I'm failing to see why giving access to menstrual products is a bad thing. Do they think only cis men vote?
There are a bunch of reasons. There's a general "the state shouldn't provide this for free; you should bring whatever you need" fiscal conservative position.
In Scotland, toilet paper, soap and menstrual products are all provided free in school and university toilets.
I'm curious as to the extent of the fiscal conservative position in America - do they argue against free provision of toilet paper and soap, or just against menstrual products?
I'm curious as to the extent of the fiscal conservative position in America - do they argue against free provision of toilet paper and soap, or just against menstrual products?
I really think this is just anti-trans, not fiscal conservatism. Even religious objections to exposing boys to the product probably aren't playing that much of a role, otherwise there'd be campaigns against feminine hygiene ads on TV and public display in stores.
(Though there does seem to be an overlay of incelish misogyny in the presentation of the issue: "Hyuk hyuk hyuk, Tampon Tim, hyuk hyuk hyuk.")
The cost of providing menstrual materials in bathrooms is very low, about $2.00 per student per year.
A little clarification, the law does allow local school districts to determine how to place the products in their bathrooms.
One argument for placing the products in the restrooms is they do reduce period poverty, where students are not able to attend schools because they could not afford the feminine products. If students cannot come to school, they fall behind the class or even keep the class from progressing as planned. If they fall behind, they develop a sense of failure which can haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Two dollars is a minor investment when you think of it that way.
I'm failing to see why giving access to menstrual products is a bad thing. Do they think only cis men vote?
There are a bunch of reasons. There's a general "the state shouldn't provide this for free; you should bring whatever you need" fiscal conservative position.
In Scotland, toilet paper, soap and menstrual products are all provided free in school and university toilets.
I'm curious as to the extent of the fiscal conservative position in America - do they argue against free provision of toilet paper and soap, or just against menstrual products?
I know a lot of fiscal conservatives and I’ve never heard them articulate the position that the government shouldn’t pay for students’ menstrual products. I think it’s just plain old bigotry and American’s convoluted ideas around sex.
I'm failing to see why giving access to menstrual products is a bad thing. Do they think only cis men vote?
There are a bunch of reasons. There's a general "the state shouldn't provide this for free; you should bring whatever you need" fiscal conservative position.
In Scotland, toilet paper, soap and menstrual products are all provided free in school and university toilets.
I'm curious as to the extent of the fiscal conservative position in America - do they argue against free provision of toilet paper and soap, or just against menstrual products?
I know a lot of fiscal conservatives and I’ve never heard them articulate the position that the government shouldn’t pay for students’ menstrual products. I think it’s just plain old bigotry and American’s convoluted ideas around sex.
I've seen a few online trying to claim that it (and free school meals) amounts to poor people's taxes paying for things for millionaire's kids, but that's the same back arsewards excuse they use for opposing any universal service.
There's a pretty active position among conservatives in the US that the feds/state/school shouldn't even provide food for students. I've been a school teacher for 23 years and worked in about a dozen different school systems. Not once have I seen or heard of boys using girls' restrooms, or vice versa. Just hasn't happened. In fact, I once worked in a district that brought in a row of porta toilets, and had them positioned in a courtyard in place of one student restroom that went offline for a while. Lots of Americans remain pretty prudish in their opinions about managing bodily functions in public places. Separate restrooms are still required. I'd also agree with the notion that understanding or simply acknowledging menstruation remains largely viewed as some kind of doorway to sexuality (or, sexualization to conservatives), so it's still judged harshly quite a bit, and therefore providing sanitary products is viewed as tacitly promoting sexuality.
The cost of providing menstrual materials in bathrooms is very low, about $2.00 per student per year.
A little clarification, the law does allow local school districts to determine how to place the products in their bathrooms.
The law doesn't even say that they have to be in the bathrooms, just that they have to be made available for all students. Bathroom placement is optimal for practical reasons, but it's not mandated by Minnesota law.
The cost of providing menstrual materials in bathrooms is very low, about $2.00 per student per year.
A little clarification, the law does allow local school districts to determine how to place the products in their bathrooms.
The law doesn't even say that they have to be in the bathrooms, just that they have to be made available for all students. Bathroom placement is optimal for practical reasons, but it's not mandated by Minnesota law.
Here is what the law specifically says:
Subd. 2. Access to menstrual products.
A school district or charter school must provide
students access to menstrual products at no charge. The products must be available in
restrooms used by students in grades 4 to 12. For purposes of this section, "menstrual
products" means pads, tampons, or other similar products used in connection with the
menstrual cycle.
It does say they have to be in restrooms used by students in grades 4 through 12.
It does not say which type of restroom.
Nor does it mention the gender of students.
Republicans tried to amend the bill to say restrooms used by female students, but the amendment was voted down/
The intent was to include transgender and nonbinary students who chose whichever restroom they are comfortable with.
(I love it when I can beat a lawyer at his own game.)
There's a pretty active position among conservatives in the US that the feds/state/school shouldn't even provide food for students. I've been a school teacher for 23 years and worked in about a dozen different school systems. Not once have I seen or heard of boys using girls' restrooms, or vice versa. Just hasn't happened. In fact, I once worked in a district that brought in a row of porta toilets, and had them positioned in a courtyard in place of one student restroom that went offline for a while. Lots of Americans remain pretty prudish in their opinions about managing bodily functions in public places. Separate restrooms are still required. I'd also agree with the notion that understanding or simply acknowledging menstruation remains largely viewed as some kind of doorway to sexuality (or, sexualization to conservatives), so it's still judged harshly quite a bit, and therefore providing sanitary products is viewed as tacitly promoting sexuality.
I am familiar with this mentality, although it's much rarer this side of the pond. In my view it's just another manifestation of misogyny.
You see if girls menstruate in means they are capable of reproducing. If they are capable of that, then they might have a sexuality.
I don't think it conscious at all but it's an outworking of how repressed some conservatives are. As if, it we cannot see feminine hygiene products, then the girls will stop having any sexuality.
In one sense I don't care. These pathetic little men who can't cope with biology are just pathetic little men. Sadly some of them have power and make stupid policy decisions. That's when we should all care.
A year or so ago I had the title of "Senior Registrar." This meant in our little surgical department a lot of looking after the other registrars and the more junior doctors. We had a shared office space with a few desks and computers. I had a couple of desk drawers to keep the various bits in necessary to my role. One of the drawers always had paracetamol, ibuprofen and a few sanitary towels in it. Everyone knew where to look if they had need or any such things. No fuss.
The public school in which I now work has a County Health Clinic housed in a room on one of the grade-level hallways. It is regularly staffed by two nurses, and occasionally by a Nurse Practitioner who travels among a number of district buildings. Menstrual products are freely available in the Clinic.
I don't think it conscious at all but it's an outworking of how repressed some conservatives are. As if, if we cannot see feminine hygiene products, then the girls will stop having any sexuality.
In one sense I don't care. These pathetic little men who can't cope with biology are just pathetic little men. Sadly some of them have power and make stupid policy decisions. That's when we should all care.
But when the products are in the nurse's office, you still presumably have to ask for them. Which for many teenagers is deeply embarrassing. Doubly so if your family can't afford to pay for them and you have to ask every month.
Yeah, I'm not endorsing it -- it's just what we have right now. Considering I'm talking about Mississippi, it's definitely a lot better than it could be.
There's a pretty active position among conservatives in the US that the feds/state/school shouldn't even provide food for students. I've been a school teacher for 23 years and worked in about a dozen different school systems. Not once have I seen or heard of boys using girls' restrooms, or vice versa. Just hasn't happened. In fact, I once worked in a district that brought in a row of porta toilets, and had them positioned in a courtyard in place of one student restroom that went offline for a while. Lots of Americans remain pretty prudish in their opinions about managing bodily functions in public places. Separate restrooms are still required. I'd also agree with the notion that understanding or simply acknowledging menstruation remains largely viewed as some kind of doorway to sexuality (or, sexualization to conservatives), so it's still judged harshly quite a bit, and therefore providing sanitary products is viewed as tacitly promoting sexuality.
No need to get judgy about American schools being unwilling to have shared restrooms even when one is out of order, given the huge visible gaps in the stalls of almost all cubicles. seriously, the only thing protecting your modesty is the custom of averting one’s eyes—the gaps around the doors and various other component parts can be nearly two inches wide, and it’s harder NOT to see someone than it is to see them. I’m pretty sure the high school girls would choose to “hold it” en masse till their bladders burst rather than risk their male classmates walking past a closed cubicle with them half naked inside. These are not the private havens you are imagining…
Going back to the Swiftboating* of Tim Walz' military record. Here is what one fellow vet wrote on the ELCA Facebook Page
Tim Walz was encouraged to resign from the guard four years before his group deployed because he had severe ear damage from artillery fire. He petitioned to stay active which is above and beyond the call of duty. He would have been poor candidate for combat duty.
