In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I also find it very funny that women have been discriminated for millennia to the point where they literally were treated like cattle but after like what, a few decades of feminism and a few women showing their boobs on tv men are "on the verge of extinction".
On December 17 2013 09:59 xDaunt wrote: Oh boy, would I love to witness the shitstorm that this must be creating in feminist circles:
It’s a Man’s World, And It Always Will Be By: Camille Paglia
If men are obsolete, then women will soon be extinct—unless we rush down that ominous Brave New World path where females will clone themselves by parthenogenesis, as famously do Komodo dragons, hammerhead sharks, and pit vipers.
A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology.
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
From my long observation, which predates the sexual revolution, this remains a serious problem afflicting Anglo-American society, with its Puritan residue. In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America, and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamor. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. In today’s punitive atmosphere of sentimental propaganda about gender, the sexual imagination has understandably fled into the alternate world of online pornography, where the rude but exhilarating forces of primitive nature rollick unconstrained by religious or feminist moralism.
It was always the proper mission of feminism to attack and reconstruct the ossified social practices that had led to wide-ranging discrimination against women. But surely it was and is possible for a progressive reform movement to achieve that without stereotyping, belittling, or demonizing men. History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children. Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.
What is troubling in too many books and articles by feminist journalists in the U.S. is, despite their putative leftism, an implicit privileging of bourgeois values and culture. The particular focused, clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite are presented as the highest desideratum, the ultimate evolutionary point of humanity. Yes, there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive.
But the triumphalism among some, such as Hanna Rosin in her book, “The End of Men,” about women’s gains seems startlingly premature, such as when Rosin says of the sagging fortunes of today’s working-class couples that they and we had “reached the end of a hundred thousand years of human history and the beginning of a new era, and there was no going back.” This sweeping appeal to history somehow overlooks history’s far darker lessons about the cyclic rise and fall of civilizations, which as they become more complex and interconnected also become more vulnerable to collapse. The earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.
After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again! Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock, but most women and children will be expecting men to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf. Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall.
Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered, and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
I don't agree with Paglia on much, but I do love reading her because 1) she has a very interesting style, and 2) she's ruthlessly intellectually honest.
I saw that too. Paglia has an interesting ability to hit every odd pitch out of the ballpark. The two most recent articles that stick out in my mind were views on Hillary 2016
It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband?
But the real scandal was how atrocious Cyrus’ performance was in artistic terms. She was clumsy, flat-footed and cringingly unsexy, an effect heightened by her manic grin.
I had always thought that there's only so much Jezebel and Slate drivel about that an intellectually honest feminist can stand. Decrying alleged patriarchal oppression 99% of the time, cheering successes and achievements for the feminist movement and women in society 1% of the time. Paglia comes in to say what some of us have been thinking, "modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due." And can you imagine any feminist with street cred having the nerve to say, "there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive?" The saner feminists might have to adopt another label, as so much tarnishing has been done to the current one.
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
Incredible. You sure this isn't some sexist, bigoted man or a "kept woman" writing this? The cat's out of the bag about modern society denigrating masculinity and manhood. That well-educated woman that spent her 20s getting that degree and climbing the corporate ladder looks around and finds boys, not men.
Maybe on this gaming forum, the closest anyone will get to the modern face of feminism was Anita Sarkeesian's Damsel in Distress Series (Women in Video Games) (or some of the backlash against it). Maybe you even read about how zero-cost access to birth control figured into the Virginia's governor race. Regardless, it's heartening to see one well-spoken feminist daring to take positions that her movement has come to call sexist and bigoted. One woman to speak out at the very overt "stereotyping, belittling, or demonizing men" that's gone on amidst the cries that few feminists really do that.
What Camille Paglia is to feminism is what Ben Carson is to anti-racism. Basically, shocking and lazy statements that are often accepted as dogma by opposition and seen as TRUE feminists or TRUE anti-racists.
