Where the funny at? Come on peeps- I need me some funny.

There is this misconception about feminists that we think all men are rapists or we don’t like men or sex or we’re all non-shaving, anti-lipstick ugly girls who are just jealous of the pretty girls.

You all know me- I am more boy crazy than just about any girl (and most gay boys) than you’ll ever meet. I’m also super-girly with a love of french perfume, high heels and red red lipstick. Though I have been accused of being a misandrist (opposite of misogynist for the vocab challenged) it is more that I recognize the benefits that white boys get and I refuse to respect them more for being born lucky.

But why I am a feminist is best summed up in this post by Blood on My Teeth

And that is why I’m a feminist. Not because I want to form some kind of gynocentric
enclave or forcibly castrate men in retaliation for my lack of phallic power
(stupid Freud), but because I believe women. I believe women because
98% of the time we are not lying. And I know that the only thing that
separates me from a rape victim or battered wife is dumb fucking luck

I believe women too. Go read the whole post. Consider it required reading.

Alright you managed free markets, don’t rebuild New Orleans folks- have you read An Economist Visits New Orleans in Slate today?

I think I’m just gonna leave y’all to read and comment. I’ll jump in after I stop chewing off the insides of my cheek in frustration.

Wonder forwarded this article from the Times about Hilaire Belloc. The cranky little journals he writes about sure do sound like blogs to me too. Though the article’s author (writing for the biggest paper in the country) is a bit biased in thinking that media nowadays has embraced the free press ideas that Belloc is talking about.

The Official Press, Belloc argues, is centralized and Capitalist (he always capitalizes Capitalist), and its owners are “the true governing power in the political machinery of the State, superior to the officials in the State, nominating ministers and dismissing them, imposing policies, and, in general, usurping sovereignty — all this secretly and without responsibility.” The result “is that the mass of Englishmen have ceased to obtain, or even to expect, information upon the way they are governed.”

I give you videos for your enjoyment.

The first is a mash-up of the Fundie formerly known as GW and John Lennon’s Imagine. It has Animal from the Muppets on drums- so you know it must be good. And be sure to play close attention to the line it’s easy if you try. I nearly peed my pants on that one.

Then there’s Jon Stewart on Rummy. I love Jon. I would have a hundred of his babies. Most of the straight boys I know would too- that is the size of their man-crushes.

In case y’all can’t tell- I’m skipping class this morning and have been fueled by one strong pot o’coffee that The Kid made this morning. Wheeeeee- caffeine!

So it is in this hyper-fueled state of type that I give you the run down on the new Massachusetts law requiring healthcare for all. Is it a plan for actual universal coverage- absolutely not. Is it a law meant to push the state into readiness for actual universal coverage- maybe.

What the law does is penalize businesses that don’t provide healthcare to employees with a fine that is much smaller than the actual cost of providing healthcare to those employees, and fines individuals who can afford health insurance but do not choose to get it (again- the fine is much lower than the actual cost of healthcare). It also provides premium subsidies to individuals who cannot afford health insurance.

The effect of this law is that businesses will quickly realize that it’s cheaper to pay the fine than provide coverage and employer sponsored healthcare in Mass is going to go the way of the dinosaurs- leaving a huge pool of people without coverage. Those people who the state then deems able to afford coverage but are choosing not to be covered privately will pay fines. The winners under this law are the working poor who currently make too much to qualify for Medicaid- they will now be eligible for premium subsidies (though where the money for those subsidies is coming from is a mystery and is not clarified in the bill).

How does this push the state towards universal healthcare? All those people who used to be covered by employers but now are paying fines because their employer stopped providing insurance are gonna be the ones pushing for universal coverage that is actually universal and not tied to an employer. It does set up an expectation of coverage and a means for collecting funds to cover a universal program as well as the beginning of a sliding scale system for premium payments.

More links-
The Boston Channel
The Christian Science Monitor
Boston.com
PBS Newshour

Damn I wish I had Times Select. I also wish I had a subscription to Le Monde Diplomatique and the Economist, but I can read those online through my work for free. But not Times Select. So fellow bloggers you will have to be content with second hand content (but hey- we’re all members of the underclass- second hand is hipster cool)

From Rox Populi

Krugman on Exxon Mobil:

A leaked memo from a 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, in which
Exxon (which hadn’t yet merged with Mobil) was a participant, describes a
strategy of providing “logistical and moral support” to climate change
dissenters, “thereby raising questions about and undercutting the ‘prevailing
scientific wisdom.’ ” And that’s just what Exxon Mobil has done: lavish grants
have supported a sort of alternative intellectual universe of global warming
skeptics.

The people and institutions Exxon Mobil supports aren’t actually engaged in
climate research. They’re the real-world equivalents of the Academy of Tobacco
Studies in the movie “Thank You for Smoking,” whose purpose is to fail to find
evidence of harmful effects.

But the fake research works for its sponsors, partly because it gets picked up by right-wing pundits, but mainly because it plays perfectly into the he-said-she-said conventions of “balanced” journalism. A 2003 study, by Maxwell Boykoff and Jules Boykoff, of reporting on global warming in major newspapers found that a majority of reports gave the skeptics — a few dozen people, many if not most receiving direct or indirect financial support from Exxon Mobil — roughly the same amount of attention as the scientific consensus, supported by thousands of independent researchers.

Has Exxon Mobil’s war on climate science actually changed policy for the worse? Maybe not. Although most governments have done little to curb greenhouse gases, and the Bush administration has done nothing, it’s not clear that policies would have been any better even if Exxon Mobil had acted more responsibly.

But the fact is that whatever small chance there was of action to limit global warming became even smaller because Exxon Mobil chose to protect its profits by trashing good science. And that, not the paycheck, is the real scandal of Mr. Raymond’s reign as Exxon Mobil’s chief executive.

From the AP: Black owned businesses grow at four times the rate of others

But because I am all about fair and balanced, The Chicago Tribune points out the the government is falling short on providing contracts to woman owned businesses.

I want to do this post, have a bunch of thoughts buzzing around in my head.
For now this is a place saver

http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/jesusandwomen/index.stm

http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topical_resource.php?source=1&tid=5162

Philip Yancey – Holy Sex