Stop Gaslighting Me!  

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Two things need to be talked about: Bush and Obama.

First, Obama. I voted for the man. I gave money. I even went the watch party, and I hate parties. And, I would never, ever want McCain/Palin to be in power. But, the idea that he invited Rick Warren to be apart of the inauguration infuriates me. It's not because I don't like his theology-even though I don't. It is because of his political views. Equating the "Social Gospel" viewpoint with Marxism [because helping people is UnAmerican] and the Homosexual community to some of the worst society has to offer(incest and pedophilia) is abhorrent and unacceptable to me. Try saying that my friends are the same as the lowest of scum to my face and we'll have a lot to "talk about".

Obama tried to defend his position by saying that Warren was so nice to invite Obama to Warren's church in 2006 that he wanted to return the favor. That is not returning the favor. Returning a favor is inviting Warren to the White House on talks about something or inviting Warren to his church. But, to invite such a man, especially after the LGBTQ community just had dirt kicked in its face because of Prop 8 (which Warren was an ardent supporter of), is careless and tactless. What if Obama invited a vehemently anti-woman or anti-Hispanics or anti-children? People would be up in arms. Apparently, it is okay for a certain portion of the country (at least 10%) to be ignored or shunned. Obama even felt like saying that he is a huge supporter of LGBT equal rights. Granted, he is better than his Republican opponents. But to not be for marriage rights is to be against LGBT equal rights. Not that Hilary would have done better. In fact only Kucinich was for gay marriage. But Mr. Obama, please do not stand up and say you support equal rights when you do not support gay marriage. As it was written in the opinion of Loving v. Virginia: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man".

Enough of Obama. On to Bush, my favorite.
A couple of years ago, I was apart of the NEW Leadership program at OU. I loved it. I wish I could return every year. I loved it because it taught me many things. One of the major things that it taught me was that I should be proud to be a woman and not let anyone put me down because of it. Prior to NEW, I believed being a woman was such a burden: you have to look pretty, be smart-but not too smart, certain height, certain weight, certain shade of whatever, gotta get married early-because no one wants an old hag, gotta have kids-whether you like them or not, and always, ALWAYS, keep your thoughts to yourself- you don't want to be thought of as a nag. Thankfully, that old me has gone away. But the problems have come back. Oh, they are not the same. Now, being a woman is burdensome because everyone keeps trying to mess with my ovaries. They're mine, damn it! And if I don't want them to be used; then, don't make me.
All this stems from the Bush Administrations last effort to have me hate being born with two X chromosomes rather than just one. The Administration just pushed through new HHS regulations that includes the "right of conscience rule":

Reporting from Washington -- The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.

Well, this is very annoying. First, let me say that although I'm sure the Administration's target is abortion and contraceptions. This also applies to simple things like cold medicine. And the rule is so broad that it not only includes the doctor or nurse or pharmacist, but also the cashier ringing you out. If you have a Christian Scientist as a cashier, then to bad, no Sudafed for you.

So, essentially, even if you have the right to obtain an abortion, you may not have access to the information necessary to actually know all your options. I would never deny how smart a doctor is, but I don't really think it is up to a doctor to decide what is morally right for me or for my body. If the law has already decided that I can have access to reproductive technology, then why is a doctor allowed to tell me something different? I would like the advice I get from my doctor to be based on my health needs, not his/her religious and moral beliefs. Just as Rachel Maddow says, "If you are Amish, you may have the right to drive the bus, but you should not be able to."

Doctors give advice just as lawyers give advice. You give your patient/client the information and he/she acts on it- to his or her improvement or detriment. I go to the doctor and I want birth control that doctor better give it to me.
Although it is possible to go to a different doctor, who the hell wants to go doctor shopping? And women shouldn't have to do that because the government got pious. Plus, this affects mostly women who are poor and/or live in a rural area. They have less options than others.

So thanks, Bush Administration. I don't believe in Hell, but now, I wish there was one so you guys can fry in it. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

My view of the media  

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

I originally wrote this as a response to a friend's note, but I thought it was noteworthy in and of itself. So, I'm reposting it.

I clicked on Lawrence’s link and read the article. What the researches found was that there is an ideological divide between two of the three networks: Fox and MSNBC. CNN being the other one, was seen as in the middle. Now in terms of negative treatment of the candidates, I would agree that the last month or two there has been more negative treatment towards McCain than Obama in the media. But the reason for that is not bias- it’s sensationalism. Obama’s campaign has been streamlined and controlled. They stayed on message, on point, there were limited gaffes. McCain and Palin was treated different not necessarily because they were Republican but because they gave the media fodder. When one day, you wake up and the Republican nominee is using the tag line of his opponent, that’s going to gather some interest. Calling someone a socialist when they obviously don’t know what a socialist is. Racial undertones at rallies, negativity. Need I go on? The media, excluding MSNBC and Fox, is looking for the next big whatever to feed its rating. On the other hand, MSNBC and Fox have a strategy, a set narrative, of which to follow.

BTW, just because Fox is ahead in the ratings, that does not mean that people watch them because they are the most fair and balanced. More people buy Tide over Gain- does that mean that Tide freshens your cloths better? Not necessarily. In a pure sense, it basically boils down to advertising.

You know, everybody rings their hands of Fox news: “Fair and Balance? Why, that’s snide”. Yeah okay, they’re not fair and balanced. But you know what CNN use to have a slogan “You can depend on CNN”. Guess what? I watch it. No you can’t. So what’s the difference?

If you watch the news networks, and I believe that this is the judge, which news program would have covered the Iraq War differently if it a Democratic president was in office? I believe only one would have and that is Fox. Therefore, that is an activist stance.
As for the others, the bias of the media is not liberal; it is lazy. And it’s sensationalist. But not liberal. There is no active strategy, which is employed on Fox, which is advocating for conservative and right causes. But they are part of an overall thirty year strategy of putting together a way to reconsolidate power.

BTW, well within their rights. I do not have a problem with that because I don’t consider them news. I consider them an active, political arm. Moreover, when they say that they are “Fair and Balanced”, do I believe that is false advertising? Absolutely. However, when did we start worrying about that? If the presidential election commercials are not held to that standard, then why should news organizations? We have lost accountability. And just because they are, why whine about it? Why not create a television organization that is not liberal, but credible. Why not create something that has the same passion that Roger Ailes brings to his cause. And, I admire what they’ve done because they have shown the way to a new media paradigm; that this type of programming can be successful and profitable. I do not think the answer to it is to set up Al Gore’s network and fight it with liberal strategy. A: because liberals are shitty and will not be able to accomplish it. Liberals feel shame. Shame does not work.

So back to the coverage of the election: It is not about how things were covered during the election, it is about what should be done differently on a 24-hour basis. Fox did not come out of the gate and earn its conservative street-cred. Of course, Roger Ailes being at the head of it helps. But they earned it over time by presenting a narrative.

