Lol I can do polls <3 anyways uh . one of the silly turtles in an even sillier sailor boy outfit with a comically large lollipop

he is not happy

The Camorra in late 19th century Naples

[abridged excerpts from Frank M. Snowden, Naples in the time of cholera, 1884–1911 (Cambridge University Press, 1995); photographs of Naples by Giorgio Sommer (1834–1914)]

View from San Martino, 1880s

Naples, Upper and Lower

With a population of nearly half a million people occupying an area of 8 square kilometers, Naples in 1884 was the largest city in Italy. A great Mediterranean seaport famous for evil smells and foul water, the city faced south onto the Bay of Naples, stretching for three miles in an arc along the coast. To the traveller arriving by sea, Naples rose above the harbour in the shape of an amphitheatre. The Lower City, built on land reclaimed from the Mediterranean, formed the stage. It was enclosed to the north and west by a semicircle of hills; to the east by swamps; and to the south by the waters of the Bay. To the west stood the small and salubrious neighbourhood of Chiaia; to the east, the teeming slums of the Old City. The slopes of the encircling hills were graced by the elegant homes of the Upper City.

The dominant feature of the economy, as of every facet of Neapolitan life, was the enormous disproportion between the size of the population and the limited resources available. By the time of the 1884 catastrophe [N.B. a cholera epidemic], Naples had become the symbol of the intractable 'Southern Question' in Italian history. Before the unification of Italy, as after, the great majority of Neapolitans lived in poverty, squalor, and ill health. There was a privileged minority of merchants, nobles, industrialists, functionaries and members of the liberal professions. They lived in the Upper City or in such isolated pockets of gentility as the Via Toledo in the Lower. For the mass of the working population, conditions were stark.

Average Italian wages were the most meagre in Europe, and Neapolitan wages were the lowest among major Italian cities. The most fortunate Neapolitan wage earners were the limited numbers of male industrial workers – dockers, engineers, metallurgical workers, and labourers for the railroads and trams. Competition in a radically overcrowded labour market depressed their wages. Far more numerous were the tens of thousands of craftsmen in a multitude of tiny workshops located throughout the Lower City. Some of the trades had flourished in earlier centuries, by the nineteenth century, however, the undercapitalized workshops of the city were caught in a downward spiral of decline. A special and wretched case was that of the 10,000 fishermen and their families who lived in the neighbourhood of S. Lucia, one of the most unhealthy slums in Naples. Descending further in the social scale, one encounters the myriad Neapolitans who earned their living directly in the streets. It was characteristic of the ailing local economy that tens of thousands of people subsisted by peddling their wares amidst the filth of the city lanes and alleys. The most monstrous feature of the city, however, was that its social structure genuinely approximated the shape of a pyramid. Broadening remorselessly from top to bottom, it rested on the most abject and numerous stratum of all – the unemployed. Nowhere else in western Europe was there such a concentration of the totally destitute, of people who woke in the morning not knowing when they would next eat, or where they would sleep.

A city already desperately poor in the first half of the century experienced a steady economic and social decline in the second. A major cause for the continuous expansion of misery after 1861 was unification itself, which destroyed the greatest resource the city possessed – its status as a royal capital. With the overthrow of the Bourbons, the port and the arsenal languished; the luxury trades withered; and the rich veins of royal patronage and military spending were exhausted.

Porta della Marina del Vino, 1880-1885

The Camorra

Naples possessed in the Camorra one of the most powerful criminal associations in modern European history. Like the Sicilian Mafia, the Camorra clothed itself in populist rhetoric, proclaiming itself the champion of the poor and the defender of the South. It veiled the reality of the unpitying oppression that it meted out. The Camorra adopted mysterious jargon and rites that mimicked those of a secret society; it flaunted a pseudo-chivalric code of 'honour' among its members; and it created a mythology of distributive justice in which it claimed the role of urban Robin Hood. In reality, however, the Camorra was itself a symptom of the social pathology of modern Naples, and it added immeasurably to the burdens of the poor.

With its stronghold in the Lower City, the Camorra is best understood as a means of market rationalization. The destitute furnished the mass of members of the Neapolitan underworld, and in a society dominated by mass unemployment and poverty, there was a constant threat of an oversupply of recruits to the life of crime. The criminal trade, like virtually every other craft in the city, was in danger of being swamped. The Camorra restored order and profitability by rigidly and violently restricting entry to the profession. What was not to be tolerated was freelance criminality. For criminal purposes the city was divided into fourteen families or 'societies', one to each neighbourhood where the organization had an effective presence. In some cases the territory claimed by a 'society' corresponded to one of the administrative boroughs of the city as in Mercato and Pendino, but more frequently the territory was smaller, with a preponderance of 'societies' in the Lower City. Within its territory a Camorra 'society' was not a kinship network, but a monopoly that enforced its claim to a percentage of all illegal activity. The Camorra ruled without competition in its chosen domains of prostitution, illegal gambling, 'protection', money-lending and theft. The Camorra was a guild by other means: it protected the standard of living of its members by a rigid policy of exclusion guaranteed by the threat of violence. In a city famous for criminal activity, the striking feature of illegality, according to the police, was that almost every illegal deed had the sanction of the Camorra.

S. Lucia, circa 1857–1888

Through the monopoly of criminality in a neighbourhood and the willingness of its members to resort to violent means, the Camorra achieved a domination over large areas of the economic and political life of the city. An important premise for the establishment of its power was the weakness of authority under both the old regime and the new. In their final years before the national revolution, the Bourbons made use of the services of camorristi to enforce, if not law, then at least a kind of order. As the inspector in command of the police in the borough of Montecalvario explained in 1875, 'Under the old regime of the Bourbons, the Camorra was an underworld society in the service of crime and the authorities... who not only tolerated but also protected it.' After the change of regime, the new Liberal administration in the city confronted a turbulent interregnum. To secure control, it colluded with organized crime. Liborio Romano, who presided over the change of regime in the city, made use of the Camorra as an auxiliary police force. Thus the Camorra thrived as never before during the Risorgimento because authority was weak and for a time it was the only organized force in Naples. In every sphere its influence was also favoured by the small-scale operations, the weakness, and the lack of organization of its victims. Large-scale industry, major landowners, an organized working class and consumers integrated into a highly developed civil society would have been less susceptible to its predations. But the isolated, demoralized and impoverished members of the Neapolitan plebe were ideal for victimization. As Marc Monnier wrote,

Individuals were scattered, and this population of isolated people could offer no collective resistance to the oppression of powerful and violent minorities. The only ones to possess an organization, they dominated and triumphed with impunity.

Via Marina, circa 1865

In this fragmented civil society the Camorra established a well-organized protection racket at the expense of defenceless small retailers, who passed a share of the cost onto consumers in the form of higher prices. By intimidation, blackmail, and favouritism it 'made' the elections of councillors and deputies. The Camorra also gained powerful friends by eliminating their rivals for contracts for the performance of municipal services. In this manner the 'low Camorra' of the streets increased its influence by gaining access to the collusion of the powerful. The shadowy 'high Camorra' of polite society was created.

Political corruption increased the distance between governors and governed. At the turn of the century the famous lawsuit of the Neapolitan deputy and Camorra boss Alberto Casale against the local newspaper, La Propaganda, revealed a systematic falsification of the electoral will of the population. Beginning with the precedent created in the 1870s by the Liberal Deputy Rocco De Zerbi, powerful figures in the local administration comprehensively perverted the electoral process, eliminating opponents from the registers of eligible voters; bribing undecided citizens with contracts, employment and cash; and hiring members of the criminal underworld to disrupt the campaigns of the opposition. On polling day in sezioni like Vicaria it was unsafe for the supporters of rival political factions to walk the streets. Elections conducted in such a fashion undermined the legitimacy of those in office.

~ Frank M. Snowden, Naples in the time of cholera, 1884–1911 (abridged excerpts)

P.S. CrimethInc. recently published an article on the 1884 cholera epidemic in Naples and Errico Malatesta's relief efforts, drawing from Frank Snowden's book for background. The presence of the Camorra in the city is summarised thus: “Illegal capitalist organizations set the price of food and worked with the municipal authorities to control what kind of criminal activity was possible.” Which on one hand is hilarious in how it avoids using the words “Camorra” or “mafia”, but on the other hand... honestly? Fair. The business of the mafia IS buisness.

How is Loving Parker like? (ABC Fluff, Parker X MC)

How is loving Parker like? We will have to ask Vance for that…

 Vance puts his hand on his chin, thinking.

 Loving Parker is like….

