Senate Let's Talk: Feminism

Ted Cruz, Canadian-born with Canadian citizenship, running for president.

Yeah.

 

Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz is not a Canadian citizen. He received Canadian citizenship by default because he was born in 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother (just like anyone born in the US automatically receives US citizenship at birth, even if their parents are not US citizens). He moved to Texas when he was 4, and has lived in the US since. However, he formally renounced his Canadian citizenship, effective May 14, 2014.

Most legal scholars agree that a natural born citizen is someone who is a citizen from birth, as opposed to someone who becomes a citizen through naturalization. Under US law as it existed in 1970, Ted Cruz was a citizen from birth by virtue of his mother's US citizenship.

 

Indeed - I'm just surprised there's no grand conspiracy theory about Cruz's birth when there is over Obama's.

 

At the time of Obama's birth in 1961, US law required that for citizenship to pass to a child born outside the US if only one of the parents was a US citizen, the citizen parent had to have lived at least 10 years inside the US, and at least 5 of those years had to be after the age of 16. As his mother was only 18 when he was born, had she given birth in Kenya (as the conspiracy theorists claim), then he would not have been a citizen. (That is moot as he was born in Hawaii, which was a state at the time, and so was automatically a citizen under the 14th Amendment.)

Ted Cruz's mother had lived in the US for her entire life up until traveling to Canada with her (second) husband, and met the 10 year requirement with ease. As such, Cruz met the requirements for citizenship by birth.

 

As fascinating a discussion as this might be, let's get back on topic.

 

You need to preserve your liver for its potential destruction during your read of Dark Disciple!

 

OK, get a load of this - warning for some language:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwar...each-body-advert-with-their-own-bo#.ogKrRXZxz

Edited version:

Protein World company did this advert:



Cue backlash, with company response to one tweet being this:



And it didn't stop there, oh no, same company decided to go the 'we're only telling you the harsh truth' route, which is also practically PR self-immolation.

Also, on that front, when has that ever worked? Oh, certain types individuals love to go around mouthing off, being verbally violent to everyone but when they get both barrels? Either become physically violent or crumble - neither indicates a healthy personality. Neither do their words have a healthy impact, it just wrecks either the person its aimed at or the relationship or both.

 

I'm pretty convinced communication around health issues is pretty unhealthy!

In that it frequently focuses on ideals, tends to be negative without realising that mental health is a key part of someone becoming more active - they need to be convinced they're allowed to feel that they can do this. I sometimes think there's a massive chasm between the fit and un-fit, with each not understanding the other due to mutual incomprehension. Some of it likely does go way back too - think school PE lessons.

There has to better, more positive ways of doing this, probably wouldn't be as lucrative though.

 

One way to look at it is that things like depression filter perception of ability, so while there may be nothing physical stopping someone, so long as they believe they cannot so it'll be.

The other concept is upward and downward spirals, where positive or negative thinking tends to reinforce itself.

 

I'm really distressed that an article like that needs to exist.

 

Ah, new word! And one that so fits its use:

http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/c...woman-to-sock-it-to-the-sexists-10213761.html

 

One of the letters in Metro today - a free newspaper, same as the Evening Standard - was fairly certain said builders would be in deep crap over their actions. Not least as the building trade is trying to banish that unhealthy image, the way it's doing that is by coming down wrong actions like, ahem, a ton of bricks.

Can certainly hope that happened anyway.

 

What's the message of this commercial? That sexism is the natural state of the builder? That this wouldn't be happening if only they'd have a Snickers? Or that they had a Snickers and this is the result, because Snickers is amazing?

 

Following up from yesterday's story of a wolf-whistling bunch of builders, this response is one of the best examples of someone utterly doing themselves over while being utterly oblivious to the fact!

http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/29/wolf-...ged-so-many-girls-off-the-back-of-it-5173104/

Thinking things above her station? I'm amazed anyone even thinks that way.

 

Oh indeed, whatever was I thinking? Better phone my Mum and tell her what a bad job she did!

 

"Above her station"? Oh well. I understand it as his awkward way of saying that she's reading too much into it. He doesn't exactly come off as a man of letters or tact, so no wonder. In any case, one's first thought doesn't have to be "This man is out to discriminate me". Or to go and compare it to racism of all things. But then again it's a convenient term that pushes peoples' buttons and works as a killer argument. It's neither racist nor discriminating; it's really just a nuisance and silly. Also if he thinks it a good idea to publicly brag about how many women he's been with... uh, well, more power to him I suppose. Newsworthy this is not.

 

Oh, really? Why is it not news-worthy? Particularly in this thread?