text:
|Previous Section
|Home Page
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Edward Miliband): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Today is an appropriate day to discuss the Energy Bill-at the opening of the Copenhagen conference and before the ministerial meetings that will take place in its second week. Those talks are an essential part of the context of the Bill that we are debating, and in the past two weeks we have seen signs of progress from China, India and the United States. They have all put targets on the table, and we are determined to use our influence to get the best agreement that we can, consistent with the science. We are determined also to show the maximum ambition in our own plans, and that explains the Bill that we have brought before the House.
Given recent events, I should also like to say that we are here to debate a Bill that is driven in large part by the science of climate change. It is important to take this opportunity to restate briefly the case on the science, because it underlies today's debate. The science is not from politicians, but from scientists: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose work is based on 4,000 experts; the national academies of science of the G8 developed countries and the five leading developing countries; and, here at home, the Met Office, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society. All those organisations are clear that the science is unambiguous-that climate change is real and man-made.
Of course the science is not static, but we must not somehow suggest that robust and near universally accepted science is merely of equal validity to the views of a very small minority of people, many of whom are not scientists. Importantly, one chain of e-mails does not undo decades of climate science, and particular responsibility lies with Members of this House and, indeed, of the other place not to seek to sow doubt or to replace the view of the science with their prejudices.
Mr. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): Does the Minister share my concern that the media-some of the tabloid press, in particular-choose deliberately to misrepresent the science just to sell a few more papers?
Edward Miliband: I actually think that, by and large, members of the press, including the tabloid press, have during this year embraced the idea of climate change and the need to tackle it. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point: in this process, we rely partly on the press to make clear the burden of evidence and views and where they lie, and, indeed, the balance of views and where they lie. Anything that the press can do to help us to make that case is very important, because we are debating difficult decisions-and nobody should be under any illusion that they are not difficult. If people come away with the impression that the science is somehow not settled, or that there is an easy way out, we will face difficulties.
Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South) (Lab):
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the validity of the arguments and the scientific case for the existence of climate change
is completely undermined by people such as Lord Lawson and the Conservative MEP Richard Helmer; and, that the Conservatives must do more to ensure that they align themselves with our policies and the policies that the British public want?
Edward Miliband: The truth is that we need as much of a consensus as we can get on these issues-from all parts of the House. That is very important, and that is why I emphasise the importance of us all showing responsibility, rather than setting ourselves up as scientists and somehow substituting for the views of the science. It is important that politicians act on the basis of the science, and that is what we seek to do.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman talks about acting on the evidence of the science, but he knows that in the case of Heathrow airport, involving an important decision that will affect the environment, the only costed emissions were those of outgoing flights, not of incoming ones. How can he be serious about taking good decisions if his own Department does not get its maths right?
Edward Miliband: The hon. Lady has a long history of campaigning on this issue. I agree with her about the need to make decisions such as that on the third runway at Heathrow in the proper context. That is why we are the first Government in the world to say that we will stabilise aviation emissions at 2050 levels. Indeed, there will soon be a report from the independent Committee on Climate Change on that precise point.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): The Select Committee on Science and Technology was in absolutely no doubt about the validity and strength of the case that climate change is happening and that it is the result of man's activity since the industrial revolution. Even if some of the science can be questioned, the consequences for the planet and mankind are so dire that the precautionary principle should be observed, and I congratulate the Government on taking that line.
Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman is completely right. The precautionary principle was emphasised by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) in a debate that we had a few weeks ago. It is right that we should follow the precautionary principle in this process; in a way, that is an important part of the argument. However, in emphasising the precautionary principle we must not give a sense-I know that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is not doing this-that the science is not settled and that we would be better off being cautious. The science is clear and overwhelming, and the precautionary principle adds extra weight to that.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): Whether one believes that emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere produce climate change is a big argument, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there are two other important reasons why we should not be burning fossil fuels? First, we are acidifying the sea almost beyond the point of no return. Secondly-I speak passionately as a chemist-producing energy from carbon fuels is a very inefficient process, and we need those carbon fuels as larders of chemicals for the generations of the future, so it is a sin to burn them.
Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge; indeed, much greater than mine. My chemistry is probably as bad as my brother's physics in terms of his performance at school. My hon. Friend is completely right about that point and about ocean acidification, which is a serious issue that lots of oceanographers and others are very concerned about.
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): The Energy Secretary is clear that he is persuaded by the science and that the scientific evidence is overwhelming, which is the view of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and on the Conservative Front Bench. Can he confirm that the logic of that is that the UK Government, this week and next, on their own and with the European Union, will go for the toughest, strongest, clearest binding agreement so that we can not only follow the precautionary principle but remember that we are going in to bat for a world where countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives have the chance of a future, not just countries such as ours which caused the bulk of the problem in the first place?
Edward Miliband: I think I can say yes to that intervention. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need the toughest and most ambitious agreement possible and the shortest track to a legally binding treaty.
Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman gave his maiden speech just after I gave mine; I congratulate him on his epic rise to fame on the Front Benches.
Taking up the issue of fossil fuels, we now know that nuclear capacity is running out and that we are running out of oil and gas. What have this Government done for the past 10 years? It is as though the Secretary of State is the boy scout who has turned up late for camp and finally realised that he was responsible for lighting the fire, so everybody will get very cold and angry. Have we not just had a wasted decade?
Edward Miliband: If we are talking about responsibility, I have to say that the alarmism that Opposition Front Benchers have engaged in on these issues is of no help at all. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that we have very clear plans, as I will explain, on renewables, where we are now the leader in offshore wind, on nuclear power-opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition, whose leader said that it was a last resort-and on clean coal.
Mr. Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): I very much agree with what the Secretary of State has said, but even if we get an agreement at Copenhagen, there is still the problem of having to explain to people what the figures actually mean. If we are talking about 80 per cent. reductions, that will mean massive changes in our economy. I am not convinced that the people of this country really understand what it means as yet.
Edward Miliband:
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, as I said at the weekend, there is a mountain to climb and a huge amount to do to explain to people the scale of the changes that we are making, such as 10,000 wind turbines between now and 2020, more nuclear power stations and the clean coal technology
that I have talked about-and that is just in the energy sector. Those are big changes, and I will not pretend that they are not.
The central response to the challenge of the science must be for the Government to understand their role in making the low-carbon transition happen. The truth underlying the Bill is that markets left to their own devices do not put a price on carbon emissions and will not bring forward the investment and industrial policy that we need, nor will they provide the right energy mix for the future. Our low-carbon transition plan, which was published in the summer and widely welcomed, sets out sector by sector what needs to change to meet our commitment to a 34 per cent. reduction by 2020. I believe that we are the first country in the world to do that. It builds on the fact, which Opposition Members often forget, that we are one of the few countries to have met and exceeded our Kyoto targets, with greenhouse gas emissions 21 per cent. below 1990 levels.
Previous legislation, including the Climate Change Act 2008, provides us with many of the powers that we need. In the Bill, which is relatively short because of the length of the Session, we provide for legislation on three particular matters that are central to the task that we face. First, to clean up our energy supplies, it legislates for a levy to provide unprecedented investment in clean coal. Secondly, to improve the deal for consumers, it strengthens the power of the regulator and ensures that it must be proactive for the consumer. Thirdly, to deliver fairness, we are introducing compulsory cut-price energy for the most vulnerable customers.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that carbon capture and storage is important for the UK, because it will give flexibility to the energy mix, but even more important for the world? Exporting post-combustion technology will allow the bolt-on application that will help to reduce carbon dioxide throughout the world and help us to reach the 2050 targets?
Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have said that there will be up to four carbon capture and storage projects, up to two of which will be post-combustion and up to two pre-combustion. That is not just for domestic reasons but for the international reasons that he mentions.
My hon. Friend's comments take me to one of the central purposes of the Bill, which is to provide for a levy for clean coal technology. In total, the new levy will provide up to £9.5 billion over the coming two decades. It is fair to say that in a world of tight resources, it must be right to provide a dedicated stream of funding for clean coal and CCS. It is the largest single investment in CCS by any country in the world, including the United States. Let me be clear about the timetable, which has been raised with us: if the measure is passed, the new levy will come into force in 2011. Next year, before its introduction, we will launch a competition for the up to three additional projects that will benefit from it, alongside the current competition. We need to move quickly on CCS, that is what we will do, in support of our central aim to demonstrate CCS and make it ready for widespread deployment by 2020.
The importance of that is that it is right not just for our environment but for our economy. As many hon. Members know, the CCS industry could provide Britain
with up to 60,000 jobs by 2030. Furthermore, CCS can be good for our long-term energy security, as my hon. Friend has pointed out on a number of occasions, because it will give us greater diversity in our energy sources. As we develop it and make it viable, there will be future steps to ensure that it can be applied to gas-fired power stations as well.
Mr. John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): The Secretary of State mentions consumers, so is there not now a compelling case for him to use his powers to refer the big six energy companies and the relationship between consumers and wholesale prices to the Competition Commission-that is supported by Consumer Focus, the statutory consumer body-given that the commission alone has the powers to break down barriers to entry to the market and that the enhanced powers for Ofgem in the Bill will not come fully into effect until 2011?
Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend has thought deeply about this issue and we have discussed it. The Competition Commission remains a potential last resort, which I still consider it to be. Let me explain why. For a Competition Commission inquiry, we are looking at one to two years, and further remedies will take longer. The commission looked into the liquefied petroleum gas market, but it was five years between the initial investigation and the final remedies being introduced-not that I hold the commission responsible for that.
However, the intent behind my hon. Friend's question is right in the sense that we have cause for concern, including about what Ofgem has shown today, but the Government need to think about a policy response, and we have work going on around the road map for low carbon that will be published in the spring. It is better to look at policy options-Ofgem will indeed have a report out early in the new year-rather than at a lengthy Competition Commission investigation.
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): The Secretary of State mentioned in passing that CCS would be rolled out to gas-fired power stations as well. Nothing in the Bill does that, so how will that step be taken?
Edward Miliband: I think the urgency is to make coal carbon capture work-CCS for gas is farther down the road. We know that coal-fired power stations have approximately double the emissions of gas-fired power stations. The North sea industry, for which the hon. Gentleman campaigns vigorously, can play a crucial role in that area of CCS-indeed, I enjoyed a recent visit to Aberdeen.
That takes me to the second part of my remarks, which is about the consumer. I welcome the fact that in the past year, we have seen an improvement in certain areas; for example, for prepayment retail customers, which has long been campaigned for by hon. Members. A year ago, people on prepayment meters paid £41 more for their energy than standard credit customers; today, that differential has been effectively eliminated.
However, there is a lot further to go, as I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), and the Bill provides for three important changes in regulation. Central to the Bill is reforming the duties of Ofgem. It is wrong to think that competition alone can
protect the consumer, so the Bill makes it clear that Ofgem must use all the measures at its disposal, not just competition. It is wrong that generating companies can unfairly exploit market power to overcharge consumers, so we are responding to a request-such a request was turned down some years ago by the Competition Commission-to provide Ofgem with new sanctions against market power exploitation in the generation market. It is also wrong that companies can escape penalty if abuse is not discovered for more than a year. To ensure that the enforcement regime provides an effective deterrent, the Bill extends the time limit within which Ofgem can impose penalties for licence breaches from 12 months to five years. That suite of new powers significantly strengthens the powers of the regulator to ensure that the costs of energy are fairer.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): As the Secretary of State is going to change Ofgem's powers and duties, has he considered doing so in relation to new grid transmission lines? He will be aware of a new proposal by National Grid for a high-voltage line across the Somerset levels. Only two options have been proposed, but a sub-marine option up the Bristol channel was excluded even before consultation began. If he is considering making changes, will he put additional obligations on National Grid to consider other options for that type of environmental project?
Edward Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman raises a local issue that is of some importance, but I confess that I do not know the details. On the question of grid access, which is a significant and wider problem, he will perhaps be aware that I exercise powers-under the last Energy Bill we had, in the summer-to set the terms of grid access, which has been a perennial problem in relation to renewables. We pledge that that process will be completed by the summer of 2010, and we are on track to do that. On the local issue, he may wish to write to me or one of my colleagues and we will look into it.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con): The Secretary of State is right to say that there are some important issues connected with being fair to consumers given some of the monopolistic powers of the energy generators. Why has he rejected the suggestion of a legal requirement for gas storage, as is the case in other European countries? Some people believe that that allows those countries' markets to behave in a fairer way towards consumers, whereas our market, which has such a limited supply of gas storage, has enabled some of the suppliers to behave poorly.
Edward Miliband: We do need more gas storage, and the hon. Lady, as a member of the Select Committee, has expertise in these matters. The reason we are worried about the proposal that she recommends-we will shortly respond to the recommendations of the Wicks review, which looked at some of these issues-is the danger that it could take the pressure off the companies in terms of what they need to do to build more gas storage. If we substitute our judgment in these matters for their judgment about what is necessary, the danger is that we increase costs to consumers and inhibit future plans for gas storage.
The third issue is the question of vulnerable consumers, which is very important to hon. Members. As well as strengthening general powers of regulation, the Energy Bill will do more for vulnerable consumers. We need to help those most in need through higher incomes, energy efficiency and prices. That is why we have introduced and increased the winter fuel payment and brought in higher cold weather payments. Since 2002, 6 million homes have received loft or cavity wall insulation, and we are on the way to loft and cavity wall insulation for all houses where it can work by 2015. But we need to go further. Today we are announcing pay-as-you-save pilots in five parts of the country to test out a comprehensive, whole-house approach to energy efficiency, supported by finance, as is necessary to make it happen. This is on the way to whole-house refurbishment, beyond loft and cavity wall improvements, for 7 million homes by 2020 and for all by 2030. This will help save money for consumers.
But we also need action on tariffs. The current voluntary agreement on social assistance with energy companies has already helped more than 1 million customer accounts. However, the powers in the Bill will mean that rather than a voluntary agreement, there is a compulsory money-off energy deal for vulnerable customers. We will increase the total amount of help, up from the level of £150 million in the final year of the current voluntary agreement. We want the new system to ensure that older, poorer pensioners in particular receive assistance with their energy bills and we will set out more detailed plans in the coming weeks.
John Robertson (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab): How will that scheme be paid for? Will it be the taxpayer who ultimately pays or will the companies be expected to use some of their profits to pay for it?
Edward Miliband: As for many of these levies, the cost will be spread across other bill payers. Alongside that, we need the tough regulation that I am talking about, which bears down on prices as much as possible. It is right that we take action to help the most vulnerable consumers in our society, and a voluntary agreement is inadequate in the current circumstances. We will have more to say about that in the coming weeks.
Edward Miliband: I have been generous in giving way, but I will give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.
Paddy Tipping (Sherwood) (Lab): I welcome the announcement about mandatory social tariffs. The Secretary of State said that the poorest pensioners will benefit, but will he look at the case of people with long-term chronic illnesses and, in particular, the campaign run by Macmillan for people with cancer?
|Next Section
|Home Page


text:
Slide Headline
About Air Transportation Systems Lab
Air transportation is a vital enabler of growth in the economy and quality of life through empowering trade and tourism. At the same time, its large and still growing scale generates undesirable effects, such as air traffic delays and environmental impacts at the local, regional, and global level. Emerging from the Institute for Aviation and the Environment at the University of Cambridge, the Air Transportation Systems Laboratory at University College London (UCL) explores the interaction between air transportation, the economy, and the environment.
Our work is data-driven, using physical science, econometric, and operations research-based methods. The integrating mechanism is the Aviation Integrated Model (AIM), a unique tool, consisting of interlinked modules simulating current and future levels of global airport-to-airport demand, flight schedules, arrival delay, technology uptake, aircraft performance, local and global emissions, aircraft noise, and the related environmental costs and economic benefits under a wide range of policy conditions. Most recently, our work has focused on the local and global implications of airport capacity expansions.
We strive to make our research as transparent as possible and publish in leading international peer-reviewed journals. We also provide an open-source code of our Aviation Integrated Model. In addition to in-house research, we have been collaborating on research projects with univerisities in the UK (Cranfield University, Imperial College London, University of Cambridge, University of Southampton) and abroad (École Nationale de l'Aviation Civile, GeorgiaTech, ETH Zurich, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), along with US federally funded research centers (MIT Lincoln Laboratory and NASA Ames). Our primary funding has come from the UK Research Councils and the European Commission.
Prof Andreas W. Schäfer speaks to MIT Technology Review
Prof Andreas W. Schäfer spoke to MIT Technology Review on the challenges of electrifying air transportation. Link to the published article: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/17/1058013/electric-planes-taking-off-challenges/

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Various schools' districts have different background and education requirements for writing coaches they employ. If you want to pursue this career path and become an established educator that will help kids improve their writing skills, then follow our guideline. We are going to show you how to become a writing coach and take your career to another level.
Create a resume and promotional material that will define you as an expert writer. You should be prepared to show samples of your work during the interview and application process. You can also include a couple of examples with the CV you send.
The majority of schools require a cover letter as well. In this case, you should express why you want to help public school children, what qualifies you for that position and what experience do you have. All these features will determine whether your application will be accepted or not.
When applying for this job position, you should talk about the different writing positions they have, similar to staff writer for a television show or news reporter. You should explain how your position will help students overcome issues with writing and teach them to tell stories.
Keep in mind that writing coach position isn't only about storytelling, but also about language use. Your students need to be able to construct grammatically correct sentences and use language more effectively and efficiently.
The lesson plant should support your curriculum. Every coach should teach his student to write better, not change their habits completely. Depending on students, you can either offer an online lesson or in person at home.
Even though, online lessons will provide you with a more flexible schedule, some student like personal involvement and teacher engagement. If you have a supplemental material, then they will appreciate your engagement more. The materials will assist them during the class, and you can always give them the list of reading materials or offer other recourses.


text:
Researchers at Harvard have managed to take control of a worm's brain. After genetically engineering the microscopic worm to make its neurons sensitive to light, the scientists found they could control its movements through stimuli projected into its brain.
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED STATES (HARVARD) - Scientists at Harvard University have harnessed the power of light to make a microscopic roundworm chase food that doesn't exist.They have tricked the worm by taking control of its brain.Sharad Ramanathan and his team want to better understand how biological networks operate. They have spent the past four years studying the 300 neurons that make up the worm's brain and finding ways to track and control each one.
