You are browsing the archive for 2013 March 25.

Avatar of admin

by admin

I Was 12, He Was 20 — So Why Did Everyone Blame Me for Our Sexual Relationship?

March 25, 2013 in Blogs

By Jillian Lauren, Salon



 

Names and identifying details have been changed.

Over the years, I have called it an “inappropriate relationship.” I have called it “an incident with an older man.” Most frequently, I have called it “the thing that happened that summer.” As in — remember the thing that happened that summer?

I never called it sexual abuse, because it felt like an overly dramatic Oprah-ization of what happened. The word “abuse” seems to imply victimization and has always made me uncomfortable in this instance. Until now, I have been far too politicized to admit the chief reason I never called it sexual abuse in spite of the fact that it would be considered as much from both a criminal and a clinical perspective. The real reason is because I believed I asked for it.

The summer I turned 12, I went to sleepaway camp. I shaved my legs for the first time, dumped Sun-In in my hair and tanned with baby oil. I had my first boyfriend — a skinny, freckly arrogant kid a year my senior who took me for two paddle boat rides and then broke up with me, declaring me a prude and, I was sure, ruining my romantic life forever.

I turned from real life to fantasy, and eschewed the hazardous boys my own age in favor of a secret crush on Nathan, the 20-year-old swimming counselor. Nathan was sarcastic and slouchy and unusually stylish for a camp full of spoiled East Coast Jewish kids. His dyed black hair spilled over one eye and he wore his shorts low on his hips. Trumping all, he was from New York City, mecca of all things wild and wonderful. I spent countless hours imagining myself into a future in which I strolled through Washington Square Park with Nathan, preferably on a fall day in between college classes.

Nathan didn’t quite fit in and there were all kinds of rumors circulating about him. He was bisexual; he was friendly with Morrissey; he was a model for the United Colors of Benetton. I, too, felt like an outsider, never able to summon the same gung-ho camp spirit as the other …read more
Source: ALTERNET

Avatar of admin

by admin

The 147 People Destroying the World

March 25, 2013 in Blogs

By Richard (R.J.) Eskow, Blog for Our Future



 

Can 147 people perpetuate economic injustice – and make it even worse? Can they subvert the workings of democracy, both abroad and here in the United States? Can 147 people hijack the global economy, plunder the environment, build a world for themselves that serves the few and deprives the many?

There must be some explanation for last week’s economic madness. Take a look:

Cyprus: The European Union acted destructively – and self-destructively – when it tried to seize a portion of the insured savings accounts of the citizens of Cyprus. They were telling anyone with a savings account in the financially troubled nations of the Eurozone: Forget your guaranteed deposits. If we need your money in order to bail out the big banks – banks which have already gambled recklessly with it – we’ll take it.

That didn’t just create a political firestorm in Cyprus. It threatened the European Union’s banking system, and perhaps the Union itself. The fact that the tax on deposits has been partially retracted doesn’t change the basic question: What were they thinking?

The Grand Bargain: The President and Congressional Republicans reportedly moved closer to a deal that would cut Social Security and Medicare while raising taxes – mostly on the middle class – without doing more to create jobs. A “Grand Bargain” like that would run counter to both public opinion and informed economic judgement.

Who would impose more economy-killing austerity when there’s so much evidence of the harm it does? Why would the White House want to become the face of a deal to cut Social Security, killing its own party’s political prospects for a generation?

There’s more:

Him again: Washington reporters once again sought the opinion of Ex-Wyoming senator Alan Simpson, a vitriolic blowhard with no discernible knowledge of either economics or social insurance, and then wrote up his opinions on those topics in flattering pieces like this one.

Derivatives, the Sequel: Four short years after too-big-to-fail banks nearly destroyed the world economy, as the nation continues to suffer the after-effects of the crisis they created, a Congressional committee moved to undo the already-insufficient safeguards in the Dodd/Frank law.

Within days of a Senate Report which outlined the …read more
Source: ALTERNET

Avatar of admin

by admin

Meet the CEO Who Cut Worker Pay in Half While Pulling in $21 Million Last Year

March 25, 2013 in Blogs

By Sam Pizzigati, Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality



This article orignially appeared inToo Much, the inequality weekly. The French may have been reading their Peter Drucker. American CEOs, Drucker believed, should earn no more than 20 or 25 times their worker pay. Last year, in Great Recession-ravaged Michigan, Alan Mulally pulled in over 500 times the pay of Ford’s lowest-paid workers.