And for the love of God, please drop the "hate men" argument, whenever I hear that, I feel less inclined to put any effort into arguing with someone. It is pathetic when modern feminists have to dispel such shitty myths such as misandry rather than key issues.
Paglia doesn't say women hate men. She implicitly says that women love men and but have made a bunch of boys (accidentally). It's too bad she that criticizes bourgeois feminists on the one hand while glorifying the manly Howard Roarks that built the global capital system. It's the real culprit behind man-boyhood.
On December 17 2013 09:59 xDaunt wrote: Oh boy, would I love to witness the shitstorm that this must be creating in feminist circles:
It’s a Man’s World, And It Always Will Be By: Camille Paglia
If men are obsolete, then women will soon be extinct—unless we rush down that ominous Brave New World path where females will clone themselves by parthenogenesis, as famously do Komodo dragons, hammerhead sharks, and pit vipers.
A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology.
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
From my long observation, which predates the sexual revolution, this remains a serious problem afflicting Anglo-American society, with its Puritan residue. In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America, and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamor. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. In today’s punitive atmosphere of sentimental propaganda about gender, the sexual imagination has understandably fled into the alternate world of online pornography, where the rude but exhilarating forces of primitive nature rollick unconstrained by religious or feminist moralism.
It was always the proper mission of feminism to attack and reconstruct the ossified social practices that had led to wide-ranging discrimination against women. But surely it was and is possible for a progressive reform movement to achieve that without stereotyping, belittling, or demonizing men. History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children. Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.
What is troubling in too many books and articles by feminist journalists in the U.S. is, despite their putative leftism, an implicit privileging of bourgeois values and culture. The particular focused, clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite are presented as the highest desideratum, the ultimate evolutionary point of humanity. Yes, there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive.
But the triumphalism among some, such as Hanna Rosin in her book, “The End of Men,” about women’s gains seems startlingly premature, such as when Rosin says of the sagging fortunes of today’s working-class couples that they and we had “reached the end of a hundred thousand years of human history and the beginning of a new era, and there was no going back.” This sweeping appeal to history somehow overlooks history’s far darker lessons about the cyclic rise and fall of civilizations, which as they become more complex and interconnected also become more vulnerable to collapse. The earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.
After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again! Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock, but most women and children will be expecting men to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf. Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall.
Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered, and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
I don't agree with Paglia on much, but I do love reading her because 1) she has a very interesting style, and 2) she's ruthlessly intellectually honest.
I saw that too. Paglia has an interesting ability to hit every odd pitch out of the ballpark. The two most recent articles that stick out in my mind were views on Hillary 2016
It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband?
But the real scandal was how atrocious Cyrus’ performance was in artistic terms. She was clumsy, flat-footed and cringingly unsexy, an effect heightened by her manic grin.
I had always thought that there's only so much Jezebel and Slate drivel about that an intellectually honest feminist can stand. Decrying alleged patriarchal oppression 99% of the time, cheering successes and achievements for the feminist movement and women in society 1% of the time. Paglia comes in to say what some of us have been thinking, "modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due." And can you imagine any feminist with street cred having the nerve to say, "there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive?" The saner feminists might have to adopt another label, as so much tarnishing has been done to the current one.
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
Incredible. You sure this isn't some sexist, bigoted man or a "kept woman" writing this? The cat's out of the bag about modern society denigrating masculinity and manhood. That well-educated woman that spent her 20s getting that degree and climbing the corporate ladder looks around and finds boys, not men.
Maybe on this gaming forum, the closest anyone will get to the modern face of feminism was Anita Sarkeesian's Damsel in Distress Series (Women in Video Games) (or some of the backlash against it). Maybe you even read about how zero-cost access to birth control figured into the Virginia's governor race. Regardless, it's heartening to see one well-spoken feminist daring to take positions that her movement has come to call sexist and bigoted. One woman to speak out at the very overt "stereotyping, belittling, or demonizing men" that's gone on amidst the cries that few feminists really do that.