However, I do not think that narrative is helping, just like I do not think MSNBC’s narrative is helping. I think it helps make them popular but it does not help the country. I think there is a responsibility in the media to help. But someone can create a paradigm of a media organization that is geared towards no bullshit and do it actively. And stop pretending that we don’t know what is going on. And stop pretending that it is a right-left question. I don’t buy that the world is divided into bi-chromatic thought like that.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Writing for Rights  

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

I’m actually not a huge proponent of marriage in general. Partner benefits, family health benefits and legal recognition -- Yes. Marriage as a normative cultural institution with the white dress and bells -- No. I feel strongly that marriage has become more of a religious and/or commercial institution than a civil one, which makes me extremely uncomfortable. Also, I personally do not feel that I need a ceremony to prove (and prove to whom?) that I am in love with someone. That said, I am not wholesale against marriage nor should my personal feelings reflect on what other people choose to do with their lives and in their relationships. I may not be keen on marriage myself, but I would never presume to impose my views on other people.

What I fail to understand is how anyone can make an argument against same-sex marriage on any grounds, religious or otherwise. I think the moralizing "traditional marriage" argument is ridiculous and wrong wrong wrong, but at least I've grown accustomed to the fact that when it comes to some religious institutions people don't seem to have any qualms about saying they're better or more worthy than other people. If you don't have the false judgmental security of "God on your side" (whatever that means), what is your excuse? Everyone should be outraged by this blatant discrimination, because that is what it is. And it scares me that so many people don't see it that way. It may seem like not that big a deal. It is just marriage, who cares? But if you claim you're against same-sex marriage for any reason, no matter how you rationalize it, you're really just saying that you think LGBTQ people are less than, that they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. And we all know where that line of thinking leads.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

~Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Unless you think, as some people do, that equality is a Un-American , I find it hard to even wrap my mind around the outright discrimination implicit in denying same-sex couples the right to marry. Even more mind-boggling? The lying and coercion perpetrated by those opposed to gay marriage. You can bet your hat that if the "liberal elite" were trying to deny, I don't know, say, right-wing conservatives the right to marry each other, there would be an outcry of discrimination to beat the band. And rightfully so. Nevertheless, apparently, in the eyes of some, only certain (straight) people are equal in the eyes of the law.

California's a Proposition 8 (which would make same-sex marriage illegal) and Florida's Amendment 2(which would not only legally define marriage as between a man and woman, but also disenfranchise unmarried couples whether homosexual or heterosexual) are discriminatory and hateful. Why are these votes in California and Florida so important when we don't even live there? Because every statewide opposition to same-sex marriage is another blow to LGBTQ freedoms and rights across the country.

It does not matter if you're straight, gay, bisexual, or asexual. It does not matter if you never plan to get married, if you are hoping to get married one day in a big church with all the frills or if you married years ago at City Hall. We should all cry out in outrage against laws that seek to discriminate against a group of people, regardless of if they affect us personally or not.

"Your silence will not protect you." ~ Audre Lorde

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will be my generations ERA.  

Thursday, October 16, 2008

It has been stated that one does not fully understand an issue unless a person has gone through it. The ERA is one of those issues for me. The ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) was initially proposed to Congress in 1920s. For over fifty years, feminist groups have lobbied for the amendment, not truly gaining traction until the 70s. Anti-Feminists movements, mostly led by Phyllis Schlafly, rallied against the ERA, claiming that it would harm women more than help them. In fact, that has been the reasoning for most legislation that was designed for women’s equality: by making women equal, they will in fact be harmed. How sweet. How thoughtful. How patriarchal.

To give a perspective of the anti-feminists flawed logic in what they viewed would be harming women, let me draw an example. Phyllis Schlafly and others like her stated that the ERA would allow women to have equal access to employment (oh no!) and therefore would be able to work “manly” jobs without being discriminated against. Women would be able to work in places like mines, which would require them to lift heavy objects, which the anti-feminists would claim harmed women because we just might hurt ourselves (we are very clumsy gender, are we not?). Granted these groups never took into account that heavy lifting is required in jobs that are more socially acceptable for women such as childcare, secretarial work, nursing, and so forth. Apparently, women are too stupid to take care of ourselves in inherently dangerous (or not) workplaces without hurting ourselves. On the other hand, maybe it is because women working a variety of employment that might pay more would allow women to escape being solely dependant on her husband, and we just cannot have that. What is next-women thinking for themselves? By the way, may I bring to attention how I find it somewhat hypocritical that some women like Ms.Schlafly are able to climb the ladder to success yet work tirelessly to make sure women have a difficult time gaining the same authority and notoriety? Just a thought to hang your hat on.

Nevertheless, before you get outraged, just remember, that those anti-ERA groups were only trying to protect our mothers. Obviously, as I stated at the beginning, I was not around during the precipice of the ERA. Reading my history books and talking to feminists who fought the fight over 30 years ago, I wondered what is so controversial about equal rights especially in today’s climate where we as a society believe, falsely, that we live in a post-feminist nation. I wonder what could possible be the reason today for not enforcing equal pay and punishing discrimination. Why is it so hard to pass such legislation? How dumb were those legislators and states who opposed the ERA? What were they thinking?

This brings me to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The Act was brought before Congress this past spring and failed. First, I will give you the background. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act started out as a critical Supreme Court case: Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 127 S.Ct. 2162. First the facts. Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for 19 years before accepting an early retirement offer. Shortly before she left Goodyear, Ledbetter received an anonymous memo revealing that the other shift supervisors with the same title and job responsibilities she had, were paid between 14-30% more than what she was earning. The decision to pay Ledbetter less than her male co-workers was made years earlier by a supervisor who did not believe women belonged at Goodyear, and certainly not working as supervisors. Until Ledbetter got this memo, she had no knowledge that she made less than her co-workers did all those years. Ledbetter sued, and during the discovery of the lawsuit, Goodyear’s records confirmed the anonymous tip: the sole woman supervisor was paid far less than the men in the same positions were paid.

A jury found that Goodyear had unlawfully discriminated against Ledbetter and awarded her $224,000 in back pay, $4,600 in mental anguish and $3.2 million dollars in punitive damages. Goodyear appealed, and the appellate court sided with Goodyear finding that Ledbetter was barred from bringing a lawsuit because she did not file a complaint within six months of when her supervisor made the discriminatory decision to pay her less than the men. Finally, the case went to the Supreme Court, which decided in a 5-4 conservative majority opinion that shielded employers from liability unless an employee discovers the pay discrimination and acts on that information within 180 days. The dissenting opinion written by the sole woman justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and joined by three male justices (Stevens, Souter, and Breyer) raised an issue that the Court’s majority decision blatantly ignored: the reality of the workplace and common characteristics of pay discrimination. As most who have ever worked a job realize, workers rarely, if ever, have knowledge of how much they are making compared to the co-workers doing the same or similar jobs or the factors employers take into account in making pay decisions- not to mention that many employers specifically bar its employees from discussing their pay. Let it be said that the majority’s opinion goes against most appellate courts (granted, not the appellate court in Ledbetter’s case) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) longstanding position that every unequal paycheck, based upon discrimination, is a new violation, therefore starting the statute of limitations clock again. At the end of Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion, she noted that it is now Congress’ duty and invited the legislature to correct the Court’s “parsimonious reading of Title VII.”