They genetically engineered the worms neurons to emit fluorescent light so they could track them and make them light sensitive, so they could turn each one on or off withlaser pulses.
"Suddenly by controlling that neuron we could control turning, left or right. Going forward or backward. And this neuron received lots of sensory information, so just by controlling this neuron we could figure out how this animal should move and remote control it basically. And then the point is can we make it think there is food and just by controlling the activity of this neuron we could make it think there was food and it would make a beeline to where the food was suppose to be but there was no food. We were playing with the brain to make it think that there was food," said Ramanathan, an Assistant Professor of Molecular Engineering.
Researcher Askin Kocabas says the hard part was de-velop-ing the system to track and tar-get individual neurons in the worm's brain while it was in motion.
"We are using complex image processing algorithms here and then we can acquire the image and then we can process the image and then we can identify the neurons position and then we can specifically focus light into specific neurons," said Kocabas.
And even with the tiny worm squirming away they managed to accurately fire lasers at its neurons 50 times per second. The system uses a movable table which keeps the worms centered beneath an ultra fast camera. Once they have the real time image - they can target and shoot neurons - giving them overall control of the worm's brain.
"The question further up is can we start doing such things with higher organisms like zebrafish where the brain is infinitely more complex or so it seems and start asking similar questions in the hope of understanding how biological networks are designed," said Ramanathan.
The team believes those "higher organisms" might be the zebra fish, whose brains are more complex than the roundworm. But Ramanathan says that is still years away. He says tracking and targeting a microscopic worm is one thing - but keeping up with a moving fish is still the stuff of science fiction.
The teams findings were published in the Journal Nature in September, 2012.
Technology >


text:
Everybody keeps saying they are glad 2020 is over. I'm not. 2021 is not going to prove to be better than 2020 in any way, shape or form. Most of us (me included) are going to get hit with many, many financial challenges (i.e. low funds) than we are aware of.
I'm just starting to get my 2021 Budget set up for the new year and already I see some challenges. The first one is food. Looking over my past year's budget analysis, despite my allotting $500 a month for groceries (which is up from $400 in 2019) we barely could keep our expenses in line. Most months hubby and I spent upwards of $700 a month on groceries (one month we hit $800 when we were stockpiling). I'm certain there are many more people feeling the same food insecurity squeeze as hubs and I are.
Due to Covid-19, 30% more Americans are now facing life on a lower income. Through no fault of their own. Throw in the current delay on the unemployment benefits and eviction moratorium (click here) and we are going to witness, if not, become stranded ourselves on mile-long food pantry lines and setting up tents in parks or simply just living in a car. Already, families are posting on YouTube how they are sleeping in their cars due to evictions.
Two weeks ago, I posted how our propane utility company of nineteen years suddenly changed all their rules thus making it difficult for hubby and I to maintain a monthly budget payment plan (click here for that post). Rather than set up their normal 11 month payment budget plan @$208 per month, they now wanted our propane usage to be pre-paid in 7 months. That meant our 1000 annual gallon allotment @ $2.29 a gallon, had to be paid @ $327 a month. They originally wanted $295 a month but changed it. When we balked at the new budget structure, the owner got even more vicious and now wanted $322 up front (to cover a propane delivery we already got for the new year) in addition to the $327. The owner was now demanding a payment of $650.
When you are retired and on a fixed income as we are, coming up with money like that (although doable but not sustainable) is not a wise choice to make. Instead we said we would now go on a 'Will Call' system (we'll call them when we need propane and pay for the delivery right there and then, which will limit us now to about 150 gallons at a time vs full fuel up). We paid the company the $322 we owed them and then proceeded to lower our thermostat two degrees downward to 66F. We've had some winter nights where the temps have gone down to single digits. Thankfully, electricity here is cheaper than propane so we have been supplementing our heat, for now, with electric room heaters. Next season we might install either a wood burning stove or a pellet stove. But then again, we might just sell our home and move someplace warmer.
We also got hit this year with a 116% rise in property taxes. Our town decided to go full assessment home values which means, higher taxes. We went from paying $1114 last year to $2746 this year. I am certain this won't be the end of our higher property taxes. Our state is facing a pandemic budget deficit and guess who the 'powers that be' are looking at to fill that shortage? Homeowners. You fail to pay your property taxes and your state may seize your home so fast they'd be skid marks in your driveway. Homeowners can become homeless too.
As I said, we might just sell and move away. Unfortunately, that might not work out because sooner or later most states come to the same conclusions. We might find ourselves back in the same financially strained boat but poorer and smaller since we moved (and spent a lot of money to do it!) So, we are going to wait this decision out. For now.
One last hit (that I know of) to our 2021 budget is going to be the unfortunate event hubby and I did four months ago. We adopted my daughters puppy because she bought a dog for her daughter (my granddaughter) and within two weeks her husband (my SIL) was severely allergic to the dog (despite being an allergy-free breed). Click here for that post. What seemed like a good idea at the time, which stopped my granddaughter from crying and crying and crying over her little puppy, turned into a financial nightmare for my husband and myself. Apparently this little puppy is a very expensive 'elite' breed (Maltipoo) that is growing up to be an extravagance we fixed incomers can nary afford. In just four short months, we have spent $1058 on this puppies vet visits, shots, prevention meds, food, toys, bed, clothing (don't ask), pet carriers, leashes, chew toys, harnesses and treats. The puppy needs to be spayed at 6 months (which is January) and the vet bill for that will be over $600 (daughter has agreed to pay half of that bill!). Throw in the fact that we already have a dog and spent $424 on that pooches annual vet bill and we're looking at a doggone annual spending of around $1500. Ouch. Nonetheless, I budgeted $125 a month (up from $50 a month) just to cover our two doggies food bills and some flea/tick/heartworm monthly meds. Double ouch.
So, based on my rather tight figures, hubby and I will be facing 2021's budget with a $200 a month deficit. This is NOT a good thing. I've looked over all our expenses. I cut what I could but because we already live so close to the bone, there really wasn't much I could cut. We rarely eat out. We rarely buy clothes. We rarely go anywhere, despite the pandemic. Hubby did a few upgrades to the exterior property (such as cutting down trees and clearing more land out). We've been keeping up with home maintenance and repair (mostly DIY) I cancelled our 2021 Florida vacation so we could catch up financially this year (saving $3500). We've gone more plant based in our food choices. I've stopped buying red meat after getting hit with an $18 bill for just 2 porterhouse steaks that were on sale! We've been cooking all meals at home.
I've been mastering the art of leftovers. I took 2 leftover cut-up potatoes, added 2 beaten eggs and some parmesean cheese, parsley and sauteed it all in a cast iron pot and made a great breakfast (with a side of ketchup). Took leftover marinara sauce and ricotta cheese and made a lasagna using par-boiled noodles. I took leftover penne pasta and added 2 beaten eggs and some parmesean cheese, parsley and again, sauteed that all up in a cast iron pot and voila! Another dinner meal got served. I threw all leftover veggies (broccoli, onions, pea pods) into a wok, added some leftover chicken pieces and a touch of Aldi Asian sauce, served over rice and another lunch is re-born! Lastly, I made a chicken broth from some leftover bones, added in a new Aldi item (veggie won tons), a few frozen peas and I made a great soup!
As for our $200 monthly deficit we will be facing in 2021, our only alternative is to stop putting that $200 into savings. I usually can put aside $500 a month into our savings account (so that we can meet puppy or propane challenges). We are going to have to cut short our savings goal. That is NOT a good thing nor do I recommend it. Nonetheless, that's what this pandemic has done to our finances and truthfully, I think it is going to get worse in 2021. Not better.
We're still going to keep trying to lower our monthly food bill. Less meat. More plant based. This spring, since we are eating more veggies, we will be expanding our garden to keep up with our vegan demands. We've stopped all un-necessary expenditures. Our foo-foo puppy needs to be groomed every other month. I bought the required equipment to DIY but I'm not comfortable yet cutting her hair, trimming her nails or trimming the hair growth around her eyes. Till I can get more courageous, we're going to cough up the $62 grooming fee (gulp).
We were carrying a zero-interest, credit card balance in 2020 of $8161. Carrying any kind of debt going forward in this economy is not advisable at all. Even though the debt was zero interest. So, I just paid it all off from our savings. That freed up around $600 from our monthly budget and lessened our savings threshold by about $3,000. That's why I chose to forgo Florida this season. We needed the year to balance out our finances. A sacrifice for sure.
We may sell one of our cars and go down to being a one-car family. Hubby has been holding on to his car because he thinks he is going to go back to work. One day. He's been out of work since March 2020 and there are no prospects on the horizon for work in 2021. Selling a used car right now might be very profitable since the demand for used cars is very high. BUT….and here's that but, if we should ever need a second car back, it's going to cost us a whole lot more than what we would save in costs and upkeep of our second, fully paid for 2015 car. So, we wait. And see.
