Did you listen to Morning Edition on NPR this morning? If you did, you might have heard the story about Tea Party voters in Idaho. Go ahead an listen if you missed it.
In the piece, one Idahoan compares political compromise to baking an apple pie. Listening to the way he sees compromise (each party wants to use a different type of apple in the pie, so the pie gets baked with no apples) it's no wonder he likes the Tea Party.
But he gets compromise wrong. Now, maybe the way politics has worked the past few years fits the no-apple-apple-pie analogy, but when that has happened it is precisely because the parties have not compromised.
See, if Bob and Mary want to bake an apple pie together, only Bob wants Red Delicious apples and Mary wants Fujis, to compromise, they might decide to use some of both. Or they might choose a 3rd variety altogether. They wouldn't end up ready to bake the pie and have no apples in it. If that happens, it is because they didn't compromise.
Now how should politics in Washington work? Well, the GOP and Democrats each have a list of what they want in a bill. If one party refuses to compromise and will only pass a bill if it is entirely their way, if one party expects the other party to 'compromise' but won't give a little, that's when you end up with a stalemate and no apples in the pie.
Look back to our very founding document, the Constitution. Why do we have three branches of government? Why are there two houses in Congress? Because the delegates who debated and wrote the Constitution had differing ideas of how the government should be and they compromised. They found solutions that all sides could agree on. That link, by the way, is to a nice history of the Philadelphia convention from the National Archives.
What really bugged me about the bad apple pie analogy, besides being a bad analogy, was that the Tea Party seems to be a big part of the non-compromise problem in Washington. Both sides of the aisle are culpable, and both sides of the aisle try to push things through without compromise, but some Tea Partiers have actually said they won't compromise. They actually would rather shut down the government than not get their way. So for someone who supports the Tea Party to complain that folks in Washington can't compromise while supporting a platform designed against compromise... Well, I'll just leave it there.
I just wish the old-fashioned fiscal conservative, small government GOP luck in these contested primaries. Because I sure would like to see some actual balance in Washington.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, January 24, 2014
Monday, October 15, 2012
An American theocracy
I'm terrified for the future.
I just read this article. My stomach is now in knots. Enough that I don't know if I'll be able to eat the dinner that is currently in the oven.
The reason? This quote from the interview:
This from the Central Mississippi Tea Party President Janice Lane.
Yep, she doesn't think she should have the right to vote. Because women are irrational.
Crap.
People are actually saying the thing I most feared this election cycle. The thing I was dreading hearing after more ultra conservatives got elected.
They've done a lot to restrict women's rights already. I'm not just talking about abortion, that big hot button topic. I'm talking about a systematic eroding of the rights our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers fought for.
Let me ask a question:
What's the difference between a Middle-Eastern theocracy and an American theocracy?
Answer: Not much. You can quibble about one being a Christian nation and the others being Muslim, but it's still a theocracy. It's still governing based on religion. And not everyone in this country is Christian. Not all Christians agree on some of the basic tenets of Christianity.
What are we headed to at this rate? A society where women are treated as second class citizens. Where women can't vote, own property, get an education.
Is it really a stretch to think we'll go back to those days? That headlines like this will appear with datelines in our own country?
After seeing statements like the one above, I don't think it is a stretch to think we could find ourselves in that world. And once women lose their rights, where does it end? Non-whites are feeling similar pressures. And let's not forget that non-heterosexual folks are still fighting for equality.
I don't want to see the tide turn so only white, heterosexual, cis-gendered males have rights.
Before you cast your vote this year, think about the people you are voting for. Think about if you might be giving up rights if they hold the office they are running for. Consider carefully. Because I refuse to see a world where statements like the above are accepted. Where anyone really thinks women are too irrational to vote.
I just read this article. My stomach is now in knots. Enough that I don't know if I'll be able to eat the dinner that is currently in the oven.
The reason? This quote from the interview:
Lane: Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I'd much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.
Because women have the right to vote, I am active, because I want to make sure there is some sanity for women in the political world. It is up to the Christian rednecks and patriots to stand up for our country. Everyone has the right to vote now that's 18 or over (who is) a legal citizen, and every person that's 18 and over and a legal citizen should be active in local politics so they can make a change locally, make a change on the state level and make a change in Washington, D.C.
This from the Central Mississippi Tea Party President Janice Lane.
Yep, she doesn't think she should have the right to vote. Because women are irrational.
Crap.
People are actually saying the thing I most feared this election cycle. The thing I was dreading hearing after more ultra conservatives got elected.
They've done a lot to restrict women's rights already. I'm not just talking about abortion, that big hot button topic. I'm talking about a systematic eroding of the rights our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers fought for.
Let me ask a question:
What's the difference between a Middle-Eastern theocracy and an American theocracy?
Answer: Not much. You can quibble about one being a Christian nation and the others being Muslim, but it's still a theocracy. It's still governing based on religion. And not everyone in this country is Christian. Not all Christians agree on some of the basic tenets of Christianity.
What are we headed to at this rate? A society where women are treated as second class citizens. Where women can't vote, own property, get an education.
Is it really a stretch to think we'll go back to those days? That headlines like this will appear with datelines in our own country?
After seeing statements like the one above, I don't think it is a stretch to think we could find ourselves in that world. And once women lose their rights, where does it end? Non-whites are feeling similar pressures. And let's not forget that non-heterosexual folks are still fighting for equality.
I don't want to see the tide turn so only white, heterosexual, cis-gendered males have rights.
Before you cast your vote this year, think about the people you are voting for. Think about if you might be giving up rights if they hold the office they are running for. Consider carefully. Because I refuse to see a world where statements like the above are accepted. Where anyone really thinks women are too irrational to vote.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
I refuse to be chattel
I wonder if part of why so many people, especially men, pooh pooh rape is because they don't realize how many women in their lives have been victims. It takes courage to share, but it's important. For the record, I haven't been, but I know several women who have.
As for the asshat's statement regarding "legitimate" rape, I'm pleasantly surprised at the backlash. His opinion isn't actually all that unusual. Many, many politicians have tried to redefine rape. And his lack of actual factual information, making up science as he goes, seems to be par for the course with certain right-wing groups.
That said, I was reading a post today about the importance of defending abortion access in all cases, not just throwing out the exceptions. Every woman who has one has a good reason why it is the right choice for her.
This divisiveness is a powerful tool of the right: if we keep fighting the same battles (rape is rape, abortion should be available for all, women deserve the right to vote and control their own bodies and be treated as fully equal human beings), we get distracted.
I really want to face an election where I can concentrate on important issues like the economy and healthcare and national security. I want to be able to vote for the person who I think will lead the country in the right direction.... without being forced to vote for the candidate least likely to treat me as a second class citizen.
I call myself an independent for good reason. I often agree with Republicans on some issues. In local elections, I usually vote a pretty balanced ticket, about half Dem and half GOP. But I can't ignore this huge looming issue, this groundswell of anti-woman legislation.
Look, many women are just trying to keep the rights we already have. Our mothers, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers fought hard to win the rights to vote, own property, work, etc. We still don't have equal pay for equal work. We're still trying to be seen as equal human beings.
When a predominantly male legislation keeps passing laws restricting the rights of half the population, there's a problem. When we are still having discussions about what constitutes rape, that's a huge problem. (HINT: If the victim, whether male or female, did not say yes, it is rape.) When politicians make comments that they pretty much want women back in the kitchen, that should tell us where they want this country to go.
Frankly, going back to women being chattel is the wrong direction. Period.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Question to ponder
Should a person be forced to donate an organ? For example, if person A were a perfect match for person B who needed a kidney, but person A absolutely did not want to donate a kidney, should person A be required to do so? Or do person A's individual rights and autonomy over his/her body take precedence?
Please ponder that question.
The reason I ask is because this analogy because it was mentioned in a discussion I read recently in regards to abortion rights and so-called personhood amendments. The point, of course, is do women have a right to have autonomy over their own bodies? Do they have the right to not donate the use of their bodies, to put it crudely, as incubators?
Just something to think about.
Please ponder that question.
The reason I ask is because this analogy because it was mentioned in a discussion I read recently in regards to abortion rights and so-called personhood amendments. The point, of course, is do women have a right to have autonomy over their own bodies? Do they have the right to not donate the use of their bodies, to put it crudely, as incubators?