The House of Representatives, with the help of many Civil Rights groups, passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have reinstated the law that the EEOC and most appellate courts interpreted Title VII. However, once the bill went to the Senate for approval, forty-two members of the Senate voted to block cloture. The unabashed action of the US Senate has and does astonish me. Many of the Republicans who blocked the vote to reinstate the original reading of Title VII claimed they were doing so to protect women (read “stupid women”)from the greedy clutches of unprincipled plaintiffs’ attorneys and from women’s own stupid inclination to sit around for years, decades even, while being screwed over financially before they bring suit. That means they were, of course, just protecting us from the dangerous laws that protect us. THANK GOD! Women in the United States are paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men; African-American women earn only 63 cents, and Latinas earn only 52 cents for every dollar paid to white men. Yet the Ledbetter decision tells employers that as long as they can hide their discriminatory behavior for six months, they have the green light to treat female employees badly forever. Why is this problem not sufficiently real to be addressed by Congress?

It seems that several people in government have attempted to answer that question. Can guess what their concerned about? Of course, the answer is protecting women, or in their view- stupid women, who just cannot seem to think for themselves. Ladies, when will our brains evolve to be on par with men? Let us look at the reasons they proffered:

The White House threatened to veto the legislation if it ever passed Congress because the act would “impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved.” Of course, there is a place for finality in the law, and it is not reasonable to bring allegations against businesses for actions that were committed twenty years back. Nevertheless, unless an employee is psychic, one hundred and eighty days is simply not long enough to decipher a pattern of pay discrimination, which is normally subtle not obvious. The notion that expeditiousness in resolving legal disputes should altogether trump one’s ability to prove those disputes is cynical beyond imagining. Moreover, the very notion that extending the statute of limitations somehow encourages scads of stupid women to loll around accepting unfair wages for decades in the hopes of hitting the litigation jackpot in their mid 70s is just insulting.

Next on the list is a statement by Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. The Senator did one better in insulting women when he said, “The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases.” See, now this is the argument that holds that the same women who are too stupid to bring timely discrimination claims are also too stupid to avoid manipulation by those scheming plaintiffs’ attorneys. First off, some of us still believe that those damn civil rights attorneys do some good in the world. But what really infuriates me here is the endless, snobbish recitation that it is only the really dumb people—you know, the injured, the sick, and the women—who are not smart enough to avoid being conned by lawyers into filing frivolous lawsuits.

All of which brings me to Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona(who, by the time you read this, may or may not have won the presidential election) skipped the vote on equal pay vote altogether because he was out campaigning. (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both showed up to support it.) McCain’s opposition to the bill was expressed thusly: He is familiar with the pay disparity but believes there are better ways to help women find better-paying jobs. “They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else.” All of that is code for the imperceptive claim that the fact that women earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same work as men will somehow be fixed by more training for women as opposed to less discrimination by men. Now, this makes me wonder. McCain has at least one daughter. If she ever came home to tell him the same situation of Ledbetter happened to her, would he really stay to her face that she needs more training, rather than telling her that she was discriminated against. I think not.

So, forty two members of the U.S. Senate blocked a bill that would allow victims of gender discrimination to learn of and prove discrimination in those rare cases in which their employers do not cheerfully discuss it with them at the office Christmas party. And the reasons for blocking it include the fact that women are not smart enough to file timely lawsuits, not smart enough to avoid being manipulated by vile plaintiffs’ lawyers, not smart enough to know when they are being stiffed, and (per John McCain) not well-trained enough in the first place to merit equal pay. So how dumb are we as a nation? Unfortunately, the next generation, thirty plus years down the road, will have to tell me.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

While Mayor, Sarah Palin Charged Rape Victims for their Own Justice  

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

From Feministing:

Multiple readers clued us into the latest incredibly disappointing fact about Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin: under her mayoral leadership in Wasilla, Alaska, rape victims were charged for their own rape kits. Op-Edna explains:

A rape kit is a sexual assault forensic evidence kit, used to collect DNA that can be used in criminal proceedings to assist in the conviction of those who commit sex crimes. The kit is performed as soon as possible after a sexual assault or attack has been committed. It is usually humiliating and uncomfortable for the victim-imagine enduring that and then paying $1200 just so that the criminal who assaulted you might be caught.

Let's put this into perspective. One of the services that almost every American (with the exception of a few hardcore Libertarians, I suppose) agree that our government should provide is policing and investigation into crime, especially of a violent nature. Rape, one of the most difficult to prosecute, disproportionately affects women--young women, in fact. If Palin wants to play fierce mother hen in her stump speeches, I suggest she explain how it is that she wouldn't do everything in her mayoral power to make sure that rapists be caught and prosected.

What adds insult to injury here is her stance on abortion for rape victims. So, not only did she neglect to support women who were raped in getting the evidence they needed to get justice, but she doesn't believe they should have the right to choose what happens with their bodies after they've endured such violation.

What a frickin' feminist.

Note: the Democratic governor changed this heinous policy in 2000.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Abortion from a doctor's perspective  

Monday, September 8, 2008

By David Katz, MD

The topic of abortion will rear up in rhetoric, and between its lines, throughout the presidential campaign now underway in earnest. It will reverberate in public policy after the votes are counted.

And so I confront this polarizing topic with equal measures of trepidation and resolve to state:

I am emphatically pro choice.

And I am just as emphatically anti abortion.

The first statement from a public health physician with public policy leanings left of center should come as no great surprise. The second might surprise--but shouldn't. It is the second side of the same position. No one is for abortion, least of all the women who resort to it.

I know such women. They are among my friends (and perhaps yours), my family (and perhaps yours), and my patients. No one of them is for abortion. Each of them confronted it as a last resort. Some with equanimity. But some made the most anguished decision of their lives. And some have dreamt in troubled agitation ever since of that life that might have been. (Find answers to your pregnancy questions here).

Yet few would revisit the decision, even after the clarity of retrospection, and the filter of patient reflection. The regret that derives from a last resort is not resorting to it, but needing to; being left with no better options in the first place.

The moral debate over abortion is, in fact, an insoluble distraction. On the one hand are compelling arguments about autonomy, on the other, compelling arguments about competing autonomies, and the sanctity of life. Both sides of the argument inspire passions, but neither persuades. In the end, the war of words is internecine; everyone loses. An opportunity for unified purpose and unified progress is squandered.

Those, like me, who are pro choice might cite the principle of autonomy--that I and I alone should rule the destiny of my very own skin. But ethicists point out that my autonomy is bounded: my right to swing a stick ends where your nose begins. How that relates to the unique dyad of pregnancy, and an entity that is not yet viable on its own, is debatable. The issue of viability, and privacy rights, were central to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But abortion, arguably, puts two noses in play. Autonomy is not an iron clad defense of the right to choose.

