Let’s just say I’ve been a participant mostly a person who had an inside look at the recent struggles against outside aggressors.
We really have to learn our shit to fight back, but is fighting back what one needs to do?
I really don’t know but its like the old wmd nuclear war shit. You have a class of nations you just dont fuck with because they are precisely the ones who can get your shit blown off the face of the earth. That said. We need an army.
Fuck This Shit!!!
Is this from the onion:
The other ICC mum
As for the other ICC, the better-known International Criminal Court where Santiago has been appointed judge, officials kept mum about any plans for welcoming their newest colleague. Court spokeswoman Candace B. Reill tersely read an official statement to reporters:
“As far as this ICC is aware, the Assembly of States Parties gave a nine-year term to a brilliant, astute, compassionate, and poised barrister who is the first Filipino and first Asian from a developing country to sit in the tribunal, which tries crimes against humanity. So help us, God.”
Santiago was named to the world body before her brash and much criticized performance in the impeachment of the chief justice of the Philippines, where at one time she loudly castigated prosecutors as stupid.
Just days after her controversial performance made the news, some ICC judges were seen wandering aimlessly in the court’s hallways, in their robes, mumbling to themselves, “Wha—she’ll be with us for, oh jeez, nine years? What do we do now?”
Note to self. It was all your fault. Great thing I don’t care what most other people think of me. Ouch.
In pain. Note to self.
Those tweets, though unpremeditated, were intentional in their irony and seriousness. I did not write them to score cheap points, much less to hurt anyone’s feelings. I believed that a certain kind of language is too infrequently seen in our public discourse. I am a novelist. I traffic in subtleties, and my goal in writing a novel is to leave the reader not knowing what to think. A good novel shouldn’t have a point.
The virtual world is just like the real world – but faster with no boundaries. It’s a world where people, ideas and emotions travel through densely interconnected social networks. The Philippines, according to ComScore, is the world’s social media capital, and Facebook connects 845 million people around the world, the largest ever in the history of man. How many of you here have Facebook? That’s both a positive and a negative for you because I think it makes it harder for you to deal with the challenge that faced generations before you: how to build meaning into your life.
Meaning is not something you stumble across nor what someone gives you. You build it through every choice you make, through the commitments you choose, the people you love, and the values you live by.
via Draw the line.
Bella DePaulo, a Harvard-trained social psychologist who is now a visiting professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, is America’s foremost thinker and writer on the single experience. In 2005, she coined the word singlism, in an article she published in Psychological Inquiry. Intending a parallel with terms like racism and sexism, DePaulo says singlism is “the stigmatizing of adults who are single [and] includes negative stereotyping of singles and discrimination against singles.” In her 2006 book, Singled Out, she argues that the complexities of modern life, and the fragility of the institution of marriage, have inspired an unprecedented glorification of coupling. (Laura Kipnis, the author of Against Love, has called this “the tyranny of two.”) This marriage myth—“matrimania,” DePaulo calls it—proclaims that the only route to happiness is finding and keeping one all-purpose, all-important partner who can meet our every emotional and social need. Those who don’t have this are pitied. Those who don’t want it are seen as threatening. Singlism, therefore, “serves to maintain cultural beliefs about marriage by derogating those whose lives challenge those beliefs.”
(Granted, given my taste for brainy, creatively ambitious men—or “scrawny nerds,” as a high-school friend describes them—my sample is skewed.) My spotty anecdotal findings have revealed that, yes, in many cases, the more successful a man is (or thinks he is), the less interested he is in commitment.
Last summer I called Coontz to talk to her about this revolution. “We are without a doubt in the midst of an extraordinary sea change,” she told me. “The transformation is momentous—immensely liberating and immensely scary. When it comes to what people actually want and expect from marriage and relationships, and how they organize their sexual and romantic lives, all the old ways have broken down.”
For starters, we keep putting marriage off. In 1960, the median age of first marriage in the U.S. was 23 for men and 20 for women; today it is 28 and 26. Today, a smaller proportion of American women in their early 30s are married than at any other point since the 1950s, if not earlier. We’re also marrying less—with a significant degree of change taking place in just the past decade and a half. In 1997, 29 percent of my Gen X cohort was married; among today’s Millennials that figure has dropped to 22 percent. (Compare that with 1960, when more than half of those ages 18 to 29 had already tied the knot.) These numbers reflect major attitudinal shifts. According to the Pew Research Center, a full 44 percent of Millennials and 43 percent of Gen Xers think that marriage is becoming obsolete.