NEW HAMPSHIRE WAS THE LAST STATE TO RECOGNIZE MLK DAY. WHY DO WE SUCK SO HARD?
- AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you, before we get to the end of this conversation, about something you both were very involved with. New Hampshire was one of the last states to have Martin Luther King Day.
- ARNIE ALPERT: The last state.
- AMY GOODMAN: I mean, Arizona voters approved Martin Luther King Day in 1992 after a tourist boycott. But in 1999, New Hampshire changed the name of Civil Rights Day to Martin Luther King Day. And as we move into Martin Luther King Day weekend and the honoring of Martin Luther King, in 1999, to be clear, New Hampshire became the last state to adopt MLK Day as a paid state holiday, replacing its optional Civil Rights Day. You both were involved in this longtime struggle. Explain. Arnie Arnesen, you were what? In the legislature? And—
- ARNIE ARNESEN: I was in the legislature. It was 1985. I was a freshman legislator. It was my first floor fight, Amy, the first thing I did. I was this young woman. I had just given birth to a baby. You can actually see a film of me handing my four-month-old to the woman sitting next to me, as I am frightened and going down to the floor to fight for Martin Luther King Day. You need to know how many votes out of the 400 legislators we got. This is 1985. We got 60 votes for Martin Luther King Day, out of 400. Can you believe it? It was unbelievable. And I fought it every single year I was in. And it was—it pained me to see how long it took for us to actually embrace it.
- AMY GOODMAN: And yet, you have Ron Paul right now, I mean, fiercely antiwar, expressing a lot of sentiment of so many people around the country, but also this issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, the newsletters he put out that he claims were robo-signed, but talked about MLK Day as "Hate Whitey Day," among other things. Arnie Alpert, can you talk about this?
- ARNIE ALPERT: Well, I think you also want to look at Ron Paul, while he might have an antiwar message, he also wants to eviscerate the social safety net. So, and you have to look at what was Dr. King doing in 1968 at the time that he was killed? He was organizing the Poor People’s Campaign, and he was stepping up for the rights of black workers, poor workers in Memphis to be able to have a union. And I look at Mitt Romney talking about saving the soul of America and recall that the motto of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was "to redeem the soul of America." So we—what we have to look forward to for Martin Luther King Day is to reconnect ourselves with values that tie together a message of peace, a message of social justice, a message of standing up forever against racism, and linking that together through social movements that take courageous, nonviolent action.
- AMY GOODMAN: Arnie Alpert and Arnie Arnesen, I want to thank you very much for being with us, as well as Dale Kuehne. That does it for our show. We head on to cover what’s happening in South Carolina and also to cover Martin Luther King weekend.
This woman's blogpost is cissexist, accepts racism as the price you pay for good pizza, and slutshaming - all in the name of "18 rules for raising a boy"
TRIGGER WARNING for slut-shaming, racism, and all-around assholishness.
1. Teach him what a skank is so he’ll never bring one home.
Why don’t you treat him that everyone deserves respect - regardless of your opinions on their dress or sexual exploit. Guess what: not everyone cares what you think, and they’re certainly not on this Earth to please your outdated and misogynistic expectations.
6. Teach him that relationships are important and he needs to be faithful and monogamous. Teach him that sometimes relationships suck and require work. They’re not always “fun” and there are times it will seem easier to cut and run than stay and do some hard work. Teach him that he signed up for this and unless his partner is beating the shit out of him (physically and/or emotionally) he needs to stay and figure it out. Remind him too that when he was in high school you taught him what a skank was so that when he’s pushing 50, fat and bald, he’ll know the 20 something skank making eyes at him is only hoping he has a wallet as fat as his belly and he should go home now to his loving wife.
Because every relationship you will ever have will end in marriage, so you have to stay to make it work. Also, the only possible reason to not want to be with someone is abuse. /sarcasm. Annnd slut-shaming, again!
9. Give him a baby name book and help him make a list starting now. Little girls everywhere are doing it and maybe it if we start our sons now we can avoid disaster names like Pilot Inspektor and Blue.
Yay! Shaming PoC because the names they give their children don’t live up to YOUR expectations. Who died and made this lady queen of the universe, anyway. All of the people she’s making fun of are not only vastly more financially successful than she is, their art is contributing wayyy more to our culture than her asshole blog posts.
13. Teach your son to never snap a girl’s bra strap. For one, it’s rude and disrespectful to the girls and for another, in this day and age it can be called sexual harassment and your son could be expelled or worse.
“In this day and age”? Really? You’re going to imply that people who term that harassment are too sensitive? And the fact that it could hurt him is on the level with the fact that it means he’s a shitty person who thinks women are his own personal plaything?
14. Teach your son it’s OK to cry, but only if he’s really hurt. Right now my 7 year old is so “in touch” with his sensitive side it’s all I can do not to call him “cry baby.” The boy cried today because he lost a Beyblades match! I really need to see blood if I’m going to see tears or I fear for his future.
So your son only gets to conform to stereotypical gender roles, got it. Teaching him it’s only okay to cry when there’s blood or physical pain is essentially telling him his emotions aren’t important. Don’t cry if you’re sad, only if the blood is gushing.
