govern the Internet.

The likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Chinese President Xi Jinping should not dictate what can be read, written, distributed, bought and sold on the Internet. Countries that do not give their own people the right to speak freely deserve no say in what Americans can say and do on the Internet.

Third, we must promote growth in the technological sector, a consistent bright spot for the U.S. economy. But we won’t realize more of that dynamic growth unless we keep the Internet free from the kind of unnecessary regulation that is strangling our health-care, energy and banking industries.

And one of the biggest regulatory threats to the Internet is “net neutrality.”

In short, net neutrality is Obamacare for the Internet. It would put the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities and higher prices.

President Obama this week came out aggressively for net neutrality and turning the Internet into a public utility. Some in the online community have embraced this call, thinking that cheaper prices would result. But when has that worked? Government-regulated utilities invariably destroy innovation and freedom. Which is more innovative, the U.S. Postal Service or Facebook and Twitter? Which is better for consumers, city taxi commissions or Uber and Lyft?

If the federal government seizes the power to regulate Internet pricing and goods and services, the regulations will never end.

Fourth, we must recognize that our constitutional rights are digital rights, too. In 2012, those who care about Internet freedom were shocked as bills such as the Stop Online Piracy and Protect IP acts, which would regulate speech on the Internet under the guise of protecting property rights, started gaining popularity in Washington. Thankfully, online activists were quick to mobilize to protect their free-speech rights. But we must remain vigilant. Intellectual property must be defended, but any threat to quell speech on the Internet must be treated seriously and subsequently defeated.

We don’t leave our constitutional rights behind when we go online. The same commitment to the principles of liberty that made the United States the greatest economic superpower that the world has ever seen must prevail in the virtual world as well.

read the rest

As with so many things, opposing “net neutrality” shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but sadly, the climate in Washington has made it as such.  The argument that “Government needs to regulate the internet in order to keep it free” just doesn’t hold up.  Obama’s plan to let the FCC regulate the internet can only result in decreased freedom and stifled innovation.  There’s really no way around it.  

Big government doesn’t like the internet because it can’t control it.  That’s why totalitarian regimes all make great efforts to restrict access to the internet or regulate what kinds of things can be said and accessed on it. Net neutrality is is just the first step in the slow creep towards that kind of oppression. It gives government a finger-hold where it should keeps it hands off completely.

anonymous asked:

I feel sick and so stressed out about this referendum and I know there's nothing I can do but I still feel awful. any tips on how to calm down and start to accept it/move on? :/

Honestly, don’t. 

I have seen so many Facebook statuses from friends and family who voted Leave. I have felt my blood boil at the sight of yet another Leave voter telling me to ‘accept it’, that ‘democracy has happened’, that ‘the people had their say’. 

You know what? Yes. The people had their say. 48% of us who voted - and probably a large proportion of the 28% who didn’t vote - are devastated. 48% of us have had our futures ripped out from under our feet. 48% of us have been forced to stand back and watch as the things we’d pinned our hopes on were taken away from us at the behest of the other 52% - EU funding for a distant research project, perhaps, or the certainty that we’d be able to maintain our long distance relationships, or last-minute European weekend holidays on a budget, or the infrastructure of our former industry towns, or the safety we felt in numbers, or the possibility that maybe we’d feel welcome in the UK one day, or any number of these things. 

Half of us are absolutely ruined by this. Half of us had our say and we were ignored, because the other side shouted slightly louder. Because the other half believed the empty promises and platitudes painted on the sides of buses about how we could find miraculous sums of money without the EU. They believed the appalling statistics printed in the press, pretending that we’re the only EU country with high levels of immigration - and that immigration is the reason for our troubles, rather than austerity and Conservative government. They fell for the half-truth interviews given by politicians who promised us that we could ‘take our country back’ if we gave up our EU membership, that the economy would recover eventually and be stronger than it was before because we could export our own produce (what produce?), that we’d be able to negotiate our terms of exit and keep some of the benefits (we won’t) or that we’d be able to have access to the single market without freedom of movement (we can’t). Well, half of us have just had our country taken away from us, along with our futures - why should we move on? Why should we accept it?

