workplace

While our troops enjoy the support of the vast majoriy of Americans, whether for or against the fiasco that has US military mired in Iraq, it seems that our troops are supporting usury on the part of America's banks.

Ezra Klein writes about this report in USA Today:

These payday loan stores are increasingly becoming a problem near military bases, too, where soldiers seeking an advance on their (paltry) paychecks or a loan to fix their car are being charged exorbitant rates. The issue grew so acute that Congress commissioned a study on the rates. The researchers found that soldiers are being charged $15-$25 for a two week, $100 loan(!), and annual rates of up to — ready for this? — 780 percent(!!). The average borrower pays backs a total of $834 (!!!) on a $339 loan, and the debt problems can grow so urgent that they lose their security clearances (assumedly under the rationale that debt renders one susceptible to bribery).

So we have two forces at play here: The first is that we pay our service members so little they’re forced to enter into debt if they want a chance at middle class lifestyles. The second is that we sequester them on remote bases, where the available financial options fleece them. This must be really demoralizing for our troops.

Oh, and let's remember the Bankruptcy Only for the Wealthy bill passed by the Republican Congress last year. Long after our soldiers and Marines have served the country, they'll still be servicing their debt to the banks who are preying upon them. In other words, their Duty and Honor will be privatized and subject to collections.

from Talk to Action

Women all across the country continue to walk into pharmacies, present prescriptions for emergency contraception, common birth control pills, or even medications such as antibiotics, and find themselves at the mercy of a growing number of graduates of the Faith-Based School of Pharmacology.

In most states besides Illinois – where Governor Rod Blagojevich outraged the Operation Save America-affiliated Angela Michael and other self-appointed guardians of public morality by requiring pharmacists to do their jobs -- women continue to be denied prescribed medication with seeming impunity. This, despite the fact that only Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota have passed laws protecting pharmacists who refuse to dispense emergency contraception.

In 2005 such a piece of legislation was introduced in Texas, where it might have been expected to barrel through our rabidly anti-choice legislature like the Wabash Cannonball. But strangely enough, the bill was swiftly killed off in committee -– and by avowedly "pro-life" Republicans. In an unexpected twist of irony instructive to everyone fighting for a woman's right to contraception in the face of the religious right's campaign against birth control, an abortion statute already in existence dealt the death blow to a "conscience clause."

Equality under the law surely is an American value. Who, if they had the facts, would support a law that results in subjugation? Perhaps the oppressor might vote for such a law, but not those who are disadvantaged by the law. Yet, in the United States, women have not yet had the political will to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Its language is simple.

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

It outlaws sexism.

And yet, the amendment is still not part of the United States Constitution.

Women are governed by a set of laws that have evolved over time, which stem from issues around human reproduction. The sexual organ difference between men and women has led to two sets of laws and rights.

The megablogs, such as Daily Kos, Boomantribune, and mydd, are advancing an argument that the issue of women's reproductive rights is not important, and that if a Democrat wants to restrict a woman's rights, that is okay since women's reproductive rights are not as important as electing a certain slate of candidates.

If I chose to support another candidate, who supports women's reproductive rights, but who is not of the "correct" slate of candidates, I risk being accused of being a traitor and deserter of the cause. But what cause, pray tell?

Why would I care about a candidate who doesn't care about me? It's as simple as that and the machinations of megablogs like Daily Kos, Boomantribune, and mydd, come off as flummery - I am urged to vote against my own interests because it is in my interests. Huh?

The Democrats, of late, have abandoned women's rights as an issue as the Democrats swing ever rightward. I ask myself, why should I join this made race to nowhere, whose only promise is oblivion? Either way, the Democrats will lose. The megblogs tell us there will be few Democrats in power; fewer Democratic bodies in Congress. But that's one price I am not going to pay, no matter how many elections it might win, for in the end, the Democrats will have struck a bargain to win an election, only to find out that they have sold their souls.

[My Blogrolling account has lapsed. A new advocacy blogroll is to come.]

From forbes.com, as part of their 100 Most Powerful Women report (separate, of course, from their 100 most powerful people, because women are hardly represented on there and, of course, are a 'special case' when it comes to that broad category of people...)

The 100 Most Powerful Women
Poll
07.28.05, 6:00 PM ET

In which fields are women held back by their gender?

