If you want more jokes like these, that are absolute GOLD, check out Buzzfeed's "31 Jokes That Will Make Women Laugh Way Harder Than They Should."
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Here's a Little Chuckle For All You Feminists Out There
If you want more jokes like these, that are absolute GOLD, check out Buzzfeed's "31 Jokes That Will Make Women Laugh Way Harder Than They Should."
#FightUnfair
"Because my face was covered in soot and my clothes were all dirty...This made me sad. They were all telling me to go away."
Would you have told sweet Anano to go away if she was covered in soot? Unfortunately like we see in this video, most of us would.
Most of us do. Millions of children who live in absolute poverty are told to "go away" everyday by those who are much more fortunate than they are.
#FightUnfair and choose to care.
Thank you, Unicef for an eye opening video and campaign.
The Supreme Court Decision That You Missed
United States v. Texas, one of the Supreme Court's most important decisions regarding abortion, has dominated the media--and rightfully so. This is a historic case and should be celebrated.
However in the midst of this decision, there was another important Supreme Court Decision that deserves more attention than it has gotten: Voisine v. United States.
In a 6 to 2 ruling, the Supreme Court in Voisine v. United States ruled domestic violence assaults can be classified as misdemeanor crimes that can restrict gun ownership.
Justice Kagan, delivering the opinion of the Court, declared, "Federal law prohibits any person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing a firearm." Current US Law prohibits felons from possessing a firearm. But, most perpetrators of domestic violence are charged with misdemeanors. One can hardly argue against the notion that domestic violence offenders and firearms can be a deadly combination.
This decision is incredibly important for two reasons. One, in its decision the Supreme Court has become a champion of victims for domestic violence; it has taken a stance against those who commit violent acts against others. The second reason is much more controversial: it limits certain citizen's Second Amendment Rights.
The fact that this decision has gone relatively unnoticed is interesting. Following the shooting in Orlando, the issue surrounding gun control has blown up in the media. The Senate recently struck down several proposed gun control measures. This decision forbids domestic violence perpetrators from owning a gun. Certainly such a decision would attract great national attention, right? Apparently not. This is also an important decision for women. Although women are not the only victims of domestic violence, they are overwhelmingly the victims of this crime.
This decision deserves more attention. The Supreme Court has once again proven itself as a champion for women and a champion for the safety of its American citizens. Let's hope the Supreme Court continues to make landmark decisions for the betterment of our nation.
However in the midst of this decision, there was another important Supreme Court Decision that deserves more attention than it has gotten: Voisine v. United States.
In a 6 to 2 ruling, the Supreme Court in Voisine v. United States ruled domestic violence assaults can be classified as misdemeanor crimes that can restrict gun ownership.
Justice Kagan, delivering the opinion of the Court, declared, "Federal law prohibits any person convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing a firearm." Current US Law prohibits felons from possessing a firearm. But, most perpetrators of domestic violence are charged with misdemeanors. One can hardly argue against the notion that domestic violence offenders and firearms can be a deadly combination.
This decision is incredibly important for two reasons. One, in its decision the Supreme Court has become a champion of victims for domestic violence; it has taken a stance against those who commit violent acts against others. The second reason is much more controversial: it limits certain citizen's Second Amendment Rights.
The fact that this decision has gone relatively unnoticed is interesting. Following the shooting in Orlando, the issue surrounding gun control has blown up in the media. The Senate recently struck down several proposed gun control measures. This decision forbids domestic violence perpetrators from owning a gun. Certainly such a decision would attract great national attention, right? Apparently not. This is also an important decision for women. Although women are not the only victims of domestic violence, they are overwhelmingly the victims of this crime.
This decision deserves more attention. The Supreme Court has once again proven itself as a champion for women and a champion for the safety of its American citizens. Let's hope the Supreme Court continues to make landmark decisions for the betterment of our nation.
A Win for Women
The United States Supreme Court in a 5 to 3 ruling, struck down Texas abortion restrictions that already caused dozens of clinics across the state to shut down.
Lets take a minute to thank Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who not only joined Justice Stephen Breyer in his majority opinion but wrote her own concurring opinion on unnecessary abortion restrictions.