I don’t have any advice for you on how to feel less sick about what has happened, because I still feel like throwing up whenever I think about the future - about how little my wages might be worth now, about whether I’ll get funding for a PhD, about whether my little country will fall to pieces without the EU grants it forgot it relies on, about the safety of my EU citizen friends. I can’t tell you how to move on, because I haven’t. I can’t tell you how to accept this, because I can’t accept it either.

I’m going to make my voice heard as loudly and as often as I can. I’m going to make sure that the 52% don’t forget the 48%. I’m going to find some measure of peace with the knowledge that peace itself has just been pushed aside in favour of nationalism and xenophobia. The only way I know to be calm about this is to refuse to accept that it’s over, because the moment I accept it, I don’t know what to do.

This isn’t the answer you wanted, but it’s all I have. 

Jesus: According to the Left

Whenever leftists try to explain a theological issue or refer to the Bible in an argument, I throw up in my mouth a little. They rarely possess beyond minimal knowledge on any given topic in this area, yet they act as though they have all the answers to issues that scholarly theologians have wrestled with for decades at the drop of a hat. 

I was reminded of this unfortunate phenomenon in this picture that was apparently shared by Miley Cyrus on Facebook. It features a paragraph of hysterical inaccuracies regarding Jesus. I can just picture the smug grin of your typical liberal as they penned this gem, despite the fact that they clearly exhibit a very limited knowledge of Scripture. I can imagine what they were thinking before they wrote this: “Look at all of those bigoted, white, right wing Christians who use the Bible to justify all of their arguments with no actual evidence! Those darn teabaggers! They can’t even get the facts of their own religion straight. I’ll show them.”:

UGH. This photo embodies everything I despise about Facebook. 

All obvious ironies aside, I feel the need to provide a biblically based, point by point rebuttal. So sit back, grab a bowl of popcorn and get comfortable, my dear followers. This could get interesting. 

Jesus was a nonviolent revolutionary who hung around with lepers, hookers and crooks;” This is true. I’m not sure if anyone would object to this one. He loved them, however, that doesn’t mean that he endorsed their behavior. In Scripture, He explicitly speaks out against various forms of criminal activity and prostitution. He loves all of us as we are; as sinners living in a fallen world. He recognized that without Him, the Son of God, all those socially outcasted lepers, hookers and crooks would be hopeless. He had a heart for them, and as Christians, we should too. If we recognize that we all need Jesus and truly love the sinner, we should pray for their welfare. (regardless of whether their prostitutes, criminals, etc) On the contrary, endorsing their behavior would be showing our lack of concern for their welfare. 

…wasn’t American and never spoke English;" I find it strange that the author felt the need to include this bit. Does being an English speaking American automatically render me guilty of bigotry and ignorance? That’s what seems to be implied here. Obviously, Jesus wasn’t an American. No one was even aware of the existence of the land that would later be colonized and called the United States during Jesus’ lifetime. While Jesus may not be an American, it is without a doubt worth mentioning that our nation was founded by Christian men who strived to build it on the biblical principles of individual freedom and limited government. We’ve since gone far astray, but that certainly isn’t the fault of conservatives. 

”…was anti-wealth, anti-death penalty, anti-public prayer (M 6:5);…“ This part is perhaps one of the most laughable, considering that it is the only point accompanied by a scriptural source, yet it still manages to manipulate and twist its meaning. What’s even more pitiful is the fact that Matthew 6:5 has nothing to say regarding wealth or the death penalty, and only condemns the public prayer of the Pharisees. While they were certainly wealthy, this verse is in no way denouncing their wealth. It is simply illustrating the fact that Jesus didn’t tolerate excessively ‘religious’ people (and by this, I mean people who live by manufactured, legalistic man-made rules and tout a "holier than thou” attitude to impress others rather than genuinely live for Him. He wanted a relationship with them. ) Jesus took no issue with public prayer in and of itself. He only objected to the fact that the Pharisees used it to garner attention rather than as an act of worship. 

