About these ads

Wearing a Skirt Has Consequences: A Men’s Rights Redditor defends a man’s sacred right to take upskirt photos

Women: If you wear skirts here, some MRAs think you should be punished for it

Women: If you wear skirts here, some MRAs think you should be punished for it

So we, as a society, have “peeping tom” laws to protect people who might unknowingly expose themselves to the creepy peepers of, well, creepy peepers who get their thrills from seeing and sometimes photographing strangers revealing more than they meant to.

It would seem reasonable enough to consider surreptitiously taken “upskirt” photographs as violations of peeping tom laws. But not in Massachusetts: On Wednesday, the Supreme Judicial Court in that state ruled that upskirt photographs are legally ok, as the laws there are written to apply only to protect victims who are “partially nude,” not those who are merely wearing short skirts.

In the wake of the ruling, legislators and women’s rights advocates are saying that the laws — written before cell phone camera were ubiquitous –  need an update.

Naturally, this has some of the dedicated Human Rights activists in the Men’s Rights subreddit in an uproar. How dare anyone challenge their sacred right to take pictures of women’s panties on public transportation without their consent!

Demonspawn [-1] 6 points 7 hours ago (26|20)  Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn't assault her, didn't touch her... all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public.  How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him?  This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men's freedom.      permalink     save     source     save     give gold     hide child comments  [–]nigglereddit 5 points 6 hours ago (13|8)  You're absolutely correct.  If you wear clothing which exposes parts of your body from some angles, you have to expect that someone at that angle will see those parts of your body.  You can't tell everyone not to see you from those angles because you're not comfortable with that part of your body being seen; that's ridiculous. If you're uncomfortable it is your job to cover that part of your body.      permalink     save     source     save     parent     give gold  [–]DaNiceguy [-2] 4 points 4 hours ago (11|7)  Ah but you see the wrong man saw it. That makes him a criminal, right?

“Wearing a skirt has consequences!” What a perfect slogan for a “movement” that is about little more than tearing down half of humanity in the name of, what, a man’s right to be a peeping tom? Put it on a t-shirt, Demonspawn, and show the world the kind of creep you are.

NOTE: Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this.

UPDATE: The Massachusetts State Legislature, moving surprisingly quickly, has passed a new law explicitly banning upskirt photos; it could be signed into law by tomorrow.

About these ads

Posted on March 6, 2014, in a woman is always to blame, all about the menz, antifeminism, are these guys 12 years old?, boner rage, creepy, demonspawn, evil sexy ladies, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, nice guys, oppressed men, reddit, sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, upskirts and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 202 Comments.

  1. Between Dave’s OP and the people I’m complaining about, I’m tempted to start telling people that because upskirt photos are a violation of bodily autonomy on a continuum with assault, people should have the right to meet them with deadly force. (I think we should have the right to smash the person’s camera, though that right won’t do you much good unless you’re willing to risk them deciding to beat you up or pull a gun on you for destroying their camera.)

  2. The end of the first sentence of my last comment should include, “in order to shift the Overton window”.

  3. @closetpuritan

    I don’t even think this is much of a balance act involving free speech. I mean, the law doesn’t actually forbid any *speech* after all – not the expression of any idea and so on. It only prevents *recording* certain stuff. You have the right to say and publish whatever you want, but you can’t record ‘upskirt’ images for it – just like you can’t just enter private property in order to record stuff, and nobody calls that an abrogation of free speech. So, IMO, opposition to such very sensible (and apparently, at least in Mass., so far sorely lacking) laws is just silly… at best.

  4. Victoria’s had a law covering this since 2007 – the Summary Offences Amendment (Upskirting) Act 2007. It’ll come up as a Word or Open Office doc if you google it.

    The brief statement is this:

    41A Observation of genital or anal region

    A person must not, with the aid of a device, intentionally observe another person’s genital or anal region in circumstances in which it would be reasonable for that other person to expect that his or her genital or anal region could not be observed.

    3 months imprisonment.

    Notes
    1 The reasonable expectation test is an objective one—what would a reasonable person in the position of the person being observed have expected.
    2 Section 41D(1) sets out exceptions to this offence.

    41B Visually capturing genital or anal region

    A person must not intentionally visually capture another person’s genital or anal region in circumstances in which it would be reasonable for that other person to expect that his or her genital or anal region could not be visually captured.

