Reich on Clinton on Glass-Steagall

Feb 4th, 2016 5:31 pm | By

Hillary Clinton and Glass-Steagall.

Robert Reich discussed it last July:

Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. “You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,” Blinder saidafter her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.

This is a big mistake.

It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.

Well, and it’s “a mistake politically” because she shouldn’t be doing Wall Street’s bidding at the expense of the other 99.9% of the country. It’s a mistake politically because it’s a mistake morally. It’s a mistake politically because it’s the wrong thing to do.

It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one.

That too – plus that feeds into the mistake morally part. The bankers prospered even during the crash, while everyone else went to the wall. That’s not what a decent person should want for the country. Clinton shouldn’t want to be the president of the 1%.

“The idea is pretty simple behind this one,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said a few days ago, explaining her bill to resurrect Glass-Steagall. “If banks want to engage in high-risk trading — they can go for it, but they can’t get access to ensured deposits and put the taxpayers on the hook for that reason.”

For more than six decades after 1933, Glass-Steagall worked exactly as it was intended to. During that long interval few banks failed and no financial panic endangered the banking system.

But the big Wall Street banks weren’t content. They wanted bigger profits. They thought they could make far more money by gambling with commercial deposits. So they set out to whittle down Glass-Steagall.

Finally, in 1999, President Bill Clinton struck a deal with Republican Senator Phil Gramm to do exactly what Wall Street wanted, and repeal Glass-Steagall altogether.

And nine years later we got the unlovely result.



Clinton laughed and turned away

Feb 4th, 2016 1:55 pm | By

Amy Goodman talks to investigative reporter Lee Fang about Hillary Clinton’s extremely lucrative career of giving talks at big banks.

The Intercept’s Lee Fang recently questioned Hillary Clinton about her speeches for Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs, which paid her $675,000 for just three appearances. After a town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire, Fang asked Clinton if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. Clinton laughed and turned away. Fang joins us to discuss Clinton’s Wall Street ties along with Ellen Chesler, a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and longtime Clinton supporter.

Hang on a second. She laughed. Why? What’s funny about it? Is that supposed to make us think it’s some kind of silly or random or trivial question? If so – what the hell is wrong with her? (Stupid question, if the obvious answer is just that she’s thoroughly corrupt and doesn’t even realize it – but that’s what I’m asking: how can she not realize it?) It’s not a bit silly or random or trivial. Is she more attentive to the needs of banks than she is to the needs of for instance working people? Is she easily corrupted? Is she an ally of the big banks? Does she have a view on the repeal of Glass-Steagall? Those aren’t trivial or random questions.

AMY GOODMAN: Lee Fang, last month you attempted to speak with Hillary Clinton after she addressed a town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire. You asked her if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. She laughed and turned away. I want to go to that clip.

LEE FANG: Hi, Secretary Clinton, will you release the transcripts of your paid speeches to Goldman Sachs?

HILLARY CLINTON: [laughs]

LEE FANG: No? There’s a lot of controversy over the speeches. Secretary, is that a no? Secretary Clinton, will you release the transcripts of your Goldman Sachs speeches?

Not funny, Secretary Clinton. We’re not amused.

AMY GOODMAN: So, Lee Fang, explain what happened and why you’re raising this issue of what she was paid to make a speech or speeches at Goldman Sachs.

LEE FANG: Well, Amy, since 2001, Bill and Hillary Clinton have earned over $115 million on the speaker circuit, going out to private corporations, foundations, special interest groups, and charging as much as $200,000, $300,000 per speech. I mean, this is really unprecedented in American history that you have a leading candidate of a major party enriching themselves personally from special interest groups that have been lobbying them and will be lobbying them if they do win the White House. So there’s been a lot of talk about, you know, what these speeches actually entailed.

Bill was always like that. Always. It’s one of the things that soured my opinion of him quite soon after he took office.

And Hillary Clinton has defended herself, saying that she’s basically giving a boilerplate speech, she wants to have more education and more conversations, and this is healthy for our democracy. On the other hand, there have been reports that when Hillary Clinton has gone to some special interest groups—for example, she gave three speeches to Goldman Sachs, making over $600,000 from that one investment bank—that she gave a very specially tailored message, saying that she’s against all of this anti-bank populism. According to Politico, she reassured the bankers that she wouldn’t be taking the line of Elizabeth Warren or Obama really criticizing the big banks. And so, this is a big issue, because, again, this—

AMY GOODMAN: I want to get Ellen Chesler, a Hillary Clinton supporter, to respond.

ELLEN CHESLER: In all due respect, I mean, I actually was at one of those Goldman Sachs speeches, and it was about foreign policy, completely about foreign policy.

Chesler goes on to say that they give the money to their foundation, plus ex-presidents have to live, and Obama will face the same problem. She doesn’t explain why they can’t just get actual jobs, like lawyering or teaching or adminstrating. She seems to assume they have to be rich once they move out of the White House. There is no such necessity.



The committee treated with such contempt

Feb 4th, 2016 1:35 pm | By

Congress is mad at Martin Shkreli, even the Republicans. I guess they don’t like it when capitalists make capitalism look bad?