He left four years later and immediately ran for congress to help veterans; nor abandon them.
Bi partisan leaders say he's done outstanding work for veterans . He even passed legislation that enabled JD Vance to go to college with GI Bill. JD should cease and desist with false narratives and just say thanks to a seasoned leader who has literally helped millions of vets.
I know cause I am a war time vet from the Midwest who signed up when I turned 17 and served in a communications combat unit. GI Bill funded my college and seminary.
Tim is a humble leader who prefers to walk the walk over deceiving us with false talk (see snake in the garden).
*Swiftboating. A term used by a Republican movement formed to question then John Kerry's military record in Vietnam. John Kerry had been a captain of a combat river boat--a swift boat in military jargoon. John had claimed he earned a purple heart while engaged in a combat patrol. The Republicans questioned that claim.
Going back to the Swiftboating* of Tim Walz' military record. Here is what one fellow vet wrote on the ELCA Facebook Page . . . .
The problem with that is how does anyone know whether that post is accurate or is just repeating something inaccurate heard from someone else? I mean, it might be accurate, but how can the reader judge?
If it doesn’t come from Walz himself, from the campaign or from a reputable news source, I wouldn’t rely on it.
Tim Walz was encouraged to resign from the guard four years before his group deployed because he had severe ear damage from artillery fire. He petitioned to stay active which is above and beyond the call of duty.
If he was only being "encouraged" to resign, why did he have to "petition" to stay on active duty? "Encouraged" implies that no one was forcing him to quit, but "petitioned" implies that he needed special permission to stay on.
Going back to the Swiftboating* of Tim Walz' military record. Here is what one fellow vet wrote on the ELCA Facebook Page . . . .
The problem with that is how does anyone know whether that post is accurate or is just repeating something inaccurate heard from someone else? I mean, it might be accurate, but how can the reader judge?
If it doesn’t come from Walz himself, from the campaign or from a reputable news source, I wouldn’t rely on it.
Says the guy who could not source the claim Tim Walz was Lutheran.
Going back to the Swiftboating* of Tim Walz' military record. Here is what one fellow vet wrote on the ELCA Facebook Page . . . .
The problem with that is how does anyone know whether that post is accurate or is just repeating something inaccurate heard from someone else? I mean, it might be accurate, but how can the reader judge?
If it doesn’t come from Walz himself, from the campaign or from a reputable news source, I wouldn’t rely on it.
Says the guy who could not source the claim Tim Walz was Lutheran.
What? You really might want to try reading more carefully. @stetson, not I, said:
Care to say more? Something from a credible source? I’ve seen numerous reports that he’s a Lutheran (specifically ELCA Lutheran) from a number of generally reliable news sources, including the New York Times.
That got posted accidentally. I myself went to find a solid source, but could not, and forgot to delete it.
So no, I had no trouble sourcing the claim the Walz is Lutheran; I knew it before you posted it, and what I was questioning was a unsourced statement that Walz is not Lutheran.
Yes, it does. It would have helped more if you’d cited that, or the Minnesota Public Radio article linked on that page, to start with instead of simply quoting an unnamed poster on Facebook.
Check and mate
Again, read carefully. I didn’t say the information was inaccurate. I specifically said “it might be accurate, but how can the reader judge?” And I stand by that. People say all kinds of things on Facebook; it’s not a credible source, but it was the only source you initially gave.
But when the products are in the nurse's office, you still presumably have to ask for them. Which for many teenagers is deeply embarrassing. Doubly so if your family can't afford to pay for them and you have to ask every month.
And for those who get caught by surprise, they're quite likely to be in the bathroom when they discover their period has started. And they're going to want to apply said products in the bathroom. Which all in all makes "in the bathroom" the sensible place to put them.
I'm failing to see why giving access to menstrual products is a bad thing. Do they think only cis men vote?
There are a bunch of reasons. There's a general "the state shouldn't provide this for free; you should bring whatever you need" fiscal conservative position.