    2 years imprisonment.

    Notes
    1 The reasonable expectation test is an objective one—what would a reasonable person in the position of the person whose genital or anal region is being visually captured have expected.
    2 Section 41D(1) sets out exceptions to this offence.

  5. just like you can’t just enter private property in order to record stuff, and nobody calls that an abrogation of free speech.

    Fuck, I just realized that these guys don’t consider a woman’s vulva her own property.

  6. Well, of course not. Womenthings are men’s property.

  7. they think free speech is an absolute right,

    Lies.

    The moment someone tries to criticize their speech, they scream “Censorship!”, as they’re very much invested on saying stupid shit unchallenged, the free speech of critics be damned.

    Another point where they think free speech is relative is when they decide bigots should be allowed to speak freely anywhere even if their speech ends up effectively shunning minorities out of the space. Freeze peach for bigots, and not for their victims.

    So no, they don’t think free speech is an absolute right. That’s a red herring.

  8. cassandrakitty

    Oh, if it was a man whose tackle was being photographed without his permission they wouldn’t be arguing free speech rights and would be righteously outraged. It’s just what katz said – they think women’s bodies are either public property (if we’re single) or private property (if we’re partnered, in which case our man should be with us in public). At no point are our bodies ever our property – silly wimminz, thinking stuff like that.

  9. That MRAs often make property rights discourse central to their arguments really reveals how much libertarian capitalism informs their worldview even if they don’t consider themselves libertarian capitalists. Both groups have at least one thing in common: they both use the concept of property to justify the cruel treatment of human beings. They use the concept to erase women’s bodily rights e.g. women are considered public property as katz said, and they also use the concept to advocate the right to force women to have abortions. And those are just two examples of how inherently libertarian the MRM is.

  10. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear. I’m basically saying that one thing that supports a significant amount of MRA misogyny is the assumption of property rights applied to the body. A worldview that presupposes the possibility of ethically owning another person’s body is one that will likely legitimize at the same time a lack of regard for bodily integrity. After all, one can do whatever they want to their property. People who abandon the notion of property applied to the body tend to not be MRAs, I’ve noticed. I’m not saying that anyone supportive of capitalism is automatically a misogynist as well, but I think there’s a strong correlation at least.

  11. @trans_commie: Yeah, I’ve noticed a general correlation between fringe-rightist Randian “libertarians” and misogyny as well…..not to mention with racism and all sorts of bigotries as well(btw, Ron Paul’s been particularly guilty of buddying up with racists himself).

  12. Um…0_o Wow, that is an interesting article. I feel like looking up a skirt is not really on public view, though. It’s like saying that people in public bathrooms can be recorded taking a dump, in a way. You have to go out of your way to record up skirts.

  13. cassandrakitty

    Technically, if we wanted to, a lot of women could assess the ball size of the men around us if they’re wearing fitted enough pants. We could even photograph the outline of their balls through their pants and post those pics on the internet. Do women generally do that? No, because this is a gendered phenomenon that has nothing to do with what people choose to wear.

  14. And the creepshot apologists surely would defend women’s hypothetical right to do so to the death!

    …unless some women were *actually* doing that. Then it would be all evil women out to get their precious bodily fluids, or something like that.

  15. Ally – you were very clear indeed. I’ve been trying to put the idea into words and not managing it. Women as people, our bodies an integral part of ourselves – nope, our humanity is denied and we’re just sexthings that have somehow been denied to the rightful owners, the actual living human beings, ie. men.

    MRAs have no trouble identifying their bodies as themselves, but with women, no, they deny there’s a person there at all. Just some malfunctioning software at best.

  16. cassandrakitty

    It’s creepy as hell, of course, but it’s also kind of sad. What a miserable life that must be, being unable to be attracted to someone and think of them as a person at the same time.

  17. vaiyt:
    So no, they don’t think free speech is an absolute right. That’s a red herring.

    If you’re talking about your typical MRA, yes. But the comment from me that you quoted was me talking about normally-not-terrible people I knew. They are not MRAs or right-wing libertarians. (Two of the three almost always vote for Democrats or Independents; with the third one, I don’t know his politics as well.)

