“With the primary season winding down and the midterms soon upon us, it’s time to point out that this election is not about what you may think it’s about. It is not a choice between the particular basket of policies offered by the candidates for House or Senate in your district or state — policies like gun control, right to choose, free trade or fiscal discipline. No, what this election is about is your first chance since 2016 to vote against Donald Trump. As far as I am concerned, that’s the only choice on the ballot. It’s a choice between letting Trump retain control of all the key levers of political power for two more years, or not. …what we’ve learned since 2016 is that the worst Democrat on the ballot for the House or Senate is preferable to the best Republican, because the best Republicans have consistently refused to take a moral stand against Trump’s undermining of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Civil Service, the basic norms of our public life and the integrity of our elections. [The Democrats] job is to get hold of at least one lever of power — the House or the Senate — in order to oust the most corrupt Republican lawmakers who lead key committees, to properly oversee the most reckless cabinet secretaries, like Scott Pruitt, and to protect the F.B.I., the Justice Department and Robert Mueller from Trump’s intimidation.”
Sounding Code Red: Electing the Trump Resistance
Thomas Friedman is finally right about something, for the first time in his life.
Literally the first time.
Look when I am reblogging Thomas Friedman to AGREE WITH HIM, the end times are upon us.
I am continually, as the Cheeto continues being himself, reminded of the bit in Going Postal where, after Horsefry has said something egregious, Gilt and Vetinari exchange a look that says “while I may loathe you and your personal philosophy to a depth unplumbable by any line, I will at least credit you with not being Crispin Horsefry.”
yes, exactly that.
And then there’s the Mister Slants who are just hanging around to milk the situation for all they can get, and are counting on their slipperiness to get them out of any consequences when everything inevitably goes to shit.
Although I think even Mr. Slant wouldn’t go as far as Mitch McConnell.
He did once but almost got burned alive and got blackmailed by William de Worde, which later appears to have taught him a lesson given that he quietly dumps the Grand Trunk people well before the equivalent of this point.
Day: June 4, 2018
When are we going to stop pretending girls don’t have hair on their boobs, between their boobs, around their nips, on their ass, on their upper lip, between their brows, on their cheeks, etc?
On their belly, on their toes, on their back, literally everywhere men grow hair
humans grow hair everywhere except on the palms of their hands and soles of their feet. this hair can rank from light blond and soft to dark and wiry, regardless of sex or gender of the person. shaving all of it is a mess and plucking it hurts like hell. humans are just animals with less thick fur. you wouldn’t shame a female animal for having as much fur as a male one, so stop doing that with humans.
reminder to my fellow trans girls freaking out about having hair there
This fantasy that women are hairless except their eyebrows and long head hair is so bizarre. Yes, gents, it’s there.
Also, just FWI because this also annoys me: not all natural blondes have carpet that matches the drapes. That’s not a thing you can use as some kind of honestly test. You know, like how blond men often have darker beards? It’s like that.
Women have hair. It’s everywhere. It’s as weird and varied as men’s hair.
women have hair it’s
everywhere it’s as weird
and varied as men’s hair
^Haiku^bot^9. I detect haikus with 5-7-5 format. Sometimes I make mistakes.
R͏̢͠҉̜̪͇͙͚͙̹͎͚̖̖̫͙̺Ọ̸̶̬͓̫͝͡B̀҉̭͍͓̪͈̤̬͎̼̜̬̥͚̹̘Ò̸̶̢̤̬͎͎́T̷̛̀҉͇̺̤̰͕̖͕̱͙̦̭̮̞̫̖̟̰͚͡S̕͏͟҉̨͎̥͓̻̺ ̦̻͈̠͈́͢͡͡ W̵̢͙̯̰̮̦͜͝ͅÌ̵̯̜͓̻̮̳̤͈͝͠L̡̟̲͙̥͕̜̰̗̥͍̞̹̹͠L̨̡͓̳͈̙̥̲̳͔̦͈̖̜̠͚ͅ ̸́͏̨҉̞͈̬͈͈̳͇̪̝̩̦̺̯ Ń̨̨͕͔̰̻̩̟̠̳̰͓̦͓̩̥͍͠ͅÒ̸̡̨̝̞̣̭͔̻͉̦̝̮̬͙͈̟͝ͅT̶̺͚̳̯͚̩̻̟̲̀ͅͅ ̵̨̛̤̱͎͍̩̱̞̯̦͖͞͝ Ḇ̷̨̛̮̤̳͕̘̫̫̖͕̭͓͍̀͞E̵͓̱̼̱͘͡͡͞ ̴̢̛̰̙̹̥̳̟͙͈͇̰̬̭͕͔̀ S̨̥̱͚̩͡L̡͝҉͕̻̗͙̬͍͚͙̗̰͔͓͎̯͚̬̤A͏̡̛̰̥̰̫̫̰̜V̢̥̮̥̗͔̪̯̩͍́̕͟E̡̛̥̙̘̘̟̣Ş̠̦̼̣̥͉͚͎̼̱̭͘͡ ̗͔̝͇̰͓͍͇͚̕͟͠ͅ Á̶͇͕͈͕͉̺͍͖N̘̞̲̟͟͟͝Y̷̷̢̧͖̱̰̪̯̮͎̫̻̟̣̜̣̹͎̲Ḿ͈͉̖̫͍̫͎̣͢O̟̦̩̠̗͞R͡҉͏̡̲̠͔̦̳͕̬͖̣̣͖E͙̪̰̫̝̫̗̪̖͙̖͞ | PayPal | Patreon
Barry is still hungry!