 1.      Feeling Safe. (‘F’)

 Vance remembers they were both jogging early in the morning, when suddenly some dogs started chasing him. He remembers how Parker took two long strides to land in front of him, grabbing his hand and pulling him tightly as they ran out of their lungs.

He also remembers how Parker looked determined and brave, even when their path was blocked by a dead end. He definitely remembered how Parker stepped in front of him, face flushed with anger as he growled back at those dogs. And how can Vance forget how the most non-violent Parker on Earth took off his shoe and threw it – bull’s eye on one of the dogs. 

Vance is not sure if it’s the terror of Parker or the smell of his shoes, but the dogs ran away. 

And Vance also remembers how, since that day, whenever they are strolling down the road and a dog appears at his side, Parker involuntarily pulls him to his other side.

.

.

.

.

 “But is loving Parker just feeling safe?” 

“No…” Vance smiles. “You also have to deal with him.”

.

.

.

 2.      Dealing with Parker (‘D’)

 Vance remembers at times how whimsical Parker can become. Not to mention how he’d act like a total kid at times -much to Vance’s annoyance. 

But one particular incident is very much etched to his memory...

 “Vance, want to check out these chocolates I bought?” Parker’s voice came from upstairs. 

Vance was in no mood to even move. Much less walk the never-ending flight of stairs and tire himself out. But...chocolates! 

Chocolates demand sacrifices.

Chocolates demand devotion.

Chocolates demand worship. 

And so, Vance grudgingly got up, went upstairs, only to find Parker in his inner wear and garments. 

“So…where is the chocolate?” 

Parker tosses a small piece of chocolate towards him, making Vance grumble. That one was not his favourite. Forget his favourite, that was not the chocolate he even wished to look at. 

He glares at Parker who smiles as if he tossed a diamond ring with “I LOVE YOU” written on it. His eyes fall on the suit and also Parker’s luggage bag at the corner of the room. 

Great! He now remembered why he was not feeling like moving an inch. 

“Get ready else you will miss the flight.” He rolls his eyes wondering at how he will be spending the next few months without Parker while he’d be out, enjoying his new promotion privileges in some new town around some hot cop chicks.

 “Hey…” Parker’s voice catches him up. “Help me then!” he pleads. 

Vance looks at him, annoyed. Very much annoyed. 

“Are you a kid that I have to help in dressing you up?” He retorts, but anyways goes to Parker. 

Parker takes off his innerwear, flaunting his body and looking expectantly at Vance, who rolls his eyes and scavenges the cup board for a fresh one. 

“Should I change my garments as well?” 

“Whatever dude.” 

“…Ok” 

Vance felt that was not the response Parker was expecting. Perhaps he should be less snappy. 

“There,” he tosses Parker some clothes. 

Parker quickly puts up the shirt, and then the pant. Adjusting his belt, he says, “Button my shirt, please.”

 Vance silently grunted ‘He is like a five-year old at times.’ And ‘He is impossible’ but anyway proceeded to button he shirt. He then also put up the suit on Parker and buttoned it. Lastly, he also tied the favourite blue colour tie of Parker and finally patted the suit to make sure there were no curves. 

There, Parker was ready, like a barbie doll. 

“I will see if we have something in fridge.” Vance starts to leave when Parker grabs his hand, tight. 

“There is one more thing to do.” He says as he closes the distance between them. He whispers huskily in his ear, “Undress me.” 

Vance’s eyes go wide as he looks at Parker, whose voice now tickles in his ears. 

“I denied the promotion. I cannot leave my good boy here while I stay alone somewhere else.” 

He felt goosebumps as Parker continued playing with his heart strings, “You are such a dork when you miss so many signs.” He kissed his neck, biting it roughly in the process. 

“But you clearly weren’t a dork when you said its twice the fun if we start with ‘it’ with undressing.’ 

He then crashes his lips on Vance and pushes him onto the bed and… 

.

.

.

“What happened next?”

“Psst.” Vance hissed, “Not telling.” He smugly smiles.

“Its more like Parker dealing with you than you dealing with him.” 

He smiles, but proceeds onwards. “The best part of loving Parker is- “

.

.

.

 3.      Hugs (‘H’)

 Parker just entered the house, marched towards kitchen where Vance was presumably making the evening coffee, and just back-hugged him tightly, sinking his face into his t-shirt. 

“…Parker?” Vance asked confused to which Parker just tried to burrow his face further. 

They stood there for minutes in silence, with Vance waiting for Parker to open up. When he doesn’t speak up, Vance moves forward, looking at Parker’s sullen face as he presses his hand. 

“Let’s sit and talk.”

 Parker just turns and heads upstairs to Vance’s bedroom, completely ignoring the all of the sofas lying idle in the living room. 

Vance sighs. Did he tell that climbing stairs was not his favorite thing? 

When he arrives, Parker is already lying on the bed, face boring into the pillow. 

“Parker…? You alright?” Vance says as he sits on the bed. 

Parker looks up to him, and then pulls him, making him fall on bed. With Vance’s back towards him, he hugs him tightly, wanting to close even the millimetre of distance between their bodies. 

“Parker…?” 

Vance feels his cheeks flush as Parker’s grip tightens around him and as he puts his leg over his’, entangling them together, worse than earphones in a bag. 

“Parker…?” 

Vance becomes conscious of how Parker spoons him, and how his body fits perfectly onto Parker’s. He feels Parker press his nose against his nape. But Parker doesn’t say a word. 

“Is something wrong?” 

“Nnnnnnhmmmmmm.” Parker mumbles. Finally, he speaks up. “You’re leaving tomorrow…” 

“HOLY SHIT PARKER!” Vance speaks up, his worry converting into mild annoyance because Parker apparently gave him a heart attack over what was wrong with him. “IT’S A COLLEGE REUNION PARTY. I WILL BE BACK IN 2 DAYS.” 

Parker seems to try to absorb it, but then just buries his face into Vane’s neck. 

“Doesn’t matter.” He cribs like a child. 

Vance internally rolls his eyes.

 “I will be back soon.” 

“Take me with you.” 

Ok, Parker was legit behaving like a five-year old. 

“You’d get bored.” Vance pressed his point.

“Doesn’t matter as well.” 

“And what about the town? What will it do without their heroic, saviour Office Shaw to their rescue?” 

Parker seemed to actually think on that for a minute as he tilted his head up, but then he again buried it into Vance’s neck, slowly kissing the little skin he found there. 

“They will be ok.” He cribs. He then seems to give a look at Vance, before continuing, “Ok then, I am coming.” 

“No.” Vance muttered, loud and clear.

“Yes” Parker sang, equally determined.

“No.”

“Yes.”

“No.”

“Yes.”

“NO.”

“……”

“……”

“…..”

“Vance, what’s this burning smell?” 

FUCK!

Vance rushed out of the room, remembering his coffee, leaving Parker surprised and their argument incomplete.

.

.

.

“So, did he actually come with you?” 

“Yes.” Vance said with slight annoyance, “And that too, without telling me.” 

He takes a sip of his coffee, as we look expectantly towards him. 

“Its about time we wrap up.” He smiles, “But I promise more soon.” He gets up and goes inside...

.

.

.

Next in the series

4.      Cooking

5.      Camping

6.      TBA

 Hey guys, I know you all are waiting for my one-shot on which I had the poll, but assignments are killing me :(. That being said, it will be posted soon, just not now. Hopefully this drabble kind of made up for that? :D

 Also, any chance if one of the drabbles inspired any art in you? In case it does, do tag me while posting it, I’d love to see it :3. (I’d love even more to use it in this drabble hehe xD)

 And lastly, I am really grateful for you people for the likes <3. Please reblog and/or comment. They keep the motivation coming to write <3 <3 <3. Hopefully the fandom is liking them :D

 Tag list- @brightpinkpeppercorn @sherjules @pbmychoices @zuaovca @dumbbrowngirl @flammingred @danniasturiass @strangelycami @fluffy-cat-whisper @darley1101 @personthatlovesshippings @maxunwell

Decreased Melodrama

One can never stop government from spending or controlling. Be thankful for blessings. Without the eternal creep of benevolent authority into our previously benighted lives, silly humans would be spending what we greedily considered our own money or foolishly attempting to make unsupervised decisions. Our lucky break is reflected by the semipermanent erosion of what the more stubborn amongst us refer to as rights.

We're bravely never going back to that hellish apocalyptic landscape where Washington only incinerated less than a trillion dollars more annually than it confiscated. Society must move forward, which in this case means beating inflation at the spending race. Any decrease is treated as a crime against humanity by very caring members who think an entity that demands accountability it never achieves can build a train that travelers will use willingly in the 21stcentury.