Just something to think about.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Where do we live again?
I don't know what country I am living in anymore. I mean, I know this is still the US, but it sure doesn't feel like it right now. Especially for women. It feels more like we're living in one of the oppressive regimes politicians are always denouncing.
But, no, this is the US.
And, frankly, I'm scared. I don't want to live in a theocracy, but that's what certain lawmakers and presidential candidates are trying to create.
Yes, there's a War on Women. That's pretty clear, considering recent pieces of legislation. Many of these have been the result of lawmakers trying to enforce their own religious beliefs of the population at large.
Arizona will allow employers to fire female employees who use birth control if they can't prove it isn't for a non-birth control reason. Tennessee wants to publish names of abortion providers and information that could identify their patients. A Georgia politician thinks women are equivalent to animals and should be required to carry dead fetuses until they naturally go into labor. Some states want to protect doctors who lie to patients to prevent abortions. Colorado is on the way to passing a bill that make abortion or use of the "morning after" pill murder.
And these are just the tip of the iceberg of recent legislation either passed or proposed that are chipping away at the rights of women. We've been seeing increasing restrictions on abortion, reduced access to birth control, interference in women's ability to make their own medical decisions and their doctors' ability to provide politics free health care.
There have been calls for doctors to stand up for their rights to care for their patients without interference, but the full-on assault from the right continues to heat up. Now a Republican from Arizona (remind me never to move there) has stated that women should have to watch an abortion before they can have one. Never mind that no other surgical procedure requires a patient to observe one first.
Frankly, if you are female, know anyone who is female, care about anyone who is female, or even just believe women are people, you need to pay attention and remember come November. We need to vote these people out of office or we will be living in conditions worse than our parents grew up in. We'll be living in a country where being female is a crime.
If you don't want to live in an oppressive regime, educate yourself and exercise your right to vote. Learn about the candidates. An excellent, non-partisan, resource is Project Vote Smart, which collects voting records, biographical information, issue positions, and more on all federal-level and many state-level candidates.
Consider running for office yourself. The 2012 Project is encouraging women, in particular, to run for office. Write your Senators and Representatives and let them know how you feel about invasive legislation.
DO something. Because this isn't the country I want my kids to grow up in.
But, no, this is the US.
And, frankly, I'm scared. I don't want to live in a theocracy, but that's what certain lawmakers and presidential candidates are trying to create.
Yes, there's a War on Women. That's pretty clear, considering recent pieces of legislation. Many of these have been the result of lawmakers trying to enforce their own religious beliefs of the population at large.
Arizona will allow employers to fire female employees who use birth control if they can't prove it isn't for a non-birth control reason. Tennessee wants to publish names of abortion providers and information that could identify their patients. A Georgia politician thinks women are equivalent to animals and should be required to carry dead fetuses until they naturally go into labor. Some states want to protect doctors who lie to patients to prevent abortions. Colorado is on the way to passing a bill that make abortion or use of the "morning after" pill murder.
And these are just the tip of the iceberg of recent legislation either passed or proposed that are chipping away at the rights of women. We've been seeing increasing restrictions on abortion, reduced access to birth control, interference in women's ability to make their own medical decisions and their doctors' ability to provide politics free health care.
There have been calls for doctors to stand up for their rights to care for their patients without interference, but the full-on assault from the right continues to heat up. Now a Republican from Arizona (remind me never to move there) has stated that women should have to watch an abortion before they can have one. Never mind that no other surgical procedure requires a patient to observe one first.
Frankly, if you are female, know anyone who is female, care about anyone who is female, or even just believe women are people, you need to pay attention and remember come November. We need to vote these people out of office or we will be living in conditions worse than our parents grew up in. We'll be living in a country where being female is a crime.
If you don't want to live in an oppressive regime, educate yourself and exercise your right to vote. Learn about the candidates. An excellent, non-partisan, resource is Project Vote Smart, which collects voting records, biographical information, issue positions, and more on all federal-level and many state-level candidates.
Consider running for office yourself. The 2012 Project is encouraging women, in particular, to run for office. Write your Senators and Representatives and let them know how you feel about invasive legislation.
DO something. Because this isn't the country I want my kids to grow up in.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
On voting
Women have always been able to vote in the US in my lifetime. In my mother's and grandmothers' as well. The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, 91 years ago.
Would you believe Mississippi didn't ratify it until 1984? Actually, considering the state of women's rights in Mississippi, I guess I do.
I could write a lot about women's rights, such as the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment still has not been ratified and is not the law of the land, but this is an election day. I want to concentrate on elections.
Here in Bloomington, there are only 2 contested races. Pretty abysmal. Most of the new officials who will be sworn in on January 1st were elected by default during the primary because there is a full slate of Democrats but very few Republicans running. That's just sad.
Frankly, I don't think partisan politics really have a place in local elections. Most of what our local leaders do has very little to do with the big polarizing issues, anyway. And we would have a much more robust local election if more candidates were on the ballot. Really, does it matter which party someone is from at this level?
I would be willing to state that most, if not all, local offices are not political in that sense. Who cares if the recorder or auditor or a judge is a Republican or Democrat? They have a very specific job to do, which should really be more dependent on actual qualifications.
Add to that the local issues that really sway voters tend to have nothing to do with party. Can we let our candidates run on those issues?
One of the contested races this year is for the 3 city council at-large seats. The big issue that seems to be dividing voters here is I-69. And there is no consensus within either party. The 5 candidates run the gamut from against to absolutely for, with most being more practical and somewhere in the middle.
There are nuances in how they feel about other local issues, but again, it doesn't really split by party so much as by personal experience. And that's good. I don't like politicians who pick their stance on an issue by party (or voters who vote a straight ticket). That means they aren't thinking. It means they haven't learned that there's an awful lot of gray.
Me, I like to be an informed voter. I don't have the time to learn everything about the candidates, but I try to learn a little. It's pretty simple why: the last time I voted without having a clue who I was voting for, I accidentally helped elect someone who stood for the exact opposite of what I wanted, who turned out to be a criminal.
I've voted in almost every election for which I have been eligible. I think I may have missed some local elections when I was in college, but that's ok since I had no clue. I also consciously skipped voting in the first local election after moving to Bloomington because I didn't feel like I had a handle on the city or the candidates. I made a point to educate myself before the next one, though.
So what is the point of all this? Even with uncontested races, it is worth exercising one's right, privilege, and duty to vote. Even if someone is uncontested, you can abstain from voting. But that doesn't mean anything unless you cast a ballot. See, the math is such that if 1000 people vote in the election but only half vote for an uncontested candidate, that means the other half DIDN'T. That's significant. It may not sway the vote, but it makes a statement.
So vote. Please. Just do it. Seriously, it took all of 5 minutes this morning, including getting the boys in and out of the car, walking down the hall to the polling location, checking in, filling in the ballot, and getting our nifty "I voted" stickers.
Would you believe Mississippi didn't ratify it until 1984? Actually, considering the state of women's rights in Mississippi, I guess I do.
I could write a lot about women's rights, such as the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment still has not been ratified and is not the law of the land, but this is an election day. I want to concentrate on elections.
Here in Bloomington, there are only 2 contested races. Pretty abysmal. Most of the new officials who will be sworn in on January 1st were elected by default during the primary because there is a full slate of Democrats but very few Republicans running. That's just sad.
Frankly, I don't think partisan politics really have a place in local elections. Most of what our local leaders do has very little to do with the big polarizing issues, anyway. And we would have a much more robust local election if more candidates were on the ballot. Really, does it matter which party someone is from at this level?
I would be willing to state that most, if not all, local offices are not political in that sense. Who cares if the recorder or auditor or a judge is a Republican or Democrat? They have a very specific job to do, which should really be more dependent on actual qualifications.
Add to that the local issues that really sway voters tend to have nothing to do with party. Can we let our candidates run on those issues?
One of the contested races this year is for the 3 city council at-large seats. The big issue that seems to be dividing voters here is I-69. And there is no consensus within either party. The 5 candidates run the gamut from against to absolutely for, with most being more practical and somewhere in the middle.
There are nuances in how they feel about other local issues, but again, it doesn't really split by party so much as by personal experience. And that's good. I don't like politicians who pick their stance on an issue by party (or voters who vote a straight ticket). That means they aren't thinking. It means they haven't learned that there's an awful lot of gray.
