Women are told, from birth, that it’s our job to be small: physically small, small in our presence, and small in our impact on the world. We’re supposed to spend our lives passive, quiet, and hungry. I want to obliterate that expectation.
An unnamed woman known as thewwwayward designed a motivational Trump poster – with the words “There’s no good and evil, there’s only power and those too weak to seek it” attributed to him. She sold the posters to followers of the presumptive Republican nominee at a rally. What they didn’t know, unless they are big Harry Potter fans, is that the words actually comes from Hogwarts’ most villainous student, Voldemort.
In a video, the masked woman explains that she also gave buyers a clue that they were being trolled. “I also included a hidden image of Voldemort’s face that will only appear once they’ve hung up the poster and turned off the lights,” she said about the glow-in-the-dark bonus.
While this already makes her a shero in our eyes, she’s taking it one step further and doing some good with the money she raised. All of her profits will be donated to Familia Trans Queer – an organization that advocates for all LGBTQ Latinos, Latinas, and gender nonconforming individuals. “Believe me, I have zero qualms about trolling Trump supporters, taking their money, and giving it to communities of color,” she concludes
This week, an appeals court ruled that sexual orientation is not a protected class under existing civil rights laws related to sex discrimination, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Only Congress or the Supreme Court can make a law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
In ruling against Hively’s claim — that sexual orientation discrimination should be barred under Title VII as a type of sex discrimination — the court, primarily, pointed to a series of rulings from the appeals court beginning in 1984 and continuing through 2000 in which the court found that anti-LGBT discrimination was not covered by Title VII.
A clearly conflicted Judge Ilana Rovner, joined by Judge William Bauer, went on for more than 40 pages, however, detailing what Rovner described as “a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”
Addressing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 2015 decision — backing up Hively’s position — that sexual orientation discrimination is a type of sex discrimination barred under Title VII, Rovner wrote, “The idea that the line between gender non‐conformity and sexual orientation claims is arbitrary and unhelpful has been smoldering for some time, but the EEOC’s decision … threw fuel on the flames.”
Another reason why This Election Really Matters: We need the Supreme Court and/or Congress to get moving to make it illegal for LGBT people to get “fired on Monday for getting married on Saturday.”
No, we weren’t just looking at the women. The fashion at the Republican and Democratic conventions gave us clues about everyone — men, women, politicians and celebrities. Don’t even get us started on the delegates (really, that’s a photo essay of its own).
The most simple and obvious theme was the pervasiveness of red, white and blue. The colors conveyed the mood of the speakers and reminded us that it is indeed summertime and the weather is hotter than Hades out here.
Check out all the fun fashion choices of the last two weeks!
“If there is a position within the cartel’s classic hierarchy embodied by most liberal and conservative politicians, it would not be the rank of crime lord, but rather that of lieutenant, the second highest position. Lieutenants are responsible for supervising the sicarios within their own territories — in our case, their respective states. They are allowed discretion to carry-out the day-to-day operations of the cartel, to ensure its smooth operation. Crucial duties include voting on legislation filtered through existing idea-monopolies, which remain firmly rooted within the sanctioned political spectrum, and policing the spectrum’s established borders by criminalizing outliers, especially ones that cannot be assimilated and must be repositioned to reinforce the existing framework. If they perform well enough, they become the focus of investigative inquiry and obscure the higher authority they serve.
The rank of real crime boss goes to richest of the rich. The multi-billionaires of America who — in recent years — have given up to 42 percent of all election contributions, and captured the state in the process. Brothers Charles and David Koch, owners of Koch Industries, the second largest privately owned company in the United States, are known for funding the Republican political machine, giving over one hundred million dollars to far-right causes. But the Kochs are no more alone in their policy purchasing than Republicans are in begging the super wealthy for campaign funds. Democrats have increasingly relied on it too. Money awarded to Democrats from corporate PACs now far outstrips what used to come from labor unions and trial lawyers. For instance, corporate PACs donated $164.3 million to Republicans during the 2010 election season and $164.3 million to Democrats also. Unions gave $59-$79 million.”
Armenians are in the streets protesting against the corrupt government that refuses to allow them the freedoms and rights that they deserve as citizens, and as human beings. People are still protesting bravely in the streets even though they have endured horrific police brutality and attacks as the government tries to suppress them.
Up to this point, many people in the Armenian diaspora and the international community have stayed silent, but we cannot let these people fight for justice alone. Share this post, share news articles, videos, photos, and anything you see through whatever means we have. The protesters need us, so let’s join the fight for justice and let the world know that we STAND WITH THE PEOPLE OF ARMENIA.
You’re not as rational as you think when it comes to politics
Now that the conventions are over, you’ve heard a lot of arguments from both sides and know that the rhetoric can get a *a little* heated.
When it comes to politics, “people think that they think like scientists,” says Peter Ditto, who studies human judgment and decision-making at UC Irvine. “But really they think like lawyers.”
