On What I Learned From Reading The Economist

@H.E. Ladypants Yeah, I kept wanting to yell at the screen "you mean become more well-informed!"

Posted on October 1, 2013 at 10:57 am 1

On What I Learned From Reading The Economist

1. That postcard!!!

2. LBJ is absolutely one of the most interesting presidents. Politicians of any kind. People.

3. Space. Space is also endlessly interesting. DARK ENERGY, guys! Black holes! Nebulas! Space-time continuum!

4. I am tempted to just grouse and grouse about the ickiness of "History and science and politics and geography and knowing things are BORING, huh? It's cute that I only care about working out and my hair!" but I am trying to restrain myself.

5. Because I bet LBJ knew things, and did not waste his time grousing about people being anti-intellectual, and that is part of how he became FASCINATING.


Posted on October 1, 2013 at 10:50 am 5

On Dating a Closeted Bi Guy, Discovering a Boob Fetish, and Sleeping With Twins

@smidge I can't speak for hallelujah or AQC, but for me the rage is because "women and trans* guys but NOT cis guys" seems to suggest that trans* men aren't REALLY men, that they're more in the category of women. Bleeeech.

Posted on August 15, 2013 at 2:27 pm 6

On Royal Childhood: "Like Being a Tiny Lieutenant in a Very Well-Heeled Navy"

@fondue with cheddar Is she trying to be funny? It seems to me like she's being serious but with a touch of irony as an escape route!

Oh man, and from the TPM article, a CNN contributor: "'My first thought, I have to say, this is how brilliant a royal Kate is,' Arbiter said. 'There are women throughout British royal family history that have panicked over not being able to deliver a boy, and here we are, Kate did it first time.'"

DO THESE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND HOW Y CHROMOSOMES WORK? Clearly they do not. Clearly our sex education in the USA is even more lacking than I thought.

Not William's choice either, of course, even though it's his genetic material that made the difference.

...unless, of course, they were secretly aborting up a storm of girl fetuses until they got this one. But that seems SLIGHTLY unlikely.

Posted on July 23, 2013 at 12:27 pm 7

On D.I.-Why?: Emily Matchar on the Allure of the “New Domesticity”

@Slapfight I'm making my mother a "Get the fuck out my house, bitch" one right now to hang in her guest room, and it is amazing.

Posted on July 22, 2013 at 2:50 pm 1

On D.I.-Why?: Emily Matchar on the Allure of the “New Domesticity”

@blushingflower Interesting, I hadn't thought about "leaving the people who can't opt out to fend for themselves" and didn't really pick up on it in the interview, but I think it's a great point.

Posted on July 22, 2013 at 2:48 pm 1

On D.I.-Why?: Emily Matchar on the Allure of the “New Domesticity”

@morwydd I think your last point is particularly spot on. I knit when I'm watching Game of Thrones or talking to my grandmother on the phone, and I bake when I want pie. It's relaxation. One could argue that I should stop relaxing in any way and spend all my time plotting revolution, but for me it's never been the knitting that's keeping me from seizing the means of production.

Of course, I do domestic things to relax and clearly see them as hobbies rather than a business, so not everything about her argument applies. But yeah, if I weren't knitting while watching Game of Thrones I'd just be biting my nails bloody, not doing something more political or productive.

(And now I want to defensively say that I spend most of my work life and personal life doing political, productive things and deserve a chance to relax however I want, but...not really the point.)

Posted on July 22, 2013 at 2:44 pm 2

On It's Still Complicated

@lora.bee Man, I'm so sorry. That was an EXCELLENT response,though!

A man who takes Eustace Scrubb as his model ("The worst part of girls is they never know the points of a compass," when he and Jill are trying to figure out how to get into Narnia -- it irritated me at a ten-year-old so much that I remembered, and held it against him) is not to be taken seriously.

Posted on June 24, 2013 at 1:38 pm 3

On Five New Uses for the Bible

@laurel Some of it also comes from an ethical philosophy (mostly developed by Catholics, I think) that says there's a moral difference between "killing" and "letting die." So you're not choosing the life of the fetus over the life of the mother, you're choosing the morally superior position of letting one or two people die over murdering one to save the other. (I think it goes without saying that I find this totally irrational and repulsive?)

My suspicion with the no exception for the life of the mother stuff is that for most people, it goes along with a deep contempt for science. Yes, fine, a doctor might SAY you'll die if you have the baby, but how does the doctor REALLY KNOW? You need to just trust God! Tim Tebow's mother was told she'd die but she chose to carry the pregnancy to term and of course the doctors turned out to be wrong and so on and so on and so on. Pray hard enough and God will fix your ectopic pregnancy.

(Again, for people who haven't seen me comment much: This is my interpretation of what these people are thinking, not an endorsement even a tiny bit!)

Posted on June 24, 2013 at 12:21 pm 7

On Five New Uses for the Bible

@Onymous It's especially telling contrasted with the verse immediately following it, which is all about injury to the woman: "But if there is a serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth..."

That would be the mother's life they're talking about. Exodus doesn't consider the fetus to be a life.

...of course, also in the same chapter it says you should be put to death for cursing your mother or father, and that beating your slaves is fine and dandy as long as they don't die, "since the slave is [your] property." But hey, we're not the ones using this to take away other people's rights, we don't have to justify this baloney.

Posted on June 24, 2013 at 12:07 pm 3