Me, I like to be an informed voter. I don't have the time to learn everything about the candidates, but I try to learn a little. It's pretty simple why: the last time I voted without having a clue who I was voting for, I accidentally helped elect someone who stood for the exact opposite of what I wanted, who turned out to be a criminal.
I've voted in almost every election for which I have been eligible. I think I may have missed some local elections when I was in college, but that's ok since I had no clue. I also consciously skipped voting in the first local election after moving to Bloomington because I didn't feel like I had a handle on the city or the candidates. I made a point to educate myself before the next one, though.
So what is the point of all this? Even with uncontested races, it is worth exercising one's right, privilege, and duty to vote. Even if someone is uncontested, you can abstain from voting. But that doesn't mean anything unless you cast a ballot. See, the math is such that if 1000 people vote in the election but only half vote for an uncontested candidate, that means the other half DIDN'T. That's significant. It may not sway the vote, but it makes a statement.
So vote. Please. Just do it. Seriously, it took all of 5 minutes this morning, including getting the boys in and out of the car, walking down the hall to the polling location, checking in, filling in the ballot, and getting our nifty "I voted" stickers.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
About the percenters
I don't think people get it. I really don't.
1) First there were the 99% folks, who have very legitimate gripes.
2) Then there are the 1% people who either a) agree with the 99% or say screw the 99%.
3) And then there are the 53% folks who are clueless.
A lot of people have been posting their pictures with their stories about why they fit into one of these groups. There has been a lot of commentary on those pictures. Here is what I see.
1) The 99% aren't lazy. They aren't whining because they have to work hard. The problem, what they (most of us since 99% of us are that 99%) are trying to convey, is that hard work doesn't get anywhere. You can work hard all your life and you will get poorer - unless you are in that 1% that keeps getting richer. You can have a good job, pay your bills, have health insurance... and still not get ahead. There is no American Dream for the vast majority of us who just want to be comfortable enough to pay the bills and maybe have a little extra to take a vacation, all without worrying if the next illness will send us into bankruptcy.
2) The guy from the infamous picture (who works 80 hour weeks and thinks the 99%ers are whiny) doesn't get it. The point is that he SHOULDN'T have to work 80 hour weeks for the rest of his life. And there aren't enough jobs for everyone to work that many hours. The American Dream is not about working yourself to death and not getting ahead. If you work that hard for a few years and do get ahead, that's fine. It isn't about a free ride either. That's not what the 99% are asking for. They just want to get a fair wage. They object to CEOs making 350X what the average worker makes, with stockholders getting crazy dividends, while the people who create the products that make all that money sink lower and lower.
3) The 53% folks supposedly represent the 53% who pay taxes. Except that a lot of the ones posting don't pay taxes. And why, if you pay your taxes, which go toward building roads and airports, and all sorts of other public projects, defend companies and the wealthy, who benefit from those tax funded services, not paying their fair share of taxes?
4) As for the 1%, I'm very happy to see that quite a few understand that they didn't get there on their own. Their wealth wasn't built in a bubble. They were able to make money with the help of others and using public resources. And that use of public resources is a big reason why they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD pay their fair share of taxes. As has been pointed out, many of them wouldn't even notice if their tax rate increased a small amount. The ones who gloat are just that - gloaters. We shouldn't feel sympathy for them or want to do them any favors. That doesn't mean we need to resent them (if people work hard and make a lot of money, more power to them). But they certainly don't need our help or Congress's to get even further ahead.
5) Some of the folks defending the status quo are doing so against their own self-interest. When the options are tax cuts or tax increases for the wealthy and the non-wealthy are fighting for tax cuts (even though it means tax increases for the middle class), it makes me wonder why. Is it because they aspire to be wealthy enough to not pay income taxes? Because if so, I hate to break it to you, but it's unlikely. Why do some folks want to pay more taxes so the people who can afford to pay more get a break? Don't tell me it's because they really believe in trickle down economics or that the wealthy are job creators. Those are fictions which have been disproved time and again. (For the record, when companies make more money [including via tax cuts], they don't hire more workers - they pay bigger investor dividends. They only hire if they need more employees. If the vast majority of American workers can't afford to buy products, it will only keep shrinking the economy. And the wealthy don't really create more jobs - at least not high paying ones. Maybe they'll hire another maid or gardener, but paying lower taxes isn't really going to encourage them to spread the wealth around. And they don't necessarily buy more stuff just because they saved a a few thousand dollars in taxes.)
6) This wealth imbalance can't continue. Historically, this is when societies either fall or reform. Can we please reform?
1) First there were the 99% folks, who have very legitimate gripes.
2) Then there are the 1% people who either a) agree with the 99% or say screw the 99%.
3) And then there are the 53% folks who are clueless.
A lot of people have been posting their pictures with their stories about why they fit into one of these groups. There has been a lot of commentary on those pictures. Here is what I see.
1) The 99% aren't lazy. They aren't whining because they have to work hard. The problem, what they (most of us since 99% of us are that 99%) are trying to convey, is that hard work doesn't get anywhere. You can work hard all your life and you will get poorer - unless you are in that 1% that keeps getting richer. You can have a good job, pay your bills, have health insurance... and still not get ahead. There is no American Dream for the vast majority of us who just want to be comfortable enough to pay the bills and maybe have a little extra to take a vacation, all without worrying if the next illness will send us into bankruptcy.
2) The guy from the infamous picture (who works 80 hour weeks and thinks the 99%ers are whiny) doesn't get it. The point is that he SHOULDN'T have to work 80 hour weeks for the rest of his life. And there aren't enough jobs for everyone to work that many hours. The American Dream is not about working yourself to death and not getting ahead. If you work that hard for a few years and do get ahead, that's fine. It isn't about a free ride either. That's not what the 99% are asking for. They just want to get a fair wage. They object to CEOs making 350X what the average worker makes, with stockholders getting crazy dividends, while the people who create the products that make all that money sink lower and lower.
3) The 53% folks supposedly represent the 53% who pay taxes. Except that a lot of the ones posting don't pay taxes. And why, if you pay your taxes, which go toward building roads and airports, and all sorts of other public projects, defend companies and the wealthy, who benefit from those tax funded services, not paying their fair share of taxes?
4) As for the 1%, I'm very happy to see that quite a few understand that they didn't get there on their own. Their wealth wasn't built in a bubble. They were able to make money with the help of others and using public resources. And that use of public resources is a big reason why they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD pay their fair share of taxes. As has been pointed out, many of them wouldn't even notice if their tax rate increased a small amount. The ones who gloat are just that - gloaters. We shouldn't feel sympathy for them or want to do them any favors. That doesn't mean we need to resent them (if people work hard and make a lot of money, more power to them). But they certainly don't need our help or Congress's to get even further ahead.
5) Some of the folks defending the status quo are doing so against their own self-interest. When the options are tax cuts or tax increases for the wealthy and the non-wealthy are fighting for tax cuts (even though it means tax increases for the middle class), it makes me wonder why. Is it because they aspire to be wealthy enough to not pay income taxes? Because if so, I hate to break it to you, but it's unlikely. Why do some folks want to pay more taxes so the people who can afford to pay more get a break? Don't tell me it's because they really believe in trickle down economics or that the wealthy are job creators. Those are fictions which have been disproved time and again. (For the record, when companies make more money [including via tax cuts], they don't hire more workers - they pay bigger investor dividends. They only hire if they need more employees. If the vast majority of American workers can't afford to buy products, it will only keep shrinking the economy. And the wealthy don't really create more jobs - at least not high paying ones. Maybe they'll hire another maid or gardener, but paying lower taxes isn't really going to encourage them to spread the wealth around. And they don't necessarily buy more stuff just because they saved a a few thousand dollars in taxes.)
6) This wealth imbalance can't continue. Historically, this is when societies either fall or reform. Can we please reform?
Monday, October 24, 2011
The politics of sex
I know, 2 touchy topics. But a lot has been written and said lately about so-called "personhood" laws and abortions that save women's lives. And I have to comment.
If you are unaware, there is a trend right now to pass laws, quite notably in Mississippi, that define life as beginning at conception. A lot of people who know a lot more about this than I do have been writing about problems with this idea, including 1) it would effectively outlaw hormonal contraceptives, 2) it would open women who have miscarriages up to possible legal action, 3) teens in states that pass this could quite possibly be allowed to vote 17 years and 3 months after their birth, would be able to drink 20 years and 3 months after birth, et cetera, thus causing confusion as to actual age...