“Scientists don’t care what the answer is: they look at the data and draw a conclusion. Lawyers know the conclusion they want to reach, then they harness a bunch of facts to support that conclusion.”
And this, according to Ditto, is how we construct our political facts, whether we realize we’re doing it or not.
Anyone who watches politics knows that biases are rampant on both sides of the political spectrum; pure objectivity and politics rarely mingle. But are either conservatives or liberals more biased than the other?
“What we find is both sides are equally biased in their own direction,” Ditto said.
People are savvy at spotting bias in other people’s arguments, but they consistently fail to recognize bias in themselves.
“Everybody is calling each other out for their own sins,” said Ditto. “In psychology we call it the ‘bias blind spot.’”
For example, both liberals and conservatives claim freedom as one of their core values, and both sides have similar blind spots when it comes to freedom.
“We’re happy to give freedom to people for the things that we think are morally right, and not for things we think are morally wrong,” said Ditto.
Conservatives push for economic freedom, but not freedom around things that they think are morally wrong, like gay marriage or abortions.
“Liberals show exactly the opposite pattern,” said Ditto. “They’re comfortable with freedom when it comes to sexual behavior, and less so in economic behavior.”
In the video below, Ditto explains how morals affect who we vote for:
Right now, I feel as if I’m being forced to vote for someone I hate. Hillary is evil, Trump is evil. And generally, politicians are evil. But the way Democrats are raving and gnashing their teeth to put down Independent voters and ultimately blaming us for Trump possibly winning disturbs me.
It disturbs me because now I finally understand that the political system we have is not working. And the fact that so many Americans blindly vote for whoever is in their party makes me sad. Because my life is in the hands of sheep and wolves.
Fatima Jinnah (1893-1967) is known as “Mother of the Nation”
in Pakistan, and is remembered and honoured as one of the leading founders of
the country. Her engagement in politics, her extensive support of civil rights
and her philanthropy all offer her an important place in Pakistani culture and
In 1947 she founded
the Women’s Relief Committee, which later became the All Pakistan Women’s
Association. In 1965 she contested the elections and ran against the
dictatorial, self-proclaimed president of Pakistan at the time, receiving
widespread support and praise from the people. Although she won the vote, Ayub
Khan was once again proclaimed President through vote rigging. Still, the
campaign proved that a woman could easily run for political office and gain the
public’s sympathy even in a Muslim country such as Pakistan.
This is one of the most thorough, frustrating, and amazing posts about the public response to Hillary Clinton that I have ever seen.
Knowing how people who hate her (on both sides) immediately respond to anything even remotely related to her, it’s aggravating to know that most will never read this and those that do will likely open it, skim through, decide it’s bullshit and go on hating her, spewing the same nonsense they always have.
If you’re on the fence though - if you’re not so bullheaded and can open your mind to the idea that maybe the 25+ years of constant, constant slander might be a little bit skewed - I would challenge you to read Michael Arnovitz’s entire post. The whole damn thing. It does not paint a picture of a perfect, flawless woman or political candidate. What it does is look to explain where and why the public fascination with hating Hillary Clinton came from and how it’s been perpetuated.
This is just an excerpt (…which pissed me off a lot and should piss a lot of people off a lot). Click the link. Read the whole thing. Don’t skim. Just try to open your mind to the possibility of that maybe…
“In January of 1996, while Whitewater investigations were underway but unfinished, conservative writer William Safire wrote a scathing and now-famous essay about Hillary Clinton entitled, “Blizzard of Lies”. In the piece he called her a “congenital liar”, and accused her of forcing her friends and subordinates into a “web of deceit”. He insisted (without any apparent evidence) that she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, “bamboozled” bank regulators, and was actively involved in criminal enterprises that defrauded the government of millions of dollars. He ended the piece by stating that, “She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”
I am no political historian, but as far as I can tell this short essay was the birth of the “Hillary is a Liar” meme. Now to be clear, most conservatives already strongly disliked her. They had been upset with her for some time because she had refused to play the traditional First Lady role. And they were horrified by her attempt to champion Universal Health coverage. But if you look for the actual reasons people didn’t like her back at that time, you won’t see ongoing accusations of her being “crooked” or a “liar”. Instead, the most common opinion seemed to be that she was a self-righteous leftist who considered anyone with other views to be morally inferior. In short, the prevailing anti-Hillary accusation was not that she was unrelentingly dishonest, but that she was just intolerably smug.
After the Safire piece however, this all changed. Republicans, who learned from Nixon never to let a good propaganda opportunity pass if they could help it, repeated the accusations of mendacity non-stop to anyone who would broadcast or print them. And if you doubt the staying power of Safire’s piece, type the phrase “congenital liar” into a Google search along with “Hillary Clinton” and see what happens. To this day, that exact phrase is still proudly used by many on the right. This, even though Safire was eventually proven wrong about everything he had written. And despite the fact that he stated himself that he would have to “eat crow” if she were ever cleared, Safire never apologized or even acknowledged his many errors once that happened. Because as we all know, swift-boating means never having to say you’re sorry.”