Catherine Rampell of the New York Times wrote a column today drawing attention to the rising number of discrimination complaints people have filed in the US during the current recession.
"Accusations of workplace discrimination — which workers file with the [Equal Employment Opportunity C]ommission when they think they have been unfairly treated based on their race, sex or other so-called protected categories — soared to 99,922 in the year ended Sept. 30, from 93,277 in the previous year. That was an increase of 7.2 percent, and the highest level of new discrimination cases ever recorded."
Rampell is diligent in noting that these are the numbers of complaints, which is not necessarily the number of U.S. workers that have been discriminated against in the past year. She continues:
"Workers themselves argue that a poor job market has brought out the often hidden prejudicial side of employers who can afford to be especially picky in selecting employees. Women believe they are being passed over in favor of men, blacks believe whites and Hispanics are taking their jobs, and older workers say fresher faces are having better luck in the job market at the expense of their elders."
You don't say?
Well, who are we to trust, the 100,000 people in the US who have gone to the trouble of filing a discrimination complaint, or their employers? It's clearly paranoid unemployed ax-grinder says, upstanding member of society says.
In case you aren't clear about Rampell's take, she's also written a blog post:
"My hunch is that there just aren’t enough jobs, period.
The primary problem isn’t that employers are systematically excluding particular demographic groups; the problem is that they’re systematically excluding everyone."
Hunch noted.
As someone who has experienced some pretty straight-forward workplace discrimination, let me state for the record that failure to "systematically exclud[e] particular demographic groups" does not an absence of discrimination make. That's social justice 101. It's not as if the Chamber of Commerce has a secret document in the basement cabinet next to the shuffleboard court spelling out the scheme by which employers are to pay women 80 cents on the dollar, or any other flow-charted bigotry.
The lack of trust that society puts in the narratives of members of oppressed groups is one of the primary means of their continued oppression. Workplace discrimination exists in the US. I will state, as a fact, that over 100,000 US workers were victims of workplace discrimination last year. Because I have no reason to distrust the accounts of people just like me.
I've recounted my experience of being fired to friends of mine who are trans, and would you believe that some of them have been fired under almost identically suspicious circumstances? When I share horror stories from the interview circuit with other women, it usually becomes an exercise in sharing, because sooooooo many women have soooooo many experiences with discrimination on the job market. And yet, there are plenty of people in this world, people like Catherine Rampell, who refuse to believe us, because acknowledging the reality of discrimination undercuts the narrative that successful people are especially deserving of the privilege they supposedly don't have.
And if there's one thing that coming out has taught me is that I don't understand what it's like to walk in other people's shoes. I actually do have an inkling about male privilege, but I certainly don't know what it's like to not have white privilege, or to be older than 32, or to be physically disabled. But I have empathy. And ears. And eyes. And critical thinking skills. So when people who aren't just like me talk about being discriminated against, I tend to pay attention to them, and tend to believe them, because I know what it's like to be discriminated against every. fucking. day. and to have smarmy, well-off pundits dismiss central aspects of my existence with their own personal hunches.
You know what I missed these last few chapters? Speechifying. But thank heavens for chapter thirty-one, because it makes a huge comeback here!
In case you forgot (and who'd blame you), chapter thirty ended with Darthur asking to be alone with his son Noah. Noah had just got the lowdown on how he'd been made a patsy for Molly's gang of clever teabaggers, who'd doped him up, broke into Doyle & Merchant and ran off with some secret computer files. Whoops!
Anyway:
Arthur Gardner's office suite was rumored to be the quietest place on the island of Manhattan. It had been designed that way, as an environment of uninterrupted solitude, completely free of unwanted outside sounds. There was no street or city noise, not a whisper from the heating or cooling vents, no intrusion on the ears from the bustling office floor outside.
Rumored by whom exactly? I was sort of under the impression that Darthur and his organization were relatively unknown. By design. Shadow PR firm doing its shadow business in the shadows. Besides, back in chapter nineteen it's made clear that "few employees ever had occasion to set foot in these rooms." So who is gossiping about the relative quiet of Darthur's office? That said, I am sure there are plenty of quiet places in New York. It's just another ridiculous moment meant to convey how powerful Darthur is: He can afford soundproofing. Also, Darthur doesn't like other people because they are noisy.
Noah apologizes, but Darthur will have none of it.