The sanctity of life is by no means an iron clad argument against it, either, because it is not a principle we fully honor. We live in a society that sanctions capital punishment, meaning some priorities- punishment among them- trump life itself. The same societal groups that most adamantly oppose abortion seem most adamantly to defend capital punishment, and lethal means of self defense.

We accept that our police are entitled to shoot and kill those who threaten their lives and limbs, and soldiers are entitled to kill those who might pose a threat to our way of life. An unintended pregnancy could very well constitute a far more certain threat to one's way of life than the basis for certain wars.

We even accept, although of course with deep regret, the collateral damage of war--the death of innocent bystanders an ostensibly greater good demands.

The notion that the heavy hands of government might disentangle the delicate stands of this Gordian knot seems very far-fetched. We have historical evidence they can not. When abortion was illegal in the United States, it was nonetheless common--just also unsafe.

According to Planned Parenthood, there are still over a million abortions each year in the United States. That number is much lower than it was during the 1980s and 1990s, but we should be able to agree across ideologies it is too high.

Lowering it will not result from ideology, but rather epidemiology: the public health science of what actually changes outcomes at the population level. Our immediate and common needs are better addressed by data than diatribe.

Whatever changing abortion laws might do to abortion rates, it would do nothing to change the rates of unintended pregnancies, or the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Posting the Ten Commandments on a classroom wall does nothing at all.

Data show that educational programs that empower girls and convey a sense of responsibility to boys are helpful. Emphasizing abstinence as an option works, too, provided there are contingencies for when it is not the option chosen. Acting as if it always will be is among the most ineffective strategies of all: denial.

Teaching about barrier contraceptive use--condoms in particular--and making such contraceptives readily available is highly effective. And, of course, these interventions are just what is needed to reduce the toll of HIV as well.(Find out why growing numbers of doctors and pharmacists refuse to prescribe or dispense birth control pills).

Current policies in the United States place ideology ahead of epidemiology. Sexual education and contraceptive access are inconsistent; the current administration favors ineffective, abstinence-only instruction. Family planning services are underfunded. Contraception is left uncovered by many insurance policies.

Opposing a desperate remedy while propagating its malady is badly muddled at best, at worst, downright hypocritical. As political positions are debated and policies compete, hypocrisy should not be among the contestants. I dare to hope that whatever our disparate positions, that is a policy on which we all might agree.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Friday, August 29, 2008

There is so much out there; I don't know where to start.
So, I'll start with Fox News and their "wonderful anchor" Megyn Kelly.
Ms. Kelly decides to ask the ultimate question: What if?

Do you think that, you know, her saying that she loves America, that she loves this country, is going to do it for those who questioned her patriotism? Because she said something -- what she said was, and I wrote it down, was, "The world as it is just won't do." If you replace "world" with "country," you're back to the same debate, arguably, that you have been having about Michelle Obama's feelings about this country. Did she give her critics any fodder with that comment?

I must say I am amazed by Fox. Instead of actually reporting news, they like to make news by making random shit up. Yes, Kelly, by switching out words you do ultimately change the meaning. Duh! I like Stephen Colbert's take on the situation: "When I look through Obama's speeches and I change the word 'hope' to 'sodomy,' I really get steamed."

I ask myself, Am I really that shocked? Sort of. Especially from Megyn Kelly. She's a lawyer, alleged anyway (I wanna see that degree, missy!). I've been in law school for one week, and they drill in your head how important one word is. So the answer to Megyn's question is no. You would not have the same conversation unless it is with yourself. Because you are the only one that initiated it.
It's just like the Obama/Biden thing where Fox is changing the letters to show it's close to Osama bin-Laden. You've lost all credibility when you have to stoop to this level, like the people that believe if you fold the $20 bill a set way it shows 9/11.

Anyway... moving on!

Short Clips:
John Hagee thinks that Stay at Home Dads are going to hell. Yeah, John, who the fuck isn't?

Also, Cosmo=Women haters. I love it when a conversation about why people do bad things focus on other people rather than the person doing the bad deed. Stay Classy, Cosmo- And keep making women feel inadequate.

On to the BIG news:
I had the insane pleasure to wake up this morning to the news of John McCain's VP choice. Obviously, I am not a fan of John McCain. Surprisingly though, I did have some respect for him when he was running for Prez about 8 years ago. How times and perceptions have changed. As soon as I heard the VP choice, I was infuriated. Sarah Palin. Are you kidding me!?! This just screams "PLOY"! The reason for that is the campaign realizes that there are some [STILL!]upset Clinton supporters who might vote for McCain. If you are a Clinton how you can go over to the McCain side will always flabbergast me. It's like saying, "I don't have Quiche Lorraine here. So instead of going for the regular spinach quiche, I'm going to get the chicken fried steak." They're not compatible! The Palin nomination screams ploy- not bold or scary as the media has it. Why? Because the role of the VP is traditionally (Thanks, Dick!) suppose to be the "Lady in waiting". Yes they are there for advice, but they are there in case something happens to the President.

Well let's follow the crumbs. Obama picks Biden. Qualified, has been around forever. Supports women (BIG PLUS). Palin-hmmm. Previously a mayor of a town of 2000-8000 people (I've heard both numbers) and is now governor of one of the least dense states in the Union. So, if you take the equation that the VP is there for when something happens to the President (and if McCain wins, the odds are not in his favor) then we have Ms. Little league hockey as the president. How does the McCain camp have the balls to pull of such a stunt?! He's been gettin' (Okey slang) on Obama's case for being "inexperience" even though as a State Senator Obama had more people in his constituency then Palin did as a Mayor.

So, to me, the McCain campaign looked at the Hilary supporters and thought "if we just have a woman, any woman, and we got something." Hilary was not about putting a vagina in the White House; it was about putting a vagina in the White House who believed and fought for what her supports also believed and fought for. Palin is nothing but a younger female version of McCain with less experience than Barack. Now, McCain, I'd like to see you pull out the inexperience card again.
Shame on you McCain for thinking that some of us are stupid enough to fall for your pathetic and desperate trick.

BTW, Obama's speech? Kick Ass! To echo Michelle Obama:
For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Stay Classy Juanell Garrett!  

Sunday, August 10, 2008

You know what makes me mad? I know; there's a lot of things that make me upset. But one of the things that has the potential to send me to a fiery tirade is when people >cough, Christians, cough< feel the need to point out that we are a Christian nation founded by Christians. OK first, one needs to describe "founded" and "nation". Are you talking about when the pilgrims came to America to set up shop? Are you talking about Chris and his three boats in the Caribbean? Or are you speaking of the Founding Fathers signing the Declaration of Independence and/or The Constitution?

