HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » athena » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sat Aug 7, 2004, 10:55 PM
Number of posts: 4,187

Journal Archives

Well, I'm female

but I think that if a man wants to defend a woman's right to choose, he's welcome to do so.

For a man to say a woman has a right to decide what happens to her body is very different from a man saying a woman does not have a right to decide and can be used as an incubator regardless of her wishes. Especially when a man says the latter, it is important for another man to respond with the former. After all, a man who believes women's bodies should be under the control of the government will not listen to anything a woman might say.

Just as it is white people who will end racism (as per Ben Jealous), it is men who will end sexism. If women could end sexism by ourselves, we would have done so long ago. This is why I think it's counterproductive for women to reject men who want to be partners in our endeavor to make the world a more egalitarian place for everybody.

I disagree with that stance.

This is my personal opinion. Just as I believe that the vegan movement's refusal to accept people who are 90% or 99% vegan is a mistake and hurts the cause of improving animals' lives, I believe the refusal of certain feminists to accept men as feminists hurts the cause of achieving true equality for women. (I'm not implying any sort of equivalence there; I am a vegetarian and a feminist, and it just so happens that the vegan movement is much more purist than the feminist movement.)

These are just labels. What matters is actions. If a man is fighting to make the world a more equal place for women, then he is a feminist, period. I don't see how it helps matters to refuse men the use of the "feminist" label. The goal should be to move toward a world that is 100% feminist -- not a world in which a select group of people get to apply a label to themselves that makes them feel superior to others. That is my opinion as a feminist.

I wish

we, as a society, had rallied around her back then to challenge the idea that a woman is beautiful only if she is thin. Alicia Machado is and has always been a beautiful woman. Nothing -- not even time -- will change that.

This was my favorite part of the debate.

This is where HRC looked most presidential. This is where she made it crystal clear that electing the joke on her right as president would be extremely dangerous for the health of this country. He's doing enough damage to our international relations as a candidate; it would be pure folly to let him get any closer to the presidency.

Here is another way in which Trump has been hurting America's interests in the Middle East by fueling the conspiracy theories that are popular over there:


In November 2015, a cartoon in Al-Ahram, an Egyptian state-owned newspaper, depicted an Islamic State ogre with “Made in America” emblazoned on his back. It wasn’t unusual. A look at Middle Eastern news media shows that this idea is startlingly common. Even prominent officials in the region, from Egypt’s former culture minister to a former deputy prime minister of Iraq, have publicly ventured conspiracy theories that Washington created the Islamic State.

Enter Donald J. Trump. Last week, Mr. Trump repeatedly claimed that President Obama is “the founder of ISIS.” Even when a sympathetic conservative radio host offered Mr. Trump a chance to backtrack from his ridiculous claim and instead blame the Obama administration’s policies for the Islamic State’s rise, the Republican candidate doubled down: “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do.” (The next day, Mr. Trump belatedly took to Twitter to plead sarcasm.)

This will most likely fade from the news cycle as Mr. Trump moves on and the next controversy arises. But these misleading words will reverberate far beyond America’s shores for years to come, and there will be serious implications for American foreign policy.


Not long ago, when America’s overseas enemies and critics wanted to mislead their publics to believe that the American government was in cahoots with terrorists like the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, they had to look to the United States’ political fringe for confirmation of their own conspiracy theories. Now, thanks to Mr. Trump, America’s enemies can simply run the videotape of a major party’s nominee for president.


There's the widespread perception in the Middle East that the US is so powerful that the military could defeat ISIS if the government really wanted to. The fact that ISIS continues to exist is proof to some that the US doesn't really want it gone.

And a recent survey found that 81% of Syrians and 85% of Iraqis think the US created ISIS. Another recent survey found that 93% of Iraqis view the US as an enemy of their country.

Despite the US military drawdown in Iraq, the country is still a crucial ally in the fight against terrorism. A US presidential candidate seemingly legitimizing conspiracy theorists further undermines any authority America has left in the Middle East.

There is no way to forget about him

when you live in New Jersey, where all non-essential construction work on roads and rail has been stopped for over a month now because of his feud with the Democratic Senate.