Lastly, our foo foo puppy. There's no room here for any kind of celebrity treatment. Hubby runs our puppy just like he ran all our other dogs. She gets oodles of outdoor exercise and activity (sometimes he walks her 2 miles per day!) Good quality but affordable, healthy dog food. Balanced out sometime with leftovers to keep the costs down. Expert vet care (we don't scrimp on health care here because if you do, it'll cost you more in the end) Puppy is crated in a crate we bought off of Craig's List for only ten bucks. Neighbors have given us some 'clothing' pieces (she's a very tiny dog, weighing no more than 10 to 12 pounds and needs protection from our harsh winter weather). We're giving a good home to a good dog. To see the happiness on our granddaughters face each time she's reunited with 'her' puppy is worth all the money we've been spending. They play together for hours and hours. Plus it's been a great 'excuse' for our daughter and granddaughter to come up here and socially distance visit with us at least once a month.
If the Good Lord wants us to raise this puppy, as I always said, the Good Lord will send us the money to do it. So far, so good.


text:
Tigtog's behavior is similar to an idiot's PART ONE
August 21, 2008
So the other night I get this pingback from Hoyden About Town, which was a very nice blog; one I used to read frequently before I started thinking for myself here at transphobia central and now find myself otherwise engaged with the rape threats in my spambox — descriptions of men's "fantasies" raping me are Free Speech and it's Art, so that makes it okay I think according to Tog. Considering the amount of malice dripping from her every syllable, she'd probably say I enjoyed the attention. For whatever wacky reason I didn't receive this pingback until two days after their post went up, preventing me from partaking of the discussion while it's still on their front page. Tog would probably rather you not see that conversation. Don't worry, that's in part two.
Apparently I have upset some small part of the blogophere with my incessant questioning of transgenderism, as Tog is merely one of dozens who have been ranting hysterically about my homophobia, some more hysterical than others. Hoyden was the only one who didn't sound hysterical in the usual way, so I'm picking on her. I'm sure Tog is inconsistent enough to complain.
Sorry 'bout upsetting Big Brother, but if the need to switch body parts because the voices in their head told them to made any sense then I would have stopped gently rolling that idea around with other people who are wondering the same thing, here in this humble little bloggy which everybody else is free to ignore. They keep promising they are going to ignore me, but they never do. Apparently they are unable to resist the urg to equate those who would discuss gender and other mental disorders to those who would advocate murder. Apparently a man insulting a woman is too common for Tog to contemplate, but she forbids anyone to insult a trangender playing the fool on a message board under any circumstance.
You see the problem isn't whether something is or isn't phobic — that's another post for another day, the problem is that no disagreement is allowed on the grounds that any disagreement whatsoever is automatically transphobic and therefore not allowed on the grounds that it's transphobic. Well that sentence certainly ran in circles, didn't it? Kind of like every argument supporting transgenderism I've dissected though I haven't bothered writing about them yet. No point, not when it's all considered "hate".
George Orwell would be proud. And when more people become aware of the tangled bushel baskets full of wrangled misconceptions and strangled dispositions of the tactics used by the transgendered, their name will be lower than any Men's Rights Activist dressed up in a Batman costume. Something only becomes phobic after it's received general consensus validation and not before — this simple factoid they ignore.
I'd rather they discuss the possibility of gosh I don't know learning the difference between hate and love and agreement and objection but I assume no improvement will be forthcoming on that score. When you only see the problems of the world in shades of black and white, any of the thousand shades of grey become only the confusionary tips of an iceberg which don't exist in their world because it's already melted under the scorching glare of environmental group delusion. George Orwell hated groupthink too, he thought it tended toward petty fascism.
Their behavior reminds me of a woman who dresses up a little, hoping to meet a friend with similar interests; and because she's standing on a public streetcorner, these clods feel compelled to harrass from a safe distance from across the street, sure in the knowledge that the pretty little girl in the pretty little green dress would woop their non-logical ass if they said such gross stupidity to her face.
Except I wouldn't do that, because I wasn't raised in a barn and no offense against people who were. There is nothing wrong with being raised in a barn, my maw was raised in a massive log cabin hand-hewn by her pappy with a dirt floor hard-packed to stone and cedar shingles treated once or twice with the potion from a flower, and that damn thing is still solid as a rock today. The water came from a well over a spring in a grove of sycamore trees, and she walked eight miles to school each day or some ridiculous amount swinging a tin pail full of cornbread for her supper. But for all her limitations her maw had enough sense to brush the straw from her eyes, and made her read Aristotle in the orignal greek, bitterly complaining about that 'til she was fifty-four. I lucked out and got the big house with a dishwasher and paperbacks from the store and a private college later, but always there were summers returning to the old ways of doing pumping water from the well in the middle of the scyamore grove.
Which is my way of saying that while I respect and value highly all the high fahlutin plastic magic originating from the laboratory departments of colleges and universities, I value the basics more. Because without boring you any further with details of her life I saw with my own two eyes how a little bit of luck and freedom, lots of logic and common sense could be leveraged to take a little girl raised in a fucking barn and make her fly high over the heads of those who would regulate her to nothing more than their personal pornstar fucktoy, cleaning lady and baby factory all the days of her life. If only she hadn't married the fucking german. Oh please, by all means blame me for that. Anyway, I'm rambling and here's my response to Hoyden or whoever Hoyden is allowing to hurl murdereous slander without consequence on her own blog; Tog who is purporting to speak to a supposedly man-hating homophobic feminazi with green flowers in her hair who is humbly minding her own little business:
Your very first premise is inadequate for the purposes you are utilizing it for. Let's go over it. Again.
to be continued…
140 Responses to "Tigtog's behavior is similar to an idiot's PART ONE"
August 21, 2008 at 5:01 am
Hmmm well I'm going to take issue with you on one thing M Andrea. I do (despite rumour to the contrary) know quite a few 'transwomen' IRL, and they all seem eminently sane to me. That isn't to say there aren't some UNSANE transwomen out there, but I don't think it's always accurate to characterise the wish to 'transition' as a mental illness.
I think to be quite honest there is more than one motive for transitioning. There are some who do it just because they want to be 'gender woman' (ie wear pretty frocks) and they will most likely be unhappy with the outcome. Because it was their gender role they wanted to change, not their body. However I have met several intelligent and insightful people who did just overwhelmingly want to change their body. I don't know why and I don't care. But it wasn't a desire to wear frocks and make up, because most of them don't.
It's not transitioning I object to, personally, at all. People have a perfect right to do what they want to with their own bodies. It's those who express that as being about gender (which not everyone does).
August 21, 2008 at 7:06 am
Oh one more thing about the concept of 'gender reassigment in the UK'. Lisa Harney states (quite correctly) on the thread in question that it is in fact only those who have legally had "gender reassignment" by the gender recognition panel who will be able to demand to use women only services. So it isn't just anyone who identifies as a woman (though some activist organisations, notably press for change, think this SHOULD be the case).
However gender recognition is dependent NOT on physical sex reassignment surgery – there is no requirment for this, but a legal diagnosis of 'gender dysphoria'. The relevant section of the law is as follows:
Applications (1) A person of either gender who is aged at least 18 may make an application for a gender recognition certificate on the basis of—
(a) living in the other gender, or
(b) having changed gender under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.
(2) In this Act "the acquired gender", in relation to a person by whom an application under subsection (1) is or has been made, means—
(a) in the case of an application under paragraph (a) of that subsection, the gender in which the person is living, or
(b) in the case of an application under paragraph (b) of that subsection, the gender to which the person has changed under the law of the country or territory concerned.
(3) An application under subsection (1) is to be determined by a Gender Recognition Panel.
(4) Schedule 1 (Gender Recognition Panels) has effect.
2 Determination of applications (1) In the case of an application under section 1(1)(a), the Panel must grant the application if satisfied that the applicant—
(a) has or has had gender dysphoria,
(b) has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made,
(c) intends to continue to live in the acquired gender until death, and
(d) complies with the requirements imposed by and under section 3.
(2) In the case of an application under section 1(1)(b), the Panel must grant the application if satisfied—
(a) that the country or territory under the law of which the applicant has changed gender is an approved country or territory, and
(b) that the applicant complies with the requirements imposed by and under section 3.
(3) The Panel must reject an application under section 1(1) if not required by subsection (1) or (2) to grant it.
(4) In this Act "approved country or territory" means a country or territory prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State after consulting the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland.
A lot of legalistic language, but what it amounts to is – if you have LIVED as the other gender for 2 years (how do you prove this?) and a psychiatrist thinks you have 'gender dysphoria', that's it, you are legally the other gender.
No surgery required. So yes under this act we can have women with male genitals, who are entitled to access women only services, or apply for jobs giving personal care, which are single sex. Or vice versa of course, most FTM transsexuals don't have phalloplasty.
August 21, 2008 at 7:15 am
By all means come and see me refute the root statements of Miss Andrea's arguments against transgenderism that rely upon dismantling gender theory altogether
But which gender theory? There's more than one! However most feminist gender theorists are agreed that gender has no OBJECTIVE existence i.e. it is a construct and would cease to exist if people stopped believing in it. Yeah it's "real" in the sense law is real – i.e. it only exists because humans believe in it.
So if some people really, really believe they are Napoleon, does that mean they ARE Napoleon?
Does the fact that millions of people, believe in Allah, and millions follow the Buddha, and millions follow Jesus Christ, and millions are Hindus, and really really believe in these different Gods mean that all those gods are real as well? How can they be? Each of these religions contradicts the other.
The fact that someone really, really believes in something doesn't mean it's REAL.
