Posts Tagged: politics

Text

georgeblagdiddy:

i’m proud of those grade nine kids who STUCK IT to tony abbott

i can’t believe he dismissed a young woman ‘s question about marriage equality by asking “how ‘bout a bloke’s question… what’s your favourite football team?”

and the kid that responded with “how do you think following in howard’s footsteps by turning back asylum seekers is a good idea?” i’m so proud that boy would have been a child when howard was PM.
and his subsequent answer was just the most ridiculous (and racist) thing ever.

The next boy asked “DO YOU KNOW IT’S A HUMAN RIGHT TO SEEK ASYLUM IN ANOTHER COUNTRY?”

These kids are heckling the CRAP out of him, these fourteen year olds are shouting YOU HAVEN’T GIVEN US A REAL ANSWER STOP AVOIDING QUESTIONS and their teachers are trying to hush them from yelling at the prime minister of australia.

And every single one of them has their phones out, filming every single uncomfortable squirm.

and one beautiful girl raises her voice and says “why is a man minister for women? and why is a man in control of rights for women?” cue deafening screams of support from her classmates. and when he responds “look… urgh… people are either male or female” and she says “NO. there are actually intersex genders”

there are tears in my eyes. we’re under the control of an idiot right now, but at least the future of our nation will be just fine

(via myprettyfloralbonnet)

Source: toohephap
Quote

"

So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine. Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.” Bill continues to campaign, and management continues to ask the employees, and every time, the answer is in favor of the soda machine. This happens, lets say… 35 times. Eventually, Bill says “OK, I’M NOT PROCESSING PAYROLL ANYMORE UNTIL THE SODA MACHINE IS REMOVED”, so nobody will get paid unless management removes the machine. What should we do???

Answer: Fire Bill and get someone who will do the fucking job.

Bonus: Bill tells everyone that he was willing to “Negotiate”, to come to a solution where everyone got their payroll checks, but only so long as that negotiation capitulated to his demand to remove the soda machine.

Bill is a fucking jackass.

"

- Brian Krewson (via themetricruler)

(via appolsaucy)

Source: themetricruler
Text

bemusedlybespectacled:

9 Reasons the Filibuster Is Completely Broken and We Should Fix it

truth-has-a-liberal-bias:

9. Because nothing says democracy like one dude blocking progress for 315 million people.

8. A modern-day “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” remake would be about 15 minutes long, and feature the senator placing a silent filibuster and then skipping town.

7. Requiring a super-majority to pass anything at all is really just a terrible, horrible, no good very bad way to run a country.

6. Lyndon “Master of the Senate” Johnson wouldn’t have had such a cool nickname if he’d had to overcome 386 filibusters. Harry Reid’s faced 386 filibusters. How many filibusters did LBJ face? One.

5. It allows far-right senators to stonewall any bills or nominations that they object to. Or which mildly annoy them. Or just because they feel like it. This is stupid.

4. If government never does anything to help (because of a messed up Senate rule) people start thinking the government CAN’T do anything to help. Which hurts everyone.

3. Fixing the filibuster only requires a majority vote. Kinda ironic, right?

2. If you singlehandedly block proposals that would help millions of people including your own constituents, is it really too much to ask for you to stand up and explain yourself?

1. Because undocumented youth who have never done anything wrong should have a shot at citizenship, women should make the same amount as their male peers, stronger unions would mean a stronger middle class, & there’s too much money in our politics… but bills tackling all of these problems passed the House but were killed by silent filibuster in the Senate.

——
In a few weeks the Senate will vote on proposals to fix the filibuster. We need them to pass a strong measure that requires senators to stand up and talk the whole time, and reject a weak “bipartisan” proposal. Sign the petition now, and it will be delivered to the Senate next week.

Please click the link to sign the petition.