Mon, 03/25/2013 – 09:19

…read more
Source: ALTERNET

Avatar of admin

by admin

The Best Two #AERC Tweets

March 25, 2013 in Economics

By Mises Updates

Screen Shot 2013-03-25 at 11.06.56 AM

One from someone who watched talks from the Austrian Economics Research Conference online (click to enlarge):

And one from an attendee:

…read more
Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

Rothbard on the Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement (VIDEO)

March 25, 2013 in Economics

By Mises Updates

From the description:

In this video from the first Libertarian International World Libertarian Convention in 1982 in Zurich, Switzerland, Rothbard gives a lecture on what he identified as the six stages of building an independent libertarian (or any philosophical) movement in a region. Rothbard identifies possible growing pains associated with the growing popularity of libertarianism but ultimately concludes that such risks are necessary because “Libertarians, it seems to me, are not content with contemplating justice, contemplating truth, goodness and beauty, we’re not playing intellectual games — we mean to change the world. We want to put this thing into reality.”

…read more
Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

13 Most Offensive Things Antonin Scalia Has Said About Homosexuality

March 25, 2013 in Blogs

By Ian Millhiser, Think Progress



 

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the first of two cases which could end discrimination against same-sex couples and ensure that all Americans can marry the person they love. Whatever happens in those two cases, one thing is all but certain: Justice Antonin Scalia will vote to maintain marriage discrimination, and he will spend much of this week’s oral arguments making insulting comments about LGBT Americans. Here are some of the most offensive things Scalia compared to homosexuality in his past opinions:

  • Murder, Polygamy and Cruelty to Animals: In Romer v. Evans, the Court held that Colorado could not enact a state constitutional amendment motivated solely by animus towards gay people. Scalia saw no problem with laws enacted with such a motivation — “The Court’s opinion contains grim, disapproving hints that Coloradans have been guilty of ‘animus’ or ‘animosity’ toward homosexuality, as though that has been established as Unamerican. . . . I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible–murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals–and could exhibit even ‘animus’ toward such conduct.”
  • Drug Addicts and Smokers: In the same opinion, Scalia suggested that a law which relegates LGBT people to second-class status is no different than any other law “disfavoring certain conduct.” Anti-gay laws, in Scalia’s view, are no different than laws disfavoring “drug addicts, or smokers, or gun owners, or motorcyclists.” His decision to include “gun owners” on this list is somewhat ironic, considering that he would later write the Supreme Court’s opinion inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller which held for the first time that there is an individual right to own a firearm.
  • Prostitution and Heroin Use: Dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas, Scalia rejected the idea that an outright ban on “sodomy” violates the liberties protected by the Constitution. Such a ban, “undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty,” Scalia wrote, but “so do laws prohibiting prostitution” or “recreational use of heroin.”
  • Incest, Adultery, Obscenity and Child Pornography: Rejecting the Lawrencemajority’s conclusion that private sexuality between consenting adults receives “substantial protection” under the Constitution, Scalia responded “[s]tates continue to prosecute all sorts of crimes by adults ‘in matters pertaining to sex’: prostitution, adult incest, adultery, …read more
    Source: ALTERNET
Avatar of admin

by admin

Church Pre-School Teacher Hogtied 2-Year-Old, Took Pictures and Bragged About it to Girl's Mother

March 25, 2013 in Blogs

By Elizabeth Warmerdam , Courthouse News



MARTINEZ, Calif. (CN) – A church preschool teacher hogtied a 2-year-old girl who didn't sleep during naptime, then “tormented” her mother “with a picture of her hogtied daughter and boasted that she had been the one who did it,” the little girl's parents claim in court.

In the complaint, the parents claim that the preschool principal hired the unlicensed teacher because of his “sexual attraction” to her.

John and Mary Roe sued Angela Calcagno and Centerpointe Church and Preschool, in Contra Costa County Court, on behalf of their daughter.

“This complaint stems from Calcagno's untenable practice of 'hogtying' (i.e., binding the hands and feet with tightly applied masking tape) children who could not sleep during naptime,” the complaint states. “Further, Centerpointe Church and Preschool's principal administrator allowed this serious regulatory violation to occur because, due to his sexual attraction for Calcagno, he wanted her working there even though she was unlicensed.”