Mr. Shkreli, who left Turing Pharmaceuticals, the drug company he started, after being indicted on federal securities fraud charges in December, repeatedly exercised his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination, angering various members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen the committee treated with such contempt,” Representative John L. Mica, a Florida Republican, said after Mr. Shkreli was excused and left the room.

Dude, he’s a successful entrepreneur. You’re just a politician.

The theatrics surrounding Mr. Shkreli’s appearance, which included his smirking at some remarks by committee members and calling them “imbeciles” on Twitter after he left the hearing, overshadowed the discussion about huge overnight price increases in the prices of old drugs by Turing and another company, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International.

News of questionable practices involving higher drug prices has stirred public outrage, provided notable moments on the campaign trails of presidential candidates and helped send some pharmaceutical stocks into a downward spiral. Several congressional committees are examining the trends in drug pricing.

He’s bad for business. He’s a successful entrepreneur, but he’s bad for business. Kind of like Madoff. (Maybe it’s not fair to call a fraud a successful entrepreneur. Then again…)

Valeant has increased the price of numerous old drugs, but the House committee has focused on two heart drugs, Isuprel and Nitropress. Valeant acquired both a year ago and immediately raised the price of Isuprel by more than 500 percent and of Nitropress by more than 200 percent, provoking protest from the hospitals that buy these drugs.

There are people (and even companies) who don’t price gouge lifesaving drugs…but this is America, where gouging is a sacred duty.

Mr. Merritt of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association said that one way to counter big price increases on older drugs was to approve generic versions of them rapidly.

Isuprel, Nitropress and Daraprim are all so old that they are no longer protected by patents. Before the large price increases, sales of those drugs were probably too small to interest generic manufacturers. But with the greater revenue from higher prices, that could change.

Mr. Schiller of Valeant said in his testimony that he expected Isuprel and Nitropress to face generic competition “within the next year or two.”

However, the Food and Drug Administration has been faced with a huge backlog of applications for approval of generic drugs. That means companies like Valeant and Turing that raise the prices of old drugs have some time to enjoy the profits from the increases. In one email he wrote just after increasing the price of Daraprim, Mr. Shkreli said of the expected profits: “I think we will get three years of that or more.”

Three happy years of gouging. God bless America.

 



Behind DV rest sexism and views of women as objects

Feb 4th, 2016 12:31 pm | By

Naz Shah MP:

Today I participated the Westminster Hall debate – Domestic Violence (DV) against women. In this debate I drew attention to:

• DV against women is an issue for all of us and men especially
• A minority of men are perpetrators of DV but other men may know about situations and fail to challenge and or report
• Behind DV rest sexism and views of women as objects and in this day and age we need to support young people and adults what healthy relationships are and what it involves.
• DV has to become socially unacceptable and so I was proud to make mention of the White Ribbon Campaign.
• Some of the facts around DV are startling and these still shock me now e.g. 1 in 4 women will experience physical abuse in their lifetime, On average 2 women a week in the UK are killed because of domestic violence.
• Men and young people have to learn about DV and its impact on all. DV is not just a women’s problem.
• DV is physical, sexual, psychological, financial and also emotional and we must challenge all these aspects
• Prevention is the best cure so we need Male Ambassadors and Role Models to promote good relationship and challenge negative behaviours and sexism be active and speak out.
• Introduce Compulsory National Educational Programmes on Healthy Relationships this is a must if we have or one million children estimated to see DV every year
• Cultural Perspectives also need to be addressed and we need more men from BME communities to be role models in this area
• I also raised concern about the Cuts and Challenges Facing Charitable sector in General – Impact on Services for Women

I’m so glad Galloway lost.

 



What words did she speak for Goldman Sachs?

Feb 4th, 2016 10:13 am | By

It’s disgusting the way US politicians simply take corruption for granted.

MSNBC reports:

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton struggled Wednesday night to answer a question about why she took more than $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year.

“Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered,” she said when asked about the fees by CNN host Anderson Cooper in a forum televised by the network with less than a week away from the Granite State’s first-in-the-nation primary. Clinton had a lucrative turn on the paid speaking circuit after she stepped down as secretary of state, which rival Bernie Sanders has used as fodder against her.

That’s taken for granted, but it shouldn’t be. It’s as if being president is like winning gold in the Olympics – it’s a cash cow for life. Clinton gets to turn her stint as Secretary of State into huge wads of cash after she leaves the job. That shouldn’t be what it’s about.

“I wasn’t committed to running. I didn’t know whether I would or not,” she added when asked why she took the money knowing it would look bad if she ran. She said she did not regret taking the money, noting that other former secretaries of states have given paid speeches and saying that no one can influence her.

That’s what corrupt politicians always say. It’s bullshit. Why would Goldman Sachs want to give her $675,000 in one year for speaking in the first place?

Being a secretary of state should not be a money-making scheme.