The Texas law called H. B. 2 inevitably will reduce the number of clinics and doctors allowed to provide abortion services. Texas argues that H. B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Schimel, 806 F. 3d 908, 912 (CA7 2015). See Brief for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. as Amici Curiae 6–10 (collecting studies and concluding “[a]bortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States”); Brief for Social Science Researchers as Amici Curiae 5–9 (compiling studies that show “[c]omplication rates from abortion are very low”). Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. See ante, at 31; Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921–922. See also Brief for Social Science Researchers 9–11 (comparing statistics on risks for abortion with tonsillectomy, colonoscopy, and in-office dental surgery); Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 7 (all District Courts to consider admitting privileges requirements found abortion “is at least as safe as other medical procedures routinely performed in outpatient settings”). Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law “would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 910. When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety. See Brief for Ten Pennsylvania Abortion Care Providers as Amici Curiae 17–22. So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992), Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H. B. 2 that “do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,” Planned Parenthood of Wis., 806 F. 3d, at 921, cannot survive judicial inspection.The Texas law passed in 2013 required all abortions to take place in surgical centers instead of regular clinics. RBG beautifully crafted her argument by getting straight to the point: Abortions are simply safer than many other simply medical procedures, and Texas does not place similar restrictions on those procedures.
Whether you are pro-life or not, you cannot deny that abortions happen. They are a fact of our reality. In the words of RBG, "When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners...at great risk to their health and safety."
The Supreme Court's decision was the most important decision concerning abortion since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, a whopping 24 years ago. Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion that was established in the famous 1973 decision Roe v. Wade. Despite these important decisions, lawmakers have found loopholes by establishing severe restrictions on abortion, endangering the lives of thousands of women. This recent decision is incredibly important as it sets precedent that Texas laws, and thereby similar laws in other states across the nation, are unconstitutional and represent an undue burden upon women.
The debate over abortion honestly astounds me. Yes, abortion is not pleasant. But let me tell you a little secret: abortions are not fun for any woman who gets one. It's a burden those women will live with for the rest of their lives, but it's their choice. Many of those who oppose abortion also oppose laws limiting gun rights or laws limiting freedom of speech. So why do so many people oppose a government's ability to restrict freedom of choice? No government should have the power to tell any person, including women, what they can and cannot do with their bodies. A government's responsibility is to protect its citizens, not place undue burdens and laws that could put their citizens in danger. This is why the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Texas is so important. Not only did the Supreme Court uphold its own precedent in previous abortion rulings, but it also sent an important message to American women. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land and the end all-say all of the United States, has declared women's safety and right to choose is important.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Buzzfeed's "23 Times Feminists Dropped The Fucking Mic"
Because everyone needs a little feminists dropping the mic in their life.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/andyneuenschwander/23-photos-that-will-make-feminists-laugh-more-than-they-shou?utm_term=.qhMn8A3ra#.ppj7Lvo4r
https://www.buzzfeed.com/andyneuenschwander/23-photos-that-will-make-feminists-laugh-more-than-they-shou?utm_term=.qhMn8A3ra#.ppj7Lvo4r
All Aboard the Brexit Train
"Brexit" has taken the global press by storm as Great Britain voted to leave the European Union after 43 years.
The United Kingdom's decision to leave the EU is not so simple. For a member state to leave the European Union, two years of negotiations take place and those negotiations are in favor of the European Union, not the state withdrawing its membership. If the two years ends without an extension or a deal, the United Kingdom automatically reverts to World Trade Organization rules in which the UK would face tariffs on all goods it sells to the European Union.
The decision has already shaken global markets and caused a massive drop in stocks. The value of the British pound has plunged. It has also caused British Prime Minister David Cameron to resign. In his resignation speech Cameron asserted "I was absolutely clear about my belief that Britain is stronger, safer and better off inside the European Union."
Interestingly, the vote was incredibly close with 52 percent voting to leave the European Union and 48 percent voting to stay. The results show a sharp regional divide within the United Kingdom as London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all had strong pro-EU results, as did the more rural and economically disadvantaged regions in the United Kingdom.
Many of the voters who voted to stay referenced immigration as their reasoning, saying immigrants were driving down wages and costing people jobs.