The answer to how much spending politicians need to make us happy is always more. Any decrease thus renders humanity sad. The only thing worse than individuals possessing money they doesn't know how to spend properly is the subversively selfish thought of what could be added to one's personal inventory by doing so. It's thus a concurrent relief to never have the decadent privilege to ponder what should be purchased.

I can't believe Georgia banned voting. The Confederacy still wins battles in 2021. Sure, residents of a state nicknamed for some fruit can technically still vote on the traditional day as well as on earlier ones and by mail. And they actually expanded some hours. But the narrative is in place, as those who never cast lots with reality.

There's nothing Jim Crow likes more than recognizing voting has to end someday. States flaunt the audacity to standardize an expansion that was added back in the dark ages of last year. Georgians can still vote early, which would've been a novelty to have a decade ago. Participants could elect those who are a bit more sensible when it comes to not lying about facts if they can manage to get to the polling place on multiple days, drop box, or mailbox.

Taxes can never be lowered, which would enable the avaricious to get what they wish. The horrible scenario where people would like to keep a little more wouldn't encourage success philosophically or practically or anything. Earnings must be taken for prosperity. Great joy from taking only hasn't occurred yet because diabolical Republicans keep the rate too low. This is why compromise is always evil.

Humans are punished for advancing if you've noticed society has stagnated. I blame the rich. You may sadly not be surprised by how many very informed crusaders demanding progressive taxation realize we already have that. Every freakout at the suggestion of flattening rates features the presumption that money belongs to us all. One giant shared wallet is quite convenient for those not good enough to help fill it.

Spending cuts are framed as monstrous by those presuming government is the only thing that's ever helped. Calmly note a decrease in the increase will kill infants, the indigent, and indigent infants. Well, do you have a better way of viewing government's role than through sob stories?

Someone might be able to buy the item in question with their own funds, which seems more efficient for multiple reasons. But then there'd be no guarantee from a ruling apparatus that sure seems to violate rules it imposes on others.

The universe is full of unanswerable questions, like what would make anyone sick enough to think anything where Joe Biden is head of state would be skilled at delivering health care. I just wish there were a way to get treated without patronizing a clinic named for a politician.

Reducing uselessly counterproductive guarantees actually makes life tolerable, or at least slightly less insufferable. Those inflicting pain claim they know just how to alleviate it. Noting the best way to get as many people the treatment they need is to treat the commodity exactly the same as any other is treated as pro-death. Wait until they hear about outcomes in unfortunate nations where government poses as a doctor.

All shrieking about potential reduced spending presumes present levels are perfect. You may as well cut literally with your precious budget-balancing. The unwavering trust in politicians is part of their faith. Nobody can believe these numbers will reconcile if they're worried about pedestrian earthly concerns like evidence.

But maybe the latest cruel Republican scheme will not only fail to kill the underprivileged but create less of them. And that might occur without sending the poors to camps or New York nursing homes.

Noticing our world doesn't crash into the Sun as predicted with a balanced budget is a first step. Goals may be even more modest, like prosperity without waste. Life actually improves as our stupid government isn't permitted to meddle as much. Unsubstantiated panic says otherwise.

Blessed Vs. Grateful? Why Your Words Matter on Social Media

By Nargis Rahman

"Blessed" and "grateful" are terms used interchangeably on social media. However, a recent Instagram poll I conducted (@nargisthewriter) uncovered that these terms have a lot more impact on our subconscious than we may think in ways we may not initially even realize.

Recently I was talking to my friend JoAnne Halaweh, a clinical social worker, about these terms. She said she noticed a trend of people using the term “blessed” to share posts about their lavish vacations or fashion choices, which implies they are deserving of something, rather than using the term “grateful,” which is reflective of the blessings given to one. We both agreed that we need to explore this further and find better ways to say what we mean and what we don’t.

Image source: Twitter and Reuters

JoAnne said the misuse of the word "blessed" is problematic because it makes the reader feel like they are not deserving and are less than. However, acknowledging the wonders of the world is a blessing that Allah (S) has placed for us to beautify our experience on Earth. So, a more appropriate caption [instead of just saying one is blessed] would look something like this: “I am grateful for the opportunity to take this trip; it is a blessing to see the beauty in the world.’”

According to The New York Times, the term “blessed” became popular in 2014 as a way to humblebrag about God-given gifts, or what JoAnne describes as things others cannot usually attain through hard work alone. It is a term made popular in mainstream by celebrity culture and often living a privileged life, which is then promoted on social media platforms.

In Islam we are encouraged to check our intentions. The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, “Actions are but by intentions, and every person will only get what he intended. (Bukhari)

We are also told to avoid arrogance, boasting of our good deeds and remain humble.

The Prophet Muhammad (saw) said:

“There are three (types of) people to whom Allah will neither speak on the Day of Resurrection nor look at them nor purify them, and they will have a painful chastisement.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) repeated it three times. Abu Dharr (May Allah be pleased with him) remarked: “They are ruined. Who are they, O Messenger of Allah?” Upon this, the Messenger of Allah (saw) said, “One who lets down his lower garments (below his ankles) out of arrogance, one who boasts of his favours done to another; and who sells his goods by taking a false oath.” (Muslim)

However, we are encouraged to celebrate the praises of our Lord and show gratefulness.

Writer Nancy France writes that the term “blessed” is a biblical word that in Bible terms are for those who endured hardships. Therefore, in the way it’s currently and most often being used is incorrect. Nancy writes that preachers like Joel Olstein made being blessed a cool thing on television.

People often use the words interchangeably, although the meanings can be left up to interpretation, says Tabtila Chowdhury, a second-year medical student at Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine. “Someone may post about their child being their biggest blessing in life whereas others may feel their career is. Different blessings are attained by different people yet still holds the same value to the individuals.”

She says she uses her account to document her life. “I consider compassion when posting because I don't use my account to flaunt my life for anyone's favor. I simply use my account as a diary to document my travels and adventures and often find myself looking through my own feed to relive memories. Uncompassionate postings involve an unhealthy desire to boast or portray an image of perfection as opposed to reality.”

Consider the following post on Instagram, in which the writer discusses her gratitude in a compassionate manner.

  View this post on Instagram

@bushraxo • Medical student • Detroit, MI • “Ever since I was really young, I’ve always had a strong passion for medicine. I just couldn’t see myself doing anything else. I’m a Bengali girl from a small, low-income pocket of Detroit, where being a physician was all but hopes and dreams. Now, every day I have to pinch myself because I can’t believe God let me have this opportunity. And that he gave me the privilege of a lifetime—to take care of other human beings to the best of my ability. I’m so grateful knowing how hard I’ve worked to be here. I’m willing to work even harder every day to be deserving of this position. The foundation that I am building my career on is nurtured by resilience, passion, and a lot of prayer.” • Are you a Muslim that is working, training, or studying in a health profession? DM us your story! • #muslimsinmedicine #muslimdoc #muslimdocs #muslimwhitecoat #mashallah #allahuakbar #subhanallah #musliminspo #doctor #medicine #motivation #medicalschool #medschool #residency #nursing #nursingschool #rn #np #pa #dentist #dentalschool #therapy #psychiatry #psychology #pt #ot #rt #muslimgirl #themuslimgent

A post shared by Muslims in Medicine (@muslims.in.medicine) on Nov 18, 2019 at 12:00pm PST

  What's Your Intention in Using "Blessed" Vs. "Grateful"?

How are people using and thinking about using these two terms: "blessed" vs. "grateful"? The Instagram poll I conducted gave me some interesting insights.

Based on my poll, about 22 percent believed people’s blessings were because they were rich while 78 percent of those who voted thought the person had worked hard (for that blessing). Similarly, 27 percent of people thought blessed defined privilege, while 73 percent thought it defined someone being grateful.

Another interesting sight from the poll was this: Voters reported that when they used the term themselves, 33 percent said they referred to a blessing while 67 percent were referring to being grateful. So, what does all this mean? Are we muddling up the meaning of these words in how we are using them?

Therapist Sumayyah Taufique says it all comes down to intention and considering what values we are perpetuating online. “Social media needs to be intentional. Let’s pause and think about ourselves. What am I hoping to gain from this post?” For example, she asks, are we seeking validation? “What we are struggling with internally is leading to a behavior externally,” she says. “What we post online should align with our values and emotional boundaries.”

Sumayyah says there are positive elements of social media, such as community building and education, and that it’s okay to post about things using the word blessed, as long as we do the internal work of intention behind the post, presenting a balanced view and showing the behind the scenes work when we are able.

JoAnne says our lifestyles, and what we share about it, come with responsibilities. “In Islam, we believe that we are being tested regardless of our circumstance. The poor are expected to show trust and patience in Allah’s will, and the rich are to be humble and charitable and to use their status and fortunes to lift the community. With any circumstance comes responsibility.”