As for capital punishment, one needs to look no farther than Exodus 21:23-25 for a biblical perspective: 

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,  burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

In terms of wealth, Jesus certainly wasn’t against it. The family of Lazarus, (the man whom He raised from the dead) was very wealthy, yet He still loved them because they believed He was the Son of God and strived to follow Him. That’s the thing about Jesus: He knows no economic standing, race, age, you name it. He loves us all regardless. 

“…but he was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control…" When I said that the last point was "one of the most laughable,” I meant that it came in second to this one. Firstly, I have a major issue with the term “anti-gay.” Christians and the Bible in general are not “anti-gay.” We have been called to love everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, as Jesus did. Phil Robertson couldn’t have said it better:

'I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.’

It’s the homosexual behavior itself that is regarded as a sin, and in case that isn’t clear, I’ll give a few reference verses: 1 Corinthians 7:2; Galatians 5:19-20; Jude 1:7; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5; and Matthew 5:32. Look them up, people. 

As for abortion, such a disgusting practice didn’t exist in the days of Jesus’ ministry on Earth. However, given that He heavily denounced murder, I doubt he would have endorsed it. Jeremiah 29:11 reads, “For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord. Plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” Jesus, as the Son of God and a member of the Holy Trinity, loves each and every one of us as we are. When Jeremiah was nervous about fulfilling God’s calling for Him as a prophet, He said to him in Jeremiah 1:5, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Somehow, I don’t think the murder of the unborn falls in line with that theology. Just a feeling. 

On the subject of birth control, I personally see no issue with it. I do have an issue with the advocates of supposed “free” birth control being paid for with taxpayer dollars and the Obamacare birth control mandate. People need to either pay for it themselves or find an insurance company that covers it, as many do. Jesus preached love and acceptance of your neighbor, but He also preached personal responsibility. 

“…never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest nazarenes…”

Firstly, let me say that I’ve never heard a conservative call the poor lazy, and Jesus certainly didn’t either. He said in Mark 14:7 that “The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.” He advocated personal, individual aid to the poor. However, he also said in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 that “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat.” Granted, there are those who can’t work. This verse is meant as a sole rebuttal to those who can work and do not, and there are plenty who live on welfare for years without a care. (Think about it: If you’re given something that’s supposedly “free” and get paid by the government, why would you want to work?)

As for torture, Jesus certainly said nothing against it. Torture is hardly mentioned in the Bible aside from instances of evil people torturing the righteous. Later in Revelation 14:11, ironically enough, Jesus speaks of it in terms of His second coming and says those who worship the beast will deserve it: “And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.”

Approaching the issue of tax cuts for the wealthy, I am reminded (and I cringe) of the time that Obama said during a prayer breakfast that his proposal to raise taxes on the rich would be in accordance to the teachings of Jesus. This is a socialistic approach, which Jesus “surprisingly” didn’t propose. Rather, as mentioned previously, Jesus told us to give to the poor out of joy and our own love for one another, not out of obligation to pay taxes. Given that He also proposed that those who don’t work shouldn’t eat, I highly doubt he would be gung-ho on the idea of forcibly taking from the rich to give to the poor. Not only that, but it has been proven to hurt the economy. Raising taxes on the rich, which include the largest business owners and backbones of the economy, force them to make cuts in terms of employees and other resources.

…never asked a leper for a copay; and was a long-haired brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anti-slut shaming Middle Eastern Jew.”

The first of these points almost makes me cry, considering that co-pays for health insurance plans have been doubling since the implementation of ObamaCare. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. 

The point the author makes about Jesus being a long haired, brown skinned middle eastern jew is not only completely irrelevant, but it is also never explicitly mentioned in Scripture and once again borrows from the tired “white people are inherently evil” social justice argument. One would figure that such would be true given the region he grew up in and lived, however, this was of no importance to His disciples, nor should it be to us. 