Most economists across the world encouraged Great Britain to remain within the European Union, as did prevalent political leaders.
Some predict the United Kingdom may break apart in light of this decision. Some in Northern Ireland have called for a referendum on unification with Ireland, who remains a European Union member state. This decision also may cause potential problems with Scotland who may hold another referendum on Scottish independence, after the 2014 vote to remain within the Untied Kingdom.
While this decision is localized in the United Kingdom, such a decision has sent and will continue to send shock waves across the world. As the second greatest economy within the European Union, Great Britain greatly destabilized the entire European continent.
Richard Hass, president on the Council of Foreign Relations (and interestingly the Commencement Speaker at my college graduation), has predicted "in five years, there will no longer be a United Kingdom." Chief economic advisor Mohamed A. El-Erian has predicted the European Union will continue on with a newly invigorated French-German partnership. Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, has predicted it could be a wake up call or 1933 all over again. She predicts other EU members may follow suit or the European Union could rise from the challenge.
But unfortunately, only time will tell. EU laws remain in the UK until the UK formally withdraws from the EU, a process that has not been tested yet and could take years. But what's important to know is that the referendum's results are not legally binding, and Parliament still needs to pass the laws required for Britain to leave the European Union. The withdrawal agreement also has to be ratified by Parliament.
While the future of the United Kingdom and the European Union remains uncertain, one thing is for certain: such a decision will have effects that stem beyond Great Britain and Europe. In a highly globalized world, such a decision by one of the world's leading powers is a decision that the world needs to pay attention to.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Response to "How We Can Win the War Against ISIS and Why We Are Failing"
Omar Mateen pledged his allegiance to ISIS before killing 49 people and inuring 53 in Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Another ISIS affiliated attack has raised an important issue we have all been thinking, "How do we win the war against ISIS?"
In "How We Can Win the War Against ISIS and Why We are Failing," published on The Clarion Project.org, author Jennifer Breedon acknowledges a fundamental problem commentators and political strategists have while covering ISIS in the press. Commentators, political strategists, everyday American citizens, have proposed banning guns to gun control policies to more love and tolerance as a solution to stopping the violence. However, as Breedon points out, we already have a legal obligation to stop ISIS.
The European Union, the United States, and the United Nations Human Rights Commission have all declared that ISIS is committing genocide, a declaration that comes with a powerful legal obligation to act. Article 1 of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states, "genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which [countries] undertake to prevent and to punish."
As Breedon acknowledges in the article, the Untied Nations' Responsibility to Protect Mandate dictates nations must work collectively to completely eradicate a genocidal threat using collective security.
But that hasn't happened. The collective security measures of the United States and the European Union are failing. Genocide in the Middle East is real, and thousands of innocent people are dying at ISIS' hands. The Security Council must pass a resolution to stop ISIS' genocidal campaign to uphold the Genocide Convention, but no such resolution has been passed.
However, I disagree with Breedon on one fundamental point. Breedon writes:
"Genocide" has a very specific legal definition, one that Omar Mateen does not fall in. Genocide is a very distinct crime that goes beyond all other human rights violations. It is the crime above all crimes. While the issue falls in a murky legal definition, there is an important distinction. For an act of mass murder to be classified as genocide, the attack must be on a group with the intent of its total destruction. Motive is also incredibly important. In genocide, the motive is the extinction of the group. Mass killings are generally used for other instrumental reasons. While I am certainly not an expert on Omar Mateen, nor do I know the mindset he had concerning the attacks, it appears his actions would classify more as Mass Murder. He was one cog in a big machine, deeply disturbed and looking to cause violence. His act was violent and deplorable beyond words, but this does not mean he wanted to systematically destroy all homosexuals. The legal difference is important.
Despite this, I think Breedon drives home an important point that news agencies and our government continue to neglect: ISIS is committing genocide. They have "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part" a multitude of peoples: Assyrian Christians, the Yezidis, Shia Muslims, and an assortment of other minorities, and we have a legal obligation to protect them.
In "How We Can Win the War Against ISIS and Why We are Failing," published on The Clarion Project.org, author Jennifer Breedon acknowledges a fundamental problem commentators and political strategists have while covering ISIS in the press. Commentators, political strategists, everyday American citizens, have proposed banning guns to gun control policies to more love and tolerance as a solution to stopping the violence. However, as Breedon points out, we already have a legal obligation to stop ISIS.