The safety and privacy of the men

Feb 4th, 2016 9:57 am | By

So Roosh V canceled the whole thing, which seems to confirm what lots of people said, that the whole thing was just a scam to draw attention.

The founder of a group who has advocated legalising rape on private premises has cancelled plans for meetings following a widespread outcry.

Roosh V, whose real name is Daryush Valizadeh, 36, is the founder of Return Of Kings, a group for aspiring self-described “neo-masculinists”.

Mr Valizadeh made the announcement on his website: “I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6, especially since most of the meet-ups can not be made private in time. While I can’t stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meet-ups. The listing page has been scrubbed of all locations. I apologize to all the supporters who are let down by my decision.”

That’s just fatuous, because what did he think would happen? He jumped up and down shouting about what he was going to do, and got the desired reaction. It’s silly to pretend he wasn’t expecting it. He can no longer guarantee the privacy of the thing he took pains to publicize. Right.

But hey, I should just shut up about the whole thing because things are worse in Mogadishu.



Villandry

Feb 3rd, 2016 6:00 pm | By

I took a little travel break to stroll the gardens at Villandry on streetview.

Wikimedia commons:

File:Chateau-Villandry-JardinsEtChateau.jpg

Jean-Christophe BENOIST

I did the same thing at Chambord the other day; it’s striking how different the settings are. Chambord is plunked down in the middle of a flat plain near the Loire, with nothing else around it, just fields and trees. It looks downright odd, this massive chateau in the middle of nothing.

I love this setting, with the village right at the end of the garden. I went down a street in the village before going to the gardens, a street that ends at that church you see sticking up. It’s a substantial village.



The leftovers

Feb 3rd, 2016 5:14 pm | By

Photos of that gender segregated mosque:

That’s the gymnasium all right.

The boys have a better place to go.



Created to justify the true source of opposition

Feb 3rd, 2016 4:27 pm | By

Danielle Muscato has a public post on Facebook saying a thing that I strongly agree with (and wrote a Free Inquiry column saying a few issues back):

Rant mode engaged:

I’m sick of hearing people say, “No one is pro-abortion. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.”

Bullshit. I’m pro-abortion. Anytime, for any reason, on demand, no questions asked, no waiting period, no parental consent, no spousal consent, tax-funded abortions, and please take as many free condoms on your way out as you’d like. And I make no apology for this. Your body, your choice.

Copious heated “oh no you didn’t” ensued – nearly all of it from men. Lots of impassioned concern for the other person involved, and the fact that abortion is after all just plain murder. This one especially:

I am pro-choice – but many of you guys are missing the freakin’ point, here. You say you support the woman’s right to choose because women should be able to choose what happens to their own bodies. That’s fine. But don’t for one second believe that pro-lifers disagree with that. They aren’t protesting to end a woman’s right to choose, trivially – most of them are protesting because they literally think abortions are murder…. they think it’s the same thing as walking up to somebody on the street and gunning them down. Would you protest for the woman to have the right to choose if she can shoot a man down in the streets? If not, then don’t freakin’ defend your position by saying that you support a woman’s right to choose. The only difference between you and them is the interpretation of when a life begins or when a life reaches a stage that should not be stifled. Stop with the strawman shit.

No, I thought, I don’t think so. I think the murder is post hoc, a justification for the gut-level reason, which pretty much boils down to not wanting women to have that kind of freedom. After several comments Amanda Marcotte made some, which few people saw on such a long nested thread.

Actually, as a long-time journalist covering this, I would argue the opposite. The claim to believe it’s murder was created to justify the true source of opposition, which is hostility to women’s freedom and a belief that women’s sexual desire is gross and women should only have sex for procreation. We know this because the anti-choice movement works hard to keep women from preventing pregnancy, even though the overwhelming evidence shows that contraception is the best prevention for abortion. Also, they are blunt about it on occasion, when they don’t think outsiders are listening. For instance, this quote from an anti-choice organizer: “And I say even if Planned Parenthood didn’t perform one single abortion, just the mere fact that its sexual ethic is corrupted means right there, should be the reason right there, that they should not receive any federal money. The kind of sexual ethic that Planned Parenthood promotes is sex for recreation, sex for mere pleasure.”

Quite. That’s what I thought, but I didn’t have examples in mind.

Or Lila Rose, who was instrumental in promoting those Planned Parenthood videos: “[S]omething precious is lost when fertility is intentionally excluded from marriage, a sacred bond and a total giving of each spouse to the other.” (That’s anti-code for “You shouldn’t use birth control, even if you’re married, because sex is nasty and only to be used for procreation.”)

Or Rick Santorum, presidential candidate and beloved anti-choice spokesman: “One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Valuable stuff.

Edited to add: the guy who said “but many of you guys are missing the freakin’ point, here” then mansplained to Amanda. She replied.