What Camille Paglia is to feminism is what Ben Carson is to anti-racism. Basically, shocking and lazy statements that are often accepted as dogma by opposition and seen as TRUE feminists or TRUE anti-racists.
And for the love of God, please drop the "hate men" argument, whenever I hear that, I feel less inclined to put any effort into arguing with someone. It is pathetic when modern feminists have to dispel such shitty myths such as misandry rather than key issues.
Paglia doesn't say women hate men. She implicitly says that women love men and but have made a bunch of boys (accidentally). It's too bad she that criticizes bourgeois feminists on the one hand while glorifying the manly Howard Roarks that built the global capital system. It's the real culprit behind man-boyhood.
On December 17 2013 09:59 xDaunt wrote: Oh boy, would I love to witness the shitstorm that this must be creating in feminist circles:
It’s a Man’s World, And It Always Will Be By: Camille Paglia
If men are obsolete, then women will soon be extinct—unless we rush down that ominous Brave New World path where females will clone themselves by parthenogenesis, as famously do Komodo dragons, hammerhead sharks, and pit vipers.
A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology.
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
From my long observation, which predates the sexual revolution, this remains a serious problem afflicting Anglo-American society, with its Puritan residue. In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America, and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamor. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. In today’s punitive atmosphere of sentimental propaganda about gender, the sexual imagination has understandably fled into the alternate world of online pornography, where the rude but exhilarating forces of primitive nature rollick unconstrained by religious or feminist moralism.
It was always the proper mission of feminism to attack and reconstruct the ossified social practices that had led to wide-ranging discrimination against women. But surely it was and is possible for a progressive reform movement to achieve that without stereotyping, belittling, or demonizing men. History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children. Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.
What is troubling in too many books and articles by feminist journalists in the U.S. is, despite their putative leftism, an implicit privileging of bourgeois values and culture. The particular focused, clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite are presented as the highest desideratum, the ultimate evolutionary point of humanity. Yes, there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive.
But the triumphalism among some, such as Hanna Rosin in her book, “The End of Men,” about women’s gains seems startlingly premature, such as when Rosin says of the sagging fortunes of today’s working-class couples that they and we had “reached the end of a hundred thousand years of human history and the beginning of a new era, and there was no going back.” This sweeping appeal to history somehow overlooks history’s far darker lessons about the cyclic rise and fall of civilizations, which as they become more complex and interconnected also become more vulnerable to collapse. The earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.
After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again! Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock, but most women and children will be expecting men to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf. Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall.
Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered, and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
I don't agree with Paglia on much, but I do love reading her because 1) she has a very interesting style, and 2) she's ruthlessly intellectually honest.
I saw that too. Paglia has an interesting ability to hit every odd pitch out of the ballpark. The two most recent articles that stick out in my mind were views on Hillary 2016
It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband?
But the real scandal was how atrocious Cyrus’ performance was in artistic terms. She was clumsy, flat-footed and cringingly unsexy, an effect heightened by her manic grin.
I had always thought that there's only so much Jezebel and Slate drivel about that an intellectually honest feminist can stand. Decrying alleged patriarchal oppression 99% of the time, cheering successes and achievements for the feminist movement and women in society 1% of the time. Paglia comes in to say what some of us have been thinking, "modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due." And can you imagine any feminist with street cred having the nerve to say, "there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive?" The saner feminists might have to adopt another label, as so much tarnishing has been done to the current one.
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
Incredible. You sure this isn't some sexist, bigoted man or a "kept woman" writing this? The cat's out of the bag about modern society denigrating masculinity and manhood. That well-educated woman that spent her 20s getting that degree and climbing the corporate ladder looks around and finds boys, not men.
Maybe on this gaming forum, the closest anyone will get to the modern face of feminism was Anita Sarkeesian's Damsel in Distress Series (Women in Video Games) (or some of the backlash against it). Maybe you even read about how zero-cost access to birth control figured into the Virginia's governor race. Regardless, it's heartening to see one well-spoken feminist daring to take positions that her movement has come to call sexist and bigoted. One woman to speak out at the very overt "stereotyping, belittling, or demonizing men" that's gone on amidst the cries that few feminists really do that.