There has also been a hullaballoo about Mitt Romney and a woman he censured years ago when she sought a life-saving abortion, with the support of Mormon leaders.
The general rhetoric is that people (read: women) shouldn't have sex unless they are married and with the intention of creating children. I mention that this means women because the usually male politicians aren't too worried about the men who impregnate these women. And are sometimes caught with their pants down. And the general consensus is usually that 'boys will be boys' and they need to sow wild oats, but women need to be paragons.
Don't get me started on what a bunch of hypocritical, sexist crap that is.
Let's look at facts:
1) People, both men and women, have sex, sometimes when they are not married. That is a moral issue, not a political one, so can we stay out of everyone else's bedrooms?
2) You can preach all you want that no one should have sex unless they are married, but that ain't gonna happen. If you think it will, you live under a rock. If you think this is a new phenomenon, you don't know your history. Heck, even the vaunted Bible is full of stories of pre-marital and extra-marital sex.
3) Even within marriage, people have sex without the main purpose being procreational. Think about it. Sex, usually called making love, is used to bring a couple closer. It strengthens bonds. And it just feels good. Do you really think people only have sex when they want kids? That's not the kind of marriage I want. And a lot of people who are past childbearing age still have sex. (Do you really want people to have babies they can't afford? Because that's the consequence of sex only being procreational.)
So, the whole personhood thing. An embryo is potential life. It cannot exist outside of its host, much like a parasite. Without going into the morality of abortion, it is not yet born. If you want to truly protect life, there are a lot of people already walking this earth who need their lives saved.
And consequence #1 as listed above? Just go watch this video:
Yep. For all the men out there who think this issue doesn't have anything to do with them, you won't be getting all that sex if your wife or girlfriend can't use the hormonal contraceptive of her choice. I bet Trojan is thrilled - here comes a resurgence for condom use!
Have you had a miscarriage or know someone who has? (You probably do.) Think about the heartbreak, then consider if all the women who have had miscarriages were investigated for possible murder. Think about the backlog with police, who are already stretched thin, having to look into this - and they are not medical experts.
This is just a bad idea with consequences beyond just outlawing abortion, the real reason for the laws.
And so we get to abortion. And the generally accepted reasons of rape, incest, life of the mother, that even anti-abortion folks will allow. Even the Mormons all the life of the mother as a reason for an abortion. But then some folks can't accept even that. They don't see understand the tough decision of choosing one life over another. They don't understand that when two people decide that the person (woman) who is already walking this earth deserves a chance to live, and that leaving a motherless child (or children if there are already children) is also a bad. That even if a woman chooses to risk her own life to bear her child, she and the child may still both die.
Can we leave politics out of the bedroom? Can we leave medical decisions to doctors, not politicians? And can we try to think about the long-term consequences of our actions (or legislation) rather than the knee-jerk, FU that most of it seems to be these days?
If you are unaware, there is a trend right now to pass laws, quite notably in Mississippi, that define life as beginning at conception. A lot of people who know a lot more about this than I do have been writing about problems with this idea, including 1) it would effectively outlaw hormonal contraceptives, 2) it would open women who have miscarriages up to possible legal action, 3) teens in states that pass this could quite possibly be allowed to vote 17 years and 3 months after their birth, would be able to drink 20 years and 3 months after birth, et cetera, thus causing confusion as to actual age...
There has also been a hullaballoo about Mitt Romney and a woman he censured years ago when she sought a life-saving abortion, with the support of Mormon leaders.
The general rhetoric is that people (read: women) shouldn't have sex unless they are married and with the intention of creating children. I mention that this means women because the usually male politicians aren't too worried about the men who impregnate these women. And are sometimes caught with their pants down. And the general consensus is usually that 'boys will be boys' and they need to sow wild oats, but women need to be paragons.
Don't get me started on what a bunch of hypocritical, sexist crap that is.
Let's look at facts:
1) People, both men and women, have sex, sometimes when they are not married. That is a moral issue, not a political one, so can we stay out of everyone else's bedrooms?
2) You can preach all you want that no one should have sex unless they are married, but that ain't gonna happen. If you think it will, you live under a rock. If you think this is a new phenomenon, you don't know your history. Heck, even the vaunted Bible is full of stories of pre-marital and extra-marital sex.
3) Even within marriage, people have sex without the main purpose being procreational. Think about it. Sex, usually called making love, is used to bring a couple closer. It strengthens bonds. And it just feels good. Do you really think people only have sex when they want kids? That's not the kind of marriage I want. And a lot of people who are past childbearing age still have sex. (Do you really want people to have babies they can't afford? Because that's the consequence of sex only being procreational.)
So, the whole personhood thing. An embryo is potential life. It cannot exist outside of its host, much like a parasite. Without going into the morality of abortion, it is not yet born. If you want to truly protect life, there are a lot of people already walking this earth who need their lives saved.
And consequence #1 as listed above? Just go watch this video:
Yep. For all the men out there who think this issue doesn't have anything to do with them, you won't be getting all that sex if your wife or girlfriend can't use the hormonal contraceptive of her choice. I bet Trojan is thrilled - here comes a resurgence for condom use!
Have you had a miscarriage or know someone who has? (You probably do.) Think about the heartbreak, then consider if all the women who have had miscarriages were investigated for possible murder. Think about the backlog with police, who are already stretched thin, having to look into this - and they are not medical experts.
This is just a bad idea with consequences beyond just outlawing abortion, the real reason for the laws.
And so we get to abortion. And the generally accepted reasons of rape, incest, life of the mother, that even anti-abortion folks will allow. Even the Mormons all the life of the mother as a reason for an abortion. But then some folks can't accept even that. They don't see understand the tough decision of choosing one life over another. They don't understand that when two people decide that the person (woman) who is already walking this earth deserves a chance to live, and that leaving a motherless child (or children if there are already children) is also a bad. That even if a woman chooses to risk her own life to bear her child, she and the child may still both die.
Can we leave politics out of the bedroom? Can we leave medical decisions to doctors, not politicians? And can we try to think about the long-term consequences of our actions (or legislation) rather than the knee-jerk, FU that most of it seems to be these days?
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Best poster ever
Yesterday I saw a poster shared on Facebook. The furthest I've been able to track it down is to a post on Asking for Consent is Sexy. It is the best sexual assault prevention poster I have ever seen. (I would love to give appropriate credit, so if anyone knows who created this, let me know.)
I think from the number of people who are responding so positively that others agree with me that it is about time this poster was created.
Every time I have heard about sexual assault prevention tips, it has been about what a woman can do to make herself less of a target and how to fend off an attacker. It's been about making the potential victim feel unsafe and powerless because they are female.
Yes, women aren't the only victims, but they are the majority and the ones who are told that it is their fault if they do get assaulted. They are told that if they dress too sexy, they deserve it. If they drink, they deserve it.
Finally, someone looked at true prevention: stop the perpetrators! If a woman dresses sexily, she doesn't deserve to be assaulted. She isn't "asking for it". Even if she is looking for sex, she's looking for consensual sex, not rape.
There have been several high profile cases recently that have been all about victim blaming and it pisses me off. Here are a bunch of people who seem to be saying that women need to be protected from themselves because they 1) dressed sluttily, 2) were drinking, 3) did something else that made them a willing target. I'm sorry, but in these cases it is the MEN who need to be protected from themselves and their misogynistic, paternalistic selves and their sense of entitlement.
We live in a society that generally objects to certain countries requiring women to cover themselves from head to toe. The rationalization on that, which seems to go beyond religious requirements from my limited understanding, seems to be that men are incapable of controlling themselves if they so much as see the tiniest bit of a woman's skin.
Seriously? If a man can't control himself, it is NOT the woman's fault. So let's stop blaming women. And let's start teaching actual prevention tips like number 10: "Don't assault people."
A woman, or any person, should be able to walk home in the dark, even dressed in what some would consider provocative clothing, and not have to worry. A woman, or any person, should be able to have a drink at a party or a beer in a bar and not have to worry. A woman, or any person, should feel safe in their own home.
This is what I love about this poster; it puts the responsibility for preventing assaults on the people who have the most ability to stop them: the potential perpetrators.