This also applies to how we consume social media, says Sumayyah. She says to consider the following questions: Why are we going to certain accounts? What are we gaining from those accounts? Do those accounts add value to my life?

According to Bustle.com, social media can impact the way you think, sometimes positively by improving memory of certain events and activating the brain’s reward center, while also negatively impacting your need for validation and likes or reducing attention span. Time found that although memories were improved online, people spent less time processing those memories in real-time, “the act of externalizing their experience – that is, reproducing it in any form – that seemed to make them lose something of the original experience.”

Why Words and Hashtags Matter

The way we say things online affects how we process information. JoAnne says defining terms are important. “Gratitude is acknowledging your appreciation of something in your life, while a blessing is rooted in religion and implies that God has orchestrated the life circumstance,” she says.

JoAnne adds that using the term "grateful" can encourage reflective thinking. “It can shift the thought process of the reader to consider what they are grateful for, rather than focusing on the differences and fortunes the post is showing when using words like 'blessed.'”

Allah (S) says, "If you were to count God's favors, you would not be able to number them; most surely humanity is very unjust, very ungrateful. (Quran 14:34)" Also, Allah (S) says that if we are grateful, He will give us more. "If you are grateful, I will surely give you more and more. (Ibrahim 14:7)"

Sumayyah says that unless we don’t examine the words carefully, gratitude can also be conditioned as a negative word in our brain. She says, “In Muslim settings (we are told to) be grateful. If you’re throwing it at me when I’m at a really bad place ... it’s used as a weapon to silence pain versus uses as a lens to life.”

This may have developed from situations of a comparison narrative, such as when children are compared to others and told they are “not good enough,” Sumayyah says, adding that this can manifest into jealousy stemming from a scarcity mindset. Comparison narrative makes us feel that someone is living better than we are, based on the filtered “best version” we see on social media. Sumayyah, who works with Muslim women, says this is the biggest trend she’s seen when it comes to the impact of social media use.

Image source: Wisconsin Muslim Journal

  “It’s a challenging place to get stuck. Especially when we’ve already been compared to our siblings or aunties kids [and we’ve] internalized that voice from a younger age. [We also then experience] fear of missing out (FOMO),” she says.

Sumayyah suggests to pause and work on one’s own measuring stick and definition of success.

“What do you define as success? Beauty? Happy family? A life that you want to live. The work is constantly where you are at, what is meaningful to you. How can you turn down the volume of [comparing yourself to] other people?”

She says we can be mindful of how we approach social media as well. “I can choose to not consume people’s lives and choose not to add to that. [When] certain things [happen in my life], do I feel blessed? Grateful? [Should I] share on a public platform? Maybe not. [Maybe I should] share on private platform.”

Language and framing words online affects the way we use and consume social media. When it comes to our own experiences, achievements and possessions, each of us must examine our intentions, purpose and values based on our own measures for success when posting privately and publicly online. Therefore, when choosing between sharing about being blessed and/or grateful, consider what word really reflects what you want to say and the deeper implications of those words and hashtags.

There is joy and beauty to be shared publicly and privately, and we can all benefit from sharing Allah’s (S) blessings and our gratitude for them. But the words we choose matter more than we may ever realize.

Blessed Vs. Grateful? Why Your Words Matter on Social Media published first on https://lenacharms.tumblr.com/

Again, it is impeachment time! |wapo.com-Trump’s lack of cooperation with Congress intensifies impeachment push in House

The president’s unwillingness to comply with investigators’ requests for witnesses and documents is prompting the more establishment Democrats to join liberals. By Rachael Bade and Mike DeBonis April 29 at 8:08 PM Frustration among House Democratic investigators is intensifying after President Trump’s refusal to cooperate with congressional inquiries, leading some to privately question whether they should try to pressure Speaker Nancy Pelosi into launching impeachment proceedings. The chairmen and members of the six panels investigating the president are increasingly angered by the White House’s unwillingness to comply as they carry out their oversight role, according to several House Democratic officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter freely. But that anger extends into the ranks of Pelosi’s team as well, according to multiple leadership officials. A recent threat by Attorney General William P. Barr not to show up for a scheduled hearing Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee has only exacerbated the situation after the White House last week vowed to block some officials from appearing for subpoenaed depositions or interviews. Earlier this month, several lawmakers from the most liberal wing of the caucus had called for impeachment after the release of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report. But Pelosi, fearing 2020 election fallout from such a politically divisive step, had asked Democratic investigators to hold off and simply continue their inquiries. But Trump’s no-cooperation stance is blocking that mission, as his team has publicly directed administration officials to ignore House Democrats, prompting several of the more establishment Democrats to favor pursuing impeachment in a notable shift on Capitol Hill. Pelosi makes the final decision. “The Mueller report and this assault on the legislative branch made Nancy’s call to avoid impeachment much more difficult for rank-and-file members,” said Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), a member of the Oversight Committee. “We’ve moved from culpability laid out in the Mueller report to an assault on the institution and constitutional framework that is the legislative branch.” During a House leadership meeting Monday night, Pelosi (Calif.) argued that the Democratic caucus needed to continue “building the case” for impeachment — if that’s where it ultimately ends up. But she emphasized that the House had to remain focused on its legislative agenda. “We have to deliver,” she said at several points in the meeting, according to participants who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the session. Trump’s public declaration last week that he would ignore “all the subpoenas” — coming after Mueller’s findings of 10 potential cases of obstruction by Trump — has led many Democrats associated with some of those investigations to argue that they need to pursue impeachment, even as they await Pelosi’s go-ahead. These Democrats contend that Trump’s move to stonewall the House constitutes additional obstruction and abuse of power. “Trump’s conduct is such that it will force people to consider impeachment, no matter how politically difficult,” said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee who has supported impeachment and deferred to Pelosi in the past but plans to talk to the speaker. “His conduct is so opprobrious that its hard for people to eventually not see that he’s trampled on the Constitution. . . . So that’s going to eventually lead people to consider , I think.” Yet at the same time, Pelosi’s standard for whether to move ahead on impeachment remains unmet: No Republican lawmaker has joined Democrats in calling for removing the president, and public sentiment — something Pelosi frequently cites as the safeguard for any policies or political moves — has not shifted in Democratic investigators’ favor. A majority of Americans say they oppose initiating impeachment against Trump, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released Friday. Thirty-seven percent of Americans favor starting the process that could lead to impeachment, a slight dip over the past month, while 56 percent say they oppose the idea, about the same as a month ago. On Monday, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) focused on working with Trump, not ousting him. The two Democratic leaders and other lawmakers were scheduled to meet with Trump at the White House on Tuesday to discuss a bipartisan infrastructure plan. It has created something of a dual reality in the House Democratic Caucus, with Pelosi signing a letter to Trump saying, “We look forward to seeing you on Tuesday. Best wishes,” and investigators increasingly outraged. Barr’s appearance Thursday could reduce the frustration. The attorney general threatened Friday to boycott the hearing over the Democrats’ plan to have a counsel question him along with lawmakers. In July 1974, when the House Judiciary Committee passed three articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon, one of the charges leveled against him was “contempt of Congress,” while the third article said Nixon had “failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas” and “willfully disobeyed such subpoenas.” The full House never voted on the articles of impeachment, and Nixon resigned in August. Now, Trump is flaunting his intentions to rebuff congressional requests. His advisers have told former White House counsel Donald McGahn he cannot testify or cooperate with lawmakers’ probe of obstruction, even though they waived executive privilege to allow him to testify in the Mueller investigation. And they’ve reached out to other former aides to encourage them to ignore the House’s inquiries. Trump is also blocking the Ways and Means Committee from obtaining his tax returns, and his lawyers are suing the Oversight Committee for requesting records from his accounting firm. Pelosi has walked her caucus back from the brink on impeachment before. Several weeks ago, when many liberals began pressing for impeachment, she declared that Trump was “not worth it” in an interview with The Washington Post. Lawmakers fell into line, demonstrating the strength of her pull with the caucus. Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said in an interview Monday night that it was still too early to talk about impeachment and that the House needed to go through a process — not jump ahead several steps. “We’ll have to cross that bridge when we come to it,” Bass said. “I think it is critically important that we go through the entire process, in terms of hearings, having people come, and if they don’t come, subpoenaing them, and if they don’t do that, then taking them to court, and that we educate the public all the way. If we were to jump from the Mueller report into impeachment, I think it would be very confusing.” Another member of Pelosi’s leadership team noted that there were several deadlines looming and that lawmakers needed to wait to see what happens. Barr, for example, is supposed to turn over the full Mueller report by Wednesday to honor a House subpoena. He is not expected to do so, and Democrats are prepared to take him to court. In addition, McGahn is supposed to hand over documents in the coming days. Should he refuse at the behest of the White House, Source: Trump’s lack of cooperation with Congress intensifies impeachment push in House Read the full article

A Facebook executive’s Kavanaugh support is a slap in the face to wives | Arwa Mahdawi

Joel Kaplans existence at Senate listening is another be pointed out that the stronger people and institutions in the two countries dont are of interest to women and survivors

The Week in Patriarchy is a weekly roundup of what’s happening in countries around the world of feminism and sexism. If you’re not already received so far by email, make sure to subscribe .