What made me so up set was an article written by Juanell Garrett. What she insinuates throughout her article is what many crazy people point to: that kicking god out of schools in the 60s caused the down fall of mankind. Garrett and others are referring to Abington Township School District v. Schempp; this is the infamous case that stated that organized bible study was unconstitutional. By the way, let me just add that all this ruling did was state that the schools can not sponsor a religion of any kind. If during study hall, a student wants to whip out his Bible and read, then so be it. Garrett finds this to be a line in the sand in American morality:

I blame something else: the expulsion of God from public schools following Supreme Court decisions in 1962 and 1963.
In the following decade, birthrates for girls 15-19 increased 50 percent, and gonorrhea rates in that same age group more than tripled. Violent crimes increased 170 percent while the population grew by only 12 percent.
One thing went down. SAT scores, which had peaked in 1963, started a steady regression in 1964.

Here's the problem with Garrett's argument. The bad thing about having only one life is that we have a tendency to view that this one that we are living in is the worse time ever. Especially with humans, we have this ability to romance the past, sometimes it seems like we are living in an absolute shithole.

Starting with her erroneous statement about the SAT scores, because I could find info on that faster, she makes the wonderful mistake that most people like her make: ignoring some facts that could be detrimental to the overall browbeating. Garrett is right-SATs did drop in 1963, BUT it made a "miraculous turnabout" in 1982. Like I said before, we always like to think we are living in the worse moment in history. I think it's because of our narcissism. It's quite annoying you know.

As for the STDs, well, those nasty little buggers have been around forever. And since Ms. Garrett thinks that the world was a charming cartoon before the "I hate god" 60s, take a look at what I found. Oh and before I go further, I am not bashing the military. But I think most people know about some of the trysts that men in the military engaged in. I've even heard some stories from the horse's mouth. All right... moving forward. Apparently our little friend, gonorrhea, has been around for a long time. Someone queue in George Washington, Ethan Allen, and those Mountain Boys:

…gonorrhea and syphilis, were significant disease threats before the availability of penicillin in the middle
1940s.Medical records from the Revolutionary War indicate that these STDs had a significant impact in terms of lost person-days among members of the Continental Army.

Oh it gets worse.

In World War I, the Army lost nearly 7million person-days and discharged more than 10,000 men because of STDs. Only the great influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 accounted for more loss of duty during that war. The STDs remained a significant threat in the early years of WorldWar II, prompting the War Department to embark on a massive educational and prophylactic campaign. Numerous posters were produced, warning soldiers and sailors of the dangers of excessively amorous behavior.

Gross, right? Seems that those men's bible circle in school didn't really help much, now did it?

Even with all this contradiction in her article, I'm sure you must be thinking how could there be more? But there is. Going back to my original paragraph- we are not a christian nation. Got that? NOT!! The founding of our nation, which I personally state as the signing of the Constitution, was based upon the ideas of the Enlightenment and the writings of John Locke. In fact, James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, who I love, stated such:

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores
the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.

Doesn't sound like someone who likes religion to meddle in government. Granted, most people may not know Madison. So here are some that people should:

John Adams signing the Treaty of Tripoli:
As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.

Abraham Lincoln to Judge JS Wakefield:

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them

And the big man himself, George Washington writing to clergymen about why Jesus Christ was missing from the Constitution:

I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.

This blog has a lot of quotes, but I believe this final one by Justice William Brennan, who wrote a concurrent decision in the Abington Township School District v. Schempp, is a fantastic ending:

There are persons in every community—often deeply devout—to whom any version of the Judaeo-Christian Bible is offensive. There are others whose reverence for the Holy Scriptures demands private study or reflection and to whom public reading or recitation is sacrilegious.... To such persons it is not the fact of using the Bible in the public schools, nor the content of any particular version, that is offensive, but the manner in which it is used.

Whatever Jefferson or Madison would have thought of Bible reading or the recital of the Lord's Prayer in ... public schools ..., our use of the history ... must limit itself to broad purposes, not specific practices. ... [T]he Baltimore and Abbington schools offend the First Amendment because they sufficiently threaten in our day those substantive evils the fear of which called forth the Establishment Clause. ... [O]ur interpretation of the First Amendment must necessarily be responsive to the much more highly charged nature of religious questions in contemporary society. A too literal quest for the advice of the Founding Fathers upon the issues of these cases seems to me futile and misdirected.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

I despise Bill O'Reilly  

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Now, I do have a confession. I watch his show about every other day. Granted, not all the way through- I might have an aneurysm, and that's not good.

Any who. I've been on vacation (that's right, vacation. Not vaca. That's not a word), and I have missed a lot of stuff. So coming back, I log onto my computer, go to Newsvine after a long withdrawal, and notice something that doesn't surprise me, but rather infuriates me. Bill O'Reilly is mad... at liberals. GET. OUT. Particularly Al Gore. I'm not the biggest Al Gore fan. Not all of us liberal, atheist, feminist, environmentalist anti authoritarians follow his every word. I don't know what it is. I think it's his face. I just want to fix it. I don't know how. But, I digress.

It appears that Bill O'Reilly is mad at Al Gore, a liberal Democrat, for attending a liberal function. Shock! Next thing you know, I'm going to get catcalled for walking down the pantyliner aisle (What! I'm not suppose to be there!?!?!) Vice President Al Gore attended a meeting held by Netroots Nation which is somehow related to Daily Kos. Maybe I'm a bad liberal; but I have never heard of them. So I had to get acquainted with them, by doing some crazy Google searching, and their crazy "feud" with that crazy Irish man with his own show on Fox. What? Are you telling me there are more than one? Dammit!

So here's the feud: Daily Kos apparently didn't say such nice things about Tony Snow when he died. The gist that I took away from the blogs was that,yes, it is sad when someone dies of cancer especially when they leave behind a family, but just because someone dies does not mean they get a free a pass. The writers of the article realize that many in the Conservative "blogosphere" are sad that Snow died, even though many of them have never met the man or even in the same timezone, but conservative should not expect everyone to feel the same.

Yeah, so... I don't understand the big deal. This is probably because I'm the type of person who hates when people make a big deal out of everyday things. People die everyday. Every second. And the only people who are really troubled by it are friends and family. Maybe even a passerby. But don't expect me to have the same reaction to some one's death as you do. When I go word of Mr. Snow's death, I thought it was and still is a terrible time for his family, but you know what, I changed the channel to Nickelodeon. Call me callous, but I didn't even like him. Apathy is the only thing I could feel towards that news. Unlike with Jerry Falwell's death... which I had to subdue every ounce of me from throwing confetti in the air and eating cake.

But back to O'Reilly. Here's his response to Al Gore:
Al Gore now is done. He’s done. Ok. He is not a man of respect, he doesn’t have any judgment. The fact that he went to this thing is the same as if he stepped into the Klan gathering. It’s the same. No difference. None. K, he loses all credibility with me. All credibility.
Really?First, am I really suppose to believe that O'Reilly had any respect for Gore? If your inner circle includes Laura Ingram and Michelle Malkin, then no, you don't have any respect for Gore.
Unfortunately, that's not the bad part. He compares a liberal blog group thing-still don't know what they are- to two of the most hateful, reviled, fearmongering groups in recent memory and that's me being nice. I know Tony was a friend of his, but even if my friend died and some one I know was apathetic towards that person death, those remarks are not warranted. By the way, didn't we as a species decided that whenever you bring up Nazism or Hitler you automatically lose the argument? Check mate, Bill!!!