PREACH

(via bellatrixissexy)

Source: truth-has-a-liberal-bias
Link

Pennsylvania GOP Senate Candidate: Getting Pregnant From Rape Is 'Similar' To Having A Baby Out Of Wedlock | ThinkProgress

In the aftermath of Rep. Todd Akin’s (R-MO) offensive and medically inaccurate comments that “legitimate rape” doesn’t often lead to pregnancy, Republicans have been scrambling to distance themselves from Akin. However, in addition to pushing policies that are very much in line with Akin’s anti-choice views, some GOP candidates have similar ignorance about the nature of sexual assault.

Tom Smith, the Republican challenging Sen. Bob Casey’s (D-PA) seat, suggested that having a child out of wedlock was analogous to rape during an interview with a reporter at a press club this afternoon, claiming that it would have a “similar” effect on a father:

MARK SCOLFORO, ASSOCIATED PRESS: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?

SMITH: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to.. she chose they way I thought. No don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.

SCOLFORO: Similar how?

SMITH: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.

SCOLFORO: That’s similar to rape?

SMITH: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.

Photo

sunfoundation:

Mapping the earmarks

Across the nation, 33 members of Congress have helped direct more than $300 million in earmarks to dozens of public projects for work in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members.

Source: Washington Post
Text

abaldwin360:

Claiming that “abortion is the leading cause of death in the black community.” The memo (PDF) was circulated by Republicans on the House judiciary committee on Monday in advance of Tuesday’s markup of Rep. Trent Franks’ (R-Ariz.) Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act.

Franks’ bill, which is also known as H.R. 3514, didn’t make it out of committee when it was introduced in the last Congress. But the fact that it’s now receiving a markup—a key step on the way to a floor vote—and that 78 cosponsors have signed on suggests that it could proceed to a vote of the full House before November’s elections. In addition to banning abortions based on the race or gender of the fetus, H.R. 3514 would give a woman’s family members the ability to sue abortion providers if they believed an abortion was obtained based on race or sex. Critics warn that it would be next to impossible to prove that an abortion was obtained on the basis of race or gender and fear the provision could lead to nuisance suits against abortion providers by family members who are opposed to abortion on principle.

read more

(via abaldwin360-deactivated20130708)

Quote

"

Macho culture, playing Russian roulette with detainees’ lives”, rampant abuse, “carpet karaoke”. Where have we heard similar rhetoric before? Because none of these allegations sound totally novel, right? Oh yes. In case you weren’t aware, the “illegal alien” profit machine is in the hands of the same corporation that used to run the infamous Abu Ghraib prison. That’s right, the corporate tentacles of G4S are in charge of managing a whole variety of “non humans” to be subjected to unspeakable acts of violence.

Evidently, G4S track record of detainee safety in Australia was so poor that the government was forced to cancel the contracts. Instead, new ones were awarded to Serco, whose care of immigrants seems to follow the same sickening pattern:

At the detention center Serco runs in Villawood, immigrants spoke of long, open-ended detentions making them crazy. Alwy Fadhel, 33, an Indonesian Christian who said he needed asylum from Islamic persecution, had long black hair coming out in clumps after being held for more than three years, in and out of solitary confinement.

“We talk to ourselves,” Mr. Fadhel said. “We talk to the mirror; we talk to the wall.”

Naomi Leong, a shy 9-year-old, was born in the detention camp. For more than three years, at a cost of about $380,000, she and her mother were held behind its barbed wire. Psychiatrists said Naomi was growing up mute, banging her head against the walls while her mother, Virginia Leong, a Malaysian citizen accused of trying to use a false passport, sank into depression.

All of this is done in the name of safety. Safety for the citizens of the Nation States that allow these atrocities; safety for national borders; safety for the politicians’ careers who appeal to an increasingly populist platform to gather support from a population who, in the absence of responses about their troubles have turned to immigrants as an easy scapegoat.

