the polite yeti

KEYBOARD SMASHING GOOD TIMES TO BE HAD BY ALL.

Please feel free to give me your money via etsy.

If you came for the alternative autism criteria, they are available here (revised version here).

Let's start at the very beginning /Do you have questions into the nature of the universe? Pose them here./ I can't.

anedumacation:

I’m sick of the idea that liberalism is a vanity of the young, an indulgence that you can only afford to play with before you settle down and have a family and are confronted with property taxes.

It will never make sense for me to be a conservative. Doesn’t make sense now, won’t make sense when I’m married with kids, won’t make sense when I’m old and retired. 

Why would it make sense for me to fall in line with an ideology that wants to keep me silent? That worships a vision of society that doesn’t include me? (That is dependent on not including me?)

That old adage — you’re heartless if you’re not a liberal when you’re twenty, you’re brainless if you’re not a conservative when you’re fifty — only applies to white, straight people.

Posted 1 year ago With 67 notes

gaywrites:

White House will host LGBT conferences

Officials have announced that the White House will host a series of LGBT conferences throughout 2012 to bring light to important issues in the LGBT community and “hear directly” from the administration on these topics.

The first conference will be held in Philadelphia in February and will focus on health. Future conferences will include “housing and homelessness, safe schools and communities as well as HIV/AIDS prevention.” Noticeably absent is the discussion on workplace equality, since LGBT people lack federal protection from discrimination at work.

This is a smart way to keep LGBT voters content throughout the year without upsetting Republicans too heavily. Obviously and unfortunately Obama can’t focus too much on LGBT issues at this point in his campaign for fear of losing the moderates (again, I wish it weren’t so), but an open discussion is more of an informational tool than anything. Excited to see what comes of this. 

Ten dollars this is moderate L and G only (Bs cease to exist when we get a partner—we magically turn straight or gay, and Ts scare the good, gender conforming Democratic base [ie, the moderate right]), and lip service only. Oh, and straight people get HIV at higher rates than queers, so maybe that should be a focus? No? Stereotypes it is.

Posted 2 years ago With 140 notes

nom-chompsky:

stfuconservatives:

As Irene bears down on the East Coast, Fox calls for the abolition of the National Weather Service

Whoa, this shit is perfect:

The weather might be the subject people care most about on a daily basis. There is a very successful private TV channel dedicated to it, 24 hours a day, as well as any number of phone and PC apps. Americans need not be forced to turn over part of their earnings to support weather reporting.

This right here is the key to the conservative thought process. Americans need not be forced to turn over part of their earnings to the government, if they want to survive then they should turn over part of their earnings to private industries like cable companies! Poor people who can’t afford cable tv or internet deserve to die from natural disasters, that is all this whole fucking article is saying.

The National Weather Service (same as many other government entities) does not exist to serve people who can afford to find out about natural disasters from The Weather Channel and the 24 news machine, it exists to serve those who cannot.

-Joe

lordy

How do they think the Weather Channel and all those apps and websites get their data? Really? What the fuck.

Posted 2 years ago With 222 notes

tal9000:

[Image: A table listing the official stances of US presidential candidates on various LGB rights issues. The issues are divided into four groups: Marriage (six columns), No Job Discrimination (two columns), Military LGBs (three columns), and Justice (one column)]

politeyeti:

tyleroakley:

Election 2012: Stances on LGBTQ Rights

Source

I sort of think that in some alternate universe where Fred Karger could win the nomination, I would vote for him instead of Obama. At least he’s up-front about being on the economically conservative side of moderate. A candidate who will let me marry the person I love and would let me get her citizenship here if we ever chose to do so has my backing. I would really like to see some stances on trans issues, though, too, like a federal law requiring states to allow you to change your gender on your birth certificate with minimal hassle. There are some states which simply won’t, and if you’re trans and were born in one of them, you’re screwed. I would love for federal forms to have recognition of more than two genders, as well (I think male, female, other, and none would be a workable set that covers all of us, though I’m not thrilled at being called “other” I think it would encapsulate all of us who are genderqueer, bigender, fluid, etc).

This is really cLGB-centric. Like, the military LGBs one specifically says it, but the No Job Discrimination section doesn’t distinguish between backing trans-inclusive or cis-only laws (and this isn’t me making an academic distinction; a whole bunch of states have discrimination laws to protect cLGBs but not trans* people), cLGB awareness and Trans-awareness are completely different things and most people use “LGBT” to mean cLGB (like, this table).

Also, the Marriage part is primarily a cLGB issue; it isn’t trans people pushing it to prominence where it gets to be half the LGBTQ issues under discussion. While it does apply to trans* people (LGB trans people, binary het trans people who haven’t been able to correct their legal sex, non-binary trans* people in relationships with people of the same legal sex).

Aside from the part where they’re folding trans* people in with LGB and then not thinking about us afterwards (note: at least three columns on that chart were specific to cLGB and trans people passing as cLGB in their assigned sex, since the military will still discriminate against out or transitioned trans* people. Not one of them was trans-specific), there are some other problems.

Where are safe schools programs, for one? Where’s housing discrimination?

Since they gave three columns in their entirety to cLGBs (and trans people passing as cLGB of their assigned sex), plus the whole section on marriage, they could even, like, have some trans-specific issues to show that they hadn’t forgotten trans* people entirely. Like easy correction of documents (of course, nobody actually campaigns on this, because the “LGBT” lobby is actually the cLGB lobby, but, say, Sec. Clinton did that for passports and consular birth certificates under Obama)

Also, why are Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships separate columns? They’re the same thing (marriage by another name), and changing the name didn’t change any candidate’s responses to the question. So why is it two columns?