There's a "almost nobody who might need this uses the boy's bathrooms; having such products in the boy's bathrooms is going to lead to waste and silliness" fiscal conservative position.
And then there's the "You can't let boys see tampons, because then they will know that girls have vaginas and they'll get distracted by sex" lunatic conservative position.
And then there are the people who hate trans people / think they are mistaken about their gender, and oppose having sanitary products in the boys' room as a small part of their opposition to having anyone they choose to describe as biologically female in the boys' room.
None of these positions are exclusive.
I think the main reason Trump supporters are criticizing Walz over the bill in question is the last one you mention. They want to generate rage that tampons might be required to be in a boys' restroom, and that the bill referred to people who menstruate rather than to girls or women.
I know gender affirming care for kids has become a very heated issue in the UK as well (hence the Epiphanies thread), but here in the US since the pandemic there has arisen schools in particular have been a target in the culture wars for anything that can be interpreted as “encouraging” children (especially children that their parents have always thought are girls) to believe that their gender might be anything other than what they were assigned at birth.
So any school policy that isn’t based on a gender binary fixed at birth ignites a firestorm, especially if it’s mandatory. “Indoctrination” is the term used by the campaigners that have disrupted local school board after school board (over gender and race in particular), to the point that it’s hard to find people who aren’t ideologically extreme willing to serve on a school board in some smaller districts because of all the rage and at times outright threats they have to deal with.
Vance's swift boating of Walz while he is the second to a five-time draft dodger, and who thinks all military personnel are losers.
While the swift-boating of Walz may indeed fail, I don't think it's gonna be because swing-voters perceive Trump as hypocritical on the issue. Voters who aren't diehard Democrats are mostly indifferent to the way in which the guy routinely flouts his own self-professed standards.
He [Trump] does have a point about Harris not having met with the press.
No, he doesn't.
AFZ
Give me an example of Harris having a formal press conference after Biden bowed out.
You know she has done other things and not a formal press conference but so what?
Agreed. Trump may be accurate that she hasn’t had a formal press conference yet, but his conclusions and rhetoric are just (as always with him) weird and insulting and unwarranted.
Donald Trump's hour-long rant news conference. He does have a point about Harris not having met with the press.
What is that point? Did anything of value or public interest emerge from Trump's recent press availability? On a certain level it illustrated the lengths to which the mainstream press will sanewash anything said by Trump, but I'm not sure why that's an indication that Harris should devote precious campaign time performing for a Trump-biased press corps rather than speaking directly to voters.
Well, I would like to hear how she responds to inflation, her plans for immigration and some of the Republican criticisms leveled against her ticket.
I have heard the stump speech several times (with some variation), I would like the press to ask her what she means on several points like what she plans to do for middle and working class families or how she wants to reform the tax system.
Well, I would like to hear how she responds to inflation, her plans for immigration and some of the Republican criticisms leveled against her ticket.
I have heard the stump speech several times (with some variation), I would like the press to ask her what she means on several points like what she plans to do for middle and working class families or how she wants to reform the tax system.
And you're confident that the American political press as it currently exists would ask cogent questions about these points? And report her answers accurately rather than coming up with some vague meta-analysis about "clouds and shadows"? And that a sixty minute press conference would provide better answers than simply examining her well-documented history as a senator and vice president on these issues?
Given that this flies in the face of everything we've seen about the American political press for the past decade or so, why do you consider the format of a press conference the ideal format to get accurate answers to the questions you want to ask, which are almost certainly not the same questions that the American political press would want to ask?
Well, press conferences force candidates to be accountable and transparent. It allows candidates to address crisis management issues (say a rumor crops up that needs to be addressed). They can help shaping public opinion (such as the border crisis or inflation). They develop ongoing relationships with the members of the press--Obama had a reasonably good relationship with the press, Trump not so much. Biden was okay. And press conferences can reach a wide audience quickly.
Well, press conferences force candidates to be accountable and transparent. It allows candidates to address crisis management issues (say a rumor crops up that needs to be addressed). They can help shaping public opinion (such as the border crisis or inflation). They develop ongoing relationships with the members of the press--Obama had a reasonably good relationship with the press, Trump not so much. Biden was okay. And press conferences can reach a wide audience quickly.
Well, press conferences force candidates to be accountable and transparent.