Politics (32 %)
3923 Vote(s)

Business (21 %)
2616 Vote(s)

It is no longer an issue (15 %)
1835 Vote(s)

Science (8 %)
1030 Vote(s)

Being a woman helps (7 %)
804 Vote(s)

Academics (5 %)
552 Vote(s)

I don't know (3 %)
391 Vote(s)

Medicine (3 %)
351 Vote(s)

Entertainment (2 %)
250 Vote(s)

The media (2 %)
186 Vote(s)

The arts (1 %)
156 Vote(s)

Humanitarian endeavors (1 %)
100 Vote(s)

Total Votes: 12194

Do people really think that "it is no longer an issue"?
It wouldn't be so bad if that choice wasn't the third most popular choice when people take this poll. That many people -- 1,835 people, a scant portion of the population, yes - thinking that the glass ceiling has been permanently shattered is really frightening to me. Plus the 7% who answered that it actually helps - in all areas and fields of profession - to be a woman...Especially when these people who read forbes.com are exactly the people we need to acknowledge the glass ceiling.....

Not to mention the fact that there isn't even an option on the poll to click "these are all still pretty inhospitable to women" or "duh, you idiots, the glass ceiling exists everywhere" makes it pretty impossible to fully acknowledge the existence of said impedimentary ceiling.

le sigh

Flags attached to clothing? Stuck to cars? Flying in the dark? Flying in bad weather. Not folded at dusk? Desecration!

Let's see what the etiquette is according to an earlier (World War Two) Congress.

* The flag should never be dipped to any person or thing.

* The flag should never be flown upside down except as a distress signal.

* The flag should not be used as a drapery, or for covering a speakers desk, draping a platform, or for any decoration in general. Bunting of blue, white and red stripes is available for these purposes. The blue stripe of the bunting should be on the top.

* The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard

* The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations.

* The flag should never have placed on it, or attached to it, any mark, insignia, letter, word, number, figure, or drawing of any kind.

* The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.

* When the flag is lowered, no part of it should touch the ground or any other object; it should be received by waiting hands and arms. To store the flag it should be folded neatly and ceremoniously. The flag should be cleaned and mended when necessary.

* The flag may be flown at night only if it is illuminated.

* The flag should be displayed during daylight hours, if the weather is good, especially on government holidays. (An all-weather flag should be used when weather is inclement.)

* The flag should never be placed in the trash. When a flag is so worn it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country, it should be destroyed by burning in a dignified manner, preferably in private.

You start with a group of around a hundred or so men who only link to each other and throw a scrap here or there to a pool of about 500 women. The men get lots of links and lots of attention. They go on TV and get even more attention from people who don't normally frequent the blogosphere.

The 500+ women are all writing and linking to the small group guys (which helps them because there are so many women bloggers), and to each other, but because there are so many women bloggers, no one woman (except maybe some young, hot D.C. babe who looks good on TV and makes the producers seem all concerned with diversity) gets the kind of concentration of links that the men do.

The men get all impressed with themselves because they get attention and links and publicity, and sit around in a permanent circle jerk, praising and trying to impress each other, contemplating their navels and wondering why there are no women with as many links as they have.

The women then go berserk, but the men don't know that because they only read other men in their little barrel, but their cluelessness gets them LOTS of links because there are So Many Women Bloggers who want them to get a clue.

Of course, that's just a theory. Like Evolution. I could be wrong.

You benefit most. That means you stand to lose the most.

Social Security is the only source of income for about 38 percent of black retirees and 40 percent of Hispanic retirees, according to government data. In contrast, only 18 percent of white retirees receive income exclusively from Social Security.

Look at those numbers and think of all the old people you know. For every 10 elderly black people you know, 4 of them have nothing to live on except Social Security. Ditto, elderly Hispanics. If they lose their pensions in the stock market, what will all those poor old people do? Clinton did away with most of the welfare. There is virtually no safety net. What are we going to do, make Soylent Green out of them? They barely make ends meet now. What's left once Wall Street takes their big-assed commissions? Or if you invest with the next Kenny-boy Lay?

The system is intended to be more generous, relative to taxes paid, to low-income workers. Retirement benefits replace about 70 percent of working income for a person who earns $10,000 year. But benefits replace only 28.5 percent of earnings for a person who earns $70,000.