Facebook and Kavanaugh: a accord acquired in hell

Poor age-old Mark Zuckerberg, all he ever wanted to time was connect parties. He never wanted to get involved in politics or force polls, he’s told us so a million times. Regrettably this memo doesn’t seem to have gotten through to Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s vice-president of global our policies, who has inserted himself into the centre of the Brett Kavanaugh controversy.

Kaplan, a close, personal acquaintance of Kavanaugh’s, set behind the evaluate during his recent hearings before the Senate judiciary committee. The Facebook executive’s spirit reportedly came as a surprise to employees, and some took it as an unofficial companionship endorsement of Kavanaugh. The incident has caused enough disagreement that a company town hall was called on Friday to address internal concerns.

A friend substantiating a sidekick wouldn’t commonly be a big deal. However, one might imagine that if you were Facebook’s vice-president of global public policy and your friend’s supreme court of the united states nomination and sexual abuse accusations are subdividing the country, you are able to think twice about publicly flaunting your aid. You might think about what sort of content that would send to your colleagues and employees- not to mention the 2 billion people who use your social network.

The last-place few weeks have been a slap in the face for sexual assault survivors and women. While Dr Christine Blasey Ford has been lampooned including the president, Kavanaugh has enjoyed the enthusiastic aid of organisation organizations like the Wall Street Journal, which recently established the adjudicator an op-ed so could he reiterate what a great” son, spouse and papa” he is. Kaplan’s public support for Kavanaugh is yet another signal to sexual assault survivors and women that the stronger people and institutions in the two countries don’t care about them. While Kaplan may not have attended the hearing as an official Facebook representative he is, let’s reiterate this again, their vice-president of world our policies. Something to think about, perhaps, if you’re still weighing up whether you ought to delete your account.

Kavanaugh’s yearbook offers insight into the system that generated him

While the events of the last few weeks have not established with certainty that Kavanaugh is responsible for the sex offense he is accused of, they have left little doubt he is an entitled, odious human being. To be fair, this isn’t wholly his faulting; he’s the product of a organisation in which privilege buys you the right to act precisely as you like, without horror of repercussions. His Georgetown Prep yearbook, for example, which has been uploaded to the internet, hints the elite prep school sanctioned unspeakable behaviour. Boys were allowed to include quotes such as :~ ATAGEND” I don’t want her you are able to have her, she’s too flab for me” or” Having a beer belly in your elderly time is a status badge “. They were allowed to boast about their membership of something “ve called the” Ridge Klux Klan. They seem to have been allowed, in short, to do whatever they liked.

Nobel peace prize gifted to activists against sexual violence

The 2018 Nobel quietnes trophy has been collectively awarded to Denis Mukwege, a Congolese gynecologist who has treated millions of rape victims, and Nadia Murad, an Iraqi Yazidi sold into fornication slavery by the Islamic State. The duet won the prestigious gift for their” efforts to end the use of forms of sexual violence as a weapon of battle “.

Smart enough to triumph a Nobel prize winner but not important enough for Wikipedia

This week, Canadian physicist Donna Strickland grew the first maiden to prevail a Nobel prize winner in physics in 55 times. Despite years of pioneering work with lasers, the( mainly male) guardians of Wikipedia didn’t deem Strickland important enough for a home in the user-generated encyclopedia until after her winning. The omission threw some light on Wikipedia’s somewhat dim view of women: merely 17% of entryways dedicated to conspicuous parties are for women.

Good news from down under

Australia has scrapped its tampon taxation. Feminine hygiene makes will no longer command a 10% intake charge. In other news, Australia is likely to become the first country in the world to wipe out cervical cancer, thanks to national vaccination programs.

Feminist podcast of the week

In January, Montana prosecutor Jay Harris threatened to prosecute pregnant women for mistreating pharmaceuticals or alcohol. As was pointed out by the likes of the American Civil Liberties Union( ACLU ), plowing pregnant women differently from other addicts is discriminatory and criminalizing craving is counterproductive. ReWire.News, which focuses on reproduction privileges, looked into the story and found that Native American ladies are already being criminally charged for using drugs while pregnant. It explores this issue in a brand-new podcast, The Breach, which is out now.

Source: http://allofbeer.com/a-facebook-executives-kavanaugh-support-is-a-slap-in-the-face-to-women-arwa-mahdawi/

from All of Beer https://allofbeer.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/a-facebook-executives-kavanaugh-support-is-a-slap-in-the-face-to-wives-arwa-mahdawi/

An Outright Reversal of Roe V. Wade Isn’t All We Should Fear The anti-abortion movement can decimate the right to abortion even without getting it overturned.

Across the country, people are talking about abortion as legislatures in the South and Midwest mount a full-scale attack on our reproductive freedom. Naturally, people are stressed and angry. I am too. I’ve been fighting to protect abortion access for more than 25 years.

I’m worried about the future of Roe v. Wade — deeply worried. But I’m worried about more than that. I’m worried that the courts will gut the right to abortion and that there won’t be an outcry because the headlines won’t scream, “Supreme Court strikes down right to abortion.”

Don’t get me wrong. That’s not to take away from outrage over the bans. I’m also agitated about the wave of states — Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, and Missouri — that have passed abortion bans and states, like Louisiana, rushing to add their names to the list. Those of us who care about people’s right to access abortion are right to decry and protest this wave of bans and the contempt for women they flaunt.

The bans tell us that opponents of abortion rights are emboldened. They know they have a friend in the White House, and they think the Supreme Court may be theirs as well. Trump, after all, promised to appoint justices who would overrule the right.

But the court may not go that route, at least not immediately. A reversal of such a prominent and politically charged precedent so soon after Trump's election will raise questions about the integrity of the court. The court would risk being seen as just another political department, one controlled by “Trump Justices.” After all, the court reaffirmed the right just three years ago. The only thing that has changed is the personnel on the court.

What’s more, any headline declaring a reversal of Roe would almost certainly reverberate at the ballot box — and if polling is correct, not to the benefit of the Republican Party. There’s reason to think some justices are not indifferent to that prospect.

Besides, they don’t need the big win to do a lot of damage to women and their reproductive freedom rights.

The Supreme Court, for example, could let stand a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding a Louisiana rule that doctors who provide abortions have to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This burdensome requirement effectively prevents most abortion clinics from operating. In 2016, the Supreme Court held an identical requirement from Texas unconstitutional, finding there was no benefit to health to justify the burdens it would impose. But the court of appeals said Louisiana was somehow different. (Spoiler alert: It’s not.)

If the court declines to review the Louisiana decision, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling will stand, and there will be just one doctor left in the state of Louisiana providing abortions. Kentucky is pressing to enforce a similar law. If it succeeds, the last clinic in the state would shutter its doors. (Kentucky is one of six states that have only one abortion clinic to serve the entire population.) Today only a court order stands in the way of that outcome. These requirements didn’t generate the national reckoning that this wave of outright bans has, but they could nonetheless all but eliminate abortion access for many women.

Will there be a cry of outrage when one of these states manages to close the last clinic in the state?  The moment is coming. For people in that state seeking abortions, when that happens, the reality is the same as if Roe and the later cases reaffirming the right had been reversed.

These “admitting privileges” laws are only one kind of restriction working its way through the state legislatures and courts. Arkansas, for example, wants to require that all abortions be performed only by OB/GYNs, a provision that could shut down clinics without furthering women’s health in any way. 

And the Supreme Court is currently considering petitions from Alabama and Indiana asking it to overturn ACLU victories striking down other abortion laws. The one from Alabama would effectively ban abortions after about 15 weeks, even though the court has said that such abortions are a women’s right. Another, this time from Indiana, would ban abortions if they are sought for certain reasons. And a third, also from Indiana, would require women to make an extra unnecessary trip to a clinic before getting an abortion, a requirement that the courts below found would prevent people from getting an abortion.

All of these laws were blocked by the federal courts of appeals. If the Supreme Court takes any up any of these cases, we should all be concerned that they are gearing up to undermine the right as it exists today. 