It almost repetitive to even state this but: Nazism and the KKK will never and can never be on the same level playing field as a liberal blog!!! You see that blog... Not an over arching political faction that killed millions. Not Racist bigots who lynch people and cause a gigantic wedge in the South. A Blog. Grated, a popular one; but still a blog. Just in case you not sure, read Elie Wiesel's Night or talk to any person of color in the South over 60. You, Bill, are a tool. And not the band... TOOL is awesome.

Also, if anyone is thinking the same way I am think, not only is O'Reilly a tool, but a hypocrite. I know for a fact that McCain has been on his show; and I also know that Bill isn't exactly mean when McCain is on or even mentioned. So why is that Al Gore can show up at a liberal function and be crucified by O'Reilly. But McCain can do things like, oh I don't know, seek the approval of the Religious Right and in particular John Hagee and everything is fine. I know that McCain has rejected his endorsement; but this is only after he had actively sought it and the public was making an uproar after people realized how crazy Hagee was/is.
Don't remember some of the things Hagee has said or wrote? Don't worry... I don't blame you.

I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans...I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that...There was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades.... The Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment.

The military will have difficultly recruiting healthy and strong heterosexuals for combat purposes. Why? Fighting in combat with a man in your fox hole that has AIDS or is HIV positive is double jeopardy.

Do you know the diffence between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist.

Only a Spirit-filled woman can submit to her husband's lead. It is the natural desire of a woman to lead through feminine manipulation of the man...Fallen women will try to dominate the marriage. The man has the God-given role to be the loving leader of the home.
Oh Hagee! You and your misogyny and homophobia. When will it stop? Seriously... when will it?
So yeah, Hagee and those who ally themselves are able to go on TV all day without criticism, but you go to other side of the ideological grid and people bring out the pitchfork and torches. So in the case of O'Reilly, it's all relative. And as much as I hate relativism [against popular belief, most non-believers hate relativism], that's the only conclusion I have for O'Reilly and his decrepit reasoning. I don't care if you were once a teacher... a lot of teachers suck, you know!

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

And they say we live in a Post-Feminist society...  

Sunday, June 29, 2008

So from the wonderful women at Feministing, I learned that certain people in the Southern Baptist community believe that the reason why there is so much domestic violence is not the fault of the asshole man but, rather, the woman. Wow, that is soooo original- blaming the victim. This sort of along the lines of rape: she should not be wearing THOSE types of clothes; she should be watching her drink; etc.

One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband's God-given authority, a Southern Baptist scholar [Bruce Ware] said Sunday in a Texas church....
"He will have to rule, and because he's a sinner, this can happen in one of two ways. It can happen either through ruling that is abusive and oppressive--and of course we all know the horrors of that and the ugliness of that--but here's the other way in which he can respond when his authority is threatened. He can acquiesce. He can become passive. He can give up any responsibility that he thought he had to the leader in the relationship and just say 'OK dear,' 'Whatever you say dear,' 'Fine dear' and become a passive husband, because of sin."
Even more amazing than previously thought. So, men, you have TWO choices (oh, goodie). Either become a disgusting waste of sperm and egg (aka Domestic Abuser) or you can be a doormate. Who doesn't love choices.?!? By the way, this "two choice" mentality is akin to the Bush Doctrine of "you are either with us or against us". This type of mental death is decaying the fabric of what is left of our collective critical thinking skills.
OH OH... it gets much better, like peanut butter and chocolate... TOGETHER!

"It really has been happening for about the past 30 years, ever since the force of the feminist movement was felt in our churches," Ware said.

He said one place the "egalitarian" view--the notion that males and females were created equal not only in essence but also in function--crops up is in churches that allow women to be ordained and become pastors.
Blaming it on the women's movement, huh? That's as original as that kid in junior high who cheated of my test. Apparently what I have learned from the misogynistic religous psychos is that everything bad happened after the 1970s. Which makes perfect sense because no man EVER beat his wife before that time. It's as if a whole slew of drugs got into out water system, which only affected men, causing them to hallucinate to view their significant other as a punching bag rather than an equal, human being. Which brings up another point. Mr Ware:
Ware offered 10 reasons "for affirming male headship in the created order." They include that man was created first and that woman was created "out of" Adam in order to be his "helper."
Okay, there are so many things wrong with that statement. First, the Genesis creation story is NOT real. The fact that there are two of them, contradicting- I might add, is one of them. Second, this Ware guy either failed biology or went to a crappy school were they neglected to mention to him that all human embryos start off female. That's right, you heard me- or read me- right. Okay fine. That is very much a blanketed statement. We all actually start off with a proto-female brain. If you wanna know more, Go here.
See? Like how I have data to back up all the crazy stuff I say, unlike Mr Male inferiority.
Here's a better answer to the crackpot excuse that "Theology Man" described: be confident in yourself and try to figure out what is wrong with YOU rather than dealing out black eyes and hospital bills; and if there is something wrong look inward first- it's easier to change yourself that someone else.
If you don't like the fact that your partner is better than you either go your separate ways, or (go figure) try to become a better person. Nothing like bettering yourself to help stop you from becoming an asshole abuser.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

For crying out loud...  

Saturday, May 31, 2008

There are no aliens. The collective stupidity of the American public makes me want to pummel my head against the rocks on the outside of my house. What makes me more furious is that the news media is helping this tripe along: "Are aliens real?" "Is the government hiding something?" What on earth are these people's job if they are not out doing what people in the blogosphere have deciphered within 30 seconds of the pictures and videos airing? These "news people" are doing nothing expect helping along the decline of the national intelligence. It's called critical thinking, people. Use it. It works wonders.

When I say that there are no aliens, I do not mean none at all any where in the universe. The universe is a vast place, and it potentially holds thousands of planets (we have already found over a hundred). So, to say that we are the only intelligent life out there is ridiculous and pompous. But the alien video that is going around is not real. NOT REAL!!!! My head hurts so I found an article from one of my favorite bloggers, Bad Astronomy, and it pretty much nails the hammer on the head:


Jeff Peckman stood before the citizens of Denver and showed the video. What it had on it we don't know, because he would only allow certain members of the press to see it, and no video of his video was allowed to be taken. Evidently, Peckman is part of the Bush Administration.

Anyway, his video was supposed to show an alien looking in a bedroom window. He said it would have cost thousands of dollars and take a Hollywood studio to fake it. However, members of the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Society were able to create a fake video in a few hours and for under $100, which looks "slightly more animated" than the real thing. That's according to someone who saw both, writing for the Rocky Mountain News (link above).

The fake video is all over YouTube already, and of course some people are claiming it's the real thing. It's not. Below are stills from the real footage and the hoaxed one (well the admitted hoax). The one on the left is from Peckman's footage (posted on the Rocky Mountain News site), the one on the right is the claimed hoax.