What Camille Paglia is to feminism is what Ben Carson is to anti-racism. Basically, shocking and lazy statements that are often accepted as dogma by opposition and seen as TRUE feminists or TRUE anti-racists.
And for the love of God, please drop the "hate men" argument, whenever I hear that, I feel less inclined to put any effort into arguing with someone. It is pathetic when modern feminists have to dispel such shitty myths such as misandry rather than key issues.
Paglia doesn't say women hate men. She implicitly says that women love men and but have made a bunch of boys (accidentally). It's too bad she that criticizes bourgeois feminists on the one hand while glorifying the manly Howard Roarks that built the global capital system. It's the real culprit behind man-boyhood.
WASHINGTON -- Twenty-four senators are asking the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee to renew a slate of tax credits for renewable energy and efficiency, some of which are set to expire at the end of the year.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) took the lead on the letter, sent to Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and the committee's ranking member, Orrin Hatch. In it, Markey identified 10 different tax provisions designed to benefit clean energy that the senators want to see extended as soon as possible. Twenty-two Democrats and two Independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, signed the letter, which argues that the tax incentives help create jobs while lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
"If a broader tax code overhaul cannot be achieved by year's end, it is imperative that these key clean energy tax incentives are renewed as soon as possible," the senators wrote. "These tax credits have helped scale up production and drive down the cost of clean energy technologies. They remain critical to addressing the market failures that prevent cost-effective, market-ready technologies from being deployed to their full potential. With continued support, clean energy will help Americans save money on their energy bills and reduce harmful pollution."
On December 17 2013 00:35 coverpunch wrote: You keep talking about a separate judicial class for the rich and have nothing to show for it except a ridiculous story where the charges were dropped because of tainted evidence. That wasn't a case that went to trial and the judge let him off on a technicality. I just don't see it.
Edit: as for government employees like Keith Alexander...well, you've got me there. High officials with the right friends are clearly treated differently from other people, but I dunno if that's the point you're trying to make related to the story of a teenager who gets a plea bargain with no jail time for drunk driving that results in deaths. But I'm not arguing that the system is not unequal. I just think it has more than two tiers.
Nah, you can easily find articles on this. Like this one on how our "right to counsel" has been systematically undermined in the last 50 years. It led me to this article, which has more about what we can do, and states the following:
-The average amount of time spent by a public defender at arraignment is often less than six minutes per case. And that is when counsel is present and allowed to give information, which is not always the case. In many large jurisdictions, over half of all cases are “disposed of.”
-One set of workload recommendations for public defenders suggests 150 felony cases or 400 misdemeanor cases per year. Most jurisdictions across the country exceed these recommendations. In some jurisdictions, public defenders may have more than 300 cases at one time. With such high workloads, it is impossible to represent individual clients while adhering to even minimal standards of professionalism.
Try again. This post is pretty misleading. For one, one article links to the other and is based on it. For another, these aren't objectively written articles about fact, they're editorials for a specific set of practices. From the overview of the Brennan Center report:
This report gives real-life examples of innovative holistic defense practices that defender offices across the country have implemented in the past year.
Some of the practices produce objectively verifiable measures of success over a relatively short time period. Results from these practices could be used to seek greater funding for expanded versions of successful projects. Even where the practices do not produce objectively verifiable results, they are not merely cosmetic. They are intended to have positive consequences for the offices and attorneys implementing them, from improved court performance, to better morale among staff and leadership
The Brennan Center developed the Ten Principles of Community-Oriented Defense in partnership with leaders of the Community-Oriented Defense movement in order to provide a blueprint that defenders can use to strengthen their client-service programs and improve policies affecting clients’ communities. This Start Now report uses the COD Ten Principles as a structure to present the innovative work that Network members have been involved in over the past year, so that it can be successfully replicated in districts throughout the country
Emphasis not mine, it's in the paper.