I think from the number of people who are responding so positively that others agree with me that it is about time this poster was created.
Every time I have heard about sexual assault prevention tips, it has been about what a woman can do to make herself less of a target and how to fend off an attacker. It's been about making the potential victim feel unsafe and powerless because they are female.
Yes, women aren't the only victims, but they are the majority and the ones who are told that it is their fault if they do get assaulted. They are told that if they dress too sexy, they deserve it. If they drink, they deserve it.
Finally, someone looked at true prevention: stop the perpetrators! If a woman dresses sexily, she doesn't deserve to be assaulted. She isn't "asking for it". Even if she is looking for sex, she's looking for consensual sex, not rape.
There have been several high profile cases recently that have been all about victim blaming and it pisses me off. Here are a bunch of people who seem to be saying that women need to be protected from themselves because they 1) dressed sluttily, 2) were drinking, 3) did something else that made them a willing target. I'm sorry, but in these cases it is the MEN who need to be protected from themselves and their misogynistic, paternalistic selves and their sense of entitlement.
We live in a society that generally objects to certain countries requiring women to cover themselves from head to toe. The rationalization on that, which seems to go beyond religious requirements from my limited understanding, seems to be that men are incapable of controlling themselves if they so much as see the tiniest bit of a woman's skin.
Seriously? If a man can't control himself, it is NOT the woman's fault. So let's stop blaming women. And let's start teaching actual prevention tips like number 10: "Don't assault people."
A woman, or any person, should be able to walk home in the dark, even dressed in what some would consider provocative clothing, and not have to worry. A woman, or any person, should be able to have a drink at a party or a beer in a bar and not have to worry. A woman, or any person, should feel safe in their own home.
This is what I love about this poster; it puts the responsibility for preventing assaults on the people who have the most ability to stop them: the potential perpetrators.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Fact checking
People who know me are probably well aware that I am angry about the recently passed and now signed Indiana law defunding Planned Parenthood. I am angry because I think it is an assault on women's healthcare.
I know a number of women who have relied or still do rely on Planned Parenthood for family planning, pap smears, mammograms, and all the other services they provide. There are a lot of people on Medicaid who will now not be able to receive that care. All because a group of people wants to make it as hard as possible to get an abortion and people apparently don't care that abortion is a tiny portion of the services Planned Parenthood provides.
I have heard a couple of comments that I would like to address. And I intend to cite my sources rather than just throw information out there since there is misleading information everywhere.
"I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions."
Good. They don't. They are prevented from paying for abortions, other than the 3 stipulated exceptions of the Hyde Amendment, by federal law. In fact, several states, including Indiana, also have laws on the books prohibiting tax money from paying for abortion services.
Under Medicaid, family planning services, not including abortion, must be covered. Read the very long, very tedious, Title XIX, section 1902 of the Social Security Act, to learn more about the operation of state Medicaid plans.
And speaking of Medicaid funding, yes, the state could lose federal funding for Medicaid by enacting the law. See Title XIX, section 1904 of the Social Security Act.
"Planned Parenthood is just an abortion provider."
I beg to differ, but the majority of services provided by Planned Parenthood are not abortions. The Planned Parenthood of Indiana 2010 Annual Report has a very easy to read chart detailing the services provided in the state and demographic information on their clients (page 9). Really, out of over 244,000 patient visits and over 85,000 patients, that they performed 5,580 abortions is really a small percentage. Yes, 5,580 is a large number and I for one would like that number to be smaller. But approximately 2.25% of patient visits...
There's even a nifty website called FactCheck.org which has answered both of these questions on a national scale.
So here's my gripe.
The 97+% of non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides are going to not be funded in Indiana. So the over 386,000 contraceptives that were dispensed might not be this year. Which in all likelihood will lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Which will lead to 1) more abortions or 2) a drain on welfare dollars since a lot of those mothers likely use Planned Parenthood because they are unable to afford other healthcare, don't have insurance other than Medicaid, and are thus living below 250% of the federal poverty rate (if you read Title XIX, section 1902, you would know that is the income requirement), thus meaning that they likely receive some sort of assistance.
And all those women who can't afford Pap tests and mammograms, and all the men and women who don't get STD tests, will not get the preventive care they need. When the potential cancers are found, they will be much more costly and harder to treat.
So not funding Planned Parenthood, rather than saving Indiana residents tax money, could very well cost us more. And cause larger problems. And if you think other providers will be easy to find or not be overwhelmed, well, maybe you should read this.
I know a number of women who have relied or still do rely on Planned Parenthood for family planning, pap smears, mammograms, and all the other services they provide. There are a lot of people on Medicaid who will now not be able to receive that care. All because a group of people wants to make it as hard as possible to get an abortion and people apparently don't care that abortion is a tiny portion of the services Planned Parenthood provides.
I have heard a couple of comments that I would like to address. And I intend to cite my sources rather than just throw information out there since there is misleading information everywhere.
"I don't want my tax dollars paying for abortions."
Good. They don't. They are prevented from paying for abortions, other than the 3 stipulated exceptions of the Hyde Amendment, by federal law. In fact, several states, including Indiana, also have laws on the books prohibiting tax money from paying for abortion services.
Under Medicaid, family planning services, not including abortion, must be covered. Read the very long, very tedious, Title XIX, section 1902 of the Social Security Act, to learn more about the operation of state Medicaid plans.
And speaking of Medicaid funding, yes, the state could lose federal funding for Medicaid by enacting the law. See Title XIX, section 1904 of the Social Security Act.
"Planned Parenthood is just an abortion provider."
I beg to differ, but the majority of services provided by Planned Parenthood are not abortions. The Planned Parenthood of Indiana 2010 Annual Report has a very easy to read chart detailing the services provided in the state and demographic information on their clients (page 9). Really, out of over 244,000 patient visits and over 85,000 patients, that they performed 5,580 abortions is really a small percentage. Yes, 5,580 is a large number and I for one would like that number to be smaller. But approximately 2.25% of patient visits...
There's even a nifty website called FactCheck.org which has answered both of these questions on a national scale.
So here's my gripe.
The 97+% of non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides are going to not be funded in Indiana. So the over 386,000 contraceptives that were dispensed might not be this year. Which in all likelihood will lead to more unplanned pregnancies. Which will lead to 1) more abortions or 2) a drain on welfare dollars since a lot of those mothers likely use Planned Parenthood because they are unable to afford other healthcare, don't have insurance other than Medicaid, and are thus living below 250% of the federal poverty rate (if you read Title XIX, section 1902, you would know that is the income requirement), thus meaning that they likely receive some sort of assistance.
And all those women who can't afford Pap tests and mammograms, and all the men and women who don't get STD tests, will not get the preventive care they need. When the potential cancers are found, they will be much more costly and harder to treat.
So not funding Planned Parenthood, rather than saving Indiana residents tax money, could very well cost us more. And cause larger problems. And if you think other providers will be easy to find or not be overwhelmed, well, maybe you should read this.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Least presidential thing
With all the hoopla Sunday night and since about the killing of Osama bin Laden, there is a movie quote that keeps running through my mind. It's a quote from "The American President" (1995).
President Andrew Shepherd: What I did tonight was not about political gain.
Leon Kodak: Yes sir. But it can be, sir. What you did tonight was very presidential.
President Andrew Shepherd: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job... because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.
Michael Douglas plays President Andrew Shepherd. If you haven't seen the movie, I highly recommend it.
While I understand the necessity, I find the euphoria.... uncalled for? Cheap? A lot of other people have pinpointed some of the uncomfortable feelings I have watching the cheering crowds and reading the smack talk on Twitter. So I'll share one that I think makes the point rather well.
I found links on Feministing and GOOD to this post on ColorLines.
President Andrew Shepherd: What I did tonight was not about political gain.
Leon Kodak: Yes sir. But it can be, sir. What you did tonight was very presidential.
President Andrew Shepherd: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job... because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.
Michael Douglas plays President Andrew Shepherd. If you haven't seen the movie, I highly recommend it.
While I understand the necessity, I find the euphoria.... uncalled for? Cheap? A lot of other people have pinpointed some of the uncomfortable feelings I have watching the cheering crowds and reading the smack talk on Twitter. So I'll share one that I think makes the point rather well.
I found links on Feministing and GOOD to this post on ColorLines.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Federal budget is just like any other
The federal budget involves income (taxes collected) and expenses. The US government is in debt, just like the vast majority of Americans. So while we are all trying to pay off credit cards and cover house and utility payments at the same time, the government is trying to pay off debt and keep itself running.
There are two things anyone on a budget can do when expenditures outstrip income: 1) cut expenses and 2) increase income. For a lot of us, #2 is pretty hard unless you go on a successful job search, so cutting expenses is the way to go. And that's what Congress has currently been trying to do, not because they can't increase income but because they choose not to. How can Congress increase income? By raising tax rates, reducing tax breaks, eliminating tax cuts, and generally making those who don't pay their fair share do so (see this enlightening video if you think big corporations pay too much).
So why are we cutting services to the most needy while not increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations? The old investigators' axiom is to follow the money.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Sad state of government affairs
A lot has been happening politically lately. I have strong feelings about a few things and would like to try to get my thoughts in order.
First, the House recently voted to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding. The sponsor of the bill doesn't like abortion. Fine. But Planned Parenthood is prevented from using their federal funding to pay for abortions anyway. The funding that has been cut covers a lot of preventive care including birth control that would prevent those unwanted pregnancies that end up being aborted. Um, aren't we trying to reduce the number of abortions? Because making affordable access to birth control more difficult actually does the opposite. Someone is harming a lot of people for a personal vendetta. Much of what federal funding to Planned Parenthood covers are mammograms and other screenings. We'll all end up paying more for expensive treatments for diseases that could have been caught earlier. Because, don't fool yourself, we all share the costs in the long run.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Republicans have also been trying to redefine 'rape'. They don't want women to be paid fairly (by blocking the Paycheck Fairness Act). All the blog posts about how the GOP hates women? There's something there.
And don't forget that the Equal Rights Amendment has still not passed. It sits 3 states shy of ratification before it becomes part of the Constitution. And without it, as Justice Scalia recently remarked, every right women presume to have, with the lone exception of being able to vote, is really just a privilege granted because no one has challenged any in court. With the current trend of legislation coming from the GOP, it's only a matter of time before they try to take away every right we think we have. We REALLY need the ERA to pass once and for all. (It is expected that it will be reintroduced in Congress in March. Contact your Senators and Representative and let them know you support it.)
Frankly, I don't understand how so many women support some of these Republican politicians. It certainly isn't in their best interest. I'm all for fiscal restraint. But those who tout themselves the loudest as wanting to cut the budget also seem to be those who do the opposite - either by wanting to cut taxes or by increasing spending on defense or a pet project. Republicans often claim to want small government, but they really don't, not when they want to make government more intrusive into personal lives. If you really want to cut government, stay out of people's bedrooms.
And don't get me started on all the folks on the 'religious right' who thump their Bibles, insisting we all follow their idea of morality because 'this is a Christian nation' (it's not, but that's another discussion). These same politicians and religious leaders often are the ones caught with their pants down, supporting mistresses, paying for prostitutes, denouncing gays while having gay love affairs.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy. I'm tired of the rich getting richer and protecting each other while making it increasingly harder for the rest of us to get anywhere. Part of the purpose of government is to protect the weakest, providing services so people, our fellow citizens, have food to eat and shelter over their heads. The tiny amount in the budget spent on some of these social service programs is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the programs Republicans refuse to trim, including defense. Yep, can't cut funding for a new plane that is not needed, but we can unfund a lot of programs that actually do some good.
I really could go on and on. This is by no means an endorsement for Democrats. I don't like much of what they do either. I just wish some of our elected representatives could grow up, get off the playground, and actually do something rather than just fight along party lines. But until the electorate decides they want smart people to represent them, that probably won't happen.
First, the House recently voted to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding. The sponsor of the bill doesn't like abortion. Fine. But Planned Parenthood is prevented from using their federal funding to pay for abortions anyway. The funding that has been cut covers a lot of preventive care including birth control that would prevent those unwanted pregnancies that end up being aborted. Um, aren't we trying to reduce the number of abortions? Because making affordable access to birth control more difficult actually does the opposite. Someone is harming a lot of people for a personal vendetta. Much of what federal funding to Planned Parenthood covers are mammograms and other screenings. We'll all end up paying more for expensive treatments for diseases that could have been caught earlier. Because, don't fool yourself, we all share the costs in the long run.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Republicans have also been trying to redefine 'rape'. They don't want women to be paid fairly (by blocking the Paycheck Fairness Act). All the blog posts about how the GOP hates women? There's something there.
And don't forget that the Equal Rights Amendment has still not passed. It sits 3 states shy of ratification before it becomes part of the Constitution. And without it, as Justice Scalia recently remarked, every right women presume to have, with the lone exception of being able to vote, is really just a privilege granted because no one has challenged any in court. With the current trend of legislation coming from the GOP, it's only a matter of time before they try to take away every right we think we have. We REALLY need the ERA to pass once and for all. (It is expected that it will be reintroduced in Congress in March. Contact your Senators and Representative and let them know you support it.)
Frankly, I don't understand how so many women support some of these Republican politicians. It certainly isn't in their best interest. I'm all for fiscal restraint. But those who tout themselves the loudest as wanting to cut the budget also seem to be those who do the opposite - either by wanting to cut taxes or by increasing spending on defense or a pet project. Republicans often claim to want small government, but they really don't, not when they want to make government more intrusive into personal lives. If you really want to cut government, stay out of people's bedrooms.
And don't get me started on all the folks on the 'religious right' who thump their Bibles, insisting we all follow their idea of morality because 'this is a Christian nation' (it's not, but that's another discussion). These same politicians and religious leaders often are the ones caught with their pants down, supporting mistresses, paying for prostitutes, denouncing gays while having gay love affairs.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy. I'm tired of the rich getting richer and protecting each other while making it increasingly harder for the rest of us to get anywhere. Part of the purpose of government is to protect the weakest, providing services so people, our fellow citizens, have food to eat and shelter over their heads. The tiny amount in the budget spent on some of these social service programs is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the programs Republicans refuse to trim, including defense. Yep, can't cut funding for a new plane that is not needed, but we can unfund a lot of programs that actually do some good.
I really could go on and on. This is by no means an endorsement for Democrats. I don't like much of what they do either. I just wish some of our elected representatives could grow up, get off the playground, and actually do something rather than just fight along party lines. But until the electorate decides they want smart people to represent them, that probably won't happen.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Finding common ground
The topic of abortion brings out a lot of passion on both sides of the issue, with neither bothering to listen or trying to understand the opposite stance. Recently, I was able to sit and talk to my mother-in-law and have a very reasoned discussion. The thing is, we agreed on an awful lot of stuff. I think if most people could put aside their differences, take emotion out of the discussion, and just talk, a lot could be done.
Out of that discussion, I wanted to share a few things. I don't want a flame war, but I welcome comments if people can be calm, polite, reasoned, and refrain from using 'the Bible says so' as their ENTIRE argument.
For the record, I am pro-choice. I would like to address that first because it seems that amongst the pro-life crowd, there is a misconception that pro-choice = pro-abortion. I think the majority of people who describe themselves as pro-choice would agree that they are NOT pro-abortion. I think most, based on conversations I've had, would agree that we all share the goal of reducing the number of abortions (for various reasons), but that we don't support a full ban on them.
Since I can only speak for myself, the reason I don't support a full ban is that abortions have existed since the beginning of time. Before they were legal, many women sought them and they were unsafe. Why was Roe v Wade fought in court? Because women had a need and didn't want to die. If abortion were banned once again, I firmly believe that abortions would still happen, but we'd be losing the women too, not just the fetuses.
Abortion is a symptom of a much larger disease. Banning abortion puts a bandaid on that disease rather than curing it. Here's the thing: at the dining table summit, both sides were able to agree that we really need to solve the underlying problems. Let's reduce the need for abortions. If women don't need them, they won't have them. Everyone wins.
So what do I think we need to focus on?
First, let's get good, comprehensive, factual sex ed. I think it has pretty much been proven in areas where abstinence only is taught that the teen pregnancy and STD rates increase. That doesn't work. Let's face facts. Some portion of teenagers will have sex. We cannot prevent that. Teenagers have been having sex since the beginning of time.