Stills from the purported alien footage and the hoax

The differences are obvious — most notably the shape of the head, and the mullions (crossbars) in the window. Now go to YouTube and watch the footage people are claiming is the real thing.

Oops. It's the known hoax.

So where are we? We have a video few people have seen, a claim it couldn't be easily faked, proof it could be easily faked, and the fake video being claimed as the real one on the 'net.

Still with me?

The dumbosity of this is climbing faster than even I thought it could. One thing is clear to me, though: Jeff Peckman is very, very good at wasting peoples' time. And people are only too too happy to throw it at him.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

I call BS on this  

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Wow, Maximun asshole points for this guy. Although, before we give up hope on males in general I would like to point out that Jeffrey Toobin (who I love, sometimes) and the two women were all trying to point out that the campaign has been sexist. Their oppinion sounded much more fair, too bad they were being drowned out by ass-hole man. BTW, I am more and more concerned over the possibility of a McCain presidency. First McCain calls his wife the C-word (which he didn't really apologize for, but rather excuse because he was stressed). Second, McCain also pointed out that a female protester at a rally was "good looking". And now, his advisor thinks that acting like a man is bitchy. For the love of Pete, if this man wins, I will rip out my uterus and move to Canada. Okay, I don't plan on doing that for like 4 year, but still.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Yes. Yes, I do want to abolish the White Christian Male Supremacy  

Saturday, April 26, 2008

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

I am ashamed to be called an Oklahoman.  

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Bill promotes school religion at expense of education

Dave McNeely
Special to The Sun

EDMOND The Oklahoma House of Representatives Education Committee has just approved House Bill 2211. The bill is expected to pass the full House, and then to go to the Senate. Its authors describe it as promoting freedom of religion in the public schools. In fact, it does the opposite.

HB 2211 is identical to bills widely introduced into state legislatures across the nation, where they have met various fates. Texas’s Legislature passed it, and Texas is experiencing serious problems as a result. Liberty Legal Institute of Plano, Texas, a group of fundamentalist Christian lawyers, drafted the bill and promoted to legislatures, including Oklahoma’s. It was not written by its Oklahoma legislative “authors.”

The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

If a student chose to take his opportunity to speak to a group of students in a school-sanctioned assembly to tell them they must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior or go to hell, then that student would have a right to do so, according to this bill. Especially, but not only if the student held a position of honor and authority (class officer, team captain), and was speaking in his or her official capacity, the school has clearly established religion in violation of both the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions.

The same would be true if the student chose to tell the assembled students that they would not go to hell, that there is no hell and that those who promote belief in hell are liars. What if a Wican student chose to tell the assembled students that the only true God is Nature, or a member of a radical religious sect advocated assassination in order to preserve God’s will? According to this bill, those students would be free, in a forum supported by the school, to do so. Any or all of these scenarios would lead to lawsuits.

The consequence of the bill will be to create havoc and promote discord in the public schools. That’s already happening in Texas, where the bill has been law for several months. Denton, Texas Independent School District, responding to the law, has decreed that no students may ever speak in assembly, to graduation, to the crowd at an athletic event or in other group function. As reported in The Denton Record Chronicle Sept. 1, the superintendent there said if no students are ever allowed to speak, then there will be no discrimination and no basis for lawsuits. Another school superintendent in Texas said, “… we’re just trying to have school, and I think this is a complicating factor” as reported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization that has spoken out against the bill.

What administrators fear as the law is implemented is a barrage of lawsuits. School administrators in Texas are frightened. They fear lawsuits from students who feel that the school is forcing them to endure religious activity they do not agree with nor want to have imposed on them. They also fear lawsuits from students who claim they have not been properly allowed the forum the law requires. They’ll be damned (or sued) if they do, damned (or sued) if they don’t. Oklahoma will experience the same.

Students already have the constitutional freedom to organize religious groups, to pray or to do whatever religious activity they want at school, so long as they do not impose that on others or use public resources to support their religion. This bill adds nothing in the way of religious freedom. What it will do is create a stew of undesirable litigation relating to an important constitutional issue — separation of church and state.

Both The Oklahoma Academy of Science and Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education have asked for the bill’s defeat. I agree. Don’t we have better things to do with public money, than to give it to lawyers and courts over such matters?

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

We have found the antichrist  

Thursday, March 6, 2008

Apparently Glenn Beck has found him and it is Barak Obama.
Wow, I'm shocked. Check out my shocked face---> :-/
Glenn Beck believe everyone and everything progressive is the AntiChrist. How many can you have, Glenn? You gottta pick one. I know that you have it out for Obama because he has become all uppity about thinking he can run for president based upon the qualifications that are listed in the CONSTITUTION and not in the crazy bylaws that exist in your head.
If you want to see the antichrist, go look in the mirror, mr. beck and mr. hagee. But, since I don't believe in such farce, I'll just say that you are terrible people. So screw you.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Hypocrisy and the War  

Thursday, January 31, 2008

I have never been an ardent supporter of the war. Granted, when the war was first thrust upon us I was trying to think of logical reasons to why it was a good idea (a year later, I was convinced that there was none).

But I found something fishy about Americans... they want war but they do not want anyone they know to fight in it.

It's almost as if there has not been a war in such a span of time that people forgot what war entailed. War implies loss of life, loss of resources, and sacrifice.

One thing that I have taken a keen notice is that people, especially here in Oklahoma, will be ardent supports of the war: "we're fighting terrorism there so we don't do it here", "we're spreading democracy to the world", and "this is God's will".

All are atrocious reasons. But one thing that I hate is that the most blinding supporters of the war are the most hypocritical.
It seems that lately many people that I know have relatives or friends that are heading off to war. In church especially, people hear that a friend's relative is going to war, and one can hear a collective "Oh, no" and sighs of disbelief and heartbreak. Are you kidding me? Who did you think was going to fight the war? Robots!?!
It takes human bloodshed to fight wars. That is why they are atrocious acts that humanity has ever invented. That's why many were and are still against it. Unlike the stupid that fill our country, a few still know what it takes to wage war, and we want this grotesque actions of this administration needs to come to an end.

Coming from someone who hates war, I hope all come back safe.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The 35th Anniversary of Roe v Wade  

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Thirty Fiver years ago women were given the option to become more than just the standard baby-birthing, house cleaning, husband submitting wife that was the norm- and no, I don't find that as the ideal. More like sub-standard if you ask me.

Roe v. Wade may have been the landmark decision in America to give women the right to abortions (actually, only first term at the time), but what it has been able to do for women since is something that we have to keep mindful.

NARAL asked those who have blogs to write what Pro-Choice means to them.

Pro-Choice, for me, is about having a better life and opportunity for women, especially disenfranchised women.

Pro-Choice allows women to decide what they want to do with their lives and their bodies. Have you ever asked why are all these men so obsessed with repealing roe v wade? More obsessed than funding education and health care? Because, when one has control of a woman's body, you have control of her life. Without choice, the only thing that women would be able to do is stay at home. She will not be able to reach the highest peak of the corporate world.
Granted the Pill was invented in 1960 over a decade before women were given a choice. But, the Pill fails. Most women are not ready for, do not want, or unsure about children. Children should not be born to a mother that does not want it. Many say just give the baby up for adoption. Of course. Because the foster care center is much to be admired.