Construction workers are losing their income, and people are being stuck in traffic, because of Chris Christie's narcissism. Unfortunately, we're stuck with this guy until 2018.

Do these people understand what "not being scared

to use" the nuclear codes means?

Do they have any idea what it would mean for the United States, and for the world, for any country to use a nuclear weapon today?


When President Kennedy addressed the nation and said that any nuclear missile launched from Cuba would be met by “a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union,” Perry knew exactly what that meant. He had been studying such nuclear strategies for ten years. Each day as he went to the analysis center, he thought to himself that this would be “my last day on earth.”

Perry says it was by luck that we avoided a nuclear holocaust in the Cuban crisis. Years later, we found out that there were some additional and dangerous circumstances that might have pushed us into nuclear war.


Perry tells us that parity is “old thinking” because nuclear weapons can’t actually be used—the risk of uncontrollable and catastrophic escalation is too high. They are only good for threatening the enemy with nuclear retaliation. Our submarine force, equipped with nuclear weapons, is virtually invulnerable and can perform that deterrent function well. (It should be noted that the doctrine of deterrence is severely criticized by those who worry about the implications of threatening mass slaughter.6)


While many complain of the obvious dysfunction in Washington, few see the incomparably greater danger of “nuclear doom” because it is hidden and out of public consciousness. Despite an election year filled with commentary and debate, no one is discussing the major issues that trouble Perry. It is another example of the rigid conformity that often dominates public discourse. Long ago, I saw this in the Vietnam War and later in the invasion of Iraq: intelligent people were doing mindless—and catastrophic—things. “Sleepwalking” is the term historians now use for the stupidities that got European leaders into World War I and for the mess they unleashed at Versailles. And sleepwalking still continues as NATO and Russia trade epithets and build their armies and Moscow and Washington modernize their nuclear overkill. A new cold war.

A witch hunt.

Trump's, and the Republican party's, attacks on Clinton are looking more and more like a witch hunt. We have a smart woman who is a better politician and understands foreign affairs better than men, so she must be a witch; she must be the devil. This is a dog whistle to all the religious nutcases out there who still believe, as people did centuries ago, that women are intrinsically evil. Hopefully people who still think this way are too small in number to give us President Trump.

Please read some in-depth articles about Hillary.

She is not the person she has been made out to be. No liberal should feel she is compromising her principles by voting for Hillary.

Here is a good one:

And here is another article that puts everything into perspective. (Please try to get past the title; it is not a good indicator of the actual content of the article.)

 Whatever Clinton says, some will remain unconvinced. But in attempting to court progressive voters, Clinton isn’t adopting new positions; rather, she’s coming full circle. “I think her progressive résumé and her progressive roots are very, very strong,” says Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, a progressive stalwart who backed Barack Obama eight years ago but is now an enthusiastic Clinton supporter. “Not only has she decided to go back to her roots, but the time is different. This is a progressive moment, I believe.”

Has this person listened to any of President Obama's speeches?

Has she missed the parts where he says that when other people struggle to pay their bills or get the health care they need, it hurts all of us? Does she not see that when the weakest among us do well, we all do better?

Does she not understand that she is already paying to support McDonald's workers? People who can't make ends meet end up needing welfare and food stamps. By allowing the minimum wage to be so low, we're using our taxes to enrich the owners and highest-paid earners at McDonald's. The money that could be used to build roads and bridges instead goes toward feeding the people McDonald's should be paying fairly in the first place.

If this is the level at which this person thinks and functions, her education has been completely wasted on her. Seriously, people like this cause me to lose all hope for this country's future. It's sad that such selfishness and such a total lack of empathy are not considered shameful in this country. People should feel ashamed, not proud, to express such views.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

If a fast-food worker can make $15, many people who are in jobs that currently pay less, or not much higher, will have an incentive to leave their jobs for one that pays better. As a result, employers who underpay their workers will feel pressure to increase their wages. This process will repeat itself, each time at a higher wage level, until everyone's wages will go up.

Seriously, this argument is incredibly selfish. It always depresses me that people can be so self-centered. If we're so near-sighted that we only care about ourselves and don't want anyone else to do better, we will never achieve much as a society. I hope most people are smart and thoughtful enough to be able to see the trees and the forest.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »