Due to my proclivity for free speech rights, nuance, and my GENUINE disavowal of the two-party system in the US and hatred of the Democratic party and the Clintons, I am frequently followed by Trump supporters and pro- Defend Europe types on Twitter.
I would wonder at myself if I were an innocent bystander to my online mess, but the truth is, I am a leftist. But leftists probably wouldn't believe me, so it's pointless to retain any sort of moniker. ( People probably wouldn't believe I was a feminist either as I am anti-Hillary Clinton, and she's just the EPITOME of feminism).
I'm also a big proponent of natural living. I question GMO's in our foods, vaccines for our general health, fluoride in our water, a whole slew of things people take for granted in our food and water supply (well, in this country: for example, many countries don't even have fluoridated water because they realized IT WAS BAD).
People on the left are into natural living too; saving the environment, driving fuel efficient cars, recycling, eating local and organic. But there seems to be a line drawn as to how far healthy and natural living goes. Leftists despise conspiracy theories. They hate the 911 truth movement, they don't buy into JFK conspiracies (although they promote the history of American involvement in brutal right wing regimes in South America which many tried and true Americans refuse to believe) and they totally "love their science": meaning a lot of them espouse GMO's and vaccines and all sorts of new medical advances that may or may not be in the best interest of US ALL.
Anywhoo, the websites and groups and entities and individuals that tend to question more tend to come attached with right wing mindsets and agendas, like a pro-capitalist agenda. Even though capitalism is the reason pharmaceutical companies and food companies sell us junk and death, many rights wingers would tell you that this is "corporatism", and corporatism is what causes corporations to be exploitative.
Even though someone like Rush Limbaugh ( whom I was listening to one day during a long road trip and there was nothing else to listen to) admitted that the purpose of capitalism ISN'T to to make quality health care or quality products: it's to produce wealth. ( He said something to that effect, I am paraphrasing,)
So you admit it, because you can do nothing BUT admit it. That's the point. To make money. Everything else falls by the way side.
So Natural News is new service I enjoy reading and subscribing to. They do very in depth coverage of health and nutrition issues. They do political commentary as well, from a right wing perspective. They recently published the following article:
Yes. On the surface you might get angry, but it's because you haven't thought about it! (all the way THROUGH, you haven't thought about it RATIONALLY)
These "mechanisms" though they may be factual, are kind of inhumane. And just because they exist, doesn't make them right.
To be honest, this whole article TO ME reads like an argument as to how much capitalism REALLY DOES SUCK.
If you are saying that this is all the result a simple, nonjudgmental, unemotional mechanism, it still doesn't matter. The people suffering in the disaster aren't unemotional, and they want help NOW.
Entrepreneurs will only help each other in times of disaster if the price is right. Okay. That's sad, but it's a result of this mechanism. Even though it is a nonjudgmental mechanism, you are telling us to judge it as great, because otherwise "people will die".
But the people in trouble can't afford the price gouged products,so they now need YOUR DONATIONS...or they'll die.
Poor people at the mercy of rich ones AGAIN
Because it's not a case of "gosh, they sure do jack up the prices at the movie theater concession stand and I REFUSE TO PAY ON PRINCIPLE AND I HAVE A CHOICE, it's more likely a case of "a hundred dollars for a case of water? I guess I'll "die to death from dehydration" because I CAN'T AFFORD IT."
Shucks GOSH THANKS for the donations.
The CHARITY. That you are giving to me TO SUBSIDIZE THESE PRICE GOUGED PRICES.
Sounds like corporate welfare to me.
Except not the kind that comes from the government, but the one that's expected from average people's pockets
Average people, who are constantly treated like they are independently wealthy, living ATM machines, on a par with corporations ( who are also considered people legally, by the way), who can hold their own against a giant corporate entity, and the real villain in all these capitalist sagas.
It's the same for health care. People critical of single payer healthcare complain about "socialism". ( I don't know if socialism is the panacea for our woes, but its average critic doesn't really know anything about it aside from the propaganda they've heard for decades in this country and the absence of historical knowledge of US collusion in the destruction of foreign countries who exercised socialism successfully, countries like Yugoslavia and Libya). Part of our society is already run by it ( semi-successfully, due to corporate collusion and sabotage), that countries with high taxes and socialized healthcare enjoy high standards of living, but hey, let's let corporations bleed us dry and poison us and control us, tax us and enslave us in their own way because it's better that they do it than some phantom government ). They complain about the subsequent expected loss of privacy and government control of our bodies.
We already have no privacy, the government already aids and abets CORPORATE control over our bodies, hell, at least could we not become homeless and bankrupt when the medical bills come due?
Maybe just that? Maybe? Please?
NOPE. If you can't pay your medical bills, after you're down to your last penny, and the insurance has run out, you should expect to enjoy charity.
St. Jude's Charity. St Vincent's Charity. St Monica's charity. St. Lulu's charity. Donate. Donate. Donate.
Isn't this paternalistic? Isn't this anti the individualism so espoused by proponents of capitalism? Now, you should expect to be coddled by society?
And is charity dependable? What if no one donates?
Oh. But everyone will donate. Because people are suckers. And if you don't, you're evil.
But....but...I thought the heartless mechanism makes people care?
Makes people want to provide.
IT'S WAY MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT!!!!
Given that this IS the medium we exist in, given that this is the economic apparatus that exists, and ONLY BECAUSE it is NOT some other way, I have to agree with the author.
The government implementing price controls will make it unappealing for purveyors of goods to supply goods and thus will curtail their availability.
So the price controls would probably hurt people. And so donations ARE necessary. And so this is the world we live in. And trying to alter it in the name of good intentions will probably alter it for the worst.
Simply providing a test case as to why this all sucks in the first place.
Lacy Burton lives in an apolitical beach-like oasis where all opinions have no context and no one is ever offended.
You can't help it
All those people who say that "well, technology, you can take it or leave it" yeah you really can't. It isn't a question of YOU taking technology, technology TAKES YOU...
We are all the unwitting and unwilling recipients of technology, whether it be through our food, transportation, computers, TV, what have you. For example, it's cheaper and more expedient to lace all processed foods with some derivation of genetically modified corn and/or soybean products ( and usually some derivation of being "hydrogenated"). If you don't want to spend a lot of money on food, can you really avoid these ingredients?
If you're constantly pressured to pay your bills and do your banking and shopping online, how can you avoid having to use a computer? And if you're one of the millions of people in this country who still don't have one, thank goodness for your local public library! ( I still pay bills with paper. Don't bank online.
Watching the film "Ingrid Goes West" was a majorly disturbing experience. It wasn't really a dark comedy; it was SAD. It made me extremely uncomfortable because I saw myself in this person. I'm addicted to my cell phone, but more than anything, I AM that insecure, weak-willed girl who wants so badly to be liked, to be popular, and I could see myself in her behaviors, in her tics. I've never tried to stalk anyone, but it feels like all my friendships with women have been on a par with her behavior.
I'm the inferior one, I'm the one who should be so happy that this girl even pays any attention to me.
Aside from this, the hypocrisy of the "cool girl" Ingrid tries to emulate and ingratiate herself to is showcased, representative of today's emerging economy of the "influencer"; the it girl whose lifestyle is pretty much for sale, her entire existence a commercial for the finest living, full of avocado loaded food stuffs, mini potted succulents, basket purses, and tropical vacations.
( I don't know if this is a end times sign of a society in a decadent decline like the Roman Empire was accused of being before its' end, but the existence of individuals whose income comes from living a perfectly curated life of parties and vacations and going for hikes in beautiful places and pronouncing spiritual affirmations with cute instagram filters is decadent in the extreme.) In a time when corporations are laying everyone off and are more inclined to employ slave labor in countries like China, what is a pretty girl to do? What is anyone to do? Lots of people are going into business for themselves, which I think is a great trend, but being in the business of yourself seems to be a precarious and pretty exclusive trend.
So someone like me might get jealous, and I would LOVE to make a living doing this! Having fun and eating nice food and wearing pretty clothes and someone takes a picture of me and I post it and I make a living: fantastic!! Maybe Ingrid deep down realizes this about life and knows that it is her duty is to try to be as popular and exclusive as possible in this vein. I knew this lesson instinctively going to American elementary school; my first priority was to be popular, to be one of the rich, exclusive popular girls. And it's a never-ending theme through to the end of your life in this country, even if it seems like it has evaporated by the time you finish high school.
No, it never disappears.
It reemerges in the media, in your job, in your social circles, in entertainment, in government, EVERYWHERE. And of all the popular mini-cliques in existence, there is one that reigns over them all, what the media calls "the one percent", (or conspiracy theorists have dubbed "the deep state").
Technology just makes this all more of a cage.