Dude, glass houses and stones. If you are going to lecture me on thinking about it from their point of view, try thinking about it from mine: I am a journalist who has covered this issue for nearly a decade. My expertise is in what they think and why they think it. I speak fluent anti-choice-ese. Now I have some guy who clearly hasn’t ever given a moment’s thought to the underlying issues in this debate is lecturing me on how I don’t know anything about the opposition, which is, I remind you, my literal field of expertise. To be blunt, I do know how they see it. They are religious conservatives who have high levels of sexual anxiety. They believe that sex is a powerful force that will destroy us all unless it’s carefully contained by marriage and faith. They believe that women were put here as helpmeets to men, as indicated in the Bible, and that the proof of this, as indicated in the Bible, is the way that pregnancy is tied to sex. Believe me, I know what they think. But it’s just not very sympathetic, and they know it. So they spin out this story about “life”, because that’s an easier sell to the rubes. If you want to know how they think, though, spend less time lecturing experts on how you know better because you heard a soundbite and actually start reading conservative Christian writings on sexuality and women’s roles.

I’ll add that my interpretation has the advantage of assuming that anti-choicers are not simpletons. The “it’s a baby!” argument is one so stupid that only someone who is too dumb to tie her shoes would actually believe. The debate over sex and women’s roles, however, is a stickier widget. But they’re smart enough to understand that, in our political climate, there’s more sympathy for morons than genuinely smart people who nonetheless have really ugly and controlling attitudes towards women. So they play stupid with the “it’s a baby!” crap, knowing it will hoodwink people who underestimate the intelligence of conservatives. Edited to add: This observation is useful in many realms when dealing with the right, FWIW. If you are asking yourself “stupid or evil?”, odds are they’re evil and hiding it by playing dumb.

Mind you, I think some of them have bought their own story, because that’s what people do, but I think it’s the hatred of women that came first.



They faced a cement block wall

Feb 3rd, 2016 3:33 pm | By

Asra Nomani and Ify Okoye start with setting the scene:

This past weekend, dozens of girls and boys as young as about 8 years old ran up the stairwell to the main entrance of the musallah, or main prayer hall, of the Islamic Society of Baltimore, where President Obama visits Wednesday in his first presidential visit to a U.S. mosque. As the children rounded the corner, a stern mosque Sunday school teacher stood before them, shouting, “Girls, inside the gym! Boys in the musallah.”

The girls, shrouded in headscarves that, in some cases, draped half their bodies, slipped into a stark gymnasium and found seats on bare red carpet pieces laid out in a corner. They faced a tall industrial cement block wall, in the direction of the qibla, facing Mecca, a basketball hoop above them. Before them a long narrow window poured a small dash of sunlight into the dark gym.

On the other side of the wall, the boys clamored excitedly into the majestic musallah, their feet padded by thick, decorated carpet, the sunlight flooding into the room through spectacular windows engraved with the 99 names of Allah, or God, in Islam. Ornate Korans and Islamic books filled shelves that lined the front walls.

Can you read that without fury? I certainly can’t. It reminds me of Goldenbridge and the other Irish industrial schools, that went out of their way to insult and degrade the children they imprisoned in every possible manner. It reminds me of the segregated school system in the southern US.

To Muslim women’s rights activists fighting for equal access to mosques as part of a broader campaign for reform — from equal education for women and girls to freedom from so-called “honor killings” — the president’s visit to a mosque that practices such blatant inequity represents a step backwards. While it may be meant to convey a message of religious inclusiveness to American Muslims,  the visit demonstrates tacit acceptance of a form of discrimination that amounts to gender apartheid.

It does that. They have daughters. Would they let their daughters be treated that way – be blatantly treated as lesser and inferior and deserving of bare floors and hard benches and no books or spectacular engraved windows? I sure as hell hope not.

“While the free world awaits a Muslim reformation, the leader of the free world shows blatant disregard for gender equality by visiting a mosque that treats females like second-class citizens,” says Raheel Raza, a Pakistani-Canadian activist, author and cofounder of the Muslim Reform Movement, a new initiative that we support, advocating for peace, women’s rights and secular governance.  “This makes our work as activists extremely difficult because equality is one of the main tenets of our reform movement.”

Religions in the US have big exemptions to treat women as inferior though. I blame the free exercise clause.



Triumphant return

Feb 3rd, 2016 11:40 am | By

Ha! At last, Kate Smurthwaite gets to do a gig at Goldsmiths after all.

The Goldsmiths Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society will be holding a stand-up show featuring the triumphant return of Kate Smurthwaite to perform along with comedian James Ross. Tickets are free but limited so please confirm on Eventbrite, alcohol will be provided and we will be collecting money for Refugee action at the event, so bring your coins!

Left-wing, highbrow, feminist, atheist comedy from Kate Smurthwaite  – ThreeWeeks award winner and writer for Have I Got News For You? and BBC3’s BAFTA-winning The Revolution Will Be Televised.  Kate has appeared on Question Time and is a regular on The Big Questions, The Moral Maze and This Morning but was recently deemed “too controversial” for Goldsmith’s College.

About a year ago, I think.

Her new comedy solo show is called “The wrong sort of Feminist” and is about her barring from Goldsmiths last year, choice and freedom, the feminist movement, the treatment of asylum seekers in Britain, Couples Come Dine with Me and edible pants.

