So then why haven’t we all pushed for term limits and why haven’t we all NOT re-elected these people? We have the vote, why does no one use it accordingly? It’s the only way we can keep them accountable.
I find myself torn. I am extremely passionate about the Intactivist cause, vehemently in support. But it’s troubling to me that my partner, who is intact, can’t seem to sympathize with my feelings. He doesn’t even have pride in being intact. Should that be another additional path for the movement, encouraging intact men to show pride in their fortune? And also to encourage the parents who leave their sons intact (not just those that are Intactivists) to have pride in their decision? Maybe we need to increase awareness, not just through education, but also through pride campaigns and forcing the conversation about it; make it something that is no longer a taboo to speak about, and shame those that refuse to allow the conversation. Maybe file legal charges against institutions who suppress this information as violating Freedom of Speech rights? Maybe file legal charges against the government for violating equal protection? And definitely to unify all the disparate Intactivist organizations into a unified front. It’s the same way that the LGBT movement started to gain traction. Maybe we should be taking pointers from the LGBT movement? Being gay was once a taboo topic to discuss, but that taboo is rapidly fading. But I also have an additional problem within. I get so upset at anything pro cutting that I can’t make myself even read most of the articles posted, it causes me too much rage and anxiety, and I’m not sure how to get over that. Another strategy we could also take is to stop allowing people to use the term Uncut and instead use the term Intact. If you consider the linguistics behind it, the term Un-cut implies that to be cut is the natural state, where as the term Intact is far more accurate. Uncut would be more accurate for someone restoring as they would be working to reverse their cut state. Thoughts?
The Volcanic Core Fueling the 2016 Election
MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 2016
Not a day passes that I don’t get a call from the media asking me to compare Bernie Sanders’s and Hillary Clinton’s tax plans, or bank plans, or health-care plans.
I don’t mind. I’ve been teaching public policy for much of the last thirty-five years. I’m a policy wonk.
But detailed policy proposals are as relevant to the election of 2016 as is that gaseous planet beyond Pluto. They don’t have a chance of making it, as things are now.
The other day Bill Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders’s proposal for a single-payer health plan as unfeasible and a “recipe for gridlock.”
Yet these days, nothing of any significance is feasible and every bold idea is a recipe for gridlock.
This election is about changing the parameters of what’s feasible and ending the choke hold of big money on our political system.
I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.
But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.
The upcoming election isn’t about detailed policy proposals. It’s about power – whether those who have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well.
A study published in the fall of 2014 by Princeton professor Martin Gilens and Northwestern’s Benjamin Page reveals the scale of the challenge.
Gilens and Page analyzed 1,799 policy issues in detail, determining the relative influence on them of economic elites, business groups, mass-based interest groups, and average citizens.
Their conclusion: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically nonsignificant impact upon public policy.”
Instead, lawmakers respond to the moneyed interests – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.
It’s sobering that Gilens and Page’s data come from the period 1981 to 2002, before the Supreme Court opened the floodgates to big money in its “Citizens United” and “McCutcheon” decisions. Their study also predated the advent of super PACs and “dark money,” and even the Wall Street bailout.
If average Americans had a “near-zero” impact on public policy then, their impact is now zero.
Which explains a paradox I found a few months ago when I was on book tour in the nation’s heartland: I kept bumping into people who told me they were trying to make up their minds in the upcoming election between Sanders and Trump.
At first I was dumbfounded. The two are at opposite ends of the political divide.
But as I talked with these people, I kept hearing the same refrains. They wanted to end “crony capitalism.” They detested “corporate welfare,” such as the Wall Street bailout.
They wanted to prevent the big banks from extorting us ever again. Close tax loopholes for hedge-fund partners. Stop the drug companies and health insurers from ripping off American consumers. End trade treaties that sell out American workers. Get big money out of politics.
Somewhere in all this I came to see the volcanic core of what’s fueling this election.
If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans who are working harder than ever but getting nowhere, and who understand that the political-economic system is rigged against you and in favor of the rich and powerful, what are you going to do?
Either you’re going to be attracted to an authoritarian son-of-a-bitch who promises to make America great again by keeping out people different from you and creating “great” jobs in America, who sounds like he won’t let anything or anybody stand in his way, and who’s so rich he can’t be bought off.
Or you’ll go for a political activist who tells it like it is, who has lived by his convictions for fifty years, who won’t take a dime of money from big corporations or Wall Street or the very rich, and who is leading a grass-roots “political revolution” to regain control over our democracy and economy.
In other words, either a dictator who promises to bring power back to the people, or a movement leader who asks us to join together to bring power back to the people.
You don’t care about the details of proposed policies and programs.
You just want a system that works for you.
Not Knowing the 4 Truths!
Ignorance is the Root of all Suffering…
Drop of Dhamma Delight!
Last month, the AAP published research showing that common medical procedures carried out on newborn babies are very painful, and that the effects of the pain can last many years. Intact America has seized the opportunity to make the AAP face the facts about forced genital cutting of babies (infant circumcision), which is unnecessary at best, and disfiguring and dangerous at worst. Please add your signature!
Stop accusing these sailors of being unpatriotic and un-American. They are exercising their guaranteed First Amendment rights to peaceably redress their government. To criticize them for exercising their rights is what is un-American!
NaturalNews) U.S. Navy sailors exposed to radioactive fallout from the Fukushima nuclear disaster have been falling ill, even as the Defense Department insists that they were not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. Many of the sailors have now joined in a class action lawsuit against Fukushima operators and builders Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), Toshiba, Hitachi, Ebasco and General Electric.
Even if they wanted to — which many do not — the sailors would be unable to sue the Navy. According to a Supreme Court ruling from the 1950s known as the Feres Doctrine, soldiers cannot sue the government for injuries resulting directly from their military service.
Mocked and attacked
On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake and tsunami triggered multiple meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. It was the worst nuclear disaster in history, releasing twice as much radioactive material as the 1986 Chernobyl…
View original post 552 more words