It's your money. Don't let them get their greedy hands on it.

But critics have argued for years that Social Security is less "progressive" than it looks because poorer people tend to die younger than do affluent people.

LIE. LIE. LIE.

Now pay attention:

The average life expectancy for black males is about 69 years, compared with 75 years for the average white male, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In theory, that greatly reduces the average lifetime retirement benefits for black men.

But the gap is smaller for people who actually reach retirement because black life expectancies are heavily affected by infant mortality and violence. A black man who turns 65 has a life expectancy of 79.6 years, only two years less than that of a 65-year-old white man.

They skew the numbers by counting your children who die from lack of decent health care. If you had a job that paid a living wage and health insurance, your life expectancy would be higher. They're underpaying you, shortening your life, then turning around and trying to make you think you'll have more if you let them have access to money you've already earned.

African-Americans also receive a disproportionate share of disability benefits and survivor benefits, which are paid to spouses and children of workers who die early.

So if you do such ridiculously hard labor or have such poor health care that you die in your 40's, at least your kids will have some money to sustain them. If you die early, your widow will still be able to eat. The proposed changes may reduce or eliminate this. Are you going to trust these lying greedy bastards with your children's welfare after you're gone? Because they couldn't care less. Your kids are just a body to fill a uniform - a uniform they'll die in because Texas' enconomy relies heavily on war profiteering.

African-Americans account for about 12 percent of the population, for example, but African-American children account for 23 percent of children who receive Social Security survivor benefits.

What are those kids going to do if their mommy or daddy makes a bad investment?

Mr. Bush has indicated that he would not make any changes to the Social Security disability program, whose benefits are financed by a separate part of payroll taxes.

Disability benefits are calculated in part based on estimates of what a worker's future retirement benefits would have been if he had kept working.

Well, that's something, but watch it get harder and harder to get your disability benefits. If you get sick right now it can take up to 5 years, and you have nothing in the mean time. If your family can't support you, you're homeless.

Protecting the survivor benefits under Social Security could be even more difficult because those are paid from the same pool of taxes used to pay retirement benefits. A Treasury Department study in 1996, which analyzed Social Security records from 1951 through 1988, concluded that people at all income levels received more in benefits than they had paid out in taxes, even after adjusting for inflation.

KIDS AT RISK

The Treasury economists concluded that a higher mortality rate "does not reverse the conclusion that Social Security net returns are strongly progressive."

In other words, their fuzzy math is wrong. It does benefit you, and you stand to lose a lot if they change it.

The accountability office, the investigative arm of the Congress, reached a similar conclusion in 2003. It calculated that whites ultimately received slightly more benefits than did blacks and Hispanics at every income level. But those differences were small compared with the higher benefits offered to people at lower income levels.

"If you took a snapshot today and asked who benefits the most from Social Security, it would be African-Americans," said Robert Johnson, the chairman of Black Entertainment Television and a supporter of Mr. Bush's approach.

OK, lIsten to the bullshit meter going off the chart. A Rich Media Owner acknowleges that blacks benefit most, then turns around and supports Bush. Think "Media Consolidtion" and "Tax Cuts". That guy's kids will never want for anything. If he dies right now, they have trust funds. They have health care. They have a roof over their heads. He's going to make money off this deal - YOUR money.

Supporters of private retirement accounts say this could be a big political opportunity for Republicans.

"The Democratic Party is so dependent on huge margins in the black community that if even 25 or 30 percent of blacks back personal savings accounts it would be a big gain for Republicans," said Michael Tanner, the director of the Project on Social Security Choice at the Cato Institute.

Does that sentence say this is a big opportunity for blacks? NO.
It says it's an opportunity for Republicans. They aren't working for you. They're working to keep themselves fat and happy off the money you worked yourself to death to earn. These are not your friends.

Many large African-American organizations, like the National Associated for the Advancement of Colored People, remain adamantly opposed to Mr. Bush's plan.

They oppose it because they know it will destroy their communities.

Hispanic groups are more divided. The League of United Latin American Citizens has firmly opposed Mr. Bush's call for private accounts.

But the National Council of La Raza has taken a more nuanced position. Last month, the organization said it welcomed the debate over Social Security but "does not believe that the system needs to be dramatically restructured."