Her show has had great reviews with Three weeks saying its “comedy that cuts through the crap”, Broadway baby saying “The verve with which she articulates her views on our land is monumental”, the Spectator saying ““Hilarious… A powerhouse of observational wit” and Scotsgay noting “An important and inclusive narrative… a brilliant comedian”.

I’ve seen her perform, and thought she was brilliant.

James Ross will be performing “Leopardoptera” and describes his style of comedy as “High-energy, left field stand-up for people who’ve read a book, without pictures, and enjoyed it.” He has performed at the edinburgh fringe with his hour long show which has been described as “freaking genius” by Threeweeks and “one to watch” by the daily mirror and Chortle describing him as “the sort of person children stare at on buses”.

Doors at 7pm, show at 8pm onwards.

WHEN
WHERE
Natura Cafe – Goldsmiths Students’ Union. Dixon Road. London SE14 6NW GB – View Map

Dixon Road is off Lewisham Way.



$1.29 billion

Feb 3rd, 2016 10:28 am | By

This just makes me sick – Business Insider reports on the way US Secretary of State John Kerry has been sucking up to Saudi Arabia.

Despite a flurry of international criticism regarding Saudi Arabia’s mass execution, the US government has been exceptionally muted in its response. After the executions, the State Department reported that it had “expressed [its] concerns” about the legal process in Saudi Arabia and raised those concerns at “high levels of the Saudi government”.

Emerging from meetings with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, Secretary Kerry declared the discussion to be “one of the most constructive conversations that we have had in a time.” Speaking to embassy staff in Riyadh, he stated, “We have as solid a relationship, as clear an alliance, and [as strong] a strong friendship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as we have ever had.”

That’s disgusting. Saudi Arabia is a human rights nightmare. Saudi Arabia is the “official” version of IS, or rather, IS is the freelance version of Saudi Arabia. Because Saudi Arabia is a state and has the apparatus of a state, it can do far more harm than IS can, and it does. Saudi Arabia sentences people to torture and death for religious dissent, for sex, for liberalism, for opinion, for innocuous Facebook posts. Saudi Arabia imports millions of women as domestic servants and looks the other way as they are treated like garbage. Saudi Arabia fails to make the hajj safe for the millions of pilgrims it attracts, and then lies about the death count. Saudi Arabia treats half its population like criminals.

Recently, citizens of Yemen have borne the brunt of the human cost of Saudi Arabia’s regional adventurism. Reports by numerous independent human rights organizations have repeatedly implicated coalition air strikes in civilian deaths and violations of international humanitarian law. Just this January, a Saudi air strike killed a freelance journalist who had been conducting interviews for Voice of America.

Despite documentation of continuing coalition human rights abuses, the United States plans to move forward with its $1.29 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, the terrorist ideology that Saudi Arabia claims to be fighting abroad increasingly links back to Saudi Arabia itself.

It’s just horrendous. We might as well be selling weapons to North Korea, or Boko Haram. It makes just as much sense.

Last autumn, Saudi Arabia’s terrorism tribunal sentenced Abdulkareem al-Khoder, a founding member of the Saudi Arabian Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA) to 10 years in prison and a 10-year travel ban, making him the tenth founding member of ACPRA to be imprisoned.

Youth protesters Ali al-Nimr, Abdullah al-Zaher, and Dawood Hussein al-Marhoon sit on death row for their activism after the government convicted them of crimes they reportedly committed as minors.

On 21 December 2015, a Saudi court sentenced writer Zuhair Kutbi to four years in prison, a five-year ban on overseas travel, a fine of $26,600, and a 15-year writing ban for his criticism of the government. Still worse, the government sentenced Palestinian poet Ashraf Fayadh to death in November 2015 for apostasy.

The list of Saudi human rights abuses is long and growing longer. The government has repeatedly, in both domestic and international venues, perpetrated human rights violations and sacrificed regional security and stability to further its own interests. Such abuses are in flagrant violation of Saudi Arabia’s international commitments.

But the Obama administration apparently doesn’t care.



Humans and assistant humans

Feb 3rd, 2016 9:36 am | By

I see that some of you need a reminder of what the Catholic church actually does “teach” about women. So, behold for instance Mulieris dignitatem, from 1988. No the Vatican has not changed its mind since then. On the contrary: it still treats the ordination of women as an excommunicable offense:

As far as the Vatican is concerned, however, Catholic women like Dyer who dare to be ordained are automatically excommunicated. But the Roman Catholic Womenpriests (RCWP)movement and the Catholic communities they serve share a different view.

“We don’t focus on what the institution thinks,” said Andrea Johnson, the presiding bishop, who has been performing ordinations in the U.S. since 2009. “We focus on what the people think. No matter what the Vatican says about the church not being a democracy, at the end of the day, the people decide.”

According to a 2013 Quinnipiac University poll, at least 60 percent of American Catholics support female ordination. But the issue remains contentious.

Twenty years ago this month, Pope John Paul II formally declared that the church does not have the power to ordain women. Last year, shortly after his election, Pope Francis disappointed many progressive Catholics around the world when he hailed his predecessor’s decision as “definitive” and stated that the issue of women priests is “closed.”