    Ally:
    If they weren’t so misogynistic, they would apply property rights to mean “if it’s my body, it’s my property” (not some man’s property). Libertarianism used to be more associated with support for abortion rights, but not any more. I mean, those types of libertarians still exist, but they’ve gotten to be rare and are not “the face of the movement” in the US at least–probably in part because Libertarians have hitched their wagon to the Republican party, and a pro-choice Republican won’t make it past the primary.

  18. But the comment from me that you quoted was me talking about normally-not-terrible people I knew.

    I still stand by my comment. I think it applies to just about every defender of Freeze Peach I’ve met. Most of them act out of thoughtlessness rather than malice, but the net effect is the same.

  19. vaiyt:

    But you haven’t met them. With the two I know well, I’ve known them for more than a decade each. They’ve yet to make a fuss over the ability of others to criticize them, or say anything that embraces the Preferred First Speaker doctrine. By now, if they had any substantial hypocrisy on this, I think they would have shown it. No, I think their problem is not a lack of sincerity in their commitment to free speech, but a failure to truly consider the violation of rights going on in upskirt photos and realize its importance.

  20. Concerning libertarians, I think the main problem is what people identify as “libertarian” these days. From across the Atlantic, I get the impression that these days, most US-Americans self-identifying as “libertarians” are actually just conservatives (and that also means social conservative) who especially hate paying taxes.

  21. @Octo, pretty much. About ten years ago, the “libertarians” I knew were big on individual freedoms, and their big causes were legalizing marijuana, access to abortion, and either allowing same-sex marriage or, preferably, removing government from marriage entirely (but still supporting LGBT rights). They tended to ID as libertarian rather than liberal because they would have preferred that government-issued welfare be replaced by people caring for each other. But now, as someone said upthread, libertarianism has hitched its wagon to the far Right, whose wealthy leadership have linked the ideas of “individual freedom” and the “free market”, and used it to promote unfettered, unregulated capitalism. They’ve embraced a really Randian “selfishness is noble” way of thinking, and unfortunately convinced a certain subset of the working classes to go along with it.

  22. Over here, the casual definition of “libertarian” is “fascist who likes to smoke pot”.

  23. closetpuritan – I can’t get my head around how anyone could consider vouyerism a free speech matter at all. What has violating a woman’s bodily privacy by angling a device to photograph her genitals, without her consent, got to do with freedom to express ideas? Would they say groping is a freedom of speech matter? Or flashing? What about the creep on the trains here a few years back who was targeting women with long hair and cutting it off? This is about the continuum of sexual assault, not some supposed violation of a dude’s right to open his trap and talk shit without the gummint locking him up for it.

  24. @kittehserf:
    Thanks for weighing in on the Aussie laws!

    Basically, they think that we might accidentally ban public photography. OK, I’m making fun of them a bit, but the two I know well and know offline are worried that certain types of public photography might be made illegal. Vague stuff about “what if we need to film police who are doing something bad?” (I’m struggling to think of a case where you’d need to film police where their underwear would be exposed and you’d be filming “under or around the person’s clothing”, as the Massachusetts law puts it.)

    The other one, who I don’t know as well and don’t know offline but have read a fair amount of his comments online since he’s a regular on Alas!, has comment #104 here. He actually doesn’t seem to be coming from a free-speech perspective so much as a “make as few things illegal as possible” perspective. He came up with one hypothetical that featured an unsympathetic victim of photography/sympathetic perpetrator, but honestly, that just convinces me even more that these guys see upskirt photos as kind of a trivial thing, since no one’s arguing, “Some victims of vandalism had it coming to them because their ex did it out of revenge for abuse!”

  25. Funny, for a bunch of guys who are so “I, me, mine” in every way, the concept of personal space somehow doesn’t apply if the person is a woman or girl. I guess the “logical” corollary of that notion would be that female persons…are not persons at all. Therefore, they should have no personal space, and therefore there is no such thing as respect or violation where the space they happen to occupy is concerned. They’re just objects. Playthings. Things to be covertly photographed and giggled over on creep-shot fora.

    Damn, this flibbertigibbertarian man-logic comes up short in so many, many ways…

  26. Vague stuff about “what if we need to film police who are doing something bad?” (I’m struggling to think of a case where you’d need to film police where their underwear would be exposed and you’d be filming “under or around the person’s clothing”, as the Massachusetts law puts it.)

    Yeah, filming the police doing bad things is already illegal in some places (I’m thinking Chicago, but don’t have the energy to check. (Tab, type, type… God, it’s exhausting!)