This makes me sad. Hispanics are letting their hatred of gays and submissiveness to the Church get in the way of their common sense. Bush is not a friend to Hispanics, either. I don't care if he has an Hispanic nephew. I don't care what he says about immigration - he wants your vote. He needs your vote.

Look, I'm not shilling for the Democrats. Both parties are owned by the same corporate interests. If we had any sense, every one of us would be in the Green Party. But they own the playing field so if we have to choose one of two, it better be the Democrats. You don't want to live in the police state that the Republicans will create if they aren't checked. The Dems might be a little lame, but at least they aren't flat out evil.

Merry Ostara! This was in today's New York Times:

March 20, 2005
G.O.P. Courts Blacks and Hispanics on Social Security
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

As part of their campaign to overhaul Social Security, White House officials and Republican strategists have begun a push to persuade African-Americans and Hispanics that Social Security, long thought to be of benefit to them, is a bad deal.

That is a LIE. As we go along, you'll see that Social Security is a great deal for Low income workers, and in some cases, it is the only support they have. If these accounts aren't protected, working people will quite literally die from poverty. In America. It's that simple.

Republican officials argue that blacks are being shortchanged under the current Social Security system because they tend to die earlier than do whites and to collect retirement benefits for fewer years.

When you hear a Republican using statistics, get out your bull-shit detector and think :Fuzzy Math.

In a parallel effort aimed at Hispanics, they focus on the wealth that people could build through the sort of individual investment accounts that the Bush administration has proposed.

Bill Maher famously says that the problem in America is that everybody is looking forward to the day that they are wealthy. He's right. People vote to protect the fortune they're going to win in the Lottery. Of course, actual lottery winners are a statistical anomalie, and actual winners usually end up poor again, or at least miserable, but they aren't thinking rationally. They aren't thinking at all. They are "having faith" that things will work out. This is important:

YOU will Never be Wealthy enough to matter to the Republicans

That kind of wealth is old money. You have to inherit it, and you have to be raised in the social structure that supports it. No lottery and no scholarship to Harvard will get you into the realm where you will benefit from Republiican policies. It doesn't matter how hard you work, how lucky you are, you will never be that rich, and you'd better wake up and vote like you know it. These lying bastards will steal the bread out of your babies' mouths if you let them.

"We are not privatizing Social Security," Hector V. Barreto, the administrator of the Small Business Administration, said in a recent appeal to Hispanic leaders here. "This would be voluntary - voluntary personal retirement accounts."

Voluntary personal accounts that can leave you with nothing. Accounts that will funnel MILLIONS that should be going to support working people like you - old people, sick people- into the pockets of wealthy brokerage firms.

Memorize this:

Morgaine-ism© #34 : "It's just another Republican trick to get a hold of your money."

They are stealing from you. They've been stealing from you. Social Security is YOUR MONEY and they want to take it away from you. You need it. They don't. They're rich enough. They own the whole world - they make money from the bombs they drop on innocent women and children. They make money by not paying you a living wage or giving you health benefits. They make money by shipping your factory jobs and now your white collar jobs over seas. They save money by turning undocumented workers into slaves in their fancy homes and on their factory farms. They don't give a shit about you, or your kids. You have money. They want it. They want all of it, and they have to keep you poor, uneducated and struggling to do it.

African-American and Hispanic communities are strongholds of Democratic support, and retirees in each group rely more heavily on Social Security benefits than whites do.

Those soup lines will be full of black and hispanic people who have no retirement funds.

But Republican Party officials are stepping up their efforts, enlisting black and Hispanic business executives, evangelical church leaders and even college students.

Remember - you'll never be white enough, or rich enough to be one of them. Jesus did not want poor people to support the rich. They are not "Good Christians" because they claim to "defend traditional marriage". They hate you just as much as they hate gays. They just need your votes. Once they have them, they'll cut you loose and you'll suffer the consequences while they get richer.

Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, has in recent weeks spoken to a forum of black voters in Maryland, black students at Michigan State University and the National Black Chamber of Commerce in Trenton.

You'll never be that rich.

"African-American men get on average two to four years of retirement benefits, while white Americans get 10 to 12 years of benefits," said Tara Wall, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. "The odds are stacked against African-Americans."