So, Mulieres dignitatem:

In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person. The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman. Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.

The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely different. Hence a woman, as well as a man, must understand her “fulfilment” as a person, her dignity and vocation, on the basis of these resources, according to the richness of the femininity which she received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of the “image and likeness of God” that is specifically hers. The inheritance of sin suggested by the words of the Bible – “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” – can be conquered only by following this path. The overcoming of this evil inheritance is, generation after generation, the task of every human being, whether woman or man. For whenever man is responsible for offending a woman’s personal dignity and vocation, he acts contrary to his own personal dignity and his own vocation.

Women get to be two things – virgins and mothers.

We must now focus our meditation on virginity and motherhood as two particular dimensions of the fulfillment of the female personality. In the light of the Gospel, they acquire their full meaning and value in Mary, who as a Virgin became the Mother of the Son of God. These two dimensions of the female vocation were united in her in an exceptional manner, in such a way that one did not exclude the other but wonderfully complemented it.

So pretty…and yet it leaves so much out, doesn’t it. Virginity, frankly, isn’t anything; it’s certainly not any kind of vocation. Motherhood can be a full-time vocation for some, but that’s far from being a reason to making it the only vocation for all.

There’s the Letter of JP2 to women:

The Book of Genesis speaks of creation in summary fashion, in language which is poetic and symbolic, yet profoundly true: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). The creative act of God takes place according to a precise plan. First of all, we are told that the human being is created “in the image and likeness of God” (cf. Gen1:26). This expression immediately makes clear what is distinct about the human being with regard to the rest of creation.

We are then told that, from the very beginning, man has been created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Scripture itself provides the interpretation of this fact: even though man is surrounded by the innumerable creatures of the created world, he realizes that he is alone (cf. Gen 2:20). God intervenes in order to help him escape from this situation of solitude: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen 2:18). The creation of woman is thus marked from the outset by the principle of help: a help which is not one-sided but mutual. Woman complements man, just as man complements woman: men and women are complementary. Womanhood expresses the “human” as much as manhood does, but in a different and complementary way.

When the Book of Genesis speaks of “help”, it is not referring merely to acting, but also to being.Womanhood and manhood are complementary not only from the physical and psychological points of view, but also from the ontological. It is only through the duality of the “masculine” and the “feminine” that the “human” finds full realization.

None of this non-binary, gender-fluid crap for the Vatican, thanks. No sir, women and men are different. Complementary, mind you, which makes it mysteriously ok, but different. Men are the kind of human who can be bishops and popes, and women are the other kind.

Women are helpers; that’s the important thing to remember. There are the primaries, who do things, like poping and bishoping, and there are the helpers, who help the primaries do things.

Here I would like to express particular appreciation to those women who are involved in the variousareas of education extending well beyond the family: nurseries, schools, universities, social service agencies, parishes, associations and movements. Wherever the work of education is called for, we can note that women are ever ready and willing to give themselves generously to others, especially in serving the weakest and most defenceless. In this work they exhibit a kind of affective, cultural and spiritual motherhood which has inestimable value for the development of individuals and the future of society. At this point how can I fail to mention the witness of so many Catholic women and Religious Congregations of women from every continent who have made education, particularly the education of boys and girls, their principal apostolate? How can I not think with gratitude of all the women who have worked and continue to work in the area of health care, not only in highly organized institutions, but also in very precarious circumstances, in the poorest countries of the world, thus demonstrating a spirit of service which not infrequently borders on martyrdom?

10. It is thus my hope, dear sisters, that you will reflect carefully on what it means to speak of the“genius of women”, not only in order to be able to see in this phrase a specific part of God’s plan which needs to be accepted and appreciated, but also in order to let this genius be more fully expressed in the life of society as a whole, as well as in the life of the Church. This subject came up frequently during the Marian Year and I myself dwelt on it at length in my Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem (1988). In addition, this year in the Letter which I customarily send to priests for Holy Thursday, I invited them to reread Mulieris Dignitatem and reflect on the important roles which women have played in their lives as mothers, sisters and co-workers in the apostolate. This is another aspect-different from the conjugal aspect, but also important-of that “help” which women, according to the Book of Genesis, are called to give to men.

I trust that’s clear enough.



Helping

Feb 2nd, 2016 5:54 pm | By

Tiny got in the watering hole and can’t get out. The bank is just a little too steep and a little too slippery. The elephants try to help by screaming and bellowing, but it doesn’t quite work. One craps copiously in Tiny’s general direction, but that doesn’t do it either. Pulling doesn’t do it…but maybe pushing? Worth a try.



Randomize

Feb 2nd, 2016 4:32 pm | By

Uh.

Randy Milholland ‏@choochoobear 5 hours ago
So MRAs are planning a meet up in a Chicago park & invited a guy who proposed rape be legalized in public places https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160202/rogers-park/pro-rape-mens-rights-group-plans-saturday-rally-rogers-park …

Once your organization actively bands with a guy who wants rape legalized, the argument of “we don’t hate women” is harder to make.