August 21, 2008 at 7:28 am
Well, here's where I get confused. If someone says they don't want to change their gender, they just want to change their body, then why are they changing their body? In the case of MtF, they must want to be women.
I think the confusion is arising Bonobobabe because you're assuming that people only want a female biological body so that they can fulfill the gender role 'woman'. The two are not necessarily the same. It's just that we can't separate them because of the way society constructs gender. Anyone with an apparently female body is assumed to be of gender woman.
You can be a 'woman' socially if you "pass" successfully however, even if you have a penis. Think of 'The Crying Game'. And in the UK you can be a woman legally even if you're biologically male.
But what if you only want to change your body – ie change your physical sex. It is possible. Most transwomen I have ever known haven't been at all bothered about being 'feminine', or 'women' they've just spoken of a deep discomfort with their physical body.
August 21, 2008 at 9:15 am
Most transwomen I have ever known haven't been at all bothered about being 'feminine', or 'women' they've just spoken of a deep discomfort with their physical body.
Yes. To the point of telling my mother at the age of 5 (before I even knew or had heard 'gender', 'feminine', or 'what a woman was') that those bits between my legs were wrong, that there had been a huge mistake. For, whatever reasons, I utterly could not deal with being in my physical male body.
I guess I just don't understand that.
Perhaps I've got a mental illness, bonobobabe? There again, I seem to be able to think completely rationally about most other things?
I am uncomfortable with parts of my body, because I am brainwashed by society to feel bad if I don't conform to standards of beauty for women, like the amount of adipose tissue in my midsection and my rear.
Its not about being uncomfortable with parts of your body because simply society/culture pushes an image of perfection, or beauty. Its about not being able to live in the physical body you were born – you may think that's the same thing, but to me its not. If I just didn't like 'bits of my body', I could go and get cosmetic surgery if I wanted (and ok, to some, they will always consider genital reassignment surgery as 'cosmetic' – to me its the opposite). Its not about fulfilling some sort of 'ideal', just to feel at one with myself anatomically.
August 21, 2008 at 9:15 am
Sorry, messed up the italics for quotes!
August 21, 2008 at 9:28 am
BTW, I didn't mean that to be particularly an attack towards you bonobobabe, so sorry if it came across that way… just that there's lots of things I might not understand about many things in this world… but because I haven't experienced them, I am not in a position to refute them.
August 21, 2008 at 10:12 am
Yep what you need Steph in wordpress is the pointy brackets. Like this .
Nearly all of the transwomen I've met identify as lesbians or bisexual. Which is another reason that I don't think it's as simple as internalised homophobia, as many think. And anybody reading your comments Steph can see you're a lot more rational than some people on the internet.
The simple fact I think is that there isn't one single reason why people 'transition'. For some people I've met I think it really, really is gender pressure. Which isn't a good thing at all. We don't want to give people surgery when what they want is to escape a socially constructed gender role.
Many heterosexual males 'cross' dress and most of them don't have any desire to have surgery. I think a lot of that is to do with the construction of 'man' and 'woman' in society. That's why I loved Eddie Izzard's stand up routine – this was somebody who completely mocked the idea of 'women's' clothes.
The problem arises as Elly says with "medicine" that says you must be either/or and has some deeply retrogressive ideas – because it's all based, still, on the ideas of Harry Benjamin which were just unreconstructed sexist shit. It's not medicine at all apart from the surgical bits of course, it's just gender propaganda.
What the gender apologists have to understand is that by clinging on to the idea, they're not helping anyone. We don't have to believe in gender to believe that someone may want to change their physical sex – which it seems to me is the mistake that's being made all over this debate. If the trappings of gender were removed from the process and the law was framed differently – and I've got some radical ideas on how that could be done – we wouldn't end up with people having surgery they don't really want/need.
A lot of health authorities won't fund sex reassignment surgery in the UK now because it has no proven clinical benefit overall. But I think if the process of referral was changed, that outcome would also change. It needs to be made really clear to people having sex reassigment surgery what it does and doesn't mean. If you have sex reassigment because you really just want to live in the gender role woman of course you'll have a lousy outcome.
Telling doctors to fuck off – excellent idea. Did I mention I don't like doctors?
August 21, 2008 at 10:13 am
The brackets disappeared!
August 21, 2008 at 10:17 am
Ok I officially hate wordpress. I put the word 'Pointy in the pointy brackets and the whole word disappeared. But for future reference Steph……………..
italics = pointy bracket em pointy bracket
end italics pointy bracket/ em pointy bracket
bold = pointy bracket strong pointy bracket
end bold = pointy bracket /strong pointy bracket
They're the ones next to the letter m on my keyboard
August 21, 2008 at 10:27 am
just that there's lots of things I might not understand about many things in this world… but because I haven't experienced them, I am not in a position to refute them.
I understand what you're saying here Steph which is that we can't know another person's internal reality or inner consciousness, which is true. And I assume you are speaking here in relation to a desire to change one's body physically and the motivations for doing that.
But the logical fallacy that is being promoted in this debate generally is that another person's internal reality – a belief in gender – must ALWAYS be correct, and that if we don't share it we are "transphobic".
And that's not necessarily the case. Because another person's internal reality can be, quite simply, erroneous. Now in some cases that doesn't matter. If my internal reality is I believe in God, but I respect other people's rights not to believe in God, and don't expect preferential treatment because of it, it makes no difference.
But if I believe in God, and I believe that I have the right to force everybody else to believe in God, and ban abortion and homosexuality, then obviously that does matter.
August 21, 2008 at 11:11 am
But how is a woman who want her breasts removed because she doesn't find them practical/esthetic/whatever coping with sexist expectation ?
Interesting one Elly, well I've often thought it would super cool to have a slim boyish breastless body – well I had one once but it was a long time ago. Now I'm fat, to put it bluntly, and that fat is distributed in a very 'female' pattern. So any hope of looking 'boyish' is fairly vain unless I wear really, really baggy clothes.
If a woman removes her breasts, she's not doing it to be 'sexy' for men (or other women), so yes she is going against the societal 'perfect' body. But if you think of the motivations of anorexics – who are often said to be trying to escape being adult and seen as sexual beings – so she's still reacting to societal pressures, just reacting to them negatively. And though many women have breast reductions because of the physical problems of having big breasts, another motivation for many is that they hate the way men treat them. So there is a sexist pressure there, just in a different way.
And also – if you're a non feminine lesbian these days, you come under huge pressure to identify not as butch or boyish or whatever but as 'trans' and to take physical steps like mastectomy or taking testosterone. So it's still a sexist pressure, it says that if you can't be a 'feminine' woman you can only be a 'man'. You can't be an unfeminine woman.
August 21, 2008 at 11:33 am
Also we need to stop disagreeing M Andrea, or people might realise that we are not ACTUALLY the same person, contrary to popular rumour.
What happened to the Kitty Kat?
August 21, 2008 at 11:36 am
And PS – the pressure on lesbians to identify as 'trans' is actually DEEPLY homophobic.
August 21, 2008 at 12:51 pm
The L word is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO homophobic don't get me started. The only 'butch' character they had it on had to 'trans' straight away.
My friend (who likes her butches) refers to it as 'straight men's wank shit'.
August 21, 2008 at 1:47 pm
If we look at gender roles, they involve more than grooming and dressing. I don't wear makeup, and I don't go out of my way to be feminine in dress or appearance, but I've only ever been mistaken for a man once. I was studying French in Quebec, it was winter, I was bundled up and wearing a bright orange hat with earflaps. As soon as the guy saw my face, he realized his mistake and apologized, but the guy I was with was mortified (he was a butthead).
Also sorry to keep picking what you say apart BBB, but I just noticed that one. You see that isn't gender, it's biological sex.
Generally, the way "woman" is constructed in the mind of the average man on the Clapham omnibus is this.
Woman = biologically female adult human being
Now anyone who is 'woman' by this definition is meant to also be 'gender woman' which is all kinds of crap like can't fix things around the house, likes pink, wears 'feminine clothes' has long hair, wears make up etc.
Now anyone who is biologically female is usually recognisable from their facial features alone – testosterone has quite a marked effect on facial features, so it's very rare to get someone who genuinely looks like the opposite sex on close scrutiny. So you can be identifiably a 'woman' in the sense of being an adult human female but not be fulfilling the gender role of 'woman'.
Hence the incident I remarked on on my ex blog where some scally youths said of me 'She looks like a boy'. Well obviously I didn't look like a boy, or they wouldn't have said she – they meant I wasn't feminine, and wasn't fulfilling the gender role of woman.
August 22, 2008 at 3:32 am
**Personally, I'd tend to say that the main goal of biological sex is actually to have sex and pleasure. **
Spoken like a true man.
Touch is a basic human need. It's as necessary as sleep, food and water. Humans, like all primates, become psychotic when deprived of it.
This is not to be confused with sex (the verb). Sex is totally unnecessary. Human beings can live just fine without it.
As for reproduction, it's sperm that impregnates women. Not penises. There is no reason under the sun for men to fuck women. At least not biologically speaking.
Personally, I think men saw animals fucking, and monkey see, monkey do, imitated it. Men probably started off fucking animals. Even in the bible they had to tell men to knock it off with the beastiality and quit fucking the animals. These days, I don't know many men who haven't fucked their dog, so they're still at it. Oh, don't act shocked. Men often brag about this shit behind closed doors. So you might want to think about this the next time you want to fuck a man. You have no clue where his dick's been. Chances are he's still cheating on you with the family pets.
