This is a personal blog and I talk about/repost whatever I find interesting, diverting, or beautiful. Topics include but aren't limited to: politics, feminism, race/ethnicity, social/economic justice, art, history, literature, cute animals, pop culture, other nonsense. I credit/link back to sources whenever possible. More about this blog
The minimum wage needs to be a living wage. The business-side discomfort with raising the wage would be more understandable if every sector was hurting. But it isn’t. The rich are richer than ever, corporate profits are at record highs, the stock market is soaring. We don’t need to coddle McDonalds and WalMart by paying their employees less than living wages. But in any case, raising the minimum doesn’t hurt the economy at all. It actually creates more jobs.
…Republicans “legitimized impeachment” as a tool of partisan politics in 1998. People talked about impeaching Bill Clinton for years; aides to Tom Delay were openly telling reporters in Washington, after the Republican sweep in the 1994 midterms, that they could impeach Clinton any time they wanted. Ann Coulter wrote a book arguing that impeachment was essentially a political act that a congressional majority could undertake just because they had the votes to do so. Bob Barr wrote a book advocating Clinton’s impeachment long before anyone had ever heard of Monica Lewinsky. The fact is that impeachment — or to be more precise, the threat of impeachment — was a political tactic already at hand to the Republicans any time they wanted to use it.
Charles Pierce on how Republicans are treating the very election of a Democratic president as a crime.
They wanted to impeach Clinton well before the Lewinsky scandal happened. They wanted to impeach Obama before he was even inaugurated. Hillary hasn’t even announced her presidency yet, but I’ll bet you there’s a cabal of conservatives out there brainistorming ‘crimes’ they can impeach her for.
…The Congressman was trying to pester [Tianna Gaines-Turner] on the whole “government dependence” bore…In response to the pestering, she says that she isn’t “dependent on the program,” but [is] in fact “independent on the program.” This is an impressively clever retort that deserves to be popularized.
Matt Bruenig on the brilliant ways Gaines-Turner, a woman who testfieid about her experiences with poverty at a congressional hearing, responded to Republican assholery. Democratic leadership could learn a thing or two from her!
To be fair though, outsmarting a congressional Republican is probably easy compared to the rigors of dealing with poverty on a daily basis.
Female voters in the US have been called “soccer moms” and “security moms”. In 2004, single women were “Sex and the City voters”. Now – because apparently women can’t ever just be “citizens” or “voters”, or more likely because conservatives prefer to call us names instead of delving too deep into women’s issues – we are “Beyoncé voters”. Bow down, bitches.
Most single ladies would generally be thrilled with a comparison to Queen Bey in any way, shape or form, but the cutesy nicknames for politically-engaged women need to stop. Surely pundits and the political media culture can deal with the collective electoral power of the majority voting bloc in this country in some better way than symbolically calling us “sweetheart”, complete with head pat.
The Republican who coined “Beyonce voters” was using the term to describe “single ladies” who wanted access to birth control and benefits from the government. It’s basically their new version of “welfare queen”—a dogwhistle largely meant to denigrate non-affluent women of color.
We have always been a nation of immigrants… who hate the newer immigrants.
…the Administration strongly opposes the language in the bill preventing the District from using its own local funds to carry out locally-passed marijuana policies, which again undermines the principles of States’ rights and of District home rule…
…At the time of writing this blogpost, the current death score is 159-0…Anybody who is not parti pris can see that the Netanyahu government has partially contrived and partially been trapped by a domestic political climate that requires them to kill numbers of Palestinians in order to satisfy the Israeli electorate. Of course there’s the usual blather about “operatives” and “terrorist infrastructure”, but it is hard to take seriously the idea that anyone believes this as a description of Israeli aims…lots of people in political power in the West think they have to go along with the story and pay lip service to Israel’s “right to defend itself”, even though concretely this takes the form of airstrikes against densely populated urban areas with predictable civilian deaths. Meanwhile, those who speak for the Israeli government go around claiming that no state could tolerate missiles being fired into its territory and that any state would have to retaliate. This is false, indeed absurd: much of British policy in Northern Ireland in the 1970s and 80s was deplorable, but though the IRA fired plenty of mortar rounds across the border, nobody seriously contemplated taking out “terror operatives” by aerial bombardment of civilian housing in the Irish Republic.