"There's no need to apologize to me. It was more an insult than an injury, the idea that they managed to use you in an attempt to damage our company and our clients. We've known of these people, of course, and we'd thought we were adequately prepared, but they surprised all of us, didn't they? And I must say this avenue they chose, the seductive infiltration by this girl, it shows a great deal more ingenuity than I would have expected, given the source. It was inspired, really. Ruthless though it was."
Huh? So Darthur and everyone knew someone was likely to attempt (a second) infiltration and they did nothing? Jebus. What shitty security. Personally, I've no fear the NWO is going to get anywhere, because, frankly, these clowns appear to be incompetent goobers. Doubly so if they think the old seduction gambit was ingenious.
All of which is neither her nor there. Especially to Darthur. He's got important shit to tell Noah. Why? I don't know. Noah seems like a weak link, and not to be trusted, at least in the short term. But I'm no PR genius with the quietest office in New York, so pay me no mind.
Darthur spends the next five pages speechifying about how people aren't fit to govern themselves. Only supergenius PR men and his cronies are. Or something. Needless to say, but say it I will, the writing here sucks. It's the same weirdo nightmare scenario Beck has concocted and fed to his viewers over and over.
I'll go ahead and drop some highlights here for you, and let you all hash it out as to what they mean. (Hint: Beck is a doofus.)
"I came to understand at an early age that Thomas Jefferson himself couldn't really have believed what he'd written in his Declaration. No slave owner could. Nor could any man with his intelligence, and his great knowledge of history, believe himself to be equal in any way to the ignorant masses of his time. He was preparing to do battle with an empire, making his case against the divine right of kings, so he brazenly invoked the Creator on his own behalf. He proposed that God was the source of these inborn rights of man, and that, contrary to the popular mythology of the times, the Almighty would not be on the side of the British royalty if the conflict came to war.
"That these rights were granted by God, it wasn't the truth, you see, it was what Jefferson needed to say to give his revolution the moral authority to proceed. But he also must have known he was putting far more faith in the common people than they've ever shown the courage to deserve."
"There's a tale from the close of the Constitutional Convention, in which someone asked Benjamin Franklin what form of government the people would be given, a republic or a monarchy. Do you remember what Franklin replied?"
"'A republic,'" Noah said, "'if you can keep it.'"
The old man nodded. "If they could keep it, yes. Such a thing had never been attempted before, not on the scale these men proposed. It was a bold experiment whose outcome was far from certain, and it could have worked. But its founding premise was also its great weakness: that these common people of the United States, for the first time among all the people in recorded history, could somehow prove capable of ruling themselves—to hold on to the fragile gift they'd been given. And time and again they've proven they're not equal to the task."
"There have always been only four kinds of people in the world: the visionaries who choose the course, and we are the fewest; the greedy and corruptible—they're useful, because they'll do anything for a short-term gain; the revolutionaries, a handful of violent, backward thinkers whose only mission is to stand in the way of progress—we'll deal with them in short order; and then there are the masses, the lemmings who can scarcely muster the intelligence to blindly follow along.
"There are far more of them than there are of us, and more are coming every day. When I was born there were two billion people in the world; now that number has more than tripled, all in a single lifetime. And it isn't the Mozarts, or the Einsteins, or the Pascals, or Salks, or Shakespeares, or the George Washingtons who are swelling the population beyond the breaking point. It's the useless eaters on the savage side of the bell curve who are outbreeding the planet's ability to support them.
And, of course:
"The American experiment has failed, and now it's time for the next one to begin. One world, one government—not of the people this time, but of the right people: the competent, the wise, and the strong."
Darthur finishes with some ominous news:
"My clients came to me with a problem and I gave them a solution. We start tomorrow morning. I've stood by and watched the glacial pace of this decline for too many years. Now the remnants of the past will be swept away in a single stroke, and I'll see my vision realized before I die. Order from chaos, control, and pacification of the flawed human spirit. Call that hope if you like, but it's coming regardless. The experiment that begins tomorrow will not fail."
Yes, call that hope if you like, but the New World Order starts tomorrow. Uh oh.
I know I'm like some kind of suede-elbowed professor of obviousology over here, but I nonetheless feel obliged to point out that the people mounting the most vociferous defenses of violent language and imagery, and the people most dismissively chortling at the alleged absurdity of the suggestion that ubiquitous use of ideology-driven violent metaphors contributes to a culture of violence in which violent acts are more likely to be seen as viable solutions to political problems—who, in many cases, are the same people—are also generally among the most privileged members of this society and thus the least likely to be victims of violence.
