Imagine a bleak, dog-eat-dog world that pits coworkers against each other in a vicious struggle for survival, and you’ll get the basic idea behind Fox’s new reality show, “Does Someone Have To Go?” If you’ve ever wondered what life might be like in the world envisioned by conservatives and their promoters at Fox, last night’s debut episode gives us a pretty good idea. All the elements are there: A CEO who doesn’t get held accountable for his failing company; employees who are always in the wrong (a preview video describes them as “incompetent” instead of the CEO); the desperate workers who’ll do anything to keep their jobs and who divide against one another rather than turn against the company’s vile owners; an incomprehensible lack of empathy for these workers and their families from the producers, and a myth of empowerment that conveys only the “power” to select from a shabby menu with crappy choices.
And this seriously has got to be the meanest reality show ever. The owners of a dysfunctional, money-losing, nepotism-riddled company, VMS, in Chicago — a married couple — calls the workers in for a meeting. The husband, Danoush Khairkhah, first plays the “bad cop” and announces, “the complacency that we’ve created for this company is hindering our growth. You guys have to step up to the plate and actually do something about it,” then his wife Dema plays the “good cop” and declares, “we’re going to put the power of this company in your hands.”
Marriage equality is closer than ever before to becoming a reality in Nevada. In an expected but exhilarating vote, the Assembly passed Senate Joint Resolution 13 to repeal the state’s ban of same-sex marriage and replace it with an amendment to legalize it. The final vote of 27-13 capped the end of the first part of the journey toward marriage equality for same-sex couples that began two months ago after a new poll showing majority support of marriage equality inspired state senators to begin the effort.
GODS, THIS IS JUST REVOLTING. KEEP CHILDREN OUT OF THIS SHIT.
During a Thursday House panel hearing about H.R. 1797, a fetal pain bill being pushed at the federal level by Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, Gohmert cruelly told a woman testifying against the bill that she should have been forced to carry her brain dead fetus to term and watch it die while her family suffered financially from the hospital bills.
According to ThinkProgress, Christy Zink told lawmakers her heartbreaking story of discovering that at 21 weeks, her fetus had absolutely no brain function and wouldn’t live long, if at all, outside the womb and would suffer painfully all of the time. Rather than watch her baby suffer, Zink made the decision to have an abortion, thereby sparing the fetus of suffering that would have been incurred due to the defect that couldn’t have been detected any earlier by doctors.
CHRISTY ZINK’S TESTIMONY:
“If this bill had been passed before my pregnancy, I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain. If he had survived the pregnancy — which was not certain — he might never have left the hospital. My daughter’s life, too, would have been irrevocably hurt by an almost always-absent parent.”
LOUIE GOHMERT’S RESPONSE:
“Ms. Zink, having my great sympathy and empathy both. I still come back wondering, shouldn’t we wait, like that couple did, and see if the child can survive before we decide to rip him apart? So. These are ethical issues, they’re moral issues, they’re difficult issues, and the parents should certainly be consulted. But it just seems like, it’s a more educated decision if the child is in front of you to make those decisions.”
Wow, unbelievable. If unbelievable means ‘The U.S. Army’ does not and has never offered any protection to female members’.