Nothing you said proves there's substantially worse outcomes for people who use public defenders than private defense attorneys.
Despite the increasingly severe fiscal constraints on their offices, public defenders usually provide representation that is at least as competent as that provided by private defense attorneys. This was demonstrated by a 1992 study conducted by the National Center for State Courts entitled, “Indigent Defenders Get the Job Done and Done Well.” The study concluded that P.D.s and private counsel achieve approximately equal results. For example, in the nine counties surveyed in the study, 76% of public defender clients were convicted, compared to 74% of private counsel clients.
Additionally, public defender jobs tend to be so competitive that P.D. offices can select highly qualified attorneys. True, many P.D.s stay for a few years, gain intensive experience, and then leave for the supposedly greener pastures of private practice. However, most public defender offices offer excellent training programs, so that even recently arrived P.D.s can rapidly build expertise. In some large metropolitan areas (in California and New York, for example), the Public Defender offices are highly respected, giving their clients representation that only a highly-experienced (and expensive) private attorney could match.
They note that PD offices can be flooded with cases and PDs need to maintain a relationship with the judge and the DA so they don't always fight as bitterly as the client may want. The study is pretty old and it may have inherent problems, but that's the best I could do in a two minute Google search.
I was only giving example articles. If you're really curious, you can look up more articles and studies on your own. I never said public defenders are worse lawyers. I said they often don't get any time to understand and properly represent a case.
And as you are showing, its more a matter of resource allocation and pragmatic issues that are undermining justice. I'm not blaming rich people so much as I'm blaming people like DeepElemBlues that spout bullshit defending the status quo for no reason and pretending there's no problem at all. Because liberals or something.
Anyway, I'm unplugged for two weeks so I won't be able to respond. glhf
A court ruling against the NSA data-mining programs brought vindication for several senators who have long warned against the agency’s sweeping surveillance powers.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s Monday finding that the NSA’s surveillance programs is likely unconstitutional brought a judicial victory to the legislative quests of Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Mark Udall of Colorado and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, all strong critics of the NSA’s reach into Americans’ lives.
On December 17 2013 09:59 xDaunt wrote: Oh boy, would I love to witness the shitstorm that this must be creating in feminist circles:
It’s a Man’s World, And It Always Will Be By: Camille Paglia
If men are obsolete, then women will soon be extinct—unless we rush down that ominous Brave New World path where females will clone themselves by parthenogenesis, as famously do Komodo dragons, hammerhead sharks, and pit vipers.
A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology.
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
From my long observation, which predates the sexual revolution, this remains a serious problem afflicting Anglo-American society, with its Puritan residue. In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America, and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamor. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. In today’s punitive atmosphere of sentimental propaganda about gender, the sexual imagination has understandably fled into the alternate world of online pornography, where the rude but exhilarating forces of primitive nature rollick unconstrained by religious or feminist moralism.
It was always the proper mission of feminism to attack and reconstruct the ossified social practices that had led to wide-ranging discrimination against women. But surely it was and is possible for a progressive reform movement to achieve that without stereotyping, belittling, or demonizing men. History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children. Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.
What is troubling in too many books and articles by feminist journalists in the U.S. is, despite their putative leftism, an implicit privileging of bourgeois values and culture. The particular focused, clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite are presented as the highest desideratum, the ultimate evolutionary point of humanity. Yes, there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive.
But the triumphalism among some, such as Hanna Rosin in her book, “The End of Men,” about women’s gains seems startlingly premature, such as when Rosin says of the sagging fortunes of today’s working-class couples that they and we had “reached the end of a hundred thousand years of human history and the beginning of a new era, and there was no going back.” This sweeping appeal to history somehow overlooks history’s far darker lessons about the cyclic rise and fall of civilizations, which as they become more complex and interconnected also become more vulnerable to collapse. The earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.