We are deeply disturbed by Fox News commentator Sarah Palin's decision to characterize as a "blood libel" the criticism directed at her following the terrorist attack in Tucson. The term "blood libel" is not a synonym for "false accusation." It refers to a specific falsehood perpetuated by Christians about Jews for centuries, a falsehood that motivated a good deal of anti-Jewish violence and discrimination. Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out-of-line.
...[I]t is worth pointing out that it was Rep. Giffords herself who first objected to Ms. Palin's map showing her district in the crosshairs. "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, the way she has it depicted, it has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that they have to realize that there are consequences to that action." According to Ms. Palin's logic, Rep. Giffords statement was a blood libel against the Fox News host. The fact that Rep. Giffords is Jewish and Ms. Palin is Christian makes the accusation even more grotesque.
Ms. Palin clearly took some time to reflect before putting out her statement today. Despite that time, her primary conclusion was that she is the victim and Rep. Giffords is the perpetrator. As a powerful rhetorical advocate for personal responsibility, Ms. Palin has failed to live up to her own standards with this statement.
Following this weekend's tragedy, we—and many others—simply did two things: we prayed for our friend Gabby while keeping all of the murdered and wounded in our thoughts and prayers, and we talked in broad terms about our increasingly charged level of political debate—asserting that now is as good a time as any to look inward and assess how all of us need to dial back the level of vitriol and anger in our public square. Nobody can disagree with the need for both.
Instead of dialing down the rhetoric at this difficult moment, Sarah Palin chose to accuse others trying to sort out the meaning of this tragedy of somehow engaging in a "blood libel" against her and others. This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries—and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today.
Perhaps Sarah Palin honestly does not know what a blood libel is, or does not know of their horrific history; that is perhaps the most charitable explanation we can arrive at in explaining her rhetoric today.
All we had asked following this weekend's tragedy was for prayers for the dead and wounded, and for all of us to take a step back and look inward to see how we can improve the tenor of our coarsening public debate. Sarah Palin's invocation of a "blood libel" charge against her perceived enemies is hardly a step in the right direction.
J Street is saddened by Governor Palin's use of the term "blood libel."
The country's attention is rightfully focused on the memorial service for the victims of Saturday's shooting. Our prayers continue to be with those who are still fighting to recover and the families of the victims. The last thing the country needs now is for the rhetoric in the wake of this tragedy to return to where it was before.
We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term "blood libel" brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds. When Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Hezbollah and its allies forced the collapse of the government here on Wednesday, deepening a crisis over a United Nations-backed tribunal investigating the assassination of a former prime minister.
Eleven of the cabinet's 30 ministers announced their resignations, a move that dissolves the government. They said they were prompted to act by the cabinet's refusal to convene an emergency session to oppose the tribunal, which is expected to indict members of Hezbollah.
Ten of the ministers announced their resignations just as Prime Minister Saad Hariri was meeting with President Obama in Washington. The opposition had hoped that all 11 ministers would resign together, to bring down the government at that time and expose Mr. Hariri to the maximum embarrassment.
But the 11th minister, Adnan Sayed Hussein, announced his resignation in a statement later in the evening, the National News Agency reported, after the meeting in Washington was over.
The collapse of the fragile government is the worst crisis in Lebanon since 2008, when an agreement reached in Qatar achieved a truce to end sectarian clashes that killed 81 people and brought Lebanon to the brink of a renewal of its 15-year civil war, which ended in 1990.
"We were committed but they were not," said Ammar Houri, a lawmaker with Mr. Hariri's bloc. He added that Mr. Hariri's allies were meeting to decide the next step.
...A leading opposition newspaper, Al Akhbar, underlined the sense of unease with an editorial headlined, "The beginning of the unknown."
What's likely to happen next? Well, Hezbollah, which is Lebanon's most prominent—and powerful, in both might and influence—Shiite movement, which "joined a unity government formed after elections in June 2009," is recognized as a compelling military force: "Most Lebanese also vividly recall the speed at which Hezbollah and its allies vanquished their foes in just a few days of street fighting in Beirut in May 2008." Their strength is so widely acknowledged that it could actually prevent violent skirmishes. Still:
Many here fear that "unknown" could turn bloody with street clashes in which Hezbollah is likely to prevail. An outbreak of violence might enable it to effectively seize control of the government and force a new reality on the streets of Beirut, at least until a new agreement can be reached under the auspices of foreign powers, who have long played an outsized role in the country's domestic affairs.