Many people already can’t access the abortion they need. Federal Medicaid bans coverage for abortion, and many women can’t raise the funds. Women living in rural areas can’t always travel the distance to reach a clinic. Yet some states paternalistically require people to travel to a clinic twice before they can access abortion services.

Abortion is still a legal right, but the gap between what that means in practice in states across the country is growing wider by the day. We don’t need to see a reversal of Roe v. Wade for states to shut their last clinic and huge numbers of people have their right to access abortion taken away from them.

There are many ways we can lose our rights. We need to fight them all.

Published May 24, 2019 at 12:30AM via ACLU http://bit.ly/2YDDboC

An Outright Reversal of Roe V. Wade Isn’t All We Should Fear

The anti-abortion movement can decimate the right to abortion even without getting it overturned.

Across the country, people are talking about abortion as legislatures in the South and Midwest mount a full-scale attack on our reproductive freedom. Naturally, people are stressed and angry. I am too. I’ve been fighting to protect abortion access for more than 25 years.

I’m worried about the future of Roe v. Wade — deeply worried. But I’m worried about more than that. I’m worried that the courts will gut the right to abortion and that there won’t be an outcry because the headlines won’t scream, “Supreme Court strikes down right to abortion.”

Don’t get me wrong. That’s not to take away from outrage over the bans. I’m also agitated about the wave of states — Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, and Missouri — that have passed abortion bans and states, like Louisiana, rushing to add their names to the list. Those of us who care about people’s right to access abortion are right to decry and protest this wave of bans and the contempt for women they flaunt.

The bans tell us that opponents of abortion rights are emboldened. They know they have a friend in the White House, and they think the Supreme Court may be theirs as well. Trump, after all, promised to appoint justices who would overrule the right.

But the court may not go that route, at least not immediately. A reversal of such a prominent and politically charged precedent so soon after Trump's election will raise questions about the integrity of the court. The court would risk being seen as just another political department, one controlled by “Trump Justices.” After all, the court reaffirmed the right just three years ago. The only thing that has changed is the personnel on the court.

What’s more, any headline declaring a reversal of Roe would almost certainly reverberate at the ballot box — and if polling is correct, not to the benefit of the Republican Party. There’s reason to think some justices are not indifferent to that prospect.

Besides, they don’t need the big win to do a lot of damage to women and their reproductive freedom rights.

The Supreme Court, for example, could let stand a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding a Louisiana rule that doctors who provide abortions have to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This burdensome requirement effectively prevents most abortion clinics from operating. In 2016, the Supreme Court held an identical requirement from Texas unconstitutional, finding there was no benefit to health to justify the burdens it would impose. But the court of appeals said Louisiana was somehow different. (Spoiler alert: It’s not.)

If the court declines to review the Louisiana decision, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling will stand, and there will be just one doctor left in the state of Louisiana providing abortions. Kentucky is pressing to enforce a similar law. If it succeeds, the last clinic in the state would shutter its doors. (Kentucky is one of six states that have only one abortion clinic to serve the entire population.) Today only a court order stands in the way of that outcome. These requirements didn’t generate the national reckoning that this wave of outright bans has, but they could nonetheless all but eliminate abortion access for many women.

Will there be a cry of outrage when one of these states manages to close the last clinic in the state?  The moment is coming. For people in that state seeking abortions, when that happens, the reality is the same as if Roe and the later cases reaffirming the right had been reversed.

These “admitting privileges” laws are only one kind of restriction working its way through the state legislatures and courts. Arkansas, for example, wants to require that all abortions be performed only by OB/GYNs, a provision that could shut down clinics without furthering women’s health in any way. 

And the Supreme Court is currently considering petitions from Alabama and Indiana asking it to overturn ACLU victories striking down other abortion laws. The one from Alabama would effectively ban abortions after about 15 weeks, even though the court has said that such abortions are a women’s right. Another, this time from Indiana, would ban abortions if they are sought for certain reasons. And a third, also from Indiana, would require women to make an extra unnecessary trip to a clinic before getting an abortion, a requirement that the courts below found would prevent people from getting an abortion.

All of these laws were blocked by the federal courts of appeals. If the Supreme Court takes any up any of these cases, we should all be concerned that they are gearing up to undermine the right as it exists today. 

Many people already can’t access the abortion they need. Federal Medicaid bans coverage for abortion, and many women can’t raise the funds. Women living in rural areas can’t always travel the distance to reach a clinic. Yet some states paternalistically require people to travel to a clinic twice before they can access abortion services.

Abortion is still a legal right, but the gap between what that means in practice in states across the country is growing wider by the day. We don’t need to see a reversal of Roe v. Wade for states to shut their last clinic and huge numbers of people have their right to access abortion taken away from them.

There are many ways we can lose our rights. We need to fight them all.

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/abortion/outright-reversal-roe-v-wade-isnt-all-we-should-fear via http://www.rssmix.com/

A Facebook executive’s Kavanaugh support is a slap in the face to wives | Arwa Mahdawi

Joel Kaplans existence at Senate listening is another be pointed out that the stronger people and institutions in the two countries dont are of interest to women and survivors

The Week in Patriarchy is a weekly roundup of what’s happening in countries around the world of feminism and sexism. If you’re not already received so far by email, make sure to subscribe .

Facebook and Kavanaugh: a accord acquired in hell

Poor age-old Mark Zuckerberg, all he ever wanted to time was connect parties. He never wanted to get involved in politics or force polls, he’s told us so a million times. Regrettably this memo doesn’t seem to have gotten through to Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s vice-president of global our policies, who has inserted himself into the centre of the Brett Kavanaugh controversy.

Kaplan, a close, personal acquaintance of Kavanaugh’s, set behind the evaluate during his recent hearings before the Senate judiciary committee. The Facebook executive’s spirit reportedly came as a surprise to employees, and some took it as an unofficial companionship endorsement of Kavanaugh. The incident has caused enough disagreement that a company town hall was called on Friday to address internal concerns.

A friend substantiating a sidekick wouldn’t commonly be a big deal. However, one might imagine that if you were Facebook’s vice-president of global public policy and your friend’s supreme court of the united states nomination and sexual abuse accusations are subdividing the country, you are able to think twice about publicly flaunting your aid. You might think about what sort of content that would send to your colleagues and employees- not to mention the 2 billion people who use your social network.

The last-place few weeks have been a slap in the face for sexual assault survivors and women. While Dr Christine Blasey Ford has been lampooned including the president, Kavanaugh has enjoyed the enthusiastic aid of organisation organizations like the Wall Street Journal, which recently established the adjudicator an op-ed so could he reiterate what a great” son, spouse and papa” he is. Kaplan’s public support for Kavanaugh is yet another signal to sexual assault survivors and women that the stronger people and institutions in the two countries don’t care about them. While Kaplan may not have attended the hearing as an official Facebook representative he is, let’s reiterate this again, their vice-president of world our policies. Something to think about, perhaps, if you’re still weighing up whether you ought to delete your account.

Kavanaugh’s yearbook offers insight into the system that generated him

While the events of the last few weeks have not established with certainty that Kavanaugh is responsible for the sex offense he is accused of, they have left little doubt he is an entitled, odious human being. To be fair, this isn’t wholly his faulting; he’s the product of a organisation in which privilege buys you the right to act precisely as you like, without horror of repercussions. His Georgetown Prep yearbook, for example, which has been uploaded to the internet, hints the elite prep school sanctioned unspeakable behaviour. Boys were allowed to include quotes such as :~ ATAGEND” I don’t want her you are able to have her, she’s too flab for me” or” Having a beer belly in your elderly time is a status badge “. They were allowed to boast about their membership of something “ve called the” Ridge Klux Klan. They seem to have been allowed, in short, to do whatever they liked.

Nobel peace prize gifted to activists against sexual violence

The 2018 Nobel quietnes trophy has been collectively awarded to Denis Mukwege, a Congolese gynecologist who has treated millions of rape victims, and Nadia Murad, an Iraqi Yazidi sold into fornication slavery by the Islamic State. The duet won the prestigious gift for their” efforts to end the use of forms of sexual violence as a weapon of battle “.

Smart enough to triumph a Nobel prize winner but not important enough for Wikipedia

This week, Canadian physicist Donna Strickland grew the first maiden to prevail a Nobel prize winner in physics in 55 times. Despite years of pioneering work with lasers, the( mainly male) guardians of Wikipedia didn’t deem Strickland important enough for a home in the user-generated encyclopedia until after her winning. The omission threw some light on Wikipedia’s somewhat dim view of women: merely 17% of entryways dedicated to conspicuous parties are for women.