After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again! Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock, but most women and children will be expecting men to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf. Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall.
Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered, and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!
I don't agree with Paglia on much, but I do love reading her because 1) she has a very interesting style, and 2) she's ruthlessly intellectually honest.
I saw that too. Paglia has an interesting ability to hit every odd pitch out of the ballpark. The two most recent articles that stick out in my mind were views on Hillary 2016
It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband?
But the real scandal was how atrocious Cyrus’ performance was in artistic terms. She was clumsy, flat-footed and cringingly unsexy, an effect heightened by her manic grin.
I had always thought that there's only so much Jezebel and Slate drivel about that an intellectually honest feminist can stand. Decrying alleged patriarchal oppression 99% of the time, cheering successes and achievements for the feminist movement and women in society 1% of the time. Paglia comes in to say what some of us have been thinking, "modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due." And can you imagine any feminist with street cred having the nerve to say, "there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive?" The saner feminists might have to adopt another label, as so much tarnishing has been done to the current one.
Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.
Incredible. You sure this isn't some sexist, bigoted man or a "kept woman" writing this? The cat's out of the bag about modern society denigrating masculinity and manhood. That well-educated woman that spent her 20s getting that degree and climbing the corporate ladder looks around and finds boys, not men.
Maybe on this gaming forum, the closest anyone will get to the modern face of feminism was Anita Sarkeesian's Damsel in Distress Series (Women in Video Games) (or some of the backlash against it). Maybe you even read about how zero-cost access to birth control figured into the Virginia's governor race. Regardless, it's heartening to see one well-spoken feminist daring to take positions that her movement has come to call sexist and bigoted. One woman to speak out at the very overt "stereotyping, belittling, or demonizing men" that's gone on amidst the cries that few feminists really do that.
What Camille Paglia is to feminism is what Ben Carson is to anti-racism. Basically, shocking and lazy statements that are often accepted as dogma by opposition and seen as TRUE feminists or TRUE anti-racists.
And for the love of God, please drop the "hate men" argument, whenever I hear that, I feel less inclined to put any effort into arguing with someone. It is pathetic when modern feminists have to dispel such shitty myths such as misandry rather than key issues.
Likewise, it's hard to put any effort into opponents that shout nuanced positions, and then degenerate anything opposed to their beliefs as "hate men." Listen, not every societal problem is birthed out of mean-spirited targeting. I know its nice and quaint to dismiss her views as coming from a shock jock attitude. Pick a feminist, and she's too extreme and not representative or too 'Uncle Tom' and not representative. No True Feminist would say such a thing.
Not everything disproportionately impacting men is done from a misandric perspective. You simply do one thing and turn a blind eye to unintended consequences, or simply studiously fail to notice them. Since, all these "key issues" are urgently demanding our time. Gotta enact those wage controls to make women and men earn the same in every job, every position, and every career timeline!
ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Pope Francis announced changes in the influential Vatican office that evaluates and nominates candidates for bishop around the world.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington was appointed Monday to the Congregation for Bishops. The pope also reconfirmed Cardinal William Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco and former head of the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog office.
Some members of the congregation were very conspicuously not retained. Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis, will no longer serve in the office.
Burke is considered an outspoken critic of abortion and same-sex marriage and a favorite of conservative Catholics. He has also been publicly critical of Francis's changes in the direction of the church. Burke retains his position as the head of the Vatican high court, the Apostolic Signatura.
ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Pope Francis announced changes in the influential Vatican office that evaluates and nominates candidates for bishop around the world.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington was appointed Monday to the Congregation for Bishops. The pope also reconfirmed Cardinal William Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco and former head of the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog office.
Some members of the congregation were very conspicuously not retained. Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St. Louis, will no longer serve in the office.
Burke is considered an outspoken critic of abortion and same-sex marriage and a favorite of conservative Catholics. He has also been publicly critical of Francis's changes in the direction of the church. Burke retains his position as the head of the Vatican high court, the Apostolic Signatura.