In the past, you were free. You could go out into the woods and have the freedom to starve if you didn't have the skills to survive ( which you probably didn't because people didn't really live that detached from nature hundreds of years ago and how the hell did get TO NOW???).
Now, there is nowhere to go, and the cell phone is the cage of the mind and these city streets. And Ingrid was just doing what she needed to survive. She profoundly understood the prerogative of humanity, which is to be at the top, and she mobilized all her forces to attain it; she's not crazy. She sees more clearly than the rest of us.
I started an Instagram account a few months ago because I had pictures from a long road trip I thought I could showcase. It's an addictive activity, a constant heady binge on beauty and frivolousness, and I feel jealous of the ladies who can make their livings this way. I also feel sad and constrained and frustrated by what a limited and phony experience it is. I accept that it's the wave of the future, but I don't really like it, and I really DON'T accept it, and THANK THE GODDESS, I don't do it very well at all. (I have never made a "hashtag", don't have the will or inclination to do it, and only have a few followers, most of whom are probably robots.) Sometimes it's good to fail at things.
Katarinskaia Menendez used to harass THE HELL out of this one girl in elementary school, but looking back, realized she was simply an instrument of " karma-payback" for that girls' smugness; she deserved it.
There's a meme out there that suggests "we" (SOCIETY) should plant lots and lots of fruit trees and bushes in our cities so that homeless people will have something free and accessible to eat.
On the surface, you would think that is a good idea, especially if you didn't hear the slight "ding" of that condescension bell, that almost makes the statement sound like the infamous "let them eat cake!"
Let them eat the bare minimum, and let them eat outside, (and far the hell away from me).
And more interestingly, people who are NOT homeless, shouldn't deign to eat this same fruit from the "outside"
It's good enough for homeless people,
But not good enough for the rest of US
I enjoy eating fruit for free, personally.
And so the fruit you find may not be perfect, but you'd be surprised how big and even blemish-free the fruit you find "out in the wild" can be.
It also tastes pretty good, if you haven't picked it too early
These apples and pears that grow near my house, lay ignored by the people who actually own the trees (as if in the grand scheme of things, that were even possible, but this is a property-driven, ownership world we live in)
I eat the good parts and I make juice with the rest. I made "apple cider soap" with some of the juice yesterday, and I plan to make a batch of vinegar with some future juice
This past June, a plum tree I never saw produce any fruit before, produced a bunch of fruit
Spilled it all over the sidewalk, where I believe I was the lone person to come gleefully scoop it up
They were little baby plums, and there were tons, and they were delicious!
(Hope they come back next year!)
This really is like magic treasure
I didn't see any homeless people scooping them up
I didn't see ANYONE scooping them up, because people in general just don't believe that fruit can or should be eaten outside of the grocery store (and things from "nature" are inferior and bad)
Yeah, I really think they do
They are so detached from nature, and I doubt a homeless person, possibly in the throws of whatever despair, would even care
(but what do I know? which is nothing)
I wish these were the days of a Huckleberry Finn, who, once kicked out of his home or having runaway, knew how to survive in the woods and could survive on foraging small fruits and roots and other such "trash" ( as he referred to it, because it wasn't meat or corn pone, it wasn't considered substantial, and maybe it isn't)
This past weekend was the Paw Paw festival in southern Ohio, and I glumly paid ten dollars for four paw paws
Paw paws are wild fruit I could have picked for nothing had I known where to look, but instead I had to give those magic tokens for the opportunity to taste paw paw fruit for the first time
(Paws paws are quickly perishable and aren't suited to long distance transport, one of the reasons they've never really taken off as a commercial fruit)
There are probably other reasons as well, reasons I have no knowledge of
A lady in the neighborhood grows raspberries along the fence of her yard, and she doesn't mind when the young kids of the village ( mean gosh oops the neighborhood) come out and feast on them on a summer's eve
I personally have masses of black raspberries that grow in front of my house that I have on tap for few weeks every summer; a bowl a day when they're at their peek; no one else partakes that I can detect
It feels amazing to have power like that, to have food for free, and to have the knowledge that that food is edible and free
It's also a way to build community, build relationships with other people "oh that old lady with the currants in her backyard"
Another story I have is when I was intent on buying peaches at the West Side Market one afternoon last year and I was like "GAWD but they're so expensive" but like "GAWD I really want some!" They're so delicious and so epitomize SUMMER
And I'm circling around Hingetown not able to make up my mind when this old white man comes out and asks me what's wrong and I tell him my conundrum and he tells me "hey! I know where you can get some nice peaches for free!"
And we walk down the street together to some trees by the new Transformer station museum-thing that the Cleveland Art Museum set up a few years ago and lo and behold, here are peaches
And some of them quite good. I load up, and I talk to the fellow some more, and then I head out on my way, having averted paying five or six dollars for a pint of peaches and having gotten some nice, sweet tasting peaches for free ( and I met a nice guy)
And the Universe really does listen to you (but no offense to farmers who really need that money to keep on providing us with great produce)
Basically, I think maybe individuals in-this-country might want to reconsider food snobbishness and reassess where their food comes from
Keep on the look out for some tasty free bites and go ahead and take a chance (don't eat anything obviously poisonous though). It's a portal to a whole new dimension, and it doesn't cost you a thing
Fluorine Magellan has earned her living justifying the existence of synthetic chemical companies, but she lives her real life indulging in lo natural
The face of elitism rears its ugly head again, this time in a guise way more fear-inducing
The definition of science is
Science is an attempt to explain natural phenomena. It does not create natural phenomena. It is a system hobbled together through generations of wealthy men, with a lot of time on their hands, who dabbled in the investigation of nature. There were cliques and prejudices and if a certain viewpoint reigned amongst a certain scientific community (like medicine), that's the viewpoint that prevailed. We know of scientists who have died or gone insane or been imprisoned because they had to fight against an entrenched scientific orthodoxy (Ignaz Semmelweiss and the saga of hand washing being one example). We know of scientists who have performed terrible and cruel experimentation to get to the facts ( take Marion Sims for example, and his gynecological experimentation on African slaves). So let's get things straight - for as much as a "scientific method" may exist, the people who are supposed to practice it are bound to be flawed and may not execute it very well or very ethically for whatever reason.
But scarily enough, the vernacular has started to change. And the idea of what science is has started to change also, almost imperceptibly. P People utter statements like "I love science!" when they've just witnessed a solar eclipse. No dear, "science" didn't do that: nature did. Science is an attempt to explain it.
Just like a manmade GOD did not create the world, (another attempt by humans to recreate the world in their image), more and more, science is conflated with the phenomena it was created to explain. But an attempt to explain, is also an attempt to control, and to mimic, and to CREATE
Given the varied history of scientific discovery and the known foibles of humanity, we should be able to treat scientific discoveries and "advancements" with some skepticism. And we should not be chastised or punished for doing it.
We also should be allowed and able to know what sort of scientific progress is being foisted on us. And yes, stuff like Soylent is being foisted on us, because items of "progress" like these always end up the easiest, the most cost effective path, and the path of least resistance, (like the ubiquitous cellphones that most of us now can't live without), and no, a reliable, independent authority has not established that GMO's are safe.
A large portion of the processed food in the United States is created with genetically modified corn and soy products. This has been introduced into our food supply without our consent, and with very little study as to their long term effects. It's been done in the interest of making money and expediency ( I would say that was a textbook definition of "foisted"). My critics may say that there have been plenty of studies to prove they are safe, but the positive ones have all been performed or funded by industry, meaning biotech companies like Monsanto. I thought this was an obvious ploy, but even people who see themselves as progressive have surprisngly missed the boat on this one.
I say surprisingly because as someone who has been critical of corporations and the profit motive for a long time, MY first conclusions regarding GMO's have been that they are unnecessary, hurtful, damaging to the environment, and can only serve to benefit biotech companies financially. So it is odd to me that people I would think would be progressive across the spectrum of issues are amazingly obtuse when it comes to this food technology.
And it's all because they "believe in science"; the buck stops with science.
As if it was an ideology, which is what proponents of GMO's (and other dubious scientific advances like vaccines ) purport to be the issue with skeptics of these technologies.
I'm not a scientist. I don't want to be one, I don't care for them, and I think anyone is allowed to observe and analyze nature, for whatever reason. I also believe you don't have to be a scientist to be able to decipher and resist scientific (corporate) propaganda ; you just need some common sense and a spine.
Food companies have been messing with the public's food for a really long time; it's been happening since Roman times. In the United States, the Pure Food and Drug Act was enacted in 1906 inspired by Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle which chronicled the lives of people working in the horrible conditions of meat processing plants (conditions that exist to this day in the form of CAFO's, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation).