Thank you for thinking about all of the things I did not have the brains to think, myself, earlier. This commentary is necessary.

politicaldove:

stay-human:

Why Iceland Should Be in the News, But Is Not

verbalresistance:

alltheflowersshonelikeflames:

An Italian radio program’s story about Iceland’s on-going revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. Americans may remember that at the start of the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland literally went bankrupt.  The reasons were mentioned only in passing, and since then, this little-known member of the European Union fell back into oblivion.

As one European country after another fails or risks failing, imperiling the Euro, with repercussions for the entire world, the last thing the powers that be want is for Iceland to become an example. Here’s why:

Five years of a pure neo-liberal regime had made Iceland, (population 320 thousand, no army), one of the richest countries in the world. In 2003 all the country’s banks were privatized, and in an effort to attract foreign investors, they offered on-line banking whose minimal costs allowed them to offer relatively high rates of return. The accounts, called IceSave, attracted many English and Dutch small investors.  But as investments grew, so did the banks’ foreign debt.  In 2003 Iceland’s debt was equal to 200 times its GNP, but in 2007, it was 900 percent.  The 2008 world financial crisis was the coup de grace. The three main Icelandic banks, Landbanki, Kapthing and Glitnir, went belly up and were nationalized, while the Kroner lost 85% of its value with respect to the Euro.  At the end of the year Iceland declared bankruptcy…

What happened next was extraordinary. The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

Of course the international community only increased the pressure on Iceland. Great Britain and Holland threatened dire reprisals that would isolate the country…

In the March 2010 referendum, 93% voted against repayment of the debt.  The IMF immediately froze its loan.  But the revolution (though not televised in the United States), would not be intimidated. With the support of a furious citizenry, the government launched civil and penal investigations into those responsible for the financial crisis. Interpol put out an international arrest warrant for the ex-president of Kaupthing, Sigurdur Einarsson, as the other bankers implicated in the crash fled the country.

But Icelanders didn’t stop there: they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money.

To write the new constitution, the people of Iceland elected twenty-five citizens from among 522 adults not belonging to any political party but recommended by at least thirty citizens. This document was not the work of a handful of politicians, but was written on the internet.

Refusing to bow to foreign interests, that small country stated loud and clear that the people are sovereign.

That’s why it is not in the news anymore.

Read Whole

This is amazing, all respect going out to the Icelandic defending their sovereignty and their common interests, their social security nets and their very way of living, against unscrupulous international bodies repairing corporate damage at the expense of the public pocket.

As mentioned in the article, this was almost completely unreported, at least here in the UK where I’d not heard a whisper of such changes in Iceland - it completely ‘vanished’ off the media radar somewhat a few months ago.

This isn’t the only incident of gross under-reporting by global media outlets, on the tidal wave of popular protests sweeping the world - notably with the recent almost non-mention of protests in Spain not too long ago. It’s like they don’t want to give people any bright ideas.

Beautiful. 

This is an eternal reblog for me. I consider myself somewhat well-read when it comes to international politics, though not nearly as much as I was when I was still doing IR full time (I outright avoided IR stuff for a while after I quit grad school, because it was too emotionally involved, which is how I missed the start of Iceland’s revolution). Despite being better informed than most in the US, I still had no fucking clue this was going on. None. At all. The places I have traditionally gone for my non-US media were as silent as the US sources. No one wants to talk about this, because it fundamentally disrupts the whole way the system is structured.

I remain a constructivist, but usually a pessimistic one. I know that the US is going to probably keep pushing its funny blend of realism and neo-liberalism that is cringe-wrothy for years to come. Iceland and some of the populist revolts that have happened this year are starting to warm my little constructivist heart.

Posted 2 years ago With 3,215 notes

tyleroakley:

Election 2012: Stances on LGBTQ Rights

Source

I sort of think that in some alternate universe where Fred Karger could win the nomination, I would vote for him instead of Obama. At least he’s up-front about being on the economically conservative side of moderate. A candidate who will let me marry the person I love and would let me get her citizenship here if we ever chose to do so has my backing. I would really like to see some stances on trans issues, though, too, like a federal law requiring states to allow you to change your gender on your birth certificate with minimal hassle. There are some states which simply won’t, and if you’re trans and were born in one of them, you’re screwed. I would love for federal forms to have recognition of more than two genders, as well (I think male, female, other, and none would be a workable set that covers all of us, though I’m not thrilled at being called “other” I think it would encapsulate all of us who are genderqueer, bigender, fluid, etc).

redlightpolitics:

Meet Camila Vallejo, president of the Federation of Chilean Students (FECH) and leader of the protests for education reform in Chile. On Thursday, the march she led gathered more than 100,000 people who came in support of students’ rally for free university education. Yesterday, “Families for education”, an informal get together for families with young children, gathered more than 1 million participants. She was the main speaker and organizer.

I am surprised English speaking media is not all over her case already. She has encountered bitter misogyny from government ministers that refer to her as “the bitch”, she has successfully created a political movement that is demanding concrete action and she is extremely media savvy and articulate. Charismatic, young, smart and beautiful, those are not qualities found in many political figures these days.

Image via.

Women are for objectification purposes only. If you actually do good work, then you should be ignored or villified. She isn’t on our media because of useless sexist ideas about the worth of women in politics, but even more so because no one here wants to know that other countries have ever had free higher education. It would involve spending money on far too many groups of people that are deemed unworthy and require a massive restructuring of the private/public system of universities here.