Assumes facts not in evidence. To what degree was Donald Trump either transparent or accountable in his press conference last Thursday? His answers were opaque and the press asked no follow-up questions.
The assumption is most respondents will be honest (unless there is a lawyer holding them back). Trump has always been the exception to the rule. I can see the press asking no follow up questions because they already know Trump's response.
Did you see his discussion with the National Black Journalist Congress? They did try to ask follow up questions and all they got was his gaslighting responses.
White supremacist, Hitler fan, and far-right political pundit Nick Fuentes shockingly revoked his support from Donald Trump’s campaign early Friday, announcing on social media that he and his allies believed that the presidential bid is headed for a “catastrophic loss.”
“Tonight I declared a new Groyper War against the Trump campaign,” Fuentes wrote on X (formerly Twitter) shortly after midnight, referring to a group of far-right activists known as groypers.
Fuentes explained that he and his far-right squad of online trolls “support Trump” but that they view his 2024 campaign as being “hijacked” by lobbyists, consultants, and donors that had aided Trump’s 2016 Republican opponents. All in all, Fuentes believed they were “blowing it.”
“Without serious changes we are headed for a catastrophic loss,” Fuentes wrote.
“This is NOT a purity spiral, this is about living up to the AMERICA FIRST credo put forth by Trump in 2016 which will ensure VICTORY in 2024,” Fuentes continued. “On Monday I will present a detailed statement of the facts, a mission statement, and a plan of action on my Rumble channel. STAY TUNED.”
In another post two hours later, Fuentes shared a screenshot of trending hashtags on Truth Social, including “#GroyperWar2”, “#FireLaCivita,” and “#FireWiles,” the latter two of which refer to senior Trump advisers Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles, who helped engineer Trump’s political resurrection following his loss in 2020.
Interesting that the neo-Nazis are distinguishing between the One True Trump and his apparently heretical presidential campaign. We'll see who Trump is counting on for support if LaCivita and Wiles are still in their current positions by the end of the month.
I would expect that Harris/Walz would be willing to cooperate with folks who want to know their policies and get them discussed in some detail, whether this happens via press conference or in some other mode. I expect this because they appear to be normal human beings. So my question would be, What could other normal human beings do to request this? Write a letter? Do something internetty? I don't expect them to throw up roadblocks, after all.
And then we can ignore Donald as he deserves while talking about something much more interesting.
When asked if he would accept the election results even if he losses, Trump has been saying he will accept them if HE THINKS they are honest.
He is now going around questioning whether Harris' nomination is constitutional. To my knowledge, there is no provision about how any party can nominate the candidate of their church. Might be something in the bylaws of the party, but nothing in the constitution.
Some are thinking this will be his excuse to throw a tantrum like he did during the last round.
Remember in the last round, he questioned the legitimacy of mail in ballots. He challenged them in a number of courts. They were all thrown out. So, he incited the riot on 6 Jan.
I had been wondering why Republicans had been referring to the Democratic ticket as Comrade Harris and Comrade Walz. Was it because the Republicans want to disparage their progressive platform or was there something more.
Now I get it. Tim Walz has a long history with China.. He first went in to teach US History, English, and Culture at a Chinese High School, about the time of the Tiananmen incident. He spent his wedding honeymoon there. And he has made several other visits to China over the years. (Governors and Congressmen tend to do that).
When asked, Walz will criticize the Chinese Government and their human rights record.
My response? No big deal. We have had several members of our congregation go over to China as teachers and visitors. We once had a Chinese preacher as an interim pastor here. It seems whenever university starts we will have a few Chinese students visit us. Nothing like having a little kid with a Red Army T-Shirt attending our Sunday School for a while.
Besides, I think it will be to the Harris Administration's advantage to have someone on the ticket that knows the Chinese culture, can speak Chinese, and even have personal contacts with the Chinese government.
So the Trump campaign allegedly had its email system hacked. They're blaming Iran, though they've produced no evidence to confirm this other than a Microsoft report that the Iranian government was targeting various unspecified political organizations for intelligence gathering.
At any rate, Politico has had copies of various internal Trump campaign documents, including their initial vetting of vice presidential nominee JD Vance, since July 22. Politico has also not yet published any of these documents in full, which is a big difference from the way the media treated hacked DNC emails in 2016. I would argue that JD Vance's vetting file is of a lot greater public interest than John Podesta's risotto recipe. (For context, in 2020 Politico's owner Mathias Döpfner emailed his executives to pray for Trump's re-election*. If the documents' source is a hacker with malicious intent, why choose Politico as the recipient?)