I’m curious if there will be any MRAs who actually stop, look at this, and say, “No, that’s not someone I want to be associated with.”

And got my first angry MRA.

“He’s not an MRA, do your goddamn research” – I never said he was. I said he was going to be at a gathering of MRAs & he’s pro rape.

So, yes – literally the guy reaction of the first MRA reply I got was to act like I said something I didn’t.

Not, “As an MRA, I am uncomfortable being linked to this guy” or, “His views aren’t mine” – just “I WILL ATTACK WHAT YOU DIDN’T SAY!”

If your reaction learning your group will be having a gathering with a pro-rape dude it to get mad at the person mentioning it you’re fucked

I feel like I’m not being fair and I should point out everyone I hate. I’d hate to just pick on one group.

In that link, I noticed trans-men weren’t welcome to the gathering. Congrats, TERFs. You and MRAs have something to bond over.

What?

Somehow a gathering of MRAs inviting a guy who promotes the legalization of rape becomes an occasion to yell at radical feminists?

How the fuck does that work?



Empathy

Feb 2nd, 2016 4:25 pm | By

A story a couple of years ago reporting on research that suggests elephants comfort each other.

Elephants at the Golden Triangle Asian Elephant Foundation in Chiang Rai, Thailand

Credit: Elise Gilchrist Copyright: Think Elephants International, Inc. CC BY SA

Asian elephants reassure other distressed elephants by touching them and “talking” to them, which suggests they are capable of empathy and reassurance, according to new research.

 …

The researchers found that when “an elephant would show distress, the other elephants would adopt that same state — and we call that “emotional contagion” — which is something you typically see in an empathic reaction,” Plotnik said.

Then, the elephants would move toward each other, touch each other’s faces and genitals, and put their trunks in each other’s mouths and chirp, he said.

They do.

There was this thing Sri, the youngest elephant at our zoo did – she was two when I started working there, a year younger than Chai. Little kids, both of them, but Chai was considerably bigger than Sri. Sri would curl her trunk up against Chai’s side, in the position she would have used if she’d been nursing. It always gave me a pang…but Chai was a good substitute-mother to her. Neither of them ever did that to either of the adults.



The screams of children

Feb 2nd, 2016 3:40 pm | By

Brace yourselves; this is horrifying.

Boko Haram attacked a village and two refugee camps on Saturday, setting fire to huts with people inside them.

DALORI, Nigeria (AP) — A survivor hidden in a tree says he watched Boko Haram extremists firebomb huts and heard the screams of children burning to death, among 86 people officials say died in the latest attack by Nigeria’s homegrown Islamic extremists.

Scores of charred corpses and bodies with bullet wounds littered the streets from Saturday night’s attack on Dalori village and two nearby camps housing 25,000 refugees, according to survivors and soldiers at the scene just 5 kilometers (3 miles) from Maiduguri, the birthplace of Boko Haram and the biggest city in Nigeria’s northeast.

The shooting, burning and explosions from three suicide bombers continued for nearly four hours in the unprotected area, survivor Alamin Bakura said, weeping on a telephone call to The Associated Press. He said several of his family members were killed or wounded.

Some people were able to flee to a nearby village, and there three women blew themselves up, killing a bunch more.

Monster god strikes again.



Dispatch from the man room

Feb 2nd, 2016 3:09 pm | By

A friend sent me the link to a post by a Man on a blog called “Fix the Family” – a post about reasons “to NOT send your daughter to college.” “You” here of course assumes you are a Man. Only men get to send anyone anywhere, and only men get to keep people away from anywhere.

(I look at the top and see home, about, videos, blog, man room…)

(There’s no woman room. Don’t be silly.)

The logo is a guy talking.

Resurrecting Manhood Today

Probably the most controversial and rejected position we have at Fix the Family is that parents should not send their daughters to college.  It is even more vehemently opposed than the submission of wives to their husbands.  Both of these positions we have are a threat to the trophies of the feminist agenda, so the rejection we receive is always emotionally charged and ends up insulting, since once explained logically, the opposition runs out of substance and is only left to hurl insults and presume and misconstrue this practical wisdom into some chauvinistic evil.  But to distinguish these 2 issues, we are NOT saying that sending a girl to college or women working is a sin.  But after looking at the issues we raise, we would challenge anyone to convince us that college for girls is not a near occasion of sin.

The funny thing is this is a Catholic blog. Of course Catholicism is not egalitarian about women, but the kind of drivel in that passage sounds more fundie Protestant than Catholic to me. I think this guy has been watching too much Duggar-tv.

Why shouldn’t daughters go to college? Because that’s for men. Simple.

If we look COMPREHENSIVELY at the Catholic doctrine, we’ll see very little that promotes a woman working outside the home.  Further a good working knowledge of the basics for today’s culture and progressive society can be learned in 12 years of school.  Politicians say that 12 years is not enough today, but that is because of a failed corrupted education system.  Homeschooling parents can educate their children in 12 years.  College may be necessary for the provider of a family depending on the vocation God is calling them to or for those who are called to the Priesthood, both of which are intended for men.