I vote Pro Choice because I care about women's health.
No woman in this country should ever at any time be compelled to go to Mexico or use a coat hanger.

I care that although I may never have an abortion that does not give me the right to deny another human being.
What you do with your body is your choice. Why do the actions of others have barring on you? You would never know that a women had an abortion unless she told you.

I'm angry that your religious beliefs must influence the body and life of someone you will never know. If the woman keeps the child, will you help raise it?

I am angry that lawmakers still try to tell women what they should do.
I'm angry that 77% of lawmakers are men and none of them will ever be pregnant.

I'm angry that Women's Rights must still be fought to this day.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

We have a problem....  

Monday, January 14, 2008

And by we, I mean other people.

One thing I do not understand is the fascination with Dr. Phil.

Oprah- Ok, I get it (or as Oprah would say "I geeeet it peeeeeeeoplllllle!!!!! I GET IT!!!!!!!!)
But Dr. Fucking Phil! He is the one I do not understand. His advice sucks! The advice he dishes out is either mundane that even a child would know, irresponsible beyond belief, or peppered with so much dumb ass souther cliches it makes you want to sneeze.

First of all, where does he get off selling "weight lose" products and always calling himself a joke.

I'm sorry - What bald guy, fat ass team are you on? Because I would like to play them so I can finally win at something.

I never watched this episode specifically, because watching him makes me want to poke eyes out, but I have heard alot about it. Apparently this episode (which aired a few months ago) featured a middle aged man with two teenagers from a previous marriage. He has his tubes tide. New relationship doesn't care- they get married. All of a sudden, she is struck with baby rabies and must have one. The man is adamant. NO means NO.

What does Dr. Phil do? He agrees with the woman like the fool he is.
"Don't you want to make her happy? This will make her happy." But it will make him miserable.

One miserable person in a relationship will soon equal no relationship. What about him? Doesn't his happiness mean anything? As far as I can tell, he is the only one who really knows what happens when you have kids, and it obviously leads to self-sterilization.

OK, OK. I know what you are saying: This was a long time ago and things change.

No, actually they get worse.

As much as I hate the Britney Spears coverage, the one thing I am happy about is that it exposed Dr. Phil for who he is: an opportunistic, egotistical self righteous nut job who will not shut up.

The Psychology Board of California is now investigating him. FINALLY!!! WHAT TOOK SO LONG!!!

I did not know this, but he has not had a license to practice in nearly 2 years. AND PEOPLE WILL GO ON HIS SHOW! They are just as nuts as he is

TMZ is reporting that a complaint has been filed against Dr. Phil with the California Board of Psychology.

The complaint reportedly accuses Dr. Phil McGraw of practicing without a license when he visited Britney Spears at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center after her meltdown earlier this month.

According to a complaint, Dr. Phil is also accused of violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The complaint alleges Dr. Phil practiced clinical psychology without a license and further violated doctor-patient privilege by discussing the pop star's case with the media.

Dr. Phil has never been licensed to practice in California, and he is no longer licensed in his home state of Texas.

McGraw failed to complete the conditions imposed as disciplinary sanctions by the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists in 1989.

A former therapy client had filed a complaint against him, claiming their relationship was inappropriate.

McGraw later admitted giving her a job but denied touching her.

Soon after he was officially reprimanded, McGraw closed his private practice.

And they buy his book why?

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

A Criminal Rant  

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Right now, as I type, I’m pretty positive that my mother is trying to suffocate everyone in the house by slightly overcooking half a clove of garlic- and I don’t appreciate it.

Anywho… on to more important things besides the fact that I feel like mustard gas has been released into the air.

One of the things that I have realized from working at the County Courthouse is how much the world sucks. I knew that before, but you see it first hand when you talk to people over the phone and file criminal cases. Case in point: this past Friday, it was toward the end of day and I didn’t have much left to do. So, I decided to look at the new Felony cases that have been filed. Besides noticing that Tulsa has a huge “Possession of Controlled Drug” problem, I noticed a case that had two counts: one is a felony and the other count a misdemeanor. The felony was for “Placing Bodily Fluids on a Federal Employee”. I looked at the information sheet. The man spat on the officer. I kind of understand why that would be a felony. Certain things can be transmitted via “bodily fluid”, and you have no idea what another person has. But the misdemeanor was an “Assault and Battery- Domestic”. The information sheet went into detail about how the defendant “bashed” the girlfriend or wife’s head into a wall or floor- I forgot which one. I was outraged. You’re telling me that someone could go to Lexington for spitting on an officer, but if you bash your girlfriend’s head into a non-porous surface, you will go to County Jail. If that! Many misdemeanors are plead out and the person is put on probation and has to pay fines. I was so upset that I told a girl next to me about the case. A DA assistant was near us and overheard me. He said, “They say there is equal protection under the law, but that’s not always so”. I replied, “No joke”.

What is even more upsetting is that most Assaults are filed as misdemeanors. Many of them are domestic. Even more never go to court because the DA declines to file. But it is not all the DA’s fault. Many of those dumb broads who had a fist to their face think that said abuser will change with counseling. Idiots! He may be able to change, but you do not have to be around to see if he does or doesn’t.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Close Gitmo!!!!  

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Ahhh... that new blog smell  

Saturday, January 5, 2008

First, I have to say Lay's Potato Chips and French onion dip are the best things ever. But, the classic Lay's, not the ridges. Ridges? What the fuck are those?!

So new year equals new things.
I finally scheduled a hair appointment. Once the lady got to finally styling my hair, she wanted to know what I wanted to do with my layers. My layers were never there on purpose. So, I told her to do whatever it takes to make the layers make sense. She did. It's a little shorter, especially in the back- because that was all fucked up.

I've been making an point to get back into the French speaking groove- which basically means me listening to the 1991 Paris revival of Les Miserables.

Also, I have rekindled my love for Sonic's Cherry Limeade. Now, if only the Sonic in Jenks didn't take five years to bring me one drink, that would be awesome possum.

Hmmm... what else is new? I love my dog. I hate my job, but I like those that I work with- well, most of them. I can't stand Tulsa. I don't know why most of the people in power have a mental disability and will not tell us about it. I miss some of the people at my alma mater, but as of now, I would not donate a dime to that place.

I have declared myself as a childfree person. In fact, when I finally go to law school and graduate, I will go doctor shopping to have the Essure procedure done. I say doctor shopping because it will be insanely difficult to have something like that done at the age I will have it done, especially here in Oklahoma. BUT, that, too, is another blog for another day.

As of now, I have my beliefs and my opinions and I do not like them being called into question because of my age. I realize that either you or your children are or were dumb asses at my age but that does not mean that I have followed the trend. Well, that's my rant for the day.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


Design by Blogger Buster | Distributed by Blogging Tips