Are you thinking "'fuzzy math"? Do you sense the pungent aroma of bullshit?

Administration officials are also courting national Hispanic groups like the National Council of La Raza, which has yet to take a clear stand on the issue. They also have been booking interviews on Spanish-language television and radio for Mr. Barreto and other promoters of President Bush's plan.

It's fun the be the girl everyone wants to take to the dance. Republicans are the guys that'll leave you with a black eye and a torn dress then go home with a rich, white girl their family approves of, dig? Screwed, blue and tattooed.

The effort has infuriated many who say that Social Security is more important for their communities than it is for whites.

That's an understatement. Do you make $50,000 a year? No? Then odds are you will have little if anything other than Social Security to live on when you are old. Do you really want Wall Street skimming off the top? They tend to leave nothing behind.

"It's one of the best deals that poor and working poor can get, and blacks unfortunately are overrepresented in those groups," said Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York and a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus. "If one of the appeals to blacks is that they're not getting a fair shake because they die earlier, it would seem to me that they would at least address the question of why they die earlier and what we can do about it."

Tax cuts, HUD cuts, education cuts, no health insurance is not going to help extend the life expectancies of minorities. They'll all do just the opposite. You'll die younger and more impoverished because of Bush's policies. If they mess with Social Security, you aren't likely to die in a hospital - medicare is a part of it.

Studies by the Treasury Department and the Government Accountability Office indicate that Social Security provides more generous benefits to low-income workers, blacks included, even after accounting for shorter life expectancies.

You benefit most. That means you stand to lose the most.

Social Security is the only source of income for about 38 percent of black retirees and 40 percent of Hispanic retirees, according to government data. In contrast, only 18 percent of white retirees receive income exclusively from Social Security.

Look at those numbers and think of all the old people you know. For every 10 elderly black people you know, 4 of them have nothing to live on except Social Security. Ditto, elderly Hispanics. If they lose their pensions in the stock market, what will all those poor old people do? Clinton did away with most of the welfare. There is virtually no safety net. What are we going to do, make Soylent Green out of them? They barely make ends meet now. What's left once Wall Street takes their big-assed commissions? Or if you invest with the next Kenny-boy Lay?

The system is intended to be more generous, relative to taxes paid, to low-income workers. Retirement benefits replace about 70 percent of working income for a person who earns $10,000 year. But benefits replace only 28.5 percent of earnings for a person who earns $70,000.

It's your money. Don't let them get their greedy hands on it.

But critics have argued for years that Social Security is less "progressive" than it looks because poorer people tend to die younger than do affluent people.

LIE. LIE. LIE.

Now pay attention:

The average life expectancy for black males is about 69 years, compared with 75 years for the average white male, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In theory, that greatly reduces the average lifetime retirement benefits for black men.

But the gap is smaller for people who actually reach retirement because black life expectancies are heavily affected by infant mortality and violence. A black man who turns 65 has a life expectancy of 79.6 years, only two years less than that of a 65-year-old white man.

They skew the numbers by counting your children who die from lack of decent health care. If you had a job that paid a living wage and health insurance, your life expectancy would be higher. They're underpaying you, shortening your life, then turning around and trying to make you think you'll have more if you let them have access to money you've already earned.

African-Americans also receive a disproportionate share of disability benefits and survivor benefits, which are paid to spouses and children of workers who die early.

So if you do such ridiculously hard labor or have such poor health care that you die in your 40's, at least your kids will have some money to sustain them. If you die early, your widow will still be able to eat. The proposed changes may reduce or eliminate this. Are you going to trust these lying greedy bastards with your children's welfare after you're gone? Because they couldn't care less. Your kids are just a body to fill a uniform - a uniform they'll die in because Texas' enconomy relies heavily on war profiteering.

African-Americans account for about 12 percent of the population, for example, but African-American children account for 23 percent of children who receive Social Security survivor benefits.

What are those kids going to do if their mommy or daddy makes a bad investment?

Mr. Bush has indicated that he would not make any changes to the Social Security disability program, whose benefits are financed by a separate part of payroll taxes.

Disability benefits are calculated in part based on estimates of what a worker's future retirement benefits would have been if he had kept working.