The parents say they paid to enroll their 2-year-old daughter in Centerpointe Church and Preschool, in Pleasant Hill. The preschool operates on church property and has more than 100 children in its program, according to the complaint.

The complaint does not identify the “principal administrator” of the school, but it claims that “Calcagno is presently pursuing sexual harassment proceedings against the principal administrator.”

The parents claim that the principal administrator “represented to John and Mary Roe that the preschool followed all regulatory and other legal requirements applicable to preschools, including the requirement that only licensed child care professionals would care for their 2-year-old daughter, and the requirement that no child would ever be treated with violence or in a manner that was otherwise illegal.”

But that's not what happened, the parents say in the complaint: “Between September 2012 and March 2013, on an unknown number of occasions, Calcagno was unlawfully allowed to care for a preschool group that included Jane Roe. During this time, on an unknown number of occasions, Calcagno engaged in the sickening and draconian practice of hogtying Jane Roe for her mere inability to get to sleep during nap time. Specifically, Calcagno, using masking tape that was available as a classroom supply, tightly bound 2-year-old Jane …read more
Source: ALTERNET

Avatar of admin

by admin

Raico on Wenzel’s AERC Talk

March 25, 2013 in Economics

By Mises Updates

The great historian of classical liberalism Ralph Raico wrote to Robert Wenzel:

Bob,
I’ve just listened to your talk on the history of the Soviet Union. It is magnificent! The amount of scholarship is overwhelming. You did a truly great job.
Regards,
Ralph

This is that AERC talk, which was the Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture, sponsored by James M. Rodney, delivered on Thursday March, 21, 2013 at the Mises Institute:

…read more
Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

Mark Thornton’s Ideal Alternative Career

March 25, 2013 in Economics

By Mises Updates

Mises Institute Senior Fellow Mark Thornton interviewed by Joseph Dietrich in the Washington Times Communities.

Dietrich: “If you weren’t doing what you are now (as a career), what might you likely be doing instead?”

Thornton: “I would be rich, retired, and attending Mises Institute events.”

…read more
Source: MISES INSTITUTE

Avatar of admin

by admin

Federalism Is Beside the Point in Gay Marriage Lawsuits

March 25, 2013 in Economics

By Ilya Shapiro

Ilya Shapiro

Some libertarians are conflicted over what the U.S. Supreme Court should do when presented with challenges to state laws that don’t allow for same-sex marriage. While consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want if it doesn’t harm others, isn’t family law a core function of state sovereignty with which the federal government—including the judiciary—shouldn’t interfere?

That intuition isn’t surprising, because libertarians generally like federalism. Particularly in this age of an over weaning federal government and unaccountable executive branch, we pound our pocket Constitutions and demand respect for the Commerce Clause, the 10th Amendment, and other structural protections for liberty.

Indeed, federalism “is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for aunanimous Supreme Court in the 2011 case of United States v. Bond (which is returning to the Court this fall). “By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life,”Kennedy continued, “federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.” If the federal government acts outside the scope of its delegated and carefully enumerated powers, then it’s no better than an armed mob.

Some libertarians are conflicted over what the U.S. Supreme Court should do when presented with challenges to state laws that don’t allow for same-sex marriage.”

I’ve therefore been proud to file federalism-based briefs on the Cato Institute’s behalf on issues ranging from the civil commitment of sex offenders to Obamacare’s individual mandate to the Voting Rights Act. I yield to no one in fighting to keep the federal government within its constitutional bounds.

And yet all thatfederalism talk is an irrelevant red herring when it comes to gay marriage because there’s no claim here that the federal government is exceeding its lawful authority. Instead, in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the plaintiffs argue that California’s Proposition 8 improperly denies them the fundamental right to marry under the 14th Amendment.

In other words, Perry involves claims that a state government is violating individual constitutional rights, not that the federal government is exercising powers it doesn’t have.

The lawsuit isn’t some novel invention designed to avoid implicating the Constitution’s structural provisions, but the sort of thing that libertarians get behind without controversy in areas ranging from gun rights to property rights to the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. And just as …read more
Source: OP-EDS