As I prepare to debunk  the pathetic assumption of Jesus being a community organizer, I must remind you all of the comments that came from Obama supporters when Sarah Palin denounced his prior experience as not being enough to handle the presidency (that’s become more than apparent at this point. At least to most of us, given that his approval rating has fallen below 50%.) His supporters claimed that Jesus was a community organizer, but Pontius Pilate (who condemned Him to death) was a governor. It doesn’t get much more blasphemous than that. Jesus and Obama shouldn’t even be referred to in the same sentence, unless we’re talking about the latter’s vast iniquities in comparison.

Even when leaving out the obvious fact that Sarah Palin didn’t condemn an innocent man to death, I can’t decide whether this is more hysterical than the previous comment regarding abortion or not.  That’s definitely debatable. Honestly, though, let’s be honest: the fact that Jesus wasn’t a community organizer in the modern sense of the word is anything but. A brief comparison of the two, courtesy of a fellow blogger, fredshelm.wordpress:

Community organizers and those in positions affiliated with them:

1.  Register people to vote in poor areas (great for keeping incumbents in office).

2.  Spend taxpayer money on said poor areas.  For example, a community organizer might suddenly decide the local rec center needs a new ping pong table.

Community organizers are also employed by the local government.  Generally when someone allocates taxpayer funds to a specific neighborhood while simultaneously encouraging them to vote, we’d call that “buying votes”.  However, we won’t in this case since we’ve got that lovely term “community organizing” instead.

Jesus, on the other hand:

1.  Regularly defied local government (pharisees) rather than worked for them.

2.  Never registered anyone to vote.

3.  Never allocated taxpayer funds to anything.

Jesus may have “organized a community” of disciples, however, He came to save men’s souls, not change their environment and push a political agenda.

As for “anti slut shaming,” I have no idea where the author was going with this one. Jesus may have treated prostitutes with as much respect as he would anyone else, but He certainly didn’t condone adulterous behavior. Throughout Scripture, sex before marriage is forbidden. In 1 Timothy 2:9-10, the integrality of modesty is illustrated: “Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works." 

The modern definition of "slut shaming” has come to refer to “shaming” a woman for indulging in premarital sex or dressing in a way that is seen as immodest. Given that the Bible advises women to respect themselves and recognize their bodies as holy and living sacrifices for God, encouraging women to behave in a way that is sexually promiscuous would contradict the teachings of Jesus, which were in direct accordance to Scripture. 

Jesus and God are the same person. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit make up the Holy Trinity. They are three in one. This may seem complicated, especially to those who weren’t raised in the Christian faith, but the Bible makes it clear that this isn’t something we’re supposed to be able to completely understand as finite human beings living on Earth. I make a point to mention this so as to assure all of you that God the Father, whom many liberals tend to claim is “malevolent” and “selfish,” especially in the Old Testament, is essentially the same person as Jesus Christ.

As the Son of God, Jesus was sent to die for our sins so that we may live eternal life in heaven. He was basically God in human form, living on Earth. Again, this may not make sense to all of you, and that’s okay. I’m merely explaining the core beliefs of the Christian faith to show what a blatant contradiction they are to that paragraph of hogwash. 

It almost seems as though the author of it chose to ignore the fact that Jesus and God are essentially the same person, and therefore hold the same beliefs on the wide array of issues discussed in this post. I can only hope that such was the case, as the only alternative would be that they simply wrote the paragraph without any prior research. They tried to be witty by attempting to debunk every so called “right winged assumption” regarding Jesus, but failed miserably.

That would be beyond pitiful, especially given that the entire Bible is available at the click of a mouse online. All I had to do in order to find the information to create this post was google simple phrases such as “bible verses on giving to the poor” and “bible verses on homosexuality.” The fact that the author of this paragraph of lies couldn’t even bother to do that shows that their true intentions were to engage in political warfare rather than provide factually accurate evidence for their claims. It’s people like this who are responsible for the unfortunate number of uninformed voters in this country.