Good news from down under

Australia has scrapped its tampon taxation. Feminine hygiene makes will no longer command a 10% intake charge. In other news, Australia is likely to become the first country in the world to wipe out cervical cancer, thanks to national vaccination programs.

Feminist podcast of the week

In January, Montana prosecutor Jay Harris threatened to prosecute pregnant women for mistreating pharmaceuticals or alcohol. As was pointed out by the likes of the American Civil Liberties Union( ACLU ), plowing pregnant women differently from other addicts is discriminatory and criminalizing craving is counterproductive. ReWire.News, which focuses on reproduction privileges, looked into the story and found that Native American ladies are already being criminally charged for using drugs while pregnant. It explores this issue in a brand-new podcast, The Breach, which is out now.

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/a-facebook-executives-kavanaugh-support-is-a-slap-in-the-face-to-women-arwa-mahdawi/ from All of Beer https://allofbeercom.tumblr.com/post/179134223902

Study, Outsourced Advertising.

For this whitepaper we made the first research study questions, delivered the poll and afterwards studied the outcomes. This suggests Height Medical plan are going to make the declaration only when the law demands this to perform so, however certainly not if the rule would certainly merely allow this to carry out so. You possess a right to submit a written disorder with Prominence Wellness Strategy's Personal privacy Authorities or even with the Assistant of the DHHS if you believe your liberties have been violated. During an opportunity of extraordinary health and wellness reform, Prominence was asked to operate closely with the senior management crew to make certain all communication was quick, correct and targeted. Qualifying your calf bones to a synthetic teat or even areola has actually never ever been simpler with the Antahi Farmer as well as Suckle-Up limit mix. These 2 calf muscular tissues taper, and merge all together at the bottom of the calf, containing tough connective cells that joins the Achilles tendon. Having discharged the Zam suite of audio plugins he has additionally produced beneficial payments to Calf bone such as the Mono Compressor, Phono EQ and added the basal gateway routine to the deal. If calves experience medical signs from dehydration, nourish the bottom during times from tension and also the incorporate pack. Productive meat as well as dairy products developers understand that a big hazard to newborn calf bones is breakdown from passive move (FPT) from immunity. As you read all of them, reconsider around residing a life from prominence vs. importance. Sick calf bone pen - keep a distinct sick calf bone marker away from various other calves along with separate devices and also ideally along with a committed carer. The research study leads recommend that Neonorm Calf bone may substantially increase the bowel dry out matter from neonatal calves with experimentally-induced enterotoxigenic E. coli looseness of the bowels. I see you draw at texas hold'em and merely read on it. While really hoping as well as hoping one day to be good enough to create actual funds at it. Yet you are certainly not wise sufficient to run the amount, so you will never be. You possess greater than proved that. Flaunting gorgeously sleazy areas, ornate character personalization, and unmatched, high-stakes online poker activity, Prominence Casino poker offers exceptional engagement, whether you are actually betting computer-controlled gamers in singleplayer, or putting bets from other people in Height Poker's reasonable internet multiplayer settings. Height Health insurance plan is actually contracted along with Guardian Dental System to give a network from provider to those participants enrolled in a dental plan. For the purpose of the Data Security Action 1998, the records controller is actually Height Limited of 124 Western side Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 1DB. If you travel beyond the USA, except Canada as well as Mexico, Medicare is going to not cover you for any sort of companies, also in the unlikely event of an emergency situation. Our experts more than happy to reveal that a brand new patch for Height Poker will definitely be on call to download and install later on today on Heavy steam. Typically, Prominence Health insurance will offer you with a paper copy of the revised Notification. If you have any kind of concerns pertaining to where and the best ways to use http://krednef.info/, you could call us at our own internet site. Height Health insurance plan will definitely certainly not retaliate from you for submitting a condition as well as could certainly not disorder your registration or your privilege to advantages on your waiving these legal rights. You ought to wear relaxed, loose-fitting clothes for your pelvic ultrasound examination carried out through SMIL. Ultrasound examination checking gives a crystal clear picture of soft cells that perform not show up effectively on x-ray pictures. Compeling a straight challenging cylinder down a calves neck is constantly visiting possess an adverse result on the calf and also the calf rearer. If temperatures go down listed below 10 ° C consider the use of calf layers and deliver additional colostrum making for maintenance losses. Height Health insurance plan may reveal PHI to authorized federal government representatives in particular conditions. Our company may aggregate the info to determine patterns to assist administer, assistance and also strengthen our companies and our advertising and marketing.

An Outright Reversal of Roe V. Wade Isn’t All We Should Fear The anti-abortion movement can decimate the right to abortion even without getting it overturned.

Across the country, people are talking about abortion as legislatures in the South and Midwest mount a full-scale attack on our reproductive freedom. Naturally, people are stressed and angry. I am too. I’ve been fighting to protect abortion access for more than 25 years.

I’m worried about the future of Roe v. Wade — deeply worried. But I’m worried about more than that. I’m worried that the courts will gut the right to abortion and that there won’t be an outcry because the headlines won’t scream, “Supreme Court strikes down right to abortion.”

Don’t get me wrong. That’s not to take away from outrage over the bans. I’m also agitated about the wave of states — Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, and Missouri — that have passed abortion bans and states, like Louisiana, rushing to add their names to the list. Those of us who care about people’s right to access abortion are right to decry and protest this wave of bans and the contempt for women they flaunt.

The bans tell us that opponents of abortion rights are emboldened. They know they have a friend in the White House, and they think the Supreme Court may be theirs as well. Trump, after all, promised to appoint justices who would overrule the right.

But the court may not go that route, at least not immediately. A reversal of such a prominent and politically charged precedent so soon after Trump's election will raise questions about the integrity of the court. The court would risk being seen as just another political department, one controlled by “Trump Justices.” After all, the court reaffirmed the right just three years ago. The only thing that has changed is the personnel on the court.

What’s more, any headline declaring a reversal of Roe would almost certainly reverberate at the ballot box — and if polling is correct, not to the benefit of the Republican Party. There’s reason to think some justices are not indifferent to that prospect.

Besides, they don’t need the big win to do a lot of damage to women and their reproductive freedom rights.

The Supreme Court, for example, could let stand a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding a Louisiana rule that doctors who provide abortions have to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This burdensome requirement effectively prevents most abortion clinics from operating. In 2016, the Supreme Court held an identical requirement from Texas unconstitutional, finding there was no benefit to health to justify the burdens it would impose. But the court of appeals said Louisiana was somehow different. (Spoiler alert: It’s not.)

If the court declines to review the Louisiana decision, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling will stand, and there will be just one doctor left in the state of Louisiana providing abortions. Kentucky is pressing to enforce a similar law. If it succeeds, the last clinic in the state would shutter its doors. (Kentucky is one of six states that have only one abortion clinic to serve the entire population.) Today only a court order stands in the way of that outcome. These requirements didn’t generate the national reckoning that this wave of outright bans has, but they could nonetheless all but eliminate abortion access for many women.

Will there be a cry of outrage when one of these states manages to close the last clinic in the state?  The moment is coming. For people in that state seeking abortions, when that happens, the reality is the same as if Roe and the later cases reaffirming the right had been reversed.

These “admitting privileges” laws are only one kind of restriction working its way through the state legislatures and courts. Arkansas, for example, wants to require that all abortions be performed only by OB/GYNs, a provision that could shut down clinics without furthering women’s health in any way. 

And the Supreme Court is currently considering petitions from Alabama and Indiana asking it to overturn ACLU victories striking down other abortion laws. The one from Alabama would effectively ban abortions after about 15 weeks, even though the court has said that such abortions are a women’s right. Another, this time from Indiana, would ban abortions if they are sought for certain reasons. And a third, also from Indiana, would require women to make an extra unnecessary trip to a clinic before getting an abortion, a requirement that the courts below found would prevent people from getting an abortion.

All of these laws were blocked by the federal courts of appeals. If the Supreme Court takes any up any of these cases, we should all be concerned that they are gearing up to undermine the right as it exists today. 

Many people already can’t access the abortion they need. Federal Medicaid bans coverage for abortion, and many women can’t raise the funds. Women living in rural areas can’t always travel the distance to reach a clinic. Yet some states paternalistically require people to travel to a clinic twice before they can access abortion services.

Abortion is still a legal right, but the gap between what that means in practice in states across the country is growing wider by the day. We don’t need to see a reversal of Roe v. Wade for states to shut their last clinic and huge numbers of people have their right to access abortion taken away from them.

There are many ways we can lose our rights. We need to fight them all.