17. Teach him about good pizza. When he’s in New York City and wants a slice of pizza, Papa John’s is not the place to go. NYC is the capital of delicious pizza! Yes, most of the pizzerias are racist too, but at least their pizza tastes better if it has to be served up with a side of bigotry. (I’m actually more offended that this woman ate Papa John’s pizza in NYC than I am by the fact that she was called “Lady Chinky Eyes” that tells you a little something about me and my love for NYC pizza.)
And now we see why this lady is such a raging asswipe: she’s a wild racist who puts her culinary enjoyment over the right of PoC to be treated like human beings. Mother of the year, I’m telling you.
(Source: seriouslyamerica)
Why the US is not a Christian nation:
This morning, a girl in my sorority claimed that the US was “founded on Christian values” and that’s why anti-choicers (she called them pro-life, of course) think they have the right to force their religion into out laws and uteri. I told her she was wrong, and she tried to argue with me. I prepared to prove her wrong: “I am an American Government major. You are an Asian Studies major. I KNOW what the Constitution says, I’ve read it so many times I’ve lost count” So then I found this article from July 4, 2011, which I will be sending her way - quoted at length below.
Beyond that, the first House of Representatives, while debating the First Amendment, specifically rejected a Senate proposal calling for the establishment of Christianity as an official religion. As Lambert concludes, “There would be no Church of the United States. Nor would America represent itself as a Christian Republic.”
The actions of the first presidents, founders of the first rank, confirmed this “original intent:”
— In 1790, President George Washington wrote to America’s first synagogue, in Rhode Island, that “all possess alike liberty of conscience” and that “toleration” was an “inherent national gift,” not the government’s to dole out or take away
— In 1797, with President John Adams in office, the Senate unanimously approved one of America’s earliest foreign treaties, which emphatically stated (Article 11): “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims) …”
— In 1802, Jefferson added his famous “wall of separation,” implicit in the Constitution until he so described it (and cited in several Supreme Court decisions since).
These are, to borrow an admittedly loaded phrase, “inconvenient truths” to those who proclaim that America is a “Christian Nation.”
The Constitution and the views of these Founding Fathers trump all arguments about references to God in presidential speeches (permitted under the First Amendment), on money (not introduced until the Civil War), the Pledge of Allegiance (“under God” added in 1954) and in the national motto “In God We Trust” (adopted by law in 1956).
You all know how I feel about “In God We Trust” on money (it should more truthfully read “In this piece of paper we trust”), and “Under God” in the Pledge (though I don’t say it anyway). In short: THIS IS NOT, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN, A CHRISTIAN NATION. Kthanksbye.
[And on a side note, what is it with people who have NEVER read the Constitution in full claiming that they know exactly what’s in it and what the intent was?]
(Source: seriouslyamerica)
![pantslessprogressive:
Poll Finds a Shift Toward More Libertarian Views
Since 1993, CNN has regularly asked a pair of questions that touch on libertarian views of the economy and society:
Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?
Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?
[…] In the polls, the responses to both questions had been fairly steady for many years. The economic question has showed little long-term trend, although tolerance for governmental intervention rose following the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The social libertarian viewpoint — that government should not favor any particular set of values — has gained a couple of percentage points since the 1990s but not more than that.
But in CNN’s latest version of the poll, conducted earlier this month, the libertarian response to both questions reached all-time highs. Some 63 percent of respondents said government was doing too much — up from 61 percent in 2010 and 52 percent in 2008 — while 50 percent said government should not favor any particular set of values, up from 44 percent in 2010 and 41 percent in 2008. (It was the first time that answer won a plurality in CNN’s poll.)
[1,015 respondents; +/- 3% margin of error]
Dear [so-called] “Libertarians” of Tumblr. Notice how CNN’s definition of libertarianism involves thinking the government should NOT promote on set of social issues over another? Yeah, you’re doing it wrong.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ln46epf5oy1qzr73ro1_500.jpg)
Poll Finds a Shift Toward More Libertarian Views
Since 1993, CNN has regularly asked a pair of questions that touch on libertarian views of the economy and society:
Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country’s problems. Which comes closer to your own view?Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?[…] In the polls, the responses to both questions had been fairly steady for many years. The economic question has showed little long-term trend, although tolerance for governmental intervention rose following the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The social libertarian viewpoint — that government should not favor any particular set of values — has gained a couple of percentage points since the 1990s but not more than that.But in CNN’s latest version of the poll, conducted earlier this month, the libertarian response to both questions reached all-time highs. Some 63 percent of respondents said government was doing too much — up from 61 percent in 2010 and 52 percent in 2008 — while 50 percent said government should not favor any particular set of values, up from 44 percent in 2010 and 41 percent in 2008. (It was the first time that answer won a plurality in CNN’s poll.)[1,015 respondents; +/- 3% margin of error]
Dear [so-called] “Libertarians” of Tumblr. Notice how CNN’s definition of libertarianism involves thinking the government should NOT promote on set of social issues over another? Yeah, you’re doing it wrong.