It would be nice to think that maybe the media has learned something in the intervening eight years, but I agree with blogger Scott Lemieux on this one.
If there’s now a consensus that the coverage of the hacked emails was in fact seriously botched in 2016, it sure is “interesting” that 1) this consensus was apparently reached in private and 2) conveniently revealed only when it would favor Trump rather than his opponent!
If there's been a shift in media ethics on this subject it's not unreasonable to expect the media to explain what they think they did wrong in 2016, when they decided this, and why they never bothered publicize this fact.
Iran has long been after Trump since Trump had ordered the assassination of the top Red Guard General in Iraq. To tell the truth, when Trump was shot at, I had wondered if it were the Iranians behind the attempted assassination. As it turned out, though, it was just a loan gunman--which is often the case in American political assassinations.
... To what degree was Donald Trump either transparent or accountable in his press conference last Thursday? His answers were opaque and the press asked no follow-up questions.
Yeah, I don't care if Harris talks to the press. They've been useless ever since Trump came down the escalator in 2015.
I would not compare what Trump has done with his press meets. I am looking at what Harris can do with potential press conferences. It's like comparing apples with oranges.
Yeah, I don't care if Harris talks to the press. They've been useless ever since Trump came down the escalator in 2015.
I would not compare what Trump has done with his press meets. I am looking at what Harris can do with potential press conferences. It's like comparing apples with oranges.
Or it’s like comparing presidential candidates with presidential candidates. There’s no reason to blindly accept the American political press’ double standard when it comes to Trump.
Harris is not going to reach swing voters via press conferences, and she's getting tons of earned media through holding rallies. When members of the press get a couple of questions in, they ask stupid shit like how she reacts to stuff Trump has said. I personally only care about one issue in this election: American democracy. Harris is in favor of it and Trump is not, so my mind is made up. The Dems will lay out a policy platform when they hold their convention, but honestly, I am fine with whatever she does between now and November 5 as long as those actions are calculated to give her the best chance of winning.
Comments
In Scotland, toilet paper, soap and menstrual products are all provided free in school and university toilets.
I'm curious as to the extent of the fiscal conservative position in America - do they argue against free provision of toilet paper and soap, or just against menstrual products?
I really think this is just anti-trans, not fiscal conservatism. Even religious objections to exposing boys to the product probably aren't playing that much of a role, otherwise there'd be campaigns against feminine hygiene ads on TV and public display in stores.
(Though there does seem to be an overlay of incelish misogyny in the presentation of the issue: "Hyuk hyuk hyuk, Tampon Tim, hyuk hyuk hyuk.")
A little clarification, the law does allow local school districts to determine how to place the products in their bathrooms.
One argument for placing the products in the restrooms is they do reduce period poverty, where students are not able to attend schools because they could not afford the feminine products. If students cannot come to school, they fall behind the class or even keep the class from progressing as planned. If they fall behind, they develop a sense of failure which can haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Two dollars is a minor investment when you think of it that way.
I know a lot of fiscal conservatives and I’ve never heard them articulate the position that the government shouldn’t pay for students’ menstrual products. I think it’s just plain old bigotry and American’s convoluted ideas around sex.
I've seen a few online trying to claim that it (and free school meals) amounts to poor people's taxes paying for things for millionaire's kids, but that's the same back arsewards excuse they use for opposing any universal service.
The law doesn't even say that they have to be in the bathrooms, just that they have to be made available for all students. Bathroom placement is optimal for practical reasons, but it's not mandated by Minnesota law.
Here is what the law specifically says:
It does say they have to be in restrooms used by students in grades 4 through 12.
It does not say which type of restroom.
Nor does it mention the gender of students.
Republicans tried to amend the bill to say restrooms used by female students, but the amendment was voted down/
The intent was to include transgender and nonbinary students who chose whichever restroom they are comfortable with.
(I love it when I can beat a lawyer at his own game.)
I am familiar with this mentality, although it's much rarer this side of the pond. In my view it's just another manifestation of misogyny.
You see if girls menstruate in means they are capable of reproducing. If they are capable of that, then they might have a sexuality.