Think back to your high school days. Either you or someone you know was fooling around. I knew several girls in high school who a) had an abortion, b) had a baby they gave up for adoption, or c) had a baby they kept.
I had a really good sex ed teacher. He was the health teacher and was very matter of fact about everything. He kept a box outside his room that anyone could anonymously slip a question in and he would find the answer and present it to the class. This was a marvelous thing: he found out exactly what students didn't know and needed answers to AND found out what misconceptions were out there, all without embarrassing anyone. We all had a safe place to go for REAL information.
It's all well and good to tell kids not to have sex, but it is much more powerful to tell them the consequences and give them the tools they need to make an informed decision. Knowledge really is power. Why has there been a rise in things like 'lollipop' parties and STDs when teen pregnancy rates go down? Because kids are getting the message that traditional intercourse can lead to pregnancy. They aren't learning that STDs can pass through other methods, that oral sex is still sex, that there are other consequences.
And can we teach that consequences effect both genders? Girls are very aware that their lives will change if they get pregnant. Boys don't have that immediate issue. They need it. They need to know that they are responsible.
After good sex ed, I think we need to build up self-esteem, especially in girls. Everyone knows the cliche 'if you love me, you'd have sex with me.' What teenage girl knows the rejoinder to that is 'if you loved me, you wouldn't push me to do something I'm not ready for'? And how many have the confidence to say it? It's hard when you don't know who you are to take a stand. I see a lot of girls who define themselves by their boyfriends. Can we try to teach both boys and girls to love themselves first? The best way to do that is by example, but how many women (probably men too) can really look themselves in the mirror and like the person there? Can we try so we can teach our kids to like themselves? Maybe that would help.
Being supportive of our kids is huge. How many abortions happen because a parent has told a girl that if she ends up pregnant, she can forget coming home? So her choices, if she makes a mistake, are to a) leave home and probably live on the streets or b) have an abortion. How much could be changed by talking to our kids, letting them know that even if they disappoint us we will still love them? That they can come to us with anything and we will do what we can to help?
A lot of this is aimed at teenagers, but reaching people young is a way to make a big impact. More than half of abortions are for women 25 and under. These are women in high school and college. Most (64%) are performed on women who have never been married.
So what about the older women, the non-teenagers? What about better access to birth control? Plan B is a start. Better access to condoms, Planned Parenthood, clinics, would help. On the argument that birth control, especially Plan B, is immoral, would you rather prevent the pregnancy or deal with the consequences? To me, it's a no-brainer.
If we work to prevent the unwanted pregnancies which account for 93% of abortions, wouldn't that be better than trying to legislate a ban? Think of that. If 93% of the estimated 1.2 million abortions per year (2006) could be prevented by removing the need, wouldn't that be a better solution? That's over 1 million not needed. As opposed to over 1 million either being performed under less than ideal situations or babies coming into the world who are in need of adoption, abused, mistreated.... If someone really doesn't want a child or can not afford a child, should the theoretical child have to pay for that? If there is no child to begin with because there was no pregnancy, we don't have to worry about a potential abortion or a strain on social services.
I don't know all the answers, but it just seems that current legislative efforts (abstinence only sex ed, restrictions on abortions) are just bandaids. They aren't going to solve the problem, just sweep it under the rug. That's a waste of time and money in my book. I want the same goals; I just have different methods of reaching them. Why should a woman be punished for a lifetime for a mistake? Especially since so many men get away with no consequences.
These are all things my mother-in-law and I could agree on. We may have different stances in the political debate, but we're really saying the same thing, just in different ways. Let's get rid of the rhetoric.
Out of that discussion, I wanted to share a few things. I don't want a flame war, but I welcome comments if people can be calm, polite, reasoned, and refrain from using 'the Bible says so' as their ENTIRE argument.
For the record, I am pro-choice. I would like to address that first because it seems that amongst the pro-life crowd, there is a misconception that pro-choice = pro-abortion. I think the majority of people who describe themselves as pro-choice would agree that they are NOT pro-abortion. I think most, based on conversations I've had, would agree that we all share the goal of reducing the number of abortions (for various reasons), but that we don't support a full ban on them.
Since I can only speak for myself, the reason I don't support a full ban is that abortions have existed since the beginning of time. Before they were legal, many women sought them and they were unsafe. Why was Roe v Wade fought in court? Because women had a need and didn't want to die. If abortion were banned once again, I firmly believe that abortions would still happen, but we'd be losing the women too, not just the fetuses.
Abortion is a symptom of a much larger disease. Banning abortion puts a bandaid on that disease rather than curing it. Here's the thing: at the dining table summit, both sides were able to agree that we really need to solve the underlying problems. Let's reduce the need for abortions. If women don't need them, they won't have them. Everyone wins.
So what do I think we need to focus on?
First, let's get good, comprehensive, factual sex ed. I think it has pretty much been proven in areas where abstinence only is taught that the teen pregnancy and STD rates increase. That doesn't work. Let's face facts. Some portion of teenagers will have sex. We cannot prevent that. Teenagers have been having sex since the beginning of time.
Think back to your high school days. Either you or someone you know was fooling around. I knew several girls in high school who a) had an abortion, b) had a baby they gave up for adoption, or c) had a baby they kept.
I had a really good sex ed teacher. He was the health teacher and was very matter of fact about everything. He kept a box outside his room that anyone could anonymously slip a question in and he would find the answer and present it to the class. This was a marvelous thing: he found out exactly what students didn't know and needed answers to AND found out what misconceptions were out there, all without embarrassing anyone. We all had a safe place to go for REAL information.
It's all well and good to tell kids not to have sex, but it is much more powerful to tell them the consequences and give them the tools they need to make an informed decision. Knowledge really is power. Why has there been a rise in things like 'lollipop' parties and STDs when teen pregnancy rates go down? Because kids are getting the message that traditional intercourse can lead to pregnancy. They aren't learning that STDs can pass through other methods, that oral sex is still sex, that there are other consequences.
And can we teach that consequences effect both genders? Girls are very aware that their lives will change if they get pregnant. Boys don't have that immediate issue. They need it. They need to know that they are responsible.
After good sex ed, I think we need to build up self-esteem, especially in girls. Everyone knows the cliche 'if you love me, you'd have sex with me.' What teenage girl knows the rejoinder to that is 'if you loved me, you wouldn't push me to do something I'm not ready for'? And how many have the confidence to say it? It's hard when you don't know who you are to take a stand. I see a lot of girls who define themselves by their boyfriends. Can we try to teach both boys and girls to love themselves first? The best way to do that is by example, but how many women (probably men too) can really look themselves in the mirror and like the person there? Can we try so we can teach our kids to like themselves? Maybe that would help.
Being supportive of our kids is huge. How many abortions happen because a parent has told a girl that if she ends up pregnant, she can forget coming home? So her choices, if she makes a mistake, are to a) leave home and probably live on the streets or b) have an abortion. How much could be changed by talking to our kids, letting them know that even if they disappoint us we will still love them? That they can come to us with anything and we will do what we can to help?
A lot of this is aimed at teenagers, but reaching people young is a way to make a big impact. More than half of abortions are for women 25 and under. These are women in high school and college. Most (64%) are performed on women who have never been married.
So what about the older women, the non-teenagers? What about better access to birth control? Plan B is a start. Better access to condoms, Planned Parenthood, clinics, would help. On the argument that birth control, especially Plan B, is immoral, would you rather prevent the pregnancy or deal with the consequences? To me, it's a no-brainer.
If we work to prevent the unwanted pregnancies which account for 93% of abortions, wouldn't that be better than trying to legislate a ban? Think of that. If 93% of the estimated 1.2 million abortions per year (2006) could be prevented by removing the need, wouldn't that be a better solution? That's over 1 million not needed. As opposed to over 1 million either being performed under less than ideal situations or babies coming into the world who are in need of adoption, abused, mistreated.... If someone really doesn't want a child or can not afford a child, should the theoretical child have to pay for that? If there is no child to begin with because there was no pregnancy, we don't have to worry about a potential abortion or a strain on social services.
I don't know all the answers, but it just seems that current legislative efforts (abstinence only sex ed, restrictions on abortions) are just bandaids. They aren't going to solve the problem, just sweep it under the rug. That's a waste of time and money in my book. I want the same goals; I just have different methods of reaching them. Why should a woman be punished for a lifetime for a mistake? Especially since so many men get away with no consequences.