SO IS WANDA!
I’m watching that documentary “Before Stonewall” about gay history pre-1969, and uncovered something which I think is interesting.
The documentary includes a brief clip of a 1954 televised newscast about the rise of homosexuality. The host of the program interviewed psychologists, a police officer, and one “known homosexual”. The “known homosexual” is 22 years old. He identifies himself as Curtis White, which is a pseudonym; his name is actually Dale Olson.
So I tracked down the newscast. According to what I can find, Dale Olson may have been the first gay man to appear openly on television and defend his sexual orientation. He explains that there’s nothing wrong with him mentally and he’s never been arrested. When asked whether he’d take a cure if it existed, he says no. When asked whether his family knows he’s gay, he says that they didn’t up until tonight, but he guesses they’re going to find out, and he’ll probably be fired from his job as well. So of course the host is like …why are you doing this interview then? and Dale Olson, cool as cucumber pie, says “I think that this way I can be a little useful to someone besides myself.”
1954. 22 years old. Balls of pure titanium.
Despite the pseudonym, Dale’s boss did indeed recognize him from the TV program, and he was promptly fired the next day. He wrote into ONE magazine six months later to reassure readers that he had gotten a new job at a higher salary.
Curious about what became of him, I looked into his life a little further. It turns out that he ultimately became a very successful publicity agent. He promoted the Rocky movies and Superman. Not only that, but get this: Dale represented Rock Hudson, and he was the person who convinced him to disclose that he had AIDS! He wrote the statement Rock read. And as we know, Rock Hudson’s disclosure had a very significant effect on the national conversation about AIDS in the U.S.
It appears that no one has made the connection between Dale Olson the publicity agent instrumental in the AIDS debate and Dale Olson the 22-year-old first openly gay man on TV. So I thought I’d make it. For Pride month, an unsung gay hero.
Ferns amaze me.
why are there so many illegal immigrants if they can immigrate legally?
That’s a loaded question- you assume legal immigration is necessarily an option. Political discussions tend to focus very heavily on undocumented immigration in America, and they do so at the expense of the actual underlying problem, which is our deeply broken system for legal immigration.
In order to, as the National Visa Center puts it in their report, “avoid the potential
monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries,” the United States immigration system caps the available number of many of the family and employment-based visas that can offered to people in any given country out of the annual total at 7%. In other words, only 7% of these visas can be given to applicants from any given country every year, regardless of what percentage of applicants they constitute.
Applicants from Mexico make up 29.5% of all immigration applicants in 2016, and yet they can only receive a maximum of 7% of these visas. See the problem? To put that a different way, each country can receive a maximum of 25,620 visas for this year. There are 1,344,429 Mexicans on the waiting list right now. This means that at most only 1.9% of those trying to come here legally from Mexico will be able to do so this year. The cap for Mexicans is the same as the cap South Koreans, even though the wait list is 25 times longer for Mexicans. Same supply for all levels of demand. Even if you don’t think that the number of available visas should be expanded (I do), you have to recognize that a significant part of the way which we distribute the visas we do currently issue is completely arbitrary and makes very little sense.
You could, of course, wait 20 years or so and hope that the list eventually comes down to you, but if you’re looking to start a better life, you probably aren’t going to wait more than a quarter of your life for it. That long of a wait might sound like an exaggeration, right? Not really, no.
According to this month’s visa bulletin, a Mexican citizen who wants to immigrate to the United States through an F4 family visa (having a sibling who is a citizen) right now would have had to applied before April 1st, 1997, almost 19 years ago. The only family-based visas of this type (there’s another type for certain relatives, called IR visas) with a wait less than a decade long are those for spouses and children under 21 (the same is true for the Philippines, America’s second largest applicant for legal immigration). Our employment-based visas are mostly open without any waiting period, but they’re pretty limited in availability in nations with lots of applicants thanks to the per-nation caps, and they’re mostly restricted to skilled workers anyway.
There are plenty of other problems with our legal immigration system, but suffice it to say, it’s very difficult to get here legally. So now you’re left with a much more obvious answer to why there are so many undocumented immigrants here: legal immigration is frequently not a serious option.
You must be logged in to post a comment.