"

Source: tigerbeatdown.com
Quote

"

Earlier this year, Speaker John Boehner’s (R) office announced that American taxpayers would pay former Bush Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act — at a cost of $520 per hour of legal work. Clement’s original contract, however, included a $500,000 cap on the amount Clement could charge the United States to help protect discrimination. Less than six months later, Clement appears to have blown through that cap, and the House GOP now anticipates that he will take another $1 million from the American people:

The [House of Representatives] agrees to pay [Clement’s law firm] for all services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement a sum not to exceed $750,000.00. It is further understood and agreed that, effective October 1, 2011, the aforementioned $750,000 cap may be raised from time to time up to, but not exceeding, $1.5 million, upon written notice of the [House] to the [firm].

Clement is one of the nation’s top litigators, so Boehner has certainly not spared any expense in ensuring that unconstitutional discrimination against gay couples receives the best legal team available. The same cannot be said, however, for programs that actually benefit the American people. At the same time that the House GOP is writing enormous checks to keep anti-gay discrimination alive, they are pushing sharp cuts to education, job training and health care.

In other words, John Boehner’s plan is to create lucrative jobs for hard-right attorneys, and leave the rest of the nation out in the cold.

"

Source: thinkprogress.org
Text

In preparation for the 2012 election, GOP state lawmakers launched what former President Bill Clinton described as the most determined voter disenfranchisement effort since Jim Crow. The centerpiece of this effort are so-called “voter ID” laws, which could prevent millions of voters from casting a ballot in 2012. Moreover, because the voters disenfranchised by voter ID are disproportionately minorities, students and low-income voters — all demographics that tend to vote for Democrats — the overall effect of these laws is to skew the electorate towards Republicans.

Voter ID laws are also illegal. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act forbids state voting restrictions that have a greater impact on minority voters than on others. There is, however, a catch. According to one of the nation’s top voting rights experts, before DOJ can bring a lawsuit challenging this illegal voter disenfranchisement, it must first allow voters to be disenfranchised:

“In order to bring a Section 2 case, you’d have to as a practical matter show two things. One, that there’s a significant racial disparity and two, that the burden of getting an ID is significant enough for us to care about,” Samuel Bagenstos, who was until recently the number two official in the Civil Rights Division, told TPM.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Indiana voter ID case also suggests the court would be skeptical of a Section 2 case. And regardless of how the courts would find, any Section 2 case would almost certainly have to wait until after the 2012 election, since the evidence that the laws were discriminatory “can only be gathered during an election that takes place when the law is enacted,” Bagenstos said.

Sadly, the picture is even worse than Bagenstos suggests. If voter ID laws succeed in changing the result of the 2012 presidential election, than the next Attorney General will literally owe their job to their continued existence — hardly a recipe for vigorous enforcement of voting rights laws. Worse, the new Congress could very well owe its majority to voter disenfranchisement, and it could even repeal the Voting Rights Act outright if this law threatened their ability to remain in office.

The drafters of the Voting Rights Act anticipated this very problem, and they responded to it with Second 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 requires many states to “preclear” any new voting rules with a federal court or the Department of Justice, but it faces its own problem. Two years ago, the Supreme Court’s conservatives strongly hinted that they may strike down the provision of the VRA requiring many states to preclear new voting laws, and another recent case dealing with race discrimination in the workplace raises the — albeit less likely — possibility that they could also invalidate the VRA’s ban on laws that have a disproportionate impact on minorities.

So if DOJ acts now, they could run headlong into many of the same justices that brought us Bush v. Gore. If DOJ waits, then the fate of our democracy could rest in the hands of U.S. Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. None of this means that DOJ should hesitate one second to block illegal voter ID laws under Section 5 when it has the opportunity to do so, but it does mean that the American people may effectively be powerless against a widespread effort to rig our future elections.

Source: thinkprogress.org
Link

A Warm Place (At the Heart of it All): cognitivedissonance: BART Police Arrest Journalists, Cite KGO, KTVU at...

cognitivedissonance:

BART Police Arrest Journalists, Cite KGO, KTVU at BART Protest. Homeland Security Present

Thursday’s No Justice No BART protest–which shut down Powell Street Station in San Francisco–turned into an ugly attack on free speech and freedom of the press when BART…

Source: cognitivedissonance