i would argue yes, but not just in the sense of all these right-wing militias springing up.
count me among the people who were truly saddened to hear that the four missing miners from the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion last week were found dead. like a lot of people, i was really hoping for a miracle and that those four men would somehow be found alive (there were numerous references to the airtight safety chambers in the mines that had food and water in them.) it’s a scary enough thought thinking about working in such a dark, dirty and foreboding place for 40 hours a week, walking in tunnels miles and miles long over 1,000 feet underground. add to that all the health problems that can accompany this job–from a relatively mild vitamin D deficiency to the infamous Black Lung. sure, these people do alright financially, but even if they have health insurance and other benefits that come with the job, it is far from a stable occupation. having health insurance doesn’t prevent these workers from having health problems (unlike most other occupations, this one causes health problems.) and once the mining company decides that there is no longer a large enough payoff in working the mine, they close it up and the jobs are gone.
add to this situation, then, the fact that these mining companies, including Massey Energy who runs the Upper Big Branch Mine, are actively and vocally opposed to government regulations to better ensure the physical safety of the men who work in the mines. it’s not enough that these mining companies speak and work against rules to improve mine safety, but they have found loopholes in the system whereby they can basically indefinitely avoid paying the monetary penalties–usually no more than several hundred thousand dollars–and avoid having to change anything about the way the mine functions (they appeal the citation/violation and it is hung up in court for years.) mining companies are very reluctant to close down a mine because it costs them a lot of money to shut down, fix the problem and then start up from a dead stop. purely a profit motive–risk the lives of the people in the mine to save a buck. so that means that, in places like the Upper Big Branch mine, despite the hundreds of safety violations the mine was cited for, the company can choose to simply pay no fine and nothing about the state or function of the mine changes. this, i would argue, then directly contributes to the mining disasters we’ve seen all too often in the past few years.
note to energy and mining company CEOs (like Don Blankenship) about government regulations: they are having to write these regulations because YOU are not doing enough to ensure the safety of your employees.
note to others who have problems with the government regulating industries: this system of capitalism focuses on monetary profits, NOT on quality of life improvements; it rewards the people who can get the most out of their employees for the least money, NOT the people who work more than 40-hour weeks. and, historically, if it had been left up to private companies and businesses to regulate themselves, we would have no weekends, no limit to how many hours an employer can ask us to work, no minimum wage, employers would be able to discriminate based on whatever basis they chose, the list goes on and on.
instead of Don Blankenship railing against the government and saying (ever so disingenuously) that it’s ridiculous to say that the government cares more about worker safety than he does, he should put his money where his mouth is. he should work WITH the government to establish standards, systems and rules that do a better job of ensuring the long- and short-term health and safety of the people who work the mines instead of allowing the effect on their families and physical well-being to be a crapshoot.
on a final note, i’ve never seen a person more brazenly motivated by money than this man–his political positions are based solely on his job and what political rules (or lack thereof) will make it easiest for him to make a profit, and that’s it. he’ll throw the environment under the bus (like so many, unfortunately), but he’s also willing to risk the lives of the people who work for him. so i completely disagree with him–the government NEEDS to get involved. the system NEEDS to be changed to shift the economic incentive to match up with the action that will best care for the mine employees.
Don Blankenship says that “politicians get emotional” about disasters. fuck yes, anyone with a soul would be emotional about the senseless and PREVENTABLE deaths of 29 people, the soulless fucktard who cares more about his profits than the loss of family members sees it as an inconvenient glitch in his mine’s production.
i couldn't find a picture with all the crooked conservative justices in it, so i picked the one who is the most intellectually and morally corrupt.
so, the conservatives and “moderates” on the SCOTUS can lick a sweaty, hairy scrotum. they’ve just fucked the election process for the country, and, indirectly, all of us. in rare bipartisan fashion, both republican and democratic leaders are denouncing the decision. i need to move to Norway. i’m no constitutional scholar, but i fail to understand how a corporation’s First Amendment rights were being impinged upon by making them separate corporate profits from political monies. but, then again, i don’t consider a corporation to be a person, either. the majority opinion is a bunch of horseshit that goes against several precedents (aren’t conservatives the ones who are always railing against judicial activism??), and the effects of their decision will play out in the midterm elections this fall.
i’m too furious about the whole things to talk straight about this mess, but i’ve read and seen a couple things that explain why this decision is wrong-headed and bad for the country and its political process. this is the best one, but my new second-favorite senator (to Russ Feingold (D-WI)) Alan Grayson (D-FL) started working to counteract this decision before the Supreme Court had made its official ruling on the case. but an AP article published last week talks about a letter from 40 CEOs that are sick of being harrassed for campaign donations by Congressmen/women for money–and this was BEFORE this last SCOTUS decision on corporate political donations. ugh, i’m absolutely irate. and don’t even get me started on health insurance reform.
UPDATE: the folks over at Jezebel are just as worried about this SCOTUS decision as anyone, especially considering the implications it has on how the court might rule in a Roe related case. Justice Kennedy, what say you?
because googling “roe v wade anniversary 2010″, “pro choice” and even “pro roe v wade” will get you nothing but “March for Life” sites and pro-life articles, i have decided to post a few links to some good articles here.
Sarah Palin is a notorious one of the pro-lifers who have co-opted feminist ideas and twisted them around to support the pro-life argument. this is infuriating because it’s not only intellectually dishonest, but it hurts women. before i fly off the handle and go on an epic rant, i’ll just give you the link to an article that picks Palin’s argument apart.
pushing back against abstinence-only education–the Pro-Choice Public Education Project. PEP does a great job not only of educating young women about their sexual health and reproductive options (rights!), but also addresses the racial and socioeconomic aspects of the fight that are absolutely inextricable from the debate.
here’s some FACTUAL information on abortion from Princeton Pro-Choice Vox–they also have a great page on contraceptive information.
and, of course, Planned Parenthood! (FYI, a google bomb is in order, because in teh Googul, this link doesn’t turn up until page FOUR!)
and for all the Christians out there–you CAN be pro-choice! it DOES fit with your theology! i totally mean it!
if only all abortions could be this easy! and the women who got them were more concerned about Oasis getting their fan letter!
here’s a somewhat less Roe-related post, but it has to do with giving birth and choosing it. so i’ll include it.
and be on the lookout for pro-life sites and orgs masquerading as pro-choice. if they were so confident in their morals and their argument, why would they have to be so coercive! and furthermore, from what i remember from my Catholic education, to “God” all sins are equal, none is worse than another, so isn’t bearing false witness the same as an abortion? just sayin’.
i wish i could say i was this enlightened when i was 10. i wish i could say i knew more people over the age of 25 who were this aware of their political surroundings, the practical meanings of political buzzwords and the consequences of political actions. but this guy can serve as an inspiration for those chuckleheads and as a ray of hope for a generation i have considered lost since the advent of faux-lebrities, ‘tween “sexting,” 15-year-old hipsters and miley cyrus.
but if i were a 10-year-old girl in Arkansas (god forbid), i’d be in love with Will Phillips. he got in trouble at school for choosing not to stand a recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of his class. in this age of knee-jerk “patriotism,” some may question why i’m extolling the virtues of a 10-year-old punk who’s making trouble in his fifth-grade class. well, that’s because he refuses to pledge allegiance to a country with discriminatory policies against a portion of its citizens: teh gheyz. yup, Will’s a 10-year-old gay rights advocate. and not just because his parents are allies. he actually understands what the words of the Pledge say and sees the inconsistencies between “liberty and juatice for all” and the prohibition of same-sex marriage and other laws regarding (or without regard for) the LGBTQI community.
i am a peruser of blogs and a lot of time i read the comments on posts that i find interesting to see what other people’s takes on the issue are. (i’m speaking mostly of jezebel because most other blogs are frequented by morons who comment out of their asses. with horrible spelling, and not just to beat the filters.) but just now i read jezebel’s post on ellen degeneres and portia de rossi who were on oprah to talk about their marriage, and i came across this comment, which i found remarkable for a couple reasons: a) because it is so long, and b) because it is so well thought-out (although at times not so perfectly worded.) regardless, i thought that it was worth putting here, if only for myself, but also because it’s such a funny/poignant counterpoint to -Z-’s moron fifth-grade teacher’s blathering about feminism and gender roles.
so, i understand that misogyny is a part of American culture, as much as i detest it (and sometimes, admittedly, find funny.) but i didn’t understand that it was a part of our fucking government. jesus christ, are these guys for real??
rep. pete sessions (r-tx) said in a Rules Committee meeting this past Friday that healthcare coverage for women (“female-related conditions”) was like healthcare coverage for smokers. from Politico: (more…)
every time this waste of organic matter opens his mouth my blood pressure rises to the point that you can see the veins in my forehead. my fists clench, my jaw tightens, my pupils dilate, basically my entire sympathetic nervous system goes bat shit. i cannot STAND this guy. how he’s held office in Ohio for more than a term is waaaayyy beyond me. seeing him tromp around behind dubya and parrot everything the bush administration had to say was just gross. and now he’s basically taking the opposite position of Obama on every single issue, just to be contrary and show how “Christian” and “Conservative” he is. he doesn’t work for the American people, and certainly not for Ohioans.
he’s against doing anything about America’s energy policy (besides offshore drilling and more subsidies for oil companies), about tax loopholes and subsidies for huge banks in the financial system, about lobbyists (shocking!), about improving America’s foreign relations and foreign policy, and now we can tack on HATE CRIMES legislation to that list.
that’s right, boehner is opposing the inclusion of the victims of violent crimes committed because of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability (protections are currently extended to victims of crimes based on race, color, religion and national origin.) when his office was questioned about WHY on earth you wouldn’t want to protect people who are targeted based on sexual or gender identity, his spokesman responded that Boehner “supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc) based on immutable characteristics…He does not support adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes.”
that’s right! WHY would you base any of your political stances on SCIENCE??
so, recap: boehner believes that RELIGION is not a personal choice of a person, but that SEXUAL ORIENTATION is. this guy is so backwards i’m surprised that he’s not aging like Benjamin fucking Button. holy christ.
this clip is another one of those funny/scary ones where the conservatives are frighteningly unaware of the positions they advocate and the things that come out of their mouths. also, another example of how they have absolutely no sense of satire. hilarity ensues.