Rush Limbaugh wrote a children’s history book, starring the fictional time-traveling history teacher “Rush Revere” who “travels back in time and experiences American history as it happens, in adventures with exceptional Americans.”
Of course, Limbaugh doesn’t have the best grasp on…
I realize I haven’t posted here in a while/at all (my mostly-photos-of-pie tumblr has also been dormant in an unfortunate way), but I’ve been having a lot of conversations about mansplaining lately and I realized I had some thoughts that needed sharing.
In my opinion, there are two different kinds of mansplaining.
The first is fairly straightforward, and is the more commonly accepted definition. It is when a man explains something with the assumption that the listener doesn’t understand because the listener is a woman. This is obviously sexist; the implication is there’s something about being a woman that makes us stupid or inferior or otherwise incapable of comprehending the topic on our own. This is particularly easy to highlight when the female listener is in fact more qualified or has a greater expertise in the topic than the mansplainer.
This kind of overt sexism may sound unusual, but unfortunately it takes place all the time.
The second kind of mansplaining is a little more complex, and harder to describe. It occurs when men explain the female experience while disputing actual women’s opinions on the matter. Rather than assuming the female listener doesn’t understand the topic because she is a woman, it is almost as if the explainer has forgotten that they are talking about or to a woman; they think they somehow understand what it’s like to be a woman more than, you know, actual women.
ACT I: Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers oversee broad, industrial scale hacking activities, and its reporters engage in bribes. This leads to years of investigations, multiple arrests of high level officials, an entire newspaper being shut down, and fervent apologies from Murdoch. The scandal…
I should hold that a civil court cannot be made to enforce an order which violates constitutional limitations even if it is a reasonable exercise of military authority. The courts can exercise only the judicial power, can apply only law, and must abide by the Constitution, or they cease to be civil courts and become instruments of military policy.
Of course, the existence of a military power resting on force, so vagrant, so centralized, so necessarily heedless of the individual, is an inherent threat to liberty. But I would not lead people to rely on this Court for a review that seems to me wholly delusive. The military reasonableness of these orders can only be determined by military superiors. If the people ever let command of the war power fall into irresponsible and unscrupulous hands, the courts wield no power equal to its restraint. The chief restraint upon those who command the physical forces of the country, in the future as in the past, must be their responsibility to the political judgments of their contemporaries and to the moral judgments of history.
My duties as a justice, as I see them, do not require me to make a military judgment as to whether General DeWitt’s evacuation and detention program was a reasonable military necessity. I do not suggest that the courts should have attempted to interfere with the Army in carrying out its task. But I do not think they may be asked to execute a military expedient that has no place in law under the Constitution. I would reverse the judgment and discharge the prisoner.
Justice Robert Jackson, dissenting in the Korematsu case.
I can’t say enough about how powerful this quote is, and how applicable it is today.
“The system is slowly destroying itself. I’ll give you an example of how this might work out. Let’s suppose you say in the future, journalists will figure out how to attach themselves to advertising more directly so they’re not left out of the loop. Right now, a lot of journalism is aggregated in various services that create aggregate feeds of one kind or another and those things sell advertising for the final-stop aggregator. And the people doing the real work only get a pittance. A few journalists do well but it’s very few — it’s a winner-take-all world where only a minority does well. Yes, there are a few people, for instance, who have blogs with their own ads and that can bring in some money. You can say, “Well, isn’t that a good model and shouldn’t that be emulated”? The problem is that they’re dependent on the health of the ad servers that place ads. Very few people can handle that directly. And the problem with that is the whole business of using advertising to fund communication on the Internet is inherently self-destructive, because the only stuff that can be advertised on Google or Facebook is stuff that Google hasn’t already forced to be free.”—