The European Union, the United States, and the United Nations Human Rights Commission have all declared that ISIS is committing genocide, a declaration that comes with a powerful legal obligation to act. Article 1 of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states, "genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which [countries] undertake to prevent and to punish."
As Breedon acknowledges in the article, the Untied Nations' Responsibility to Protect Mandate dictates nations must work collectively to completely eradicate a genocidal threat using collective security.
But that hasn't happened. The collective security measures of the United States and the European Union are failing. Genocide in the Middle East is real, and thousands of innocent people are dying at ISIS' hands. The Security Council must pass a resolution to stop ISIS' genocidal campaign to uphold the Genocide Convention, but no such resolution has been passed.
However, I disagree with Breedon on one fundamental point. Breedon writes:
"This is not a "hate crime," nor is it a "lone wolf" attack where an individual in Miami decided one day to kill people. This is an act based on a genocidal ideology on a mass scale, and there is a legal duty to work together with our allies to prevent further innocent bloodshed."Yes, ISIS is currently conducting genocide in the Middle East. But there is a fundamental difference between those who claim allegiance to ISIS and those who are ISIS fighters. There have been no ties found between ISIS leaders and Omar Mateen.
"Genocide" has a very specific legal definition, one that Omar Mateen does not fall in. Genocide is a very distinct crime that goes beyond all other human rights violations. It is the crime above all crimes. While the issue falls in a murky legal definition, there is an important distinction. For an act of mass murder to be classified as genocide, the attack must be on a group with the intent of its total destruction. Motive is also incredibly important. In genocide, the motive is the extinction of the group. Mass killings are generally used for other instrumental reasons. While I am certainly not an expert on Omar Mateen, nor do I know the mindset he had concerning the attacks, it appears his actions would classify more as Mass Murder. He was one cog in a big machine, deeply disturbed and looking to cause violence. His act was violent and deplorable beyond words, but this does not mean he wanted to systematically destroy all homosexuals. The legal difference is important.
Despite this, I think Breedon drives home an important point that news agencies and our government continue to neglect: ISIS is committing genocide. They have "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part" a multitude of peoples: Assyrian Christians, the Yezidis, Shia Muslims, and an assortment of other minorities, and we have a legal obligation to protect them.
Friday, June 17, 2016
"Emily Doe" and Why She Matters
Local papers have referred to her as "Emily Doe." We do not even know her name, but the worst moment of her entire life has been made public to the world.
She is known as the Stanford Rape Victim. 23 year old "Emily Doe" was attacked by Stanford Student Brock Allen Turner.
Turner was found guilty. Good news, right?
Wrong.
He was sentenced to a mere 6 months in a county jail and probation, with the requirement to register as a sex offender. As Judge Aaron Persky handed down Turner's sentence, he said he understood the "devastation" the victim suffered, but substantial imprisonment would have a "severe" impact on Turner.
It's important to know Judge Aaron Persky does not understand the devastation "Emily Doe" suffered. She will remember that moment for the rest of her life, and she will never be the same.
We live in a world where the "severe impact" on a rapist matters more than the "devastation" of a rape victim. Almost all news articles that refer to the case call the rapist, Stanford University Varsity Swimmer Brock Allen Turner. He is identified by his prestige while "Emily Doe" gets to be identified as a rape victim. This matters.
In her victim's impact statement she wrote, " For a while, I believed that was all I was. I had to force myself to relearn my real name, my identity. to relearn that this is not all that I am. That I am not just a drunk victim at a frat party found behind a dumpster, while you are the All-American swimmer at a top university, innocent until proven guilty, with so much at stake. I am a human being who has been irreversibly hurt, who waited a year to figure out if I was worth something."
Unlike what is reflected in Turner's actions, she is worth something. She matters.
They all do. "Emily Doe" is one of millions, and they all matter. Emily addressed other victims in her impact statement, saying "to girls everywhere, I am with you. On nights when you feel alone, I am with you. When people doubt or dismiss you, I am with you. I fought everyday for you. So never stop fighting, I believe you."
