Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FearfulJesuit]

Newt Gingrich, yet again, astounds me. I just found out about his moon base statehood bill.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-sources-military-roles-women-003743068.html

Women move one more step closer to equality in the military. The pentagon is recommending to congress that women be allowed to serve in more roles near and at the front line. In practice, they already have been in an unofficial capacity due to the nature of fighting an insurgency. And now, they will get more recognition for it.

[Montague]

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-sources-military-roles-women-003743068.html

Women move one more step closer to equality in the military. The pentagon is recommending to congress that women be allowed to serve in more roles near and at the front line. In practice, they already have been in an unofficial capacity due to the nature of fighting an insurgency. And now, they will get more recognition for it.

Well, for whatever it's worth they already have female soldiers on the front in Special Operations Forces in an official capacity. In what they call Cultural Support Teams or Female Engagement Teams. They work with the SF, wear the Ranger tab and everything. The Army claims it's a wildly successful program. Although, this might just an artifact of occupying a Muslim country and the program will almost certainly be disbanded when the war is over in Afghanistan when it's no longer needed.

Females are also in Military Police, which do basically the exact same thing as the infantry does, except to a somewhat lesser degree. They are also in Air Defense Artillery battlions, which is a combat specialty.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/02/08/cst_afghanistan Dude's blog describes it better then any news article I've found.

As for attaching females to the battlion level, it isn't any step forward, it's really just an experiment to see how it works out and to test all these arguments about how females put into an overwhelmingly male combat unit might be deletious to morale or whatever. They still cannot enlist for the same occupational specialties, which is what limits their careers. The assignment itself doesn't mean anything.

I'd also point out that it's already inequal, because males and females have different physical fitness standards which is a significant part of advancing a military career and making points for promotion. Females have an unfair advantage because they recieve much greater incentive and recognition compared to males for the same level of physical performance.

[Truean]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/house-gop-obama-line-item-veto_n_1262756.html?ref=politics

A Line Item Veto is where the President goes through a picks and chooses which parts of a bill he wants to veto instead of the right way which is either a take it or leave it situation.

And this is a trap.... A stupid one that probably won't work but nice try anyhow GOP.

"But in 1998, on a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, saying it violated the principle that Congress, and not the executive branch, holds the power of the purse."

Its already been found unconstitutional on separation of powers grounds once. It will be again. The GOP in its legendary opposition to Bill Clinton that pretty much shut down the government is repeating history again. In addition to the "shut down the government when we're not running it" part repeating, they also are trying this old hat again.

So, the reason they did it with Clinton is, they wanted to say, "Hey look, it isn't our fault, X didn't happen, it got line item vetoed by that rotten Clinton guy."

It isn't about saving money; it's about passing off blame to somebody else. It's the false theory that just because you don't do anything, you can't be blamed. See when you have a duty to do something and then ... don't do it....

Passing the buck and doing more stuff they know is unconstitutional ahoy....

[palsch]

I need a script to block George Will from my browser entirely.

[Truean]

Homophobes react to Prop 8 Decision:

"In today's #Prop8 decision, the 9th circuit told 7 million #California voters -- "You are all irrational bigots." #SSM http://myop.us/wzZKl8
7 Feb via OPUSfidelis Social Hub
Retweeted by ripeanderson and 10 others"

So you finally got the message, did you? Yes, yes you are. Civil Rights and popular vote NEVER mix, or else we'd still have segregation in the South. That was very popular. Same thing with interracial marriage. Both of these were changed by the courts forcing people to be rational, because people aren't rational. The majority of human history proves it.... The part of democracy where it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's who's for dinner should never been seen as legitimate.

There is a reason we have a judiciary as an EQUAL branch of government. It is and always has been realized from the beginning that the courts will make unpopular decisions, which is why they aren't democratic branches. We have the executive and legislative branches... fully 2/3rds of the government... to deal with what people want. The courts have always existed to give people a reality check. And more often than not, it is when the court bows to outside pressures, like popular opinion/"Tradition" or money that things go terribly, terribly wrong....

"You don't like it?" Too damn bad, because this isn't Burger King and you don't get to have it your way. Someone will always lose a court case and that someone will always be pissed about it. That's been the system forever....