Other analysts dismiss the prospect of violence, given Hezbollah's strength. A more likely scenario, they say, is months of political stalemate, not unlike Lebanon witnessed between 2006 and 2008, before another deal is reached.
I don't think I have to tell anyone in the U.S. how important this is, but just in case, here are some words from Shaker celeloriel:
What's left out of every angry contemptuous speech are the tiny damn stations that serve places like Native American reservations, or very poor areas, or the stations that are literally the only source of arts and music programming in 500 miles, or the stations that broadcast educational programming in multiple languages (eg: Spanish and English educational programming in the Southwest, including bilingual Sesame Street in some areas, and Latino USA, a news program on public radio; the 'We Shall Remain' project on PBS that talks about the history of the Wampanoags and revives their language) -- those stations utterly depend on federal funding (in fact, some smaller stations base as much as 15-20% of their budget on it).
The public media system in the United States serves literally one hundred seventy million people. If it goes dark, the only choices for news and information on radio and TV will be controlled by gatekeepers who have a vested ideological interest in altering information to suit their financial need.
It's not surprising to hear this discourse from a party that exhorts the most vulnerable U.S. residents to "tighten belts," while insisting that the wealth of the richest is utterly sacred.
But it is still contemptible that they have sunk low enough to attack Big Bird.
UPDATE: Since the Brave Hero blocked me from embedding her video, here's another version:
UPDATE 2: Now Palin's video is back up. This is the image we were getting before. And which I suspect we may be getting again at some point, so I'll leave up the alternate version, just in case.
--------------------
[Transcript below.]
Wow. Just wow.
I am so enraged after listening to that horseshit, that extended whine of the aggressive martyr, that I can barely comment coherently, so all I will say for the moment is this: Yes, the Founding Fathers knew that, in building a democratic republic, they were designing a system not just for responsible people who would not abuse our rights and freedoms at the expense of others, but also for reckless dipshits who would constantly risk other people's lives to test the limits of our rights and freedoms.
I just never thought I'd see the day when a former vice presidential candidate on a major party ticket defended membership in the latter group as an aspirational goal.
And on what is sure to be the widely-discussed "blood libel" business, I'm just going to quote Brad Levinson: "By using phrases like 'blood libel,' Palin doesn't exactly disprove the notion that her words are irresponsible." Indeed.
[Imagine this being read in the most fake, patronizing, defensive, hectoring, and rage-inducing way possible.]
Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims' families as we express our sympathy.
I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.
Our exceptional country—so vibrant with ideas and passionate exchange and debate of ideas; it's a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our republic's core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It's inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.
There's a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.
Like many, I've spent the last few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
President Reagan said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country's future. Now, President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago, his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections, the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and we get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those "calm days" when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world, all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren't designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders' genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our republic is to endure.
As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, "We know violence isn't the answer. When we 'take up our arms,' we're talking about our vote." Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box—as we did just two months ago, and as our republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That's who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn't a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.
No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.
Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply "symbolic," as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just "symbolic." But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech that he found offensive.
It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values, and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.
Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like these, we need God's guidance and the peace he provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.
America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. Yes, may God bless America.
I am officially requesting immediate suspension of all further use of the truly detestable phrase "up in this bitch" as a synonym for "in here."
It is contemptible on so many levels that I would hardly know where to begin, had I the remotest inclination to explain everything that's wrong with it. Luckily, I don't. Suffice it to say, hearing people declare "it stinks up in this bitch," or "we need more beer up in this bitch," or similarly comment on whatever else they've observed about their environs (aka "this bitch") is not something I enjoy.
You might say there's a lot of disdain up in this bitch.
The truth revealed: Cindy Jacobs of Generals International explains how the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell is what killed all those birds and fish in Arkansas last week.
According to biblical principles, marriage is between a man and a woman, so we have to say “what happens when a nation makes a decision that’s against God’s principles?” Well, often what happens is that nature itself will begin to talk to us – for instance, violent storms, flooding. And you know there are actually some patterns that you can see where a nation will make a decision that is contrary to the principles of God and after that there is some kind of answer that God gives - being the God of creation, the God who created nature - but we don’t always understand what He’s saying.