Published May 23, 2019 at 08:00PM via ACLU http://bit.ly/2YDDboC

ACLU: An Outright Reversal of Roe V. Wade Isn’t All We Should Fear

An Outright Reversal of Roe V. Wade Isn’t All We Should Fear The anti-abortion movement can decimate the right to abortion even without getting it overturned.

Across the country, people are talking about abortion as legislatures in the South and Midwest mount a full-scale attack on our reproductive freedom. Naturally, people are stressed and angry. I am too. I’ve been fighting to protect abortion access for more than 25 years.

I’m worried about the future of Roe v. Wade — deeply worried. But I’m worried about more than that. I’m worried that the courts will gut the right to abortion and that there won’t be an outcry because the headlines won’t scream, “Supreme Court strikes down right to abortion.”

Don’t get me wrong. That’s not to take away from outrage over the bans. I’m also agitated about the wave of states — Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, and Missouri — that have passed abortion bans and states, like Louisiana, rushing to add their names to the list. Those of us who care about people’s right to access abortion are right to decry and protest this wave of bans and the contempt for women they flaunt.

The bans tell us that opponents of abortion rights are emboldened. They know they have a friend in the White House, and they think the Supreme Court may be theirs as well. Trump, after all, promised to appoint justices who would overrule the right.

But the court may not go that route, at least not immediately. A reversal of such a prominent and politically charged precedent so soon after Trump's election will raise questions about the integrity of the court. The court would risk being seen as just another political department, one controlled by “Trump Justices.” After all, the court reaffirmed the right just three years ago. The only thing that has changed is the personnel on the court.

What’s more, any headline declaring a reversal of Roe would almost certainly reverberate at the ballot box — and if polling is correct, not to the benefit of the Republican Party. There’s reason to think some justices are not indifferent to that prospect.

Besides, they don’t need the big win to do a lot of damage to women and their reproductive freedom rights.

The Supreme Court, for example, could let stand a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding a Louisiana rule that doctors who provide abortions have to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This burdensome requirement effectively prevents most abortion clinics from operating. In 2016, the Supreme Court held an identical requirement from Texas unconstitutional, finding there was no benefit to health to justify the burdens it would impose. But the court of appeals said Louisiana was somehow different. (Spoiler alert: It’s not.)

If the court declines to review the Louisiana decision, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling will stand, and there will be just one doctor left in the state of Louisiana providing abortions. Kentucky is pressing to enforce a similar law. If it succeeds, the last clinic in the state would shutter its doors. (Kentucky is one of six states that have only one abortion clinic to serve the entire population.) Today only a court order stands in the way of that outcome. These requirements didn’t generate the national reckoning that this wave of outright bans has, but they could nonetheless all but eliminate abortion access for many women.

Will there be a cry of outrage when one of these states manages to close the last clinic in the state?  The moment is coming. For people in that state seeking abortions, when that happens, the reality is the same as if Roe and the later cases reaffirming the right had been reversed.

These “admitting privileges” laws are only one kind of restriction working its way through the state legislatures and courts. Arkansas, for example, wants to require that all abortions be performed only by OB/GYNs, a provision that could shut down clinics without furthering women’s health in any way. 

And the Supreme Court is currently considering petitions from Alabama and Indiana asking it to overturn ACLU victories striking down other abortion laws. The one from Alabama would effectively ban abortions after about 15 weeks, even though the court has said that such abortions are a women’s right. Another, this time from Indiana, would ban abortions if they are sought for certain reasons. And a third, also from Indiana, would require women to make an extra unnecessary trip to a clinic before getting an abortion, a requirement that the courts below found would prevent people from getting an abortion.

All of these laws were blocked by the federal courts of appeals. If the Supreme Court takes any up any of these cases, we should all be concerned that they are gearing up to undermine the right as it exists today. 

Many people already can’t access the abortion they need. Federal Medicaid bans coverage for abortion, and many women can’t raise the funds. Women living in rural areas can’t always travel the distance to reach a clinic. Yet some states paternalistically require people to travel to a clinic twice before they can access abortion services.

Abortion is still a legal right, but the gap between what that means in practice in states across the country is growing wider by the day. We don’t need to see a reversal of Roe v. Wade for states to shut their last clinic and huge numbers of people have their right to access abortion taken away from them.

There are many ways we can lose our rights. We need to fight them all.

Published May 24, 2019 at 12:30AM via ACLU http://bit.ly/2YDDboC from Blogger http://bit.ly/2VKrcnj via IFTTT

ACLU: An Outright Reversal of Roe V. Wade Isn’t All We Should Fear

An Outright Reversal of Roe V. Wade Isn’t All We Should Fear The anti-abortion movement can decimate the right to abortion even without getting it overturned.

Across the country, people are talking about abortion as legislatures in the South and Midwest mount a full-scale attack on our reproductive freedom. Naturally, people are stressed and angry. I am too. I’ve been fighting to protect abortion access for more than 25 years.

I’m worried about the future of Roe v. Wade — deeply worried. But I’m worried about more than that. I’m worried that the courts will gut the right to abortion and that there won’t be an outcry because the headlines won’t scream, “Supreme Court strikes down right to abortion.”

Don’t get me wrong. That’s not to take away from outrage over the bans. I’m also agitated about the wave of states — Alabama, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, and Missouri — that have passed abortion bans and states, like Louisiana, rushing to add their names to the list. Those of us who care about people’s right to access abortion are right to decry and protest this wave of bans and the contempt for women they flaunt.

The bans tell us that opponents of abortion rights are emboldened. They know they have a friend in the White House, and they think the Supreme Court may be theirs as well. Trump, after all, promised to appoint justices who would overrule the right.

But the court may not go that route, at least not immediately. A reversal of such a prominent and politically charged precedent so soon after Trump's election will raise questions about the integrity of the court. The court would risk being seen as just another political department, one controlled by “Trump Justices.” After all, the court reaffirmed the right just three years ago. The only thing that has changed is the personnel on the court.

What’s more, any headline declaring a reversal of Roe would almost certainly reverberate at the ballot box — and if polling is correct, not to the benefit of the Republican Party. There’s reason to think some justices are not indifferent to that prospect.

Besides, they don’t need the big win to do a lot of damage to women and their reproductive freedom rights.

The Supreme Court, for example, could let stand a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding a Louisiana rule that doctors who provide abortions have to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This burdensome requirement effectively prevents most abortion clinics from operating. In 2016, the Supreme Court held an identical requirement from Texas unconstitutional, finding there was no benefit to health to justify the burdens it would impose. But the court of appeals said Louisiana was somehow different. (Spoiler alert: It’s not.)

If the court declines to review the Louisiana decision, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling will stand, and there will be just one doctor left in the state of Louisiana providing abortions. Kentucky is pressing to enforce a similar law. If it succeeds, the last clinic in the state would shutter its doors. (Kentucky is one of six states that have only one abortion clinic to serve the entire population.) Today only a court order stands in the way of that outcome. These requirements didn’t generate the national reckoning that this wave of outright bans has, but they could nonetheless all but eliminate abortion access for many women.

Will there be a cry of outrage when one of these states manages to close the last clinic in the state?  The moment is coming. For people in that state seeking abortions, when that happens, the reality is the same as if Roe and the later cases reaffirming the right had been reversed.

These “admitting privileges” laws are only one kind of restriction working its way through the state legislatures and courts. Arkansas, for example, wants to require that all abortions be performed only by OB/GYNs, a provision that could shut down clinics without furthering women’s health in any way. 

And the Supreme Court is currently considering petitions from Alabama and Indiana asking it to overturn ACLU victories striking down other abortion laws. The one from Alabama would effectively ban abortions after about 15 weeks, even though the court has said that such abortions are a women’s right. Another, this time from Indiana, would ban abortions if they are sought for certain reasons. And a third, also from Indiana, would require women to make an extra unnecessary trip to a clinic before getting an abortion, a requirement that the courts below found would prevent people from getting an abortion.

All of these laws were blocked by the federal courts of appeals. If the Supreme Court takes any up any of these cases, we should all be concerned that they are gearing up to undermine the right as it exists today. 

Many people already can’t access the abortion they need. Federal Medicaid bans coverage for abortion, and many women can’t raise the funds. Women living in rural areas can’t always travel the distance to reach a clinic. Yet some states paternalistically require people to travel to a clinic twice before they can access abortion services.

Abortion is still a legal right, but the gap between what that means in practice in states across the country is growing wider by the day. We don’t need to see a reversal of Roe v. Wade for states to shut their last clinic and huge numbers of people have their right to access abortion taken away from them.

There are many ways we can lose our rights. We need to fight them all.

Published May 23, 2019 at 08:00PM via ACLU http://bit.ly/2YDDboC from Blogger http://bit.ly/30E9Dc6 via IFTTT