I think men then graduated to wanting to fuck each other, as well as women and children, to supplement their animal fucking. Power over, dominance and rape is no doubt pleasurable to men. They still think it's the cat's meow, pardon the pun.
So what are trans into? Fucking and being fucked. Men are all about fucking. In fact, in order to construct a "vagina" for a trans, they insert a dildo or whatever in to make sure a penis will fit. Because this is all a vagina is to a man. A fuck hole. You see, it doesn't matter if men are het, gay, bi, or trans. They're all pretty much walking dildos and fuckers.
Oh, there's nothing biological about it. Spare me the sex drive nonsense. Otherwise you'd have to say that men's sex drive includes having to fuck animals, and we should just get use to it and accept that too.
What men eroticize is power, not sex. Fucking has little to do with love. It's about dominance and submission. This is what turns the little fuckers on. And trans are no exception. Top, bottom, it doesn't matter. As long as there's a dom and a sub and there's a whole lot of fucking going on. Men simply can't fuck anything they view as equal. Because again, it is not the sex itself that turns the little fucker on. It's the dominance and submission part that turns him on. This is what he calls gender. Whether you're a dom or a sub. But the little fuckers get bored easily and want more variety. So he creates all these different varies of the dom/sub model and calls it gender bending and says there's like 69 genders out there. But of course, there isn't. It's just the same old, same old binary — dominance and submission. Yawn.
Now, wanna know the real difference between the boys and the girls? Just take women's autonomy away. Women get raised as chattel and get bred like barnyard animals. Are mtf trans ever raised as chattel and bred like barnyard animals? Not only no, but fuck no.
Now spare me the man-made woman shit, Dr. Frankenstein, which is just one more garden variety of your dom/sub fetish, which has been going on for what? About 10,000 years now?
As for trans being mentally ill… well, they're men, aren't they? Therefore, it's redundant. Men's minds went around the bend a long time ago.
August 22, 2008 at 9:05 am
People are afraid that because there's so much violence and harm done to transpeople, that the answer is to always say nice things and accept them and never criticize them or question their motives because that would be encouraging the perpetrators of violence.,
Funny how these same people aren't concerned about the violence and harm done to women and think the answer is to always say nice things to women and never criticize women or question their motive because that would only encourage more violence. The opposite seems to hold true, no?
So I think it's because at some level, everyone knows that trans are men, and women are conditioned to take care of and protect men, even if it comes at their own expense. Men are given much more value than women and everything that comes out of their mouth must be true because men are the authorities on everything. Or so our society conditions people to think.
At the same time, women are conditioned to view other women as competition, as they compete for the attention and approval of daddy. Er, I mean, males. Women are also raised and conditioned to put everyone before themselves. Even the dog. Women are expected to be givers, never takers. They must sacrifice, serve and give unselfishly. To whom? Men of course. And children as well. Because male is considered to be the default for children and fetuses. So it is standard to just think of children and fetuses as little men, until proven otherwise.
Men, on the other hand, are raised and conditioned the opposite way around. To be takers and think of themselves as #1, putting no others before them. They are raised with a sense of entitlement and expectation to have women serve them and take care of them. Trans are no exception. They're not from Pluto. They're raised and conditioned like every other male on planet Earth.
In short, it's just more of the same old, same old, tired old business as usual, living under the patriarchy. We really have achieved true equality in this aspect. Both men and women love the male born. And both men and women despise the female born.
August 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Tigtog: Ah, you told me that I would probably find this amusing. Indeed I do.
"For whatever wacky reason I didn't receive this pingback until two days after their post went up, preventing me from partaking of the discussion while it's still on their front page."
I'm surprised that thebewilderness, who was posting there within 24 hours, didn't give you a heads-up earlier, she was certainly defending you strongly.
I realize that at the 40 comment mark this may be a bit OT, still it seems an odd thing to say.
Are we to understand that it is the policy at "Hoyden AT" to expect their readers to advise other bloggers that "Hoyden AT" is blogging about them?
Had I not been a daily reader at "Hoyden AT" I would not have known that Tigtog had started a slam fest under the guise of comparing two Carnivals.
It certainly never occurred to me that they were so bereft of common courtesy that they would not advise a person that they had been targeted.
Good to know.
August 22, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Dear gawd if any of you ever do that forum please let me know! I'm almost evol I swear. :). My blog is linked above and because I'm evol *and* anonymous just drop me a comment there.
August 22, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Those pointy brackets don't work for me either.
August 22, 2008 at 6:05 pm
August 22, 2008 at 10:21 pm
The tolerance thing is funny, because we had the arguement the other way around at a LGBTI event some weeks ago, which also explicitly claims a "feminist" aim.
LGBT isn't feminist. It's anti-feminist. And serves everyone under the sun except women. No great surprise there. All the letters except one are male dominated. And the L keeps getting smaller and smaller, no? Look for it to completely disappear. Word, women. Would you kindly cease to exist and disappear? Our existence upsets the poor boys.
You can have critics of "gay" movement but if someone says that the problem is that homosexuality is inferior because it isn't reproductory, and that marriage is a man and a woman, even if we drop the question of "homophobic" qualification, personally I don't think there is some common political ground, and even if they say "but violence against gay is bad" they will still be my enemy because we have too much divergences.
Nah, this isn't what it's about. That's just the excuse men use.
Here, let me spell it out for you. "The point of homophobia is to direct men towards women. To punish men for not using women. And that's an acknowledgment of how aggressive and how dangerous men know male sexuality can be for women." — Andrea Dworkin
Sounds about right to me. Because what happens when there's a scarcity of women? Men turn it on each other and self-destruct. That's why men have to be separated from each other in prison. So they don't turn it on each other and self-destruct.
I can handle critcism about whether having surgery is because of sexism or that I shoudn't take hormones. But when it comes to negating that I suffer from oppression of women, or saying that psychiatrisation is a good thing, no way.
Psychology is man-made and therefore, not a good thing. Freud was a coke-head and a male supremist, misogynist asshole that doctored his results to serve and shore up his agenda. Enough said.
You've suffered from the oppression of women? Huh? Oh, so you were denied autonomy? You were denied the right to vote? You were enslaved and was a servant to your master and had to pick cotton fields? You were denied education, bank accounts, and weren't allowed to inherit or keep the wages from your own earnings? Marriages were arranged for you when you were 8 and you were treated like a stud puppet? Were you traded in for 2 cows and a pig? Did your family treat you as a commodity and property and sell you to the highest bidder? Could your new owners set you, their property, on fire if it pleased them? When your partner died, were you blamed and expected to jump onto his funeral pyre? When you couldn't produce a son, were you beheaded? Did you sit on death row, awaiting stoning, because you were sexually assaulted? Were your feet bound in infancy so that you now painfully hobble? Were you rounded up and sent to concentration camps and gassed with your trans brothers? Or lynched and burned at the stake en masse?
See, that's the problem with you white boys. You've never been oppressed a day in your life and don't have the slightest clue of what it means. You think oppression is when women tell you to get your boot off their necks and won't be your mommy and take care of you and be your genie in a bottle and grant you your every wish and desire and let you use their bathroom.
Yeah (except, well, who defines what is legitimate ?
who does the separation ?),
You know, men? A group you've always been a card carrying member of since the moment of your birth? So that you NEVER had to go through, or be subjected to, or live in fear of any of what I've described above? And never had to worry about it?
It's called "male privilege." You're oblvious to your own. Most men are.
August 23, 2008 at 11:32 am
i've never commented on a blog before, but i really feel the compulsion to thank you for this:
"And if they have to work so hard convincing the general public that they need to switch body parts as a coping mechanism, then they could work equally hard convincing the public that it's okay for a guy to walk around feeling feminine."
i am very much against the 'trans' myth and have found it very difficult to find any other person who understands/expresses/admits the logically fallacy that is the basis of this madness. i am a woman, who sleeps with other women and does not "look" like a woman "should" look. the trans pressure is enormous – trans people always assume that i am trans. I find it incredibly insulting that i should be assumed to be a man or to want to be a man simply because of my physical appearance, by PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE 'ENLIGHTENED' ABOUT GENDER.
It's so hard to find any discussion of the problems with trans either since all language has been co-opted by the trans armies – anything against or anti or disagreeing with the trans propaganda is always posited as a negative or violent or phobic event/entity.
I am not transphobic. I'm trans-frustrated, trans-resentful, trans-annoyed. I truly believe that trans people and their misguided and damaging philosophies, actions, and politics are setting both the women's and gay rights movements back at least 50 years.
I am not at all against people doing whatever they want to their bodies and having whatever fetishes or coping mechanisms they need to make themselves happy. What is upsetting is saying that these things are about gender or about expanding the definitions of gender.
There needs to be some dissonance in this group think, coercive, trans-positive-at-all-costs world. So thank you for this blog and this discussion.
August 23, 2008 at 2:56 pm
"How I see it is that there are two possibilities when your are "emitting criticisms" on a group : "
This is where the basis of misunderstanding lies, I think.
This discussion is not about you and your group. The sorting that is being attempted here is about the way your group's activist efforts are affecting women, and womens activist efforts.