There y0u go: intended for men. What more do you need to know? Women can produce milk, therefore, no college for them.

The Church teaches that husbands and wives are of equal dignity, but with different roles.  Almost all of our children will choose to marry.  Actually, since the purpose of a college degree is for a job, it becomes unnecessary for our daughters to have such a credential.  My personal impression is that the day-to-day grind of a job is below the dignity of women.  In a way, it is like being a hired hand, as result of the fall and the penalty for original sin.  Of course the Lord and the Popes have raised the dignity of work as a way of husbands living out their vocation and duty.  But the penalty for the woman as a result of the fall was pain in childbirth (which requires having babies), not to work.  Sending our wives out to work should be a very last resort, a misfortune, so it shouldn’t be part of a plan for young ladies before they even get a start at family life.  Keeping a home, being a loving wife, and being a nurturing mother are of immeasurable dignity to a woman and not something to be farmed out to servants.

He needs to make up his mind. Is having children a penalty, or a great big prezzie?

We believe in women making wise prudent choices for themselves.  The indoctrination of the feminist culture and the practicing of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle severely cloud, practically blind that good judgment.  Getting a college degree often makes a young lady feel an “obligation” to use it, to make money.  Often her husband doesn’t want to see it go to “waste.”  So the degree is what actually traps her.  Not having a degree frees her to enter into a marriage with proper roles in which her husband will provide for her and their children.  Christian marriage by definition does place her in a submissive role to her husband, but no one forces anyone to marry anyone.  She should go to the altar with full knowledge of what she’s entering into.

Hmm. We believe in women making wise prudent choices for themselves, except not going to college, or working outside the home, or staying single. Other than that, they can choose like mad.

Then he draws up a numbered list of reasons that daughter should stay the hell away from tertiary education. 3 is very strong.

3 She will not learn to be a wife and mother.  Nothing that is taught in a college curriculum is geared toward domestic homemaking.  On the contrary, it is training in a very masculine role of a professional career.  So there becomes a severe inner conflict in a woman when she starts trying to be a homemaker and juggle a career alongside it.

She won’t settle down nicely to being a wife and mother and nothing else unless she is kept strictly away from all alternatives. She won’t even know how to write blog posts saying why women should be kept at home and uneducated.

H/t Gretchen



Gone

Feb 2nd, 2016 12:05 pm | By

I knew this yesterday, but didn’t feel like posting about it.

One of my quondam elephant friends, Chai, was found dead Saturday morning. It breaks my damn heart. I was working at the zoo (Woodland Park in Seattle) when she arrived there in 1980. I went to take a look the day she arrived. She was a year old. A couple of years later I became one of her keepers. She was a wonderful elephant.

 



800 lashes, in 16 installments

Feb 2nd, 2016 10:02 am | By

Ashraf Fayadh’s death sentence has been overturned, but he still faces prison and torture. This is what the Saudis do – they say oh all right, if you’re going to get that upset, we won’t kill the liberal guy, the Sri Lankan woman who had sex, the guy who wrote poetry, we’ll just lock them up for years and years and maybe torture them too.

A Saudi court has overturned the death sentence of a Palestinian poet accused of renouncing Islam, imposing an eight-year prison term and 800 lashes instead. He must also repent through an announcement in official media.

Saudi Arabia, where the state religion is absolutely mandatory, on pain of torture, prison and death. Saudi Arabia, that prides itself on living according to its state religion, which kills people for attempting to escape it.

Adam Coogle, a Middle East researcher at Human Rights Watch, said: “Instead of beheading Ashraf Fayadh, a Saudi court has ordered a lengthy imprisonment and flogging. No one should face arrest for peacefully expressing opinions, much less corporal punishment and prison. Saudi justice officials must urgently intervene to vacate this unjust sentence.”

The author Irvine Welsh said: “When this twisted barbarism is thought of as a compromise, it’s way past time western governments stopped dealing with this pervert regime.”

Exactly. South Africa was a pariah state. Why isn’t Saudi Arabia a pariah state? Is it just so that we can keep driving our giant cars?

The death sentence imposed in November provoked a worldwide outcry.

Hundreds of leading authors, artists and actors, including the director of Tate Modern, Chris Dercon, the British poet laureate, Carol Ann Duffy, and actor Helen Mirren, have appealed for his release. More than 60 international arts and human rights groups, including Amnesty International and the writers’ association PEN International, have launched a campaign calling on the Saudi authorities and western governments to save him. Readings of his poetry in support of his case took place in 44 countries last week.

Jo Glanville, the director of English PEN, which appealed for Fayadh’s release, said: “It is a relief that Ashraf Fayadh no longer faces execution, but this is a wholly disproportionate and shocking sentence. It will cause dismay around the world for all Ashraf’s many supporters. The charges against him should have been dropped and he should be a free man today. We will continue to campaign for his release.”

A god that won’t let us leave is a kidnapper and an enslaver. Fuck that god.