From Giliell, spectacular butterfly shots, click for full size!
© Giliell, all rights reserved.
Oh, the TSA has come up with yet another of their unbelievably stupid ideas, and naturally, are quite enthused about it. All books and all paper of any kind will be pulled for extra scrutiny. Given the collective brain power of the TSA, this most likely means that a very high number of potential passengers will not be making their flight, but be locked up in a back room somewhere, while the crafty TSA agents attempt to figure out the reading material.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is testing new requirements that would oblige travelers to remove books and other paper goods from their carry-on baggage when going through airport security. The new proposal hasn’t gone into effect, though the TSA, which is an agency of the US Department of Homeland Security, has tested it at airports, including in early May, when screeners at a Kansas City airport “forced passengers to remove all paper from bags, down to notepads,” according to Wall Street Journal; The Sacramento Bee reported that the TSA also tested this policy in Sacramento.
TSA agents already have the authority to search what they want, and anyone who has been subject to extra screenings will know that notebooks and other books are often flipped through by agents, who sometimes even read their pages. That was the experience of artist Kameelah Janan Rashid, who was removed from a plane on her way to Istanbul in 2015. Yet this new policy, as outlined by Stanley, “would lead to more routine and systematic exposure and, inevitably, greater scrutiny of passengers’ reading materials in the course of the screening process.”
Henry Reichman, professor emeritus of history at California State University at East Bay and chair of the American Association of University Professors’ Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, told Inside Higher Ed that the screening change was troubling:
Academics are unsurprisingly big readers, and since we don’t simply read for pleasure, we often read materials with which we disagree or which may be seen by others as offensive. […] For instance, a scholar studying terrorism and its roots may well be reading — and potentially carrying on a plane — books that others might see as endorsing terrorism. In addition, because scholarship is international, I suspect academics are more likely than others to be reading and carrying material in foreign languages, which might arouse some suspicion. … Finally, academics (as well as editors and journalists) may well be carrying pre-publication materials — drafts for peer review or comment, etc. — and these could raise special concerns.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said in an interview with Fox News Sunday last month that the department “might and likely will” expand the new carry-on policy.
Having gotten thoroughly confused over just which green I had been using, it called for a changing of the thread. Down with the tree thread, up with the foliage thread. Some of the greens, I’m down to 3 skeins, and it doesn’t take much to go through a skein. Others I have a great deal of, so I need to do larger blocks with those particular colours.
© C. Ford.
Earlier in the month, I had read about the christian wailing and gnashing of teeth over McDonald’s having the awful gall to serve up fries in a rainbow container for Pride month. As I understood it, it was done in just a few select stores, early in the month, so I was a bit baffled over the immediate cries of horror and persecution. It’s not as though McD’s was seriously going Pride, it was a small gesture. Ah, it was like I thought, the whole rainbow fries thing took place from June 9th to June 11th, in Washington DC. So, the whole thing is long over now, but Linda Harvey is having a fucking fit anyway, because, well why not? It’s not as though she has anything constructive to do.
“Haven’t we all had it up to here with companies promoting the homosexual and gender confusion agendas, as if they’re doing something wonderful?” Harvey asked in one of her recent radio commentaries. “They are doing something extremely harmful, especially when they have customers who are families and children by implying that these are valid and acceptable behaviors when they are not.”
No, I haven’t had it up to here. Not at all. I’m not in the least confused about gender either, mine or anyone else’s. A good many queer people are families with children, and I expect they were quite happy to see this little gesture. As for people like yourself, Ms. Harvey, well, christians never seem to have the slightest problem when it comes to lying, so tell your kids it’s a celebration of your god deciding not to slaughter everyone on the planet. There, everyone is happy. I think we can leave the discussion of valid and acceptable behaviours on the table, because I don’t much care for your behaviour, Ms. Harvey, and it’s in no way acceptable to me. By the way, that psychopathic tantrum you call a god doesn’t exist.
Harvey said that Christians must engage in a nationwide boycott of McDonald’s because “all this bowing before homosexual shame month, which is what it should be called, and this theft of the rainbow is really disturbing.”
Oooh, can we have a heterosexual shame month for all the sourpuss assholes who hate sex, but can’t keep their noses out of everyone else’s pants? Oh, do fuck off with the whole ‘theft of the rainbow’ business. Shocking news here, Ms. Harvey: rainbows were around long before your god was a deranged gleam in a power hungry eye. Rainbows even featured in many a god story, all those gods being considerably older than yours, and those gods and their stories being the basis for the really shitty flood story in the bible. I imagine all people, all the way back, have been in awe of rainbows, because oooooh pretty. Rainbows figure in so very many stories, from gods to other magical beings because we are creatures of narrative, and we like pretty things. Anyroad, you don’t get dibs on the rainbow, Ms. Harvey, and neither does your Johnny-come-lately god. If you want to talk theft, you probably should be looking at that god monster of yours.
“When everyone around us, “she said, “is slapping rainbows on sin, we need to remember God’s big picture” and send a message by boycotting “badly behaving corporations.”
I’ll slap a rainbow on whatthefuckever I want, Ms. Harvey. I’d like to slap one over your mouth. I will also happily support most rainbow slapping, it’s a good thing. Jehovah’s big picture was slaughtering everyone on the planet. I’ll pass, thanks. As for sin, that’s one of the most evil fictions ever invented.
Getting back to the Fuck You Care Plan, which gets worse at every small reveal. The denials over medicaid come in fast and furious, from evasive denials to outright lies, but the bottom line is quite simple: money will go into select filthy rich pockets; medicaid will be dead in few short years.
The bill would in fact massively cut Medicaid, threatening to completely phase out the program as we currently know it. The legislation would roll back Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, starting in four short years. It would also make deeper cuts to Medicaid by placing “per capita caps” on the program such that states will receive only a set amount of money for each recipient, no matter how much their care actually costs.
Andy Slavitt, who ran Medicaid in the Obama administration, said on Twitter that “the main event in the Senate bill is the destruction of Medicaid,” characterizing it as “far, far worse than even the House bill.” And the House bill, as scored by the Congressional Budget Office, would leave 23 million more people without coverage.
But Trump administration officials presented alternative facts on Sunday.
Monday morning on MSNBC, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) countered Roy’s argument. He noted that the tax cuts that Trumpcare would deliver to the richest 400 taxpayers would pay for 750,000 people to be on Medicaid. Franken didn’t rely on a single study but cited the more comprehensive analysis of recent research on Medicaid published in NEJM. These researchers found that for every 750,000 people who lose Medicaid coverage, 1,000 to 2,000 people would die.
Franken actually understates the case. The NEJM cited a recent study estimating that Medicaid expansion has saved one life for every 239 to 319 people covered. That means enrolling 750,000 people in Medicaid could actually save 2,300 to 3,100 lives.
Oh, this is absolutely grand, and you can read all about it, and see more at The Creators Project, or just head over to The Museum of Failure in Helsingborg, Sweden. On July 13th, the museum will be having a failed beer tasting:
July 13 / 19:00 – 21:00
Explore the world of good, bad and experimental beer with Brygghuset Finn www.brygghusetfinn.se
The Museum is also on tour, and will be doing pop ups in Gothenburg, Sweden, Istanbul, Turkey, Miami Fl, USA, New York City, USA, and Stockholm.