I don't think it conscious at all but it's an outworking of how repressed some conservatives are. As if, it we cannot see feminine hygiene products, then the girls will stop having any sexuality.
In one sense I don't care. These pathetic little men who can't cope with biology are just pathetic little men. Sadly some of them have power and make stupid policy decisions. That's when we should all care.
A year or so ago I had the title of "Senior Registrar." This meant in our little surgical department a lot of looking after the other registrars and the more junior doctors. We had a shared office space with a few desks and computers. I had a couple of desk drawers to keep the various bits in necessary to my role. One of the drawers always had paracetamol, ibuprofen and a few sanitary towels in it. Everyone knew where to look if they had need or any such things. No fuss.
AFZ
Agreed!
No need to get judgy about American schools being unwilling to have shared restrooms even when one is out of order, given the huge visible gaps in the stalls of almost all cubicles. seriously, the only thing protecting your modesty is the custom of averting one’s eyes—the gaps around the doors and various other component parts can be nearly two inches wide, and it’s harder NOT to see someone than it is to see them. I’m pretty sure the high school girls would choose to “hold it” en masse till their bladders burst rather than risk their male classmates walking past a closed cubicle with them half naked inside. These are not the private havens you are imagining…
*Swiftboating. A term used by a Republican movement formed to question then John Kerry's military record in Vietnam. John Kerry had been a captain of a combat river boat--a swift boat in military jargoon. John had claimed he earned a purple heart while engaged in a combat patrol. The Republicans questioned that claim.
If it doesn’t come from Walz himself, from the campaign or from a reputable news source, I wouldn’t rely on it.
If he was only being "encouraged" to resign, why did he have to "petition" to stay on active duty? "Encouraged" implies that no one was forcing him to quit, but "petitioned" implies that he needed special permission to stay on.
Says the guy who could not source the claim Tim Walz was Lutheran.
Does this help?
I note he talked about his military service in an interview for the Library of Congress. You might want to listen to it
Or, maybe this?
Check and mate
I responded (emphasis added):
And then stetson responded: So no, I had no trouble sourcing the claim the Walz is Lutheran; I knew it before you posted it, and what I was questioning was a unsourced statement that Walz is not Lutheran.
Yes, it does. It would have helped more if you’d cited that, or the Minnesota Public Radio article linked on that page, to start with instead of simply quoting an unnamed poster on Facebook.
Again, read carefully. I didn’t say the information was inaccurate. I specifically said “it might be accurate, but how can the reader judge?” And I stand by that. People say all kinds of things on Facebook; it’s not a credible source, but it was the only source you initially gave.
And for those who get caught by surprise, they're quite likely to be in the bathroom when they discover their period has started. And they're going to want to apply said products in the bathroom. Which all in all makes "in the bathroom" the sensible place to put them.
I think the main reason Trump supporters are criticizing Walz over the bill in question is the last one you mention. They want to generate rage that tampons might be required to be in a boys' restroom, and that the bill referred to people who menstruate rather than to girls or women.
I know gender affirming care for kids has become a very heated issue in the UK as well (hence the Epiphanies thread), but here in the US since the pandemic there has arisen schools in particular have been a target in the culture wars for anything that can be interpreted as “encouraging” children (especially children that their parents have always thought are girls) to believe that their gender might be anything other than what they were assigned at birth.
So any school policy that isn’t based on a gender binary fixed at birth ignites a firestorm, especially if it’s mandatory. “Indoctrination” is the term used by the campaigners that have disrupted local school board after school board (over gender and race in particular), to the point that it’s hard to find people who aren’t ideologically extreme willing to serve on a school board in some smaller districts because of all the rage and at times outright threats they have to deal with.
There is so much more to discuss, like how some states have moved from leaning Republican to toss up.
Donald Trump's hour-long rant news conference. He does have a point about Harris not having met with the press.
Vance's swift boating of Walz while he is the second to a five-time draft dodger, and who thinks all military personnel are losers.
Can we move on?
While the swift-boating of Walz may indeed fail, I don't think it's gonna be because swing-voters perceive Trump as hypocritical on the issue. Voters who aren't diehard Democrats are mostly indifferent to the way in which the guy routinely flouts his own self-professed standards.
Ok.
No, he doesn't.
AFZ
Give me an example of Harris having a formal press conference after Biden bowed out.
