Republicans hate domestic spending, but their hatred is not completely indiscriminate. Some programs offend them more, and others less. The general pattern is that social programs offend Republicans to the degree that they benefit the poor, sick, or otherwise unfortunate. The struggle over the farm bill is not the biggest policy dispute in American politics, but it is the one that most clearly reveals the priorities and ideological identity of the contemporary GOP.
The farm bill traditionally combines agriculture subsidies (which hands out subsidies to people on the arbitrary basis that the business they own produces food as opposed to some other goods or services) with food stamps (which hands out subsidies to people on the highly nonarbitrary basis that they’re poor enough to likely have trouble scraping together regular meals). Conservative Republicans revolted against the normally automatic passage, insisting that the cuts to food stamps — $20 billion — did not slice deeply enough. Last night the House rectified its failure by cutting food stamps by $40 billion.
The putative rationale for the food-stamp cuts is that eligibility standards have loosened, or that it encourages sloth. Jonathan Cohn makes quick work of these claims, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities makes long, detailed work of them. Click on those links if you want a blow-by-blow refutation. The upshot is that food stamps are a meager subsidy, of less than $1.40 per meal, for people either stuck in very low paid jobs or unable to find work at all. Their cost has increased because the recession has increased the supply of poor, desperate people. Republicans have offered specious comparisons to welfare reform, but that law both offered funds for job training and was passed in a full-employment economy. Neither of these conditions holds true of the GOP’s food-stamp cuts, whose only significant result would be the first-order effect of making very poor people hungrier.
CNN reported last night that Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, a Republican supporter of the bill, received a daily meal allowance of $127.41, or 91 times the average daily food-stamp benefit. Lucas is also notable as a recipient of the agriculture subsidies his committee doles out: He and his wife have collected more than $40,000 worth.
The 27-year-old country music star took to Twitter this week to share some snapshotsfrom her vacation in Rosemary, Fla., posting photos of herself posing in a teeny two-piece.
“I never thought that this person would have done this to me,” said an anonymous woman to WGN Chicago. “I thought he was the one that I was going to end up marrying.”
The woman was a victim of “revenge porn”–the practice of posting nude or graphic content of a person online without his or her consent. During a relationship, she sent private, explicit photos to her boyfriend. But after a rocky breakup, he posted them online. Now, she can’t escape them.
“It’s the worst betrayal that could ever happen to someone,” she said.
Scorned lovers have long sought revenge on exes, but in the age of the Internet, smartphone cameras and YouTube, it’s a whole new ballgame.
On Tuesday, the California State Assembly debated Senate Bill 255, which would make revenge porn a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,000 fine. The bill cleared the Senate by a 37-1 earlier this summer.
“Right now law enforcement has no tools to combat revenge porn or cyber-revenge,” said Sen. Anthony Cannella (R-Ceres), who proposed the bill, in a statement. “Unfortunately it is a growing trend and there are a lot of victims out there, a lot more than I ever imagined. It’s destroying people’s lives.”
The bill has drawn tension between privacy advocates who cite the victims, and free speech advocates like the ACLU, who argued that the content is Constitutionally protected.
High-profile incidents such as the suicide of Audrie Pott have shined a spotlight on the issue in recent years. Pott was a California teen who was allegedly sexually assaulted while passed out a party after drinking. Nude photos of her were allegedly circulated throughout the school in the days leading up to her suicide.
Current legislation prohibits filming or photographing a person fully or partially undressed in a private place without their consent. The new bill would include photos or videos taken with their consent when it is then distributed without permission with the intention of causing distress.
The bill explains:
This bill would provide that any person who photographs or records by any means the image of another, identifiable person with his or her consent who is in a state of full or partial undress in any area in which the person being photographed or recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and subsequently distributes the image taken, and the other person suffers serious emotional distress would constitute disorderly conduct subject to that same punishment.
“People who post or text pictures that are meant to be private as a way to seek revenge are reprehensible,” said Cannella.”This is a common sense bill that clamps down on those who exploit intimacy and trust for revenge or personal gain.”
As the business continues to expand on and off the internet, SoshITech is looking for loyal individuals such as the one noted in the photo above and below who will show their commitment to the blog by sending the staff at SoshITech an image in support! IF you would like participate in something like this please send all your photos for consideration to SoshITech (AT) GMAIL . COM ! Thanks and God Bless!
The following excerpt is from the Huffington Post!
While Korean pop sensation Psy’s party anthems are no doubt the soundtrack to booze-fueled gatherings across the globe, it turns out that the 35-year-old also has quite an intimate relationship with alcohol.
Psy opened up to the Sunday Times Magazine about his drinking habit saying, “If I’m happy, I’m drinking, if I’m sad, I’m drinking. If it’s raining, I’m drinking, if it’s sunny, I’m drinking.”
The only time he isn’t drinking? “When I’m hungover.”
This isn’t the first time Psy’s name has been embroiled in a bit of controversy. In April his “Gentleman” video was banned in South Korea and in December of last year, video of an anti-American performance from the singer surfaced.