August 24, 2008 at 12:01 am
Oh joy, this is a quote by Tig I shall treasure it always.
"Your attempts to apply constructivist discourse so far are working to undermine the concept of gender as a social construct at the very root, a stance which I oppose."
So gender is not a social construct, according to Tig. And if gender is not a social construct, then the only other option must be that gender is biological, according to Tig. Fascinating.
That drove me insane at Twisty's BBB. The "personal is political" has too many syllables I guess. Always a group who would conflate one man with 3.7billion. And not to change your subject but that is the same problem with the transgender. When the discussion is about categories some random stranger will cry, "my name is Nigella, we need to discuss ME now" Oh, is there some reason we have to look at every blade of grass to measure how big the yard is?
The only thing it proves is that the person can't tell the difference between depth and breadth. Yes, like I really trust that person's judgement.
August 24, 2008 at 2:30 am
I get disappointed with radfem forums so quickly b/c it's full of women who are toeing the patriarchy line, but they qualify as radfems because they "blame the patriarchy." I want inspiration from women who are actually living like radfems, not just talking the talk, but actually walking the walk.
That's because a lot of people claiming to be radical feminists, aren't. A good many of them don't even know what the word means. They just think it's a really cool and hip label to call themselves. They don't walk the walk or talk the talk. They just slap the label on themselves, blame the patriarchy once or twice, and think that's all there is to it.
The real McCoys, however, can usually spot each other from a mile away. It's sort of like gaydar. You just know. There does seem to be some common traits among most RFs. But I'm not going to give it away and say what they are. I think you already have a clue tho. Otherwise you wouldn't be disenchanted with what you're seeing from these supposed RF forums to begin with.
That aside, Radical Feminist theory is pretty solid and is difficult, at best, to refute. I think that's why many trans, queers, pomos, and liberals chose the intangible route and the crying girl game. It's because without it, they don't have a leg to stand on. So they have to pretend everything is intangible and doesn't exist. We're all, apparently, a figment of their imagination.
Ok, so let's play that game. Maybe it's just them that doesn't exist? The rest of us all do. So cool, we can pretty much ignore them now cuz they're all a construct, don't really exist and aren't really there. 😛
All kidding aside, I'm curious. What do you think is talking the talk and walking the walk when it comes to radical feminism?
August 24, 2008 at 12:21 pm
It ranks right up there with "men hate you" in feminism 101, stuff everyone knows, or should have known, or we assumed they knew. Criminy.
I'm reading "Backlash" just now. She pretty clearly describes the procedure that created feminism as a life style instead of a political movement.
I think that is who many of these young women are.
August 24, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Oh joy, this is a quote by Tig I shall treasure it always.
"Your attempts to apply constructivist discourse so far are working to undermine the concept of gender as a social construct at the very root, a stance which I oppose."
I think this must be a typo of some sort, because that sentence is saying you are having success, and it is that of which she disapproves. Or maybe she disapproves of your methods. The term stance throws me for a loop and I am too ignorant to know what she means. I need a grammar nazi to explain these things.
August 24, 2008 at 7:27 pm
That explains everything, eh? She thinks everyone should navigate their way through the shark infested waters of the patriarchy and stop trying to plot a new course, but most of all, STOP QUESTIONING THE MENZ.
August 24, 2008 at 8:49 pm
So, I responded that just b/c some women already had children doesn't negate the fact that not having children is a solution for some women (and a very good one, I might add), and that despite whether or not someone already has children, the best thing we can do for women who haven't yet done it is to tell them not to.
Children aren't the problem. Men and their system are. Women's autonomy is basic to feminism as well as a basic human right. Whether a woman wants to have children or not is a personal choice. It's her body, her choice. Radical feminists have long fought for that choice for women.
That said, here's the key to women's freedom and independence:
"Her development, her freedom, her independence, must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right of anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children, unless she wants them, by refusing to be a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc., by making her life simpler, but deeper and richer. That is, by trying to learn the meaning and substance of life in all its complexities; by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation." — Emma Goldman
August 25, 2008 at 6:04 am
Slightly unrelated thing on the population. I was reading a Bill Bryson (sorry if you don't know who he is) book written in like 1999 or around there and he said something about how the world's population was 5 billion. We've added another billion and a half since 1999! Screams in terror. There goes the neighborhood, and the planet.
August 25, 2008 at 8:23 am
…and it's not taking into consideration the other 6 billion humans overrunning the planet.
Do you know that the entire population of the U.S. could live in a single county in Michigan? Do you know the average person spends most of their life in only 15 square feet of space? The idea that the earth is over-populated is a complete farce. What the problem is, is that 10% of the population owns and controls 90% of the resources. There's the problem. Not over-population or not enough space or resources.
Slightly unrelated thing on the population. I was reading a Bill Bryson (sorry if you don't know who he is) book written in like 1999 or around there and he said something about how the world's population was 5 billion. We've added another billion and a half since 1999! Screams in terror. There goes the neighborhood, and the planet.
There's also about 200 billion ants on the planet. Is the planet becoming over-populated and over-run with ants?
Man is full of himself. He spends a good portion of his time trying to convince women and himself how significant he is. But the earth existed long before he ever did, and will exist long after he is dead and gone. So, no worries. The planet isn't in any danger. Can't say the same for man. All the earth need do is shudder. She could shake the entire human race off of her in a blink of an eye.
August 26, 2008 at 4:17 am
Sorry, I'm not taking the bait.
Well, I wouldn't want to mess your head up with facts or ruin all that propaganda that has been fed into the machine. We'll just pretend that 10% of the world doesn't own the other 90% and instead, just blame mothers, for the lack of resources and the world's woes. I understand. It's so much safer to kick the master's dog than it is to kick the master.
We'll also pretend that everyone in the world lives The Great White Way, in nuclear family units, so that what you say above about women and children holds true, k? Wouldn't want to suggest to white folks that there are other living alternatives. Where men can be held in check and women do a fraction of the work that most white women do today; where violence and abuse is virtually non-existent, and near equality between the sexes can be achieved. Forgive me. I forgot that The Great White Way is the only way and there can be no other.
August 26, 2008 at 9:03 am
I've lurked around the blogosphere enough to know that you enjoy being contentious, even with people on the same side as you.
I'm really not interested in your cliques and their gossip, BBB. Let's pretend we're not in middle school and all grown up now and stick to the issues, k?
I contend the world is not over-populated and there's plenty of land and resources to go around. But 10% control the resources and deprive the other 90% of them.
I contend that the oppression and the terrorism of women begins at home, and the nuclear family plays a key role in that and breeds male supremacy. But alternate family structures can achieve just the opposite. This is the problem, not women having children.
I contend that autonomy is key to women's freedom and liberation and is basic to feminism. Pressuring women to not have children is just as anti-feminist as pressuring women to have children. Plain and simple, it's woman-hating and woman-blaming. And really not much different than telling slaves that their oppression would end if they'd just stop having babies.
Now I know men have power and privilege and there are many women that are envious of that and all, but the goal of feminism is not for women to become more like men. As Ms. Lorde put it, "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."
August 27, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Re professional victimhood, I'm with you BBB.
This kind of statement bothers me. I often hear it among people who want to be seen as self-actualizing individuals, incapable of being swayed by others. But I find this dismissal of women's true status in society to be counterproductive and, ultimately, restrictive rather than empowering.
In order for women to viably argue that social change must be made, they must convince their colleagues that power disparities do indeed exist and have affected women negatively. In other words, women must explain that this society has vitimized them and, in order to rectify that problem, full equality on women's terms must be implemented. Being a victim in this sense does not mean one purposely placed oneself at the mercy of the victimizer. It means one has been afforded less than another by virtue of one's sex. Being victimized is not the fault of the victim, as the above statement suggests. And preventing victimization involves much more than simply claiming a woman can control how others treat her and her female image on a societal level.
If women are in no way victims of a patriarchal society, then feminism would be moot. But most posters here recognize that such is not the case. So I take issue with the idea that women as "victims" somehow renders them powerless. It is the very recognition that women are victims which raises their consciousnesses and inspires them to fight for equal treatment and full respect for fundamental liberties of importance to them. In other words, realizing that one is a victim of prejudice and subordination is a necessary step towards empowerment. To deny it altogether is to hand that power back to the victimizer in spades. Empower.
August 28, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Sometimes, BBB, the absurd is all we have left when faced repeatedly with the racist by association smear.
August 30, 2008 at 5:10 am
We all know the "hood" comment was a racist remark, mAndrea. No excuses now.
Pollys says:
You make a pact with the devil, you suffer the consequences as far as I'm concerned.
Wouldn't this then make you the devil's spawn? Or were you made in a test tube? Doubtful, so I'm going to have to assume you have both a mother and a father? Who are more than likely, het? So what are you saying? Your mother should've kicked your father to the curb and aborted you? And you shouldn't exist, much less be here, boring us with your misogyny, stupidity and nonsense?
So, were you born on a desert island? And totally self-sustaining? No? Then who do you work for? Who pays your paycheck? Who do you rent from or pay a mortgage to? I assume you don't live by candlelight or use an outhouse or communicate by smoke signals. So who do you get your utilities from? Do you have a car? Or use public transportation? Who do you buy it from? I also assume you're not a farmer and also don't make your own clothes and shoes. So where do you get your food from? Who do you buy your clothes and shoes from? Did you not receive an education? Who educated you? Whose schools did you go to? Who published and wrote a good portion of those books you've read? Who made your computer? How are you posting here?