    It sounds suspiciously like all the “But what if…” arguments that are trotted out in protest of anti-harassment rules at cons. “But what if she really wants to have sex with me, and just can’t verbally consent because of secret control of by the illuminati / ancient alien / masons? Then, you know, I might not get laid!”

  27. PS: Here in Canada, women did not legally become persons until…1929. (Yes, really.)

  28. Personally, concerning public photography, I think that in general, going beyond just creepshots and issues of lacking respect for women, people’s personality rights should weigh more than people’s right to take and publish those photographs. That is, if a person’s face is clearly visible on your photo, you contact that person if you can and ask for permission to publish the photo, or at least take the photo down if that person then complains. But then, for my Central European tastes, personality rights are a bit underweighed in the Anglo-Saxon world in general…

  29. cassandrakitty

    I have a solution! People can take as many photos of others in public spaces as they want, as long as they get the subject to sign a release form. That way we’re not killing photography and free speech, oh noes! We’re just giving regular people the same rights that professional models already have.

    I mean, if you believe that women are consenting to upskirt photos by wearing a skirt, you should be confident enough to tell them so to their faces and ask them to sign the form for you, right? What are you, some sort of a coward?

  30. Speaking of models and overstepped boundaries, this is somewhat germane. (Warning: also extremely gross.)

  31. Funny, for a bunch of guys who are so “I, me, mine” in every way, the concept of personal space somehow doesn’t apply if the person is a woman or girl. I guess the “logical” corollary of that notion would be that female persons…are not persons at all. Therefore, they should have no personal space, and therefore there is no such thing as respect or violation where the space they happen to occupy is concerned. They’re just objects. Playthings. Things to be covertly photographed and giggled over on creep-shot fora.

    Damn, this flibbertigibbertarian man-logic comes up short in so many, many ways…

    Exactly. They implicitly deny that we’re living individuals all the time.

    Yet, with the usual scrotosphere logic, they’re acknowledging it, because they get off on causing distress and fear, on imposing their will on women, preferably in a sexual way. We’re real enough to fuck and torment, but not real enough to have any rights in the matter.

  32. This case is actually a pretty good example of Libertarian-style theoretical liberty versus actual freedom. Without a law against upskirt photos, there are fewer actions restricted; people are both free to wear skirts and free to take upskirt photos. In practice, it leads to many women “voluntarily” losing their freedom to wear skirts because if they do wear skirts they have a relatively high risk of being targeted for upskirt photos.

  33. Bina:

    Speaking of models and overstepped boundaries, this is somewhat germane. (Warning: also extremely gross.)

    Ugh, that guy. Didn’t he do the same to an underaged model?

    And why is he still getting work? (Sadly, this is a rhetorical question).

    I love how sexually objectifying women is treated as something new and “edgy.”

  34. Personally, concerning public photography, I think that in general, going beyond just creepshots and issues of lacking respect for women, people’s personality rights should weigh more than people’s right to take and publish those photographs. That is, if a person’s face is clearly visible on your photo, you contact that person if you can and ask for permission to publish the photo, or at least take the photo down if that person then complains. But then, for my Central European tastes, personality rights are a bit underweighed in the Anglo-Saxon world in general…

    In a way, I agree with you, Octo. It seems wrong that you can photograph someone without their permission, if you’re trying to photograph that specific person, and then profit from the photo or put it up on People Of Walmart to mock. But I also feel like you should be able to take pictures of friends, etc. who’ve given their consent to be photographed even if a bunch of other people are milling around in the spot where you want to photograph them. And I think it would hurt journalism (both the traditional kind and the citizen-journalist kind) if you had to get permission from all members of, say, a protest and a counter-protest and the cops around it and the people just walking by. (Law enforcement officers pretty much never want their images published, in part because some people target them simply because they’re LEOs.) And it also wouldn’t stop people from taking ‘headless fatty’ photos, since the faces aren’t visible in those.

    (I have had one stranger that I know of take a photo of me, I suspect in order to mock what I was wearing but possibly for his fetish collection, though I wasn’t in a Walmart. I wasn’t exactly happy about it. I tried to give him a glare, but he was studiously avoiding eye contact. I kind of wish I’d said something, but I guess I wasn’t sure how to react.)

