This calf is just 12 hours old. For the next few months it will run, jump and play like a dog... but cuteness is a weak veggie argument. Doesn't work on many meat eaters, plus it trivializes the all-too-serious health and environmental issues that weight down a lot of consciences.
Hey, look at the day glow puritans! For only $89 $79, you too can experience the freedom of safely concealed dirty pillows and all the sundry naughty bits... like knees. And, for those who are offended by exposed elbows, WholesomeWear will do itself one better:
We also offer a Slimming Swimmer suit that extends to the midarm (between the elbow and the wrist) and covers down to the lower leg (between the knee and the ankle).
Emphasis all them. Jill from Feministe has an idea why these "wholesome" folks are so arm-phobic in their effort to cover all but hands, feet and face:
Because the rest of her is a temptation to sin, my friend. You see, God may have created woman with breasts and hips and an ass, but these things are nonetheless evil, and any indication of them is bad.
Insert painfully obvious Taliban snark here. Sure there's too much serialization of women in our culture. I was reminded again this weekend that Hooters really is considered a family restaurant for some Americans. I'm appalled each time I hear it, and have yet to actually reconnoiter for myself, but I'm with Jill in contextually celebrating scantily clad women:
The bikini was scandalous because it publicly revealed the female body. And, while I think we can all agree that objectification isn’t liberating, the bikini was sort of a big middle finger to the people who saw the female body as inherently sinful and needing to be covered.
It's a fine line to tread, the celebration vs. objectification of women's bodies - and even though context is everything, WholesomeWear is so clearly wrong. Nudity is a natural for swimming - not serving chicken wings.
The LA times has a calm and detailed piece on the expletive deleted domestic partner benefits "screw you" tax today:
What's more, the premiums paid by the company are added to the
employee's gross wages as taxable income, so the employee must pay
Social Security and Medicare taxes on the phantom wages.
That latter payment is particularly disturbing to Pizer, who notes that
if she dies, her partner would not be eligible for Social Security
Domestic partner benefits can easily add $1,000 or more to the tax bill of an employee who signs up for the coverage, said Bill Massey, an editor at RIA, a New York-based provider of information and technology for tax professionals.
For example, if the additional coverage costs the company $300 a month and the employee has taxable income of $50,000, the employee would pay more than $1,500 in additional federal, California and Social Security taxes.
It's great to see so many companies recognizing gay relationships - even if their motive is a selfish PR grab or even just keeping up with the joneses they are doing the right thing. But taxing those benefits is such a slap in the face. It's a symbolic smudge on the respect extended by those benefits and it cuts into the actual "benefit" to the employee, which is the point, isn't it? Info on a bill to kill the tax on HRC's site.