Let's only hope the ruling sticks this time and the US doesn't fail to join the rest of the western world in recognizing that gays aren't freaking hurting anything.

[Gatleos]

...Oh jeez, why did I click on that link to the National Organization for Marriage website...?

[Heron TSG]

WBC steps down from protesting the funeral of the Powell brothers. These kids were 5 and 7. Their ax-crazy father killed them with a hatchet and explosives. Somehow those bastards twisted this into their God killing these children because of Washington's recent gay marriage bill. Those fucking fucker fucks. Anyway, they stepped down after a catholic radio show host offered them a short segment in exchange. (This was likely in no small part due to Occupy Seattle's planned counterprotest. I have a few friends from over there who are audio technicians. They were planning on mostly surrounding the WBC with opaque soundproofing.) The end of that article is particularly enraging, though: It's just a fucking marketing strategy to them. What the fuck. Are these people?

And another from my MSNBC newsfeed: A Virginia school district considers a ban on crossdressing. The ACLU is going to wreck their shit if they do that. They've done it to other schools in similar situations before.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And another from my MSNBC newsfeed: A Virginia school district considers a ban on crossdressing. The ACLU is going to wreck their shit if they do that. They've done it to other schools in similar situations before.

To wit: There was a case in my state just a few years ago in which a girl joined the "Church of Body Modification" (yes, it's real) and wore a nose ring to her school. They had a ban on facial piercings and suspended her. The ACLU filed suit pretty much immediately, and won her an exemption based on her religious practices. The school district just plain gave up on it after that, and removed the anti-piecing rule entirely. 

[EveryZig]

The end of that article is particularly enraging, though: It's just a fucking marketing strategy to them. What the fuck. Are these people?

I sometimes feel like they are deliberately trying to be the most despicable that anyone can possibly be without actually breaking any laws.

And another from my MSNBC newsfeed: A Virginia school district considers a ban on crossdressing.

>Problem: cross-dressers are getting picked on
>'Solution': ban cross-dressing
AAARGH, the 'logic' of some people...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The end of that article is particularly enraging, though: It's just a fucking marketing strategy to them. What the fuck. Are these people?

I sometimes feel like they are deliberately trying to be the most despicable that anyone can possibly be without actually breaking any laws.

That is exactly what they are trying to do. The whole objective is to get as close to the brink of illegal activity as they can and pull everyone else along with them, and then provoke them into jumping the line so that they can sue them. There's a reason so many of the Phelps are lawyers. Although that strategy may not be so effective now that everyone knows about them and absolutely hates them.

[Bauglir]

I doubt that somewhat. I'd hazard a guess that the ratio of people who don't know enough about the law to know where the exact boundaries are, and think they're justified in escalating a little bit, to people who know the best way to win is not to feed the trolls, is roughly constant.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I mean that I doubt a jury could be swayed to rule in their favor, even if they are considered the advantaged party under the letter of the law.

[Truean]

And another from my MSNBC newsfeed: A Virginia school district considers a ban on crossdressing.

>Problem: cross-dressers are getting picked on
>'Solution': ban cross-dressing
AAARGH, the 'logic' of some people...

This unfortunately an entirely predictable and wrong response. See the formula?
When a woman   gets raped  then it was something they wore.
When a trans/cd gets beaten then it was something they wore.

Why the fuck don't people just focus on the person committing the crime as at fault instead of the victim?


Now imagine a poster like that with just as much common sense but applying to gay people not getting assaulted....

At some point, when people do this victim blaming shit, it legitimizes the abuse by saying the victim caused or contributed to it. Isn't it amazing that sexual assault prevention focuses on women...? Isn't it amazing that gay bashing prevention focuses on gays? WTF? If you're a person who beats the shit out of someone because of what they wear, then that's a problem, namely yours....

How's about one simple rule: "If you don't like someone and/or they don't like you, then leave them alone and certainly don't beat them up."

[kaijyuu]

Whilst I 100% agree about the blaming the victim thing, certainly some self defense measures are helpful? It's not like you can control other people's behavior. As far as "prevention tips" are concerned, advice on how you can take to prevent yourself from being assaulted should be pushed as well.