  35. Ah yes, libertarianism: men’s freedom to harm women is much more important than women’s freedom from being harmed.

  36. Buttercup Q. Skullpants

    Libertarianism relies on everyone else to keep up their end of the social contract. They’ll happily drive on well-lit, well-paved roads that other taxpayers have paid for, but don’t ask them to contribute.

    Re: upskirting, I think there might be a market for panties printed with “FUCK YOU, CREEPER”. Preferably in LED lights.

  37. I still go for mandatory creepshot-recognition technology in phones – that make the phone explode or melt down on the creeper’s hand.

  38. Yeah, filming the police doing bad things is already illegal in some places

    Including Massachusetts, last I checked.

    Libertarianism relies on everyone else to keep up their end of the social contract. They’ll happily drive on well-lit, well-paved roads that other taxpayers have paid for, but don’t ask them to contribute.

    This is exactly my main objection to Libertarianism. Anarchists, at least, have proposed models of community-level governance that might keep people aware of how their actions hurt others, or at least keep them honest. Libertarians seem to think that in the absence of government, people would just police themselves. It’s like they’ve never even read Lord of the Flies.

    Or else, they think they’d be the ones on top of the heap, and don’t care what happens to the rest of us.

    My favorite is the ones who want to get rid of things like workplace safety and labor laws, claiming that The Market will favor the more humane employers or something. We tried that, fairly recently, and it didn’t work. Anyone who was awake for the Industrial Revolution portion of US History should be aware of the breadth and depth of human suffering when there are no labor regulations. Hell, anyone who was awake in the last couple of years should be aware, thanks to shit the Bangladeshi factory fire or the Apple plant suicides. How anyone can claim we’d be better off without worker protections is beyond me.

  39. This case is actually a pretty good example of Libertarian-style theoretical liberty versus actual freedom. Without a law against upskirt photos, there are fewer actions restricted; people are both free to wear skirts and free to take upskirt photos. In practice, it leads to many women “voluntarily” losing their freedom to wear skirts because if they do wear skirts they have a relatively high risk of being targeted for upskirt photos.

    I had a similar thought during the last Presidential election, when one of the Republican candidates (probably Ron Paul) said he supported a business owner’s right to refuse to serve black customers. I was like, but wouldn’t that business owner’s refusal limit the freedom of the black people in the community? Especially since, should racial discrimination become legal again, they probably wouldn’t be the only business to make that choice? But Libertarians are so focused on the individual (usually themselves), they don’t think about the social context we’re currently in. Anti-discrimination laws are another one of those things that exist precisely because the Free Market didn’t magically solve them.

  40. I got modded! Did I use a verboten word? Am I posting too frequently? Should I post more cat videos?

  41. Ah yes, libertarianism: men’s freedom to harm women is much more important than women’s freedom from being harmed.

    Bingo. Our “freedom from” is a terrible infringement on their “freedom to”. Meanwhile, their “freedom to” takes away more and more of OUR “freedom to”! How sadly ironic is that?

    Libertarianism relies on everyone else to keep up their end of the social contract. They’ll happily drive on well-lit, well-paved roads that other taxpayers have paid for, but don’t ask them to contribute.

    Yup! And yet they have the temerity to refer to everyone who uncomplainingly contributes as the “looters”, “moochers” and, my personal favorite, “sheeple”. When the revolution comes, their heads should be the first ones on pikestaves.

  42. American libertarians really need to read about the Triangle Shirtwaist incident. I think some of them probably think the things that have happened in Bangladesh recently wouldn’t happen in the US, but they can and have happened here.
    I can’t speak to what libertarians in other countries believe, but American libertarians seem to be corporate fetishists with undertones of white male supremacy.

  43. I’m not sure where I’ve heard this; it may have been here, so I apogizing if I’m repeating someone! There’s a county in Oregon where the people keep voting against raising property to pay law enforcement. Crime is sky-rocketing:

    http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2014/03/crime_cave_junction_josephine.html

    The Oregon State Police are taking up the slack, but that’s not their job:

    http://www.opb.org/news/article/state-police-bailing-out-understaffed-sheriffs-department/

    American libertarianism in action!

  44. Reblogged this on sindhuspace and commented:
    What about ‘upfront’ photos?

  45. American libertarians really need to read about the Triangle Shirtwaist incident.
    Or more recently, the Hamlet chicken plant disaster. IIRC, that, the Shirtwaist incident, and the recent Bangladesh one all were caused in part by locking the exits. Another example where not making laws and enforcing them makes people less free; they were literally locked up!