Each and everyone of us owes it to Emily and the other millions of girls who have suffered such a terrible crime to fight for them. We need to stand with them, and stop referring to all the Brock Allen Turner's in the world by their prestige. We need to stop identifying these millions of wonderful girls and women by what happened to them. They are not just "rape victims." They are much more than that. They are mothers, daughters, sisters, friends. They vary in all shape and sizes.
They are human beings, and they matter.
She is known as the Stanford Rape Victim. 23 year old "Emily Doe" was attacked by Stanford Student Brock Allen Turner.
Turner was found guilty. Good news, right?
Wrong.
He was sentenced to a mere 6 months in a county jail and probation, with the requirement to register as a sex offender. As Judge Aaron Persky handed down Turner's sentence, he said he understood the "devastation" the victim suffered, but substantial imprisonment would have a "severe" impact on Turner.
It's important to know Judge Aaron Persky does not understand the devastation "Emily Doe" suffered. She will remember that moment for the rest of her life, and she will never be the same.
We live in a world where the "severe impact" on a rapist matters more than the "devastation" of a rape victim. Almost all news articles that refer to the case call the rapist, Stanford University Varsity Swimmer Brock Allen Turner. He is identified by his prestige while "Emily Doe" gets to be identified as a rape victim. This matters.
In her victim's impact statement she wrote, " For a while, I believed that was all I was. I had to force myself to relearn my real name, my identity. to relearn that this is not all that I am. That I am not just a drunk victim at a frat party found behind a dumpster, while you are the All-American swimmer at a top university, innocent until proven guilty, with so much at stake. I am a human being who has been irreversibly hurt, who waited a year to figure out if I was worth something."
Unlike what is reflected in Turner's actions, she is worth something. She matters.
They all do. "Emily Doe" is one of millions, and they all matter. Emily addressed other victims in her impact statement, saying "to girls everywhere, I am with you. On nights when you feel alone, I am with you. When people doubt or dismiss you, I am with you. I fought everyday for you. So never stop fighting, I believe you."
Each and everyone of us owes it to Emily and the other millions of girls who have suffered such a terrible crime to fight for them. We need to stand with them, and stop referring to all the Brock Allen Turner's in the world by their prestige. We need to stop identifying these millions of wonderful girls and women by what happened to them. They are not just "rape victims." They are much more than that. They are mothers, daughters, sisters, friends. They vary in all shape and sizes.
They are human beings, and they matter.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Why are we so afraid of Terrorism?
9/11. Paris. San Bernadino. Belgium. Orlando.
All attacks that shook the United States to its very core, bringing the issue of terrorism to the nation's forefront. Americans fear terrorism at an alarming rate. One survey conducted in the wake of the Paris and San Bernadino attacks found 79% of respondents believed a terrorist attack was very likely or somewhat likely to happen in the United States within the next few months. 19% of those same respondents believed terrorism was the nation's most important issue.
Fear of terrorism isn't just supported by the numbers. It's a hot topic of debate in the 2016 Presidential Campaign. On any given day, you can find several news articles concerning terrorism on nearly every news publication in the world.
Americans fear terrorism.
So, why does it matter?
Research suggests the extent of American fear of terrorism may actually be unfounded. The Global Terrorism Database shows incidents of Terrorism within the United States have drastically decreased over the past 30 years, as shown below.
Furthermore, another survey found between 1969 and 2009, there were 38,345 terrorist incidents around the world. Of those attacks, only 7.1% were directed at the Untied States. So why do we fear terrorism even if the data shows terrorism is less of a threat than we believe it to be?
Because it's still a threat. 5,600 people and more than 16,300 people suffered injuries from acts of terrorism directed at the United States between 1969 and 2009, and that's just in the United States alone. Terrorism is scary and nearly impossible to defeat. It's okay to be scared of terrorism. But, it's important to keep in mind the level of the threat terrorism poses. Fear can cause us to misstep, form dangerous views, and act in ways we wouldn't normally do. In the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Terrorism's very existence serves to instill fear in its victims. A healthy amount of fear can keep us alert and proactive, but an unhealthy and uneducated amount of fear can lead to disastrous consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)