With advances in organic chemistry and petroleum -based synthetics in the last century, food products became altered to increase shelf life and increase profits. Cheaper, lower quality substitutes are used more than ever to pad profits (like using inferior vegetable oils in lieu of cocoa butter to produce chocolate-LIKE products called "Compound Chocolate".) High fructose corn syrup replaces sugar in scores of processed packaged food stuffs, and soybean oil abounds in others ( wow, soybean and corn, the two most genetically modified crops in this country coincidentally). Hydrogenation of vegetable oils results in stable fats that preserve foods like chips and cakes and cookies, and inject trans fatty acids into the body, fatty acids that the body has trouble metabolizing and are linked to heart issues ( and probably obesity, given that this country is so fat).
The food industry, has also been the tobacco industry, and we know what the tobacco industry did...right? You know, right?
They sold and continue to sell a product that everyone knows causes illness, but for many decades they persuaded the public that their product was safe and healthy and was even recommended by physicians. Tobacco executives knew their product was suspect and held back this information for years.
Why would the food companies they are associated with be any different? Especially when they are touched by the capitalist wand, and they all desire to make a profit at the lowest cost possible?
And were they not scientists too?
So this leads us to a company like Monsanto, and its ambition to control our food supply with plants that are genetically engineered to already contain pesticides (seriously, you want me to eat pesticides?), that don't produce seeds for farmers to be able to collect for the next year's harvest, that contaminate the non GMO crops of other farmers who are then sued for the cross pollination that is out of their control, and that reside in fields where farmers have to enter with hazmat suits.
Do I really have to be a scientist to work this problem out?
I don't need studies to tell me this is wrong. I have only to observe how the industry and its' sycophants act and the substance (or lack of) of their arguments.
I cannot rely on "studies" because they really can, oh yes REALLY, can be manipulated by scientists who are in the game for a major payday. And it puts "laypeople" at a striking disadvantage, because the "scientists" wield an obscure and sometimes very difficult body of knowledge for average people to navigate, and then average people have to trust that "the authorities" know what they're doing and have their best interest at heart.
Kinda like the middle ages when poor people couldn't read Latin mass and had to trust the priests and the pictures on the cathedral ceiling to give them the scoop on the 'ol Bible.
There are also think tanks and regulatory agencies like the FDA that provide back up, in case people don't buy the industry studies and propaganda (these people go back and forth between the public and private sector, but THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST). And the excerpt I showcase here may come from a book about fashion history, but there are tons of books out there describing the role of seemingly independent agencies that exist to skew public perception in favor of industry.
You would think the USDA is a careful guardian over meat and dairy plants in this country, but they really can't be bothered. Instead they have a system that provides for meat companies to monitor themselves. It's called HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points), and I learned all about it in nutrition school; companies monitor themselves and then report to the USDA.
My professor thought it was great so it must be good!!!!!
I had another nutrition professor who was doing research into whether cigarette smoking prevented Parkinson's and it was funded by a tobacco company. She didn't appreciate my very mild insinuation that she might be influenced by their financial contribution.
(Did I mention I went to nutrition school? And learned absolutely nothing? And not for being dumb?)
What really clinched this for me is the fact that it is LITERALLY BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS.
Just like other food technologies that were later revealed to be unhealthful ( the aforementioned high fructose corn syrup and trans fatty acids for examples, but gosh, what, what, what what was up with THEIR original health and safety studies?????)
They refuse to label a product they are supposedly SO PROUD OF (and if it were anything like "low fat" or "sugar free", they would be labeling the HELL OUT OF IT).
But they don't.
They sneak around, and play games, they use scare tactics, and they get shills to do their dirty work. They hurl insults of "you're an ideologue", or "you're just scared", "you don't believe in science", and the old "people are afraid of what they don't understand."
And then there's the (OH MY GOD) organic foods are a scam, so ergo, GMO is good. Corporations might be exploiting the idea of organic food, no doubt about it, but organic food is more nutritious and tastes better. I know, I've tasted it and made comparisons; and organics "use pesticides", but the person who made this argument doesn't tell you what those are ( they also don't mention that organic standards in the United States are so lax that even irradiated produce can be considered organic and you can grow your produce with foul sewage waste as fertilizer and it will still qualify your produce as "organic".)
Even if organic food were all the way a scam, it doesn't absolve GMO's of being one too.
But genetic engineering is just an extension of the food hybridization we have lived with FOR YEARS!!!! (THIS NEVER ENDS!!!! Oh my god end this already!) A major leap, would be the more correct statement. And who said that our tampering with nature up until now has necessarily been for the best???
There is so much food in circulation, especially in this country, that public service announcements are made to get people to stop wasting food; but GMO's will somehow solve "the food shortage" too, and we are depriving MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people of precious nourishment (and all that corn that goes to feed cows and the farmers who get paid to NOT grow food to prop up prices and all the economic and logistical factors that go into why there might be an uneven distribution of food in this world).
No no no
These people never address the legitimate concerns of skeptics. Because if they had to, they would be revealed as the fraudulent and morally bankrupt losers that they TRULY ARE.
But remember, they also have the dogma of SCIENCE on their side, because in Science, well, you're not allowed to question. You're not allowed to explore. You're not allowed to be critical. And nobody has to prove anything to you.
Reynolda de la Rue Forcee has done JUST THAT - forced la Rue
I'm so dumb I fell for "liberal feminism"
(All images and excerpts photographed from the October 2016 Issue of BUST Magazine their"Ready for Hillary" spread where they ask a bunch of celebrity women why everyone needed to vote for Hillary) That was a sad day in the bookstore by-the-way
Okay, I really didn't. I still believe and have always believed that women are mistreated in small ways and big ones, but I was never into liberal bourgeoisie feminism. But I had gotten excited about feminism in general, and was totally riding the wave of all the people you're supposed to follow and all the books you're supposed to read and all the music you're supposed to listen to and all the trends you're supposed to relate to and all the ideas you're supposed to espouse, but "they" threw me under the bus into a whirlpool of confusion (that was lying there in wait, under that bus) and I am afraid to say I am a feminist because I know now I don't think in the prescribed way, so you all can have the moniker...you can have IT ALL
It was revealed to me what a phony piece of crap IT ALL WAS when its leading icons threw their lot in with Hillary Clinton, neocon extraordinaire
I really admire Kathleen Hanna. She is a genius, someone we at Devlish Turn hold up next to Leslie Hall. But when it comes to this, I have to gasp. Did someone put a gun to her head too? Like they've put a gun to Donald Trump's to suddenly change his views? Why does everyone suddenly change their views? WHO is making them do this??? Hillary stole the primary from Bernie. She demonstrated her corruptness for all the world to see ( if you still didn't get it from her "triumphs" in Honduras, Libya, Haiti, Walmart, and yes, let's face it, Yugoslavia.) Leftist "purity"? Sounds like good 'ol Sarah Silverman bullshit.
You know, it's one thing to say "Hey, I hate Donald Trump! So I'm voting for Hillary. Because of THAT." It's another to just flat out LIE and make up stories about her, claiming she's a female Ralph Nader.
WHEN? HOW? WHAT? WHERE?????
Hillary sure is on a mission, but it ain't to make the world a better place.
When was she a champion? When she was on the board of Walmart and did nothing for the women exploited by that company? For the people of Haiti who were shafted by her charity foundation? The country of Libya that was destroyed by her zeal to execute the grand agenda of American hegemony around the world?
You can't name a SINGLE WAY she has helped anyone, or even wanted to; it should come bouncing off the top of your head without even a think put into it
Little girls of the world! Unite! And look to the United States for your role models! Because there are and have never been any female leaders of any other countries...
These countries are WAY MORE progressive, in regards to female leadership, but countries like India and Pakistan have had female leaders and women are treated horrifically there. It's just not the panacea Hillary voters would have you believe it is.
Again. No women has ever been president. ANYWHERE. EVER.
Agency and control. More like subservient and had-been-groomed to be the next CEO of the American empire.
When did all this greatness happen?
Where did this happen?
How did this happen?
Okay, BLAH BLAH BLAH, this is from some other actress in the article, I'm done and not going to torture you with anymore of this. It just goes on and on, the phony, vapid platitudes about "women struggling" and "the things women have to do" vaguely attributed to Hillary but no actual evidence as to her worth as a political candidate.
Hillary is an opportunist and these women are dupes/paid off/elitist/cynical-as-hell.
But I would like to give her two things: One, I do feel sorry for her. I believe other politicians (like her husband) should be and should have been punished as much as she has been for being denied the Presidency. It's a shame that a woman gets punished so harshly when men like George Bush deserve it just as much if not even more.
And I DO give her credit for this: she is one of the first examples of a modern American female political opportunist/politician, and she is giving us a glimpse into what that future will be like in the United States.
Fluorine Magellan advises you drink the tap water to gain the benefits of the bladder-cleansing action of chlorine and the brain-soothing action of fluorine.