Well, that's something, but watch it get harder and harder to get your disability benefits. If you get sick right now it can take up to 5 years, and you have nothing in the mean time. If your family can't support you, you're homeless.

Protecting the survivor benefits under Social Security could be even more difficult because those are paid from the same pool of taxes used to pay retirement benefits. A Treasury Department study in 1996, which analyzed Social Security records from 1951 through 1988, concluded that people at all income levels received more in benefits than they had paid out in taxes, even after adjusting for inflation.

KIDS AT RISK

The Treasury economists concluded that a higher mortality rate "does not reverse the conclusion that Social Security net returns are strongly progressive."

In other words, their fuzzy math is wrong. It does benefit you, and you stand to lose a lot if they change it.

The accountability office, the investigative arm of the Congress, reached a similar conclusion in 2003. It calculated that whites ultimately received slightly more benefits than did blacks and Hispanics at every income level. But those differences were small compared with the higher benefits offered to people at lower income levels.

"If you took a snapshot today and asked who benefits the most from Social Security, it would be African-Americans," said Robert Johnson, the chairman of Black Entertainment Television and a supporter of Mr. Bush's approach.

OK, lIsten to the bullshit meter going off the chart. A Rich Media Owner acknowleges that blacks benefit most, then turns around and supports Bush. Think "Media Consolidtion" and "Tax Cuts". That guy's kids will never want for anything. If he dies right now, they have trust funds. They have health care. They have a roof over their heads. He's going to make money off this deal - YOUR money.

Supporters of private retirement accounts say this could be a big political opportunity for Republicans.

"The Democratic Party is so dependent on huge margins in the black community that if even 25 or 30 percent of blacks back personal savings accounts it would be a big gain for Republicans," said Michael Tanner, the director of the Project on Social Security Choice at the Cato Institute.

Does that sentence say this is a big opportunity for blacks? NO.
It says it's an opportunity for Republicans. They aren't working for you. They're working to keep themselves fat and happy off the money you worked yourself to death to earn. These are not your friends.

Many large African-American organizations, like the National Associated for the Advancement of Colored People, remain adamantly opposed to Mr. Bush's plan.

They oppose it because they know it will destroy their communities.

Hispanic groups are more divided. The League of United Latin American Citizens has firmly opposed Mr. Bush's call for private accounts.

But the National Council of La Raza has taken a more nuanced position. Last month, the organization said it welcomed the debate over Social Security but "does not believe that the system needs to be dramatically restructured."

This makes me sad. Hispanics are letting their hatred of gays and submissiveness to the Church get in the way of their common sense. Bush is not a friend to Hispanics, either. I don't care if he has an Hispanic nephew. I don't care what he says about immigration - he wants your vote. He needs your vote.

Look, I'm not shilling for the Democrats. Both parties are owned by the same corporate interests. If we had any sense, every one of us would be in the Green Party. But they own the playing field so if we have to choose one of two, it better be the Democrats. You don't want to live in the police state that the Republicans will create if they aren't checked. The Dems might be a little lame, but at least they aren't flat out evil.

YOKO ONO said it best : "Woman is the nigger of the world"

That is the only explanation for such an elitist, bullshit, statement. Women are 53% of the population. That's a majority, folks. That means that women's issues affect the majority of people on the planet. How's that for relevance? How's that for taking priority?

No one wants to admit that more women and children died in Iraq than Soldiers and insurgents put together. No one wants to admit that there are women and children starving and homeless in America and it's only getting worse. No one wants to admit that there's a sort of gender apartheid in the good old USA.

Women are systematically mutilated, disenfranchised, raped, beaten and killed. And I'm supposed to let some arrogant man dismiss our importance as being "secondary"?! Not bloody likely, pal. Women and our children suffer more violence, more poverty, do more physical labor and have less of the money and almost no influence. We are sold into slavery, into forced marriages and pregnancies, held prisoner sweatshops and brothels and not even given the basic dignity of sovereignty over our own bodies. We are inundated with messages that we're never enough - never bright enough, thin enough, important enough, educated enough, relevant enough.

Fuck it, whoever said that is a bigoted asshole who ought to be ashamed of himself. This person has no business claiming to be a Liberal or Progressive. He's Zell Miller material, through and through.

Smug, arrogant, elitist, white prick. A pox on you and everything you touch.