Well, there’s something interesting we have been watching – let’s talk about this Arkansas pattern and say, could it be a pattern? We’re going to watch and see. But the blackbirds fell to the ground in Beebe, Arkansas. Well the Governor of Arkansas’ name is Beebe. And also, there was something put out of Arkansas called "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" by a former Governor, this was proposed, Bill Clinton. As so, could there be a connection between this passage [Hosea 4] and now that we’ve had the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, where people now legally in the United States have broken restraints with the Scripture because the Scripture says in Romans 1 that homosexuality is not allowed.
It could be because we have said it’s okay for people who commit these kinds of acts to be recognized in our military for the first time in our history, there is a potential that there is something that actually happened in the land where a hundred thousand drum fish died and also where these birds just fell out of the air.
Well, I'm sorry for all the dead fish and birds, but if that's the extent of God's rage over the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, that's a pretty wimpy response. I mean, come on; we're talking about the creator of the universe and who did it in six days, so knocking down a couple thousand fish and fowl is like scratching your ass.
We queers are still second-class citizens; where's the fire and brimstone we were promised?
[Long Island Republican] Rep. Peter King said Tuesday he plans to introduce a new gun safety bill in Congress in the wake of the mass shooting in Arizona that killed six people and wounded 14 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.
King said his bill would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a thousand feet of "certain high-profile" government officials.
A sentry dog in the village of Beryozovka outside Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, where the air temperature recently dropped to minus 28 degrees Celsius (-18.4 degrees Fahrenheit), according to local weather reports.
I just love that photo.
Earlier today, when I was walking Dudz after about another four inches of snow had fallen, he brushed against a bush which dumped a heap of snow on his head, and he gave me this aggravated look like, "Aw, what the fuuuuuuuck. Shit, I hate this stuff."
From now on I will respond with, "There are dogs in Beryozovka who would LOVE to be in zero degree weather, you ingrate!"
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reveled before a standing-room-only crowd of more than 500 State Department employees celebrating gay pride at the agency's Loy Henderson Auditorium in Washington, D.C. last summer. "Gee, let's do this every week!" she said. This, it seemed, was to be more of a reunion of old acquaintances than a perfunctory speech on diversity.
At first, Clinton glanced down—to the lectern and her prepared remarks. But her focus on the written page melted away as she looked up and rolled on with the speech, channeling the myriad mental notes she had made over the years.
Displaying an uncanny depth of understanding for the challenges that many LGBT youth experience, Clinton spoke of tragedies that would only come to national attention months later after a spate of heart-wrenching teen suicides dominated headlines for weeks. She called on the staff members before her to help create a safe space for gays and lesbians everywhere, "Particularly young people, particularly teenagers who still, today, have such a difficult time and who, still, in numbers far beyond what should ever happen, take their own lives rather than live that life."
Men and women around the world were being "harassed, beaten, subjected to sexual violence, even killed, because of who they are and whom they love," she said.
"This is a human rights issue," Clinton told the rapt audience. She ad-libbed, recalling an oft-quoted line from a landmark speech on women's rights at a U.N. conference in China: "Just as I was very proud to say the obvious more than 15 years ago in Beijing—that human rights are women's rights, and women's rights are human rights—well, let me say today that human rights are gay rights, and gay rights are human rights, once and for all."
Asked months later what was going through her mind when she offered the unscripted line at the pride celebration, Clinton responds with her inimitable laugh. "Oh, heavens, I don't know—I don't know," she says before settling back into the moment. "I was looking out at the audience where a lot of longtime friends, political supporters, colleagues were sitting, and it just seemed so important and right to make that statement."
From Kerry Eleveld's profile of Secretary Clinton, "Madame Secretary," in this months' Advocate.
It's an excellent piece. I strongly encourage reading the whole thing.
"The two most common responses to violence in the U.S. are to ignore it or be entertained by it."—Bob Herbert, in another great column (although TW for ablist language), in which he OMG treats as self-evident the idea that violence doesn't exist in a hermetically sealed place separate from violent rhetoric.
Herbert also notes, quite rightly, that the next step is treating seriously the fact that we are "a society saturated in blood," where "more than a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Robert Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were killed."
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
Please, contact 