I could go on and on, but I think you catch my drift. The answer to all is The Man, in one way or another. You see, we all make deals with the devil in order to survive. So what are you saying? That your pacts with the devil are a-ok? Wouldn't this make you a bit of a hypocrite? In essence, scapegoating mothers and trying to kick them down the ladder to divert attention from your own deals with the devil and make them seem less transgressive?
August 30, 2008 at 11:03 am
(unrelated) Oh, the full moon? It's only the patriarchy showing its fetid ass. C'mon boys, pull up your pants!
(related, directed to Luckynkl) You know, just because we have our origins by certain method and would not exist without them doesn't mean those methods were good and do not cause us sorrow. As an American white woman I know that if Christopher Columbus had never crossed the Atlantic and never committed genocide and rape against the women he found here then I would not exist. Also, I can guess with some certainty that many of my ancestors probably were the product of rape. These two things are awful and bad, and gee most of the time I still want to be alive. We might be devil's spawn, but that doesn't mean we can't turn around and point fingers. That doesn't mean we can't say "This shit stops with me."
Like you were saying with the issues of modern survival, sometimes we don't have that choice. Sometimes we do. But I would also say that as a white woman the most powerful impact I can make (besides the social justice/environmental/radical feminist work I plan to do after graduation) is to not burden the universe with one more god damned white man (I think acknowledgment for this concept is owed to Justice Walks).
I don't mean to be combative, these are just thoughts.
August 30, 2008 at 11:46 am
Polly, Americans on the internet are a frightening thing. Maybe you should get a more sekriter 😉 blog and only tell UK people about it.
August 30, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Americans on the internet are a frightening thing.
You are aware that America invented the internet, right? The internet is brought to you courtesy of the U.S. Dept of Defense and has been around since the end of WWII.
I plan to do after graduation) is to not burden the universe with one more god damned white man (I think acknowledgment for this concept is owed to Justice Walks).
Actually, this concept was around long before JW was even a gleam in her daddy's eye. I, myself, was saying it while JW was still in diapers. In fact, I'm rather notorious for it. JW picked the idea up from me. Except JW wanted to be exclusionary and only apply it to white boys. No doubt because moc have such a good track record with women. **roll eyes** But guess what? The concept was around long before I was a gleam in my daddy's eye too. It's been around probably as long as the patriarchy has.
But by jove, one of you finally got it! Better late than never, I suppose. But that's what I've been waiting to hear. For a woman to decide not to bring another male into this world. Not children, mind you. Males! Why in the world are we producing our own oppressors? Sure, they're all cute and cuddly when they're little. So are tiger cubs. Then they grow up and eat you!
The Amazons tried to practice this, as best they could. Their society was female only. But of course they had to have children if their society was to continue. So they visited a village of males to get with child. I guess they must've had some kind of agreement. If they birthed a female child, the Amazons kept her. If they birthed a male child, they gave it back to the father.
Sounds like a great idea, no? Except those male children eventually grew up and conquered the Amazons. So obviously this concept has to be taken even further. And in this technological age, pre-sex selection is a reality. My doctors gave me the recipe for pre-sex selection over 25 years ago. So it's been around for some time now. No medical intervention, meds or tools are required. It can be done right at home. The simple method is 98% accurate. Not bad, huh? So why not use it?
BTW, 70% of American women have no interest in marriage or babies. Not now. Not ever. So I'm not sure what y'all are going on about. We're way ahead of you. Why do you think American males have panicked and declared war on women's reproductive rights? They're terrified! Women got out of the box during the 60's and 70's and the boys have been frantically trying to pull out all stops to stuff us back in ever since.
And just what do you think is going to happen when UK women decide to follow in suit? All I can say is, be prepared. Because the Handmaid's Tale isn't too far off. And it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
August 31, 2008 at 12:22 am
""Americans on the internet are a frightening thing.
You are aware that America invented the internet, right? The internet is brought to you courtesy of the U.S. Dept of Defense and has been around since the end of WWII. ""
Sheesh, I was joking, making fun of myself. I'm American, and I'm currently *in* America.
August 31, 2008 at 5:52 am
Sheesh, I was joking, making fun of myself. I'm American, and I'm currently *in* America.
That's what you got out of that whole comment I posted? It doesn't matter where you're from. It doesn't change anything I wrote. But I'm glad you can poke fun of yourself. Humor is good. But the internet is a poor medium for it.
August 31, 2008 at 8:44 am
"That's what you got out of that whole comment I posted?"
Well no, but I had other things to do and I couldn't really tell if the second half of the comment was even directed towards me. And your commenting style might be in good faith but when I read things like this:
"But by jove, one of you finally got it! "
"BTW, 70% of American women have no interest in marriage or babies. Not now. Not ever. So I'm not sure what y'all are going on about. We're way ahead of you"
I feel insulted and intimidated, even if I wasn't included in the "y'all". I already have more than my fair share of insults and intimidation in real life, and I'm pretty much a wimp, so no I wasn't interested in responding to the rest.
August 31, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Well you're the one defined the internet OGodlessOne. Play ball or take the bench.
August 31, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I am still looking for an explanation by what you, mAndrea, a self-described radical feminist, would mean when you called women who are triggered by abusive behaviour "doormats".
August 31, 2008 at 5:44 pm
The Rebecca West quote is, I think, appropriate here.
"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."
August 31, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Do you plan to answer my question? I think it's kind of important for the radical feminists who post and read here to know why you've called women who are triggered by abusive behaviour (to remember, of course, instances when they were raped, battered, and abused) "doormats".
"Thorry"? I'm not sure who this refers to. But I've only posted here, I think, four times now, so if this refers to me, or some other poster, don't know.
August 31, 2008 at 6:55 pm
What do you mean when you call women who are triggered by abuse "doormats"?
September 1, 2008 at 5:03 am
I feel insulted and intimidated, even if I wasn't included in the "y'all". I already have more than my fair share of insults and intimidation in real life, and I'm pretty much a wimp, so no I wasn't interested in responding to the rest.
Actually, I was complimenting you. And the "y'all" is the general you. I'm sorry if you're frightened by compliments and find them intimidating. I find that as puzzling as I find this comment by BBB:
I've lurked around the blogosphere enough to know that you enjoy being contentious, even with people on the same side as you.
See, I don't blog. I'm not particularly fond of the format. So there's very few blogs I read, and even fewer I comment on. MAndrea's blog, is in fact, the only blog I've been half-way active on in quite some time.
Obviously there's something more going on here than meets the eye. But given recent developments, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what.
September 1, 2008 at 8:35 am
I'm not seeing where Miss Andrea called someone a doormat. She said that she, Miss Andrea, was being treated like a doormat. What am I not seeing.
September 2, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Does a comment in a public space need to be transfered to a private space?
Just had the bizaar experience of reading Justice Walks attack on this blog, and it is a surreal experience.
Justice Walks for her consistent meanness, and mAndrea for a kind of gratuitous "humor" — hoods and such that is truly awful as well.
Ah the Internet and all its weirdness, ya gotta love it.
September 2, 2008 at 4:50 pm
P.S. Guess you did remove Justice Walks from this blog roll. Good idea, since there was no love lost there.
September 3, 2008 at 10:51 am
Irony and hyperbole are my trademarks and I've been on the internet for 35 years so there's no telling what you came up with. Just keep in mind the lack of context, history and relationships you won't be privy to tho when you do google people. So what may seem mean or nuts to you may make perfect sense to others, especially those involved in the post at the time.
As a rule, I don't google people, but just for grins, I googled myself to see what you may have been looking at. Damn, I had no idea people had so much to say, lol. Oh well, if they were looking for my attention, I missed it.
I make no excuses for what I say. If I said it, I said it. No, I probably don't walk like you, talk like you, act like you or look like you, or anyone else for that matter. Probably cuz I'm me and I can't be anything else but that. I make no apologies for who I am, what I think, or how I express myself. I can't change my signature or style of handwriting any more than you can change yours, nor do I want to. It's what makes me uniquely me.
That said, yeah, I like you too. Even when I disagree with and get snarky with you. 😛


text:
UESP Releases New Program Description
The Utah Educational Savings Plan published a new version of its Program Description on September 19, 2016.
High Schoolers – Stay on Top of College Deadlines
For high school juniors and seniors, you're one semester closer to college, and deadlines are mounting. Here are a few ideas to keep in mind.
Investment Option Performance
Holiday Stress? Shop UESP
Offer your family and friends a way to give a gift that will last beyond the holidays—the gift of education.
Go Interactive with UESP Account Dashboard
UESP recently launched an interactive dashboard so account owners can have a detailed view of their investments when they log in to my529.org.
New UESP Website to Be Unveiled Soon
UESP will update its website to improve your experience.
Utah State Tax Benefits Information
Utah taxpayers, depending on their tax-filing status, can claim a 5 percent tax credit/deduction per qualified beneficiary for contributions to their UESP account up to a certain limit.
UESP Year-End Deadlines
A list of year-end deadlines for transactions with UESP.
Follow @uesp on twitter