  46. I can’t speak to what libertarians in other countries believe, but American libertarians seem to be corporate fetishists with undertones of white male supremacy.

    As far as I know, it’s the same thing here.

  47. Libertarianism used to be a broad and diverse movement that was mostly concerned with, y’know, liberty. Noam Chomsky used to call himself a Libertarian.

    Libertarianism was hijacked by corporate interests in the 80s. Anybody who still calls themselves a Libertarian is either a corporate stooge in on the con or is a victim of the long con.

    A few words from Wikipedia.

  48. Ah yes, libertarianism: men’s freedom to harm women is much more important than women’s freedom from being harmed.

    Yeah. They like to throw around “The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”, but pair it with a lot of twisting to make the victims look like aggressors. (Criticism is censorship! Boycotts are discrimination! No-one is harmed by bigotry or sexism!)

  49. emilygoddess: RP, the libertarian poster boy, sets off the mod filter.

  50. Thanks, Hellkell. I figured it was probably that.

  51. Pardon me for my slowness, but why exactly does RP set off the mod filter? You mean just mentioning his name?

  52. It’s like the one troll who had to call everybody a wh*re. One person’s obsession with the word makes it unusable for the rest of us.

    It’s better than the other way.

  53. @grumpycat, you got it. Just mentioning his name will send your comment to be moderated. Too many of his fanboys came to vomit talking points all over the comments.

  54. Oh, okay,. Eek. Well, I guess that makes it extra good he’s not POTUS.

  55. Chaos Engineer

    From across the Atlantic, I get the impression that these days, most US-Americans self-identifying as “libertarians” are actually just conservatives (and that also means social conservative) who especially hate paying taxes.

    I don’t think that captures it – all US conservatives especially hate paying taxes. (Even low-income conservatives who don’t have to pay taxes are upset that taxes exist. Because the collected tax money is going to Those People.)

    A US Libertarian is basically a Republican who: (1) Isn’t a fundamentalist Christian and (2) favors an isolationist foreign policy.

    You’re right that they tend to be social conservatives on most issues…provided the issue can be justified with any argument other than “The Bible says…”. They’re willing to accept arguments like, “It’s always been this way, and it works to my advantage, so it must be the natural order of things.” So casual racism and sexism are fine, but creationism isn’t.

  56. A US Libertarian is basically a Republican who: (1) Isn’t a fundamentalist Christian and (2) favors an isolationist foreign policy.

    I knew a US Libertarian who was a fundamentalist Christian – a born-again, no less.

  57. Doesn’t Vox Day call himself a “Christian Libertarian”, or didn’t he use to? As I recall, he did…and his opinionations sounded identical to those of any Nazi propagandist.

  58. Yeah, I’ve met plenty of self-declared “libertarians” on the net who were basically Christian fundies. I guess the difference is that standard conservative doesn’t like government, while the “libertarian” drones on all the time about privatizing the entire government could really work (hint: it wouldn’t).

  59. Libertarianism used to be a broad and diverse movement that was mostly concerned with, y’know, liberty. Noam Chomsky used to call himself a Libertarian.

    My only familiarity with the term was in the 70s. It was more or less the wholly owned property of hippies and anarchists and some other leftie loonies. Against restrictions on drugs and on sexual behaviour – and very little more than that for the most part.

  60. Yeah, I’ve met plenty of self-declared “libertarians” on the net who were basically Christian fundies. I guess the difference is that standard conservative doesn’t like government, while the “libertarian” drones on all the time about privatizing the entire government could really work (hint: it wouldn’t).

    And Chile is an excellent case in point…and by “excellent” I mean it’s a failed state in every respect but the media won’t report it as such, because that would indict the CIA, the Chicago Boys, and Uncle Miltie Friedman. And also because that would make its alleged “return to democracy” look perilously like a sham.

  61. Bina, do you have any sources for that, last I checked on failed state index, it had a total of 42.3, comparable to Poland and Lithuania

  62. Too many “Christians” give current meaning to 2 Samuel 2:14: “…by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of Jehovah to blaspheme…”
    Then the skeptics and antichristians blame ALL who profess to be Christians, including actual Christians with whatever corruption the object of their contempt has committed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,488 other followers

%d bloggers like this: