But why do they make everyone file a tax return? In the UK it's only necessary if you're self-employed or very wealthy. Is it because they like auditing poor people so they have an excuse not to audit the rich?
The argument works for the House of Lords, which has often acted as a moderating force (and loses power every time it does), despite its antidemocratic nature.
I think it's a non-starter for the Senate. It was deliberately constructed as a conservative brake on Congress, being heavily weighted to smaller (more rural) states which tend to be more conservative. True conservatism is obviously opposed to fascism but in practice, it isn't (and neither is liberalism if it is feeling threatened by socialism).
“In years to come, I believe people will be asking how it was that government walked by on the other side when thousands of children were suffering abject deprivation, and failed to support them in their hours of need,” he said.
Millions of people have spent the last 25 years wondering how on earth New Labour managed to do so little when they had the chance. Blair's first Commons rebellion was over reducing benefits for single parents. Good intentions and caring words are not enough, you need a fucking spine. The current situation owes as much to New Labour's failure to meaningfully reverse any aspect of Thatcherism, and both New and current Labour's terror of the right-wing media, as it does to the Tory psychopaths.
It needs saying but Brown needs to 'fess up to his failings when in power if he wants to say it with any credibility.
such as the average net worth of the people in a country.
And the mean average makes no sense here either, which is why incomes and wealth are almost always quoted as medians instead of means, unless they're totals which is a roundabout way of reporting the mean (if you know the population baseline).
The more unequal a country, the larger the difference between mean and median incomes.
At 35, Schevers is no longer saying she was wrong about everything, either in her transition or her detransition. She now identifies as “a transmasculine butch dyke, genderqueer, something like that,” she told me, and her she/her pronouns contrast with her male-sounding voice and masculine presentation. She doesn’t think that every single detransitioned woman is really trans, and understands that others may have different experiences. Schevers believes strongly that every person deserves the right to question their gender identity and find their own paths.
She recognizes the good in her detransition experience, explaining: “There’s not always space in trans and queer communities for transmasculine people to talk about internalized misogyny. I could talk about it openly without worrying that people were going to be upset by it.” She even sees the good in some of the ideology, which is based in radical feminist ideas about internalized misogyny and male violence. “Not all the radical feminist ideas were terrible either: I learned a lot about women’s history,” Schevers said. “A lot of what I read was pretty interesting, so I’m glad that I explored that stuff.”
The internalised misogyny she talks about there is thought to be responsible for a small percentage of the small percentage of trans men who regret it. They mistook the whole "girls are crap because they like wearing dresses and playing with dolls" idea that so many tomboys have as meaning that they are trans rather than that they were being indoctrinated by a gender-obsessed society.
I don't think anyone knows if transness would exist in a genuinely non-gender-based culture; I've seen the question asked a few times and the response has always been "no idea". Is it more than just I hate the stereotype of my sex so much I won't be forced to live down to it? (Note that this is subtly different to the internalised misogyny of the tomboy who hates the stereotype of their sex so much they despise members of the same sex.)
No one knows and I don't think anyone should care, either. I don't have to understand the deep bio-cultural science of transness, or have peer-reviewed studies to hand, to know that trans people exist and it is possible to not be an arse about it.
I've only ever heard the above argument made for tomboys (cis women) but I don't see why it would not also be something that cis men could experience. Just because everyone knows it's crap to be a girl doesn't mean it isn't also crap to be a boy. The gender binary is a mirror; you can't treat women differently without also treating men differently and not all of the differences favour men (and often, they make everyone worse off because most men are not members of the patriarchy, of course).
It's not even like he was caught unawares doing his usual schtick without realising Ms Ghey was present. Not that it would be OK anyway. But Starmer literally introduced her at the start of PMQs. Grotesque. Absolutely grotesque.
She wanted your number for work purposes because phones are how we contact people in the modern era. There is absolutely no reason to think she is interested and absolutely no upside to thinking she is.
Do not make her working life difficult and do not get yourself on a disciplinary. Forget about it.
They could certainly do with a control group or three. The point they're trying to make is that over 5 days of watching recommended videos the proportion that were misogynistic grew from 13% on day 1 to 52% on day 5. That suggests a disproportionate algorithmic boost but it's hard to tell how much that was caused by the videos they chose to view.
A real world trial ought to be possible. You could recruit thousands of kids to just do their own thing and report back. It's a very hard question to study in the lab because it's nothing like the real world.
Your title talks about "step" porn but the post is about incest.
Step-relatives are not biological relatives, so not the same as incest. And I'd guess the reason it is popular is because a lot of people have a lot of inappropriate thoughts about members of their step-family, and because there is still an element of taboo which gets some people off.
I spend hours and hours a week in video meetings. If the scammers had access to the footage, it's easily done. Easier, even, given that all the available footage would be from the right context.
You missed the critical bit. Voting for the least worst option when your vote cannot make a difference is worse than pointless.
And Biden will only win if enough people realise the alternative is possible. Thank the OP for their service and quit annoying people who might just hold their noses and vote where it counts.
The BBC has created a new senior editorial post to advise on its Middle East coverage, as the corporation continues to come under fire for alleged anti-Israeli bias.
Malcolm Balen, a former editor of the BBC's Nine O'Clock News, has been appointed "senior editorial adviser" based in London but working closely with the corporation's Middle East bureau in Jerusalem.
You could feel the tone of the coverage shift at 6am, when the day-shift started.
This happened shortly before Thompson took over. He's taken the method to CNN.
Because undocumented workers are easier to exploit and, by extension, make all workers easier to exploit. And those who exploit the workers fund the politics. They can afford to because of all those workers they exploit.
I'm sure stripping the bark doesn't exactly make the trees happy but they don't cut the trees down and that is a win. It's always hard to know what is truth and what is a sales pitch but cork generally gets high marks for sustainability.
As part of Wright’s lawsuit, the detectives had to give videotaped depositions. At one point, his lawyers ask Santiago which is worse: to put an innocent man in prison or let a guilty man go free. The retired sleuth said each would be a “terrible thing,” but settled on the latter.
This is back to front. If you convict the innocent the guilty automatically walk free. It is always worse to convict the innocent.
But why do they make everyone file a tax return? In the UK it's only necessary if you're self-employed or very wealthy. Is it because they like auditing poor people so they have an excuse not to audit the rich?