You know she has done other things and not a formal press conference but so what?
Agreed. Trump may be accurate that she hasn’t had a formal press conference yet, but his conclusions and rhetoric are just (as always with him) weird and insulting and unwarranted.
What is that point? Did anything of value or public interest emerge from Trump's recent press availability? On a certain level it illustrated the lengths to which the mainstream press will sanewash anything said by Trump, but I'm not sure why that's an indication that Harris should devote precious campaign time performing for a Trump-biased press corps rather than speaking directly to voters.
I have heard the stump speech several times (with some variation), I would like the press to ask her what she means on several points like what she plans to do for middle and working class families or how she wants to reform the tax system.
And you're confident that the American political press as it currently exists would ask cogent questions about these points? And report her answers accurately rather than coming up with some vague meta-analysis about "clouds and shadows"? And that a sixty minute press conference would provide better answers than simply examining her well-documented history as a senator and vice president on these issues?
Given that this flies in the face of everything we've seen about the American political press for the past decade or so, why do you consider the format of a press conference the ideal format to get accurate answers to the questions you want to ask, which are almost certainly not the same questions that the American political press would want to ask?
Sounds like a take from 2004, not 2024.
Assumes facts not in evidence. To what degree was Donald Trump either transparent or accountable in his press conference last Thursday? His answers were opaque and the press asked no follow-up questions.
Did you see his discussion with the National Black Journalist Congress? They did try to ask follow up questions and all they got was his gaslighting responses.
Why anyone would vote for him is beyond me.
Interesting development on that front. Apparently the Trump campaign is losing support among neo-Nazis.
Interesting that the neo-Nazis are distinguishing between the One True Trump and his apparently heretical presidential campaign. We'll see who Trump is counting on for support if LaCivita and Wiles are still in their current positions by the end of the month.
And then we can ignore Donald as he deserves while talking about something much more interesting.
He is now going around questioning whether Harris' nomination is constitutional. To my knowledge, there is no provision about how any party can nominate the candidate of their church. Might be something in the bylaws of the party, but nothing in the constitution.
Some are thinking this will be his excuse to throw a tantrum like he did during the last round.
Remember in the last round, he questioned the legitimacy of mail in ballots. He challenged them in a number of courts. They were all thrown out. So, he incited the riot on 6 Jan.
We have seen this playbook before.
Now I get it. Tim Walz has a long history with China.. He first went in to teach US History, English, and Culture at a Chinese High School, about the time of the Tiananmen incident. He spent his wedding honeymoon there. And he has made several other visits to China over the years. (Governors and Congressmen tend to do that).
When asked, Walz will criticize the Chinese Government and their human rights record.
My response? No big deal. We have had several members of our congregation go over to China as teachers and visitors. We once had a Chinese preacher as an interim pastor here. It seems whenever university starts we will have a few Chinese students visit us. Nothing like having a little kid with a Red Army T-Shirt attending our Sunday School for a while.
Besides, I think it will be to the Harris Administration's advantage to have someone on the ticket that knows the Chinese culture, can speak Chinese, and even have personal contacts with the Chinese government.
At any rate, Politico has had copies of various internal Trump campaign documents, including their initial vetting of vice presidential nominee JD Vance, since July 22. Politico has also not yet published any of these documents in full, which is a big difference from the way the media treated hacked DNC emails in 2016. I would argue that JD Vance's vetting file is of a lot greater public interest than John Podesta's risotto recipe. (For context, in 2020 Politico's owner Mathias Döpfner emailed his executives to pray for Trump's re-election*. If the documents' source is a hacker with malicious intent, why choose Politico as the recipient?)
It would be nice to think that maybe the media has learned something in the intervening eight years, but I agree with blogger Scott Lemieux on this one.
If there's been a shift in media ethics on this subject it's not unreasonable to expect the media to explain what they think they did wrong in 2016, when they decided this, and why they never bothered publicize this fact.
Weird Trump Vance statement re Walz
National Public radio counted 162 lies and distortions in the news conference. It takes time and staff to fact check so much BS garbage obvious disregard for the truth.
I would not compare what Trump has done with his press meets. I am looking at what Harris can do with potential press conferences. It's like comparing apples with oranges.
Or it’s like comparing presidential candidates with presidential candidates. There’s no reason to blindly accept the American political press’ double standard when it comes to Trump.