Wow, big move. I feel like a lot of social conservatives felt a degree of relief by convincing themselves he actually isn't at least a little in favor of a lot of social movements, but how can you really argue with this.
On December 17 2013 12:08 Nyxisto wrote: I also find it very funny that women have been discriminated for millennia to the point where they literally were treated like cattle but after like what, a few decades of feminism and a few women showing their boobs on tv men are "on the verge of extinction".
I know, the branding of women with marks like CCC or Lazy L in the West was so very widespread. They were kept in pastures surrounded by fences, fed and bathed by others. They were literally treated like cattle, as you say.
On December 17 2013 12:08 Nyxisto wrote: I also find it very funny that women have been discriminated for millennia to the point where they literally were treated like cattle but after like what, a few decades of feminism and a few women showing their boobs on tv men are "on the verge of extinction".
I know, the branding of women with marks like CCC or Lazy L in the West was so very widespread. They were kept in pastures surrounded by fences, fed and bathed by others. They were literally treated like cattle, as you say.
Can't you be treated literally like something without that treatment being identical, that is, having each and every feature and only those features? I.e. you can treat women like chattel and treat cattle like chattel? Women are literally being treated like cattle with respective to their both being chattel, but are not literally being treated identically to cattle?
On December 17 2013 12:08 Nyxisto wrote: I also find it very funny that women have been discriminated for millennia to the point where they literally were treated like cattle but after like what, a few decades of feminism and a few women showing their boobs on tv men are "on the verge of extinction".
I know, the branding of women with marks like CCC or Lazy L in the West was so very widespread. They were kept in pastures surrounded by fences, fed and bathed by others. They were literally treated like cattle, as you say.
Can't you be treated literally like something without that treatment being identical, that is, having each and every feature and only those features? I.e. you can treat women like chattel and treat cattle like chattel? Women are literally being treated like cattle with respective to their both being chattel, but are not literally being treated identically to cattle?
Good point. Why do words even need definitions at all!?
On December 17 2013 12:08 Nyxisto wrote: I also find it very funny that women have been discriminated for millennia to the point where they literally were treated like cattle but after like what, a few decades of feminism and a few women showing their boobs on tv men are "on the verge of extinction".
I know, the branding of women with marks like CCC or Lazy L in the West was so very widespread. They were kept in pastures surrounded by fences, fed and bathed by others. They were literally treated like cattle, as you say.
Can't you be treated literally like something without that treatment being identical, that is, having each and every feature and only those features? I.e. you can treat women like chattel and treat cattle like chattel? Women are literally being treated like cattle with respective to their both being chattel, but are not literally being treated identically to cattle?
That's what "like" means. They aren't being treated the same as cattle, but in ways akin to cattle.
On December 17 2013 12:08 Nyxisto wrote: I also find it very funny that women have been discriminated for millennia to the point where they literally were treated like cattle but after like what, a few decades of feminism and a few women showing their boobs on tv men are "on the verge of extinction".
I know, the branding of women with marks like CCC or Lazy L in the West was so very widespread. They were kept in pastures surrounded by fences, fed and bathed by others. They were literally treated like cattle, as you say.
Besides the fact that that 'literally' can generally be used instead of 'figuratively' nowadays to make a point (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/), would you care to make an actual point instead of giving false advice regarding your own language?
On December 17 2013 12:08 Nyxisto wrote: I also find it very funny that women have been discriminated for millennia to the point where they literally were treated like cattle but after like what, a few decades of feminism and a few women showing their boobs on tv men are "on the verge of extinction".
I know, the branding of women with marks like CCC or Lazy L in the West was so very widespread. They were kept in pastures surrounded by fences, fed and bathed by others. They were literally treated like cattle, as you say.
Besides the fact that that 'literally' can generally be used instead of 'figuratively' nowadays to make a point (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/), would you care to make an actual point instead of giving false advice regarding your own language?
I am against the dilution of the meaning of the word "literally," even though I know English is a living language.
EPT