These are all things my mother-in-law and I could agree on. We may have different stances in the political debate, but we're really saying the same thing, just in different ways. Let's get rid of the rhetoric.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Time to speak up
I am by nature a peace maker and dislike confrontations. Time after time, I have run into people who felt compelled to proselytize and try to convert me to their way of thinking... and I've held my tongue and not argued back because I didn't want to offend them. A while back I decided that if they had no problem offending me, I should just speak my mind.
I still tend to not jump into political and religious debates because they tend to degrade into mindless vitriol and don't end up changing anyone's ideas. But the time to remain quiet has come to an end.
You would have to be living under a rock lately to not be aware of the controversy regarding the so-called 'Ground Zero mosque'. Before I begin, Keith Olbermann, someone I have never watched before, had some excellent comments on the issue which pretty much put the argument in perspective. Please take the time to click through and watch.
I am very disappointed in the number of people who object to putting a community center, which happens to have a hall for worship, in a neighborhood, at a location which was vacant, just because it is near 'Ground Zero' and is for Muslims. No, disappointed doesn't cover it. I am sickened.
First off, '2 blocks away' is misleading. It is not within sight of the 'hallowed ground' and is further from it than several other religious houses. It is actually about 4 blocks of walking away.
Second, along with all the American Christians killed when the World Trade Center was destroyed were many people from many other countries and many other faiths, including Muslims (both American and foreign). If this is sacred, hallowed ground for those killed, then all the religions represented should be able to have a faith center nearby.
To blame all of any one religion for the actions of a few is a terrible, bigoted reaction. Just as some Muslims are terrorists, so are some Christians. Need I point out that the KKK has Christian roots. Many people convicted of acts of terror claim to be following God's will in what they do, regardless of their religious preference. Christians have done a lot of bad things in the name of God.
One of the principles this nation was founded on is freedom of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is not negotiable. And before anyone starts shouting about this being a Christian nation, please remember that the founding documents were written in such a way as to not favor one religion over another. Our Founding Fathers did that on purpose. They were really smart. Many were also not Christian as the Religious Right would have you believe. Some interesting reading is available on the topic (yes, from both perspectives). A lot of evidence exists that many were more in the line of Deists than subscribed to any particular religion.
I have a question for anyone who thinks 2 blocks is too close. What perimeter is acceptable? 5 blocks? Outside the city of New York? The borders of the US? Really, think about that question. If you really believe the borders of the US, please go find a Christian nation to live in and leave this one to those of us willing to tolerate others and truly exist within a democracy. By the way, part of the principle of democracy is for the government to protect the rights of minorities from the oppression of the majority.
I was raised in the Catholic church but I have increasingly run further and further away from any church because of the hypocrisy and bigotry often on display. In my observation, those who proclaim themselves 'good' at whatever religion they practice are often the worst. If you are truly a 'good Christian', please act as one. Turn the other cheek. Learn tolerance. Offer kindness to a stranger, even if they are of a different faith than you. Really read the words of Jesus. He was a pretty neat guy with a lot of good things to say.
And while we are on the topic of religion, if the Jews should have the Holy Land and Israel back, then we should all be packing our bags and giving the entire western hemisphere back to the native peoples who lived here before Europeans 'discovered' it. I am not siding against Israel. I am just not choosing to blindly support her. If all lands that had ever been conquered were given back to the people who were there first, we'd have some big political problems on our hands. So that's not a good argument. That's the conundrum of that particular problem: both sides (Israel and Palestine) have some in both the good and bad columns.
I still tend to not jump into political and religious debates because they tend to degrade into mindless vitriol and don't end up changing anyone's ideas. But the time to remain quiet has come to an end.
You would have to be living under a rock lately to not be aware of the controversy regarding the so-called 'Ground Zero mosque'. Before I begin, Keith Olbermann, someone I have never watched before, had some excellent comments on the issue which pretty much put the argument in perspective. Please take the time to click through and watch.
I am very disappointed in the number of people who object to putting a community center, which happens to have a hall for worship, in a neighborhood, at a location which was vacant, just because it is near 'Ground Zero' and is for Muslims. No, disappointed doesn't cover it. I am sickened.
First off, '2 blocks away' is misleading. It is not within sight of the 'hallowed ground' and is further from it than several other religious houses. It is actually about 4 blocks of walking away.
Second, along with all the American Christians killed when the World Trade Center was destroyed were many people from many other countries and many other faiths, including Muslims (both American and foreign). If this is sacred, hallowed ground for those killed, then all the religions represented should be able to have a faith center nearby.
To blame all of any one religion for the actions of a few is a terrible, bigoted reaction. Just as some Muslims are terrorists, so are some Christians. Need I point out that the KKK has Christian roots. Many people convicted of acts of terror claim to be following God's will in what they do, regardless of their religious preference. Christians have done a lot of bad things in the name of God.
One of the principles this nation was founded on is freedom of religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is not negotiable. And before anyone starts shouting about this being a Christian nation, please remember that the founding documents were written in such a way as to not favor one religion over another. Our Founding Fathers did that on purpose. They were really smart. Many were also not Christian as the Religious Right would have you believe. Some interesting reading is available on the topic (yes, from both perspectives). A lot of evidence exists that many were more in the line of Deists than subscribed to any particular religion.
I have a question for anyone who thinks 2 blocks is too close. What perimeter is acceptable? 5 blocks? Outside the city of New York? The borders of the US? Really, think about that question. If you really believe the borders of the US, please go find a Christian nation to live in and leave this one to those of us willing to tolerate others and truly exist within a democracy. By the way, part of the principle of democracy is for the government to protect the rights of minorities from the oppression of the majority.
I was raised in the Catholic church but I have increasingly run further and further away from any church because of the hypocrisy and bigotry often on display. In my observation, those who proclaim themselves 'good' at whatever religion they practice are often the worst. If you are truly a 'good Christian', please act as one. Turn the other cheek. Learn tolerance. Offer kindness to a stranger, even if they are of a different faith than you. Really read the words of Jesus. He was a pretty neat guy with a lot of good things to say.
And while we are on the topic of religion, if the Jews should have the Holy Land and Israel back, then we should all be packing our bags and giving the entire western hemisphere back to the native peoples who lived here before Europeans 'discovered' it. I am not siding against Israel. I am just not choosing to blindly support her. If all lands that had ever been conquered were given back to the people who were there first, we'd have some big political problems on our hands. So that's not a good argument. That's the conundrum of that particular problem: both sides (Israel and Palestine) have some in both the good and bad columns.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
No difference
No difference by Shel Silverstein
Small as a peanut
Big as a giant,
We're all the same size
When we turn off the light.
Red black or orange,
Yellow or white
We all look the same
When we turn off the light.
So maybe the way
To make everything right
Is for God to just reach out
And turn off the light!
A few things have conspired to put race/ethnicity in my mind. I guess my thoughts here apply to a lot of differences that people use to separate groups into 'them' and 'us'. Does it really matter what the 'other' is?
I recently read The Help by Kathryn Stockett for book club. A major theme of the novel is race relations. It takes place in Jackson, MS, in the early '60's. At the discussion, one mom brought up the idea from a book she'd been reading that we all need to talk to our kids, as young as 3 and 4 year olds, about race. Another mom, who happens to be African American, talked about how she actually did that with her older daughter, which helped with schoolyard confrontations. A third mom mentioned that she doesn't even think of herself as Asian unless someone points it out to her. And yet another mom who works at a school for children with learning disabilities pointed out that they really strive to not define the children by their difference: they have dyslexia, they aren't dyslexic. Interesting distinction.
Last night I watched an interesting movie, Dancing in September, which follows a fledgling show at a fledgling network. There is a lot more to the story, but the show is about black characters, written and produced by a black woman, at a network that is trying to appease activists because of backlash about the lack of representation for African American actors on tv. It's a really good movie and I recommend it if you want to see a little of what happens to shows we love. Because the show starts as a really good, heartfelt show and slowly becomes that cliche of dumb black characters through suggestions from the network. Because it's all about ratings and keeping advertisers happy.
One of the things that irritates me about a lot of 'ethnic' shows in the last decade or so is that the characters are all caricatures. It doesn't seem to matter if the show centers around a black family or a Latino family, they all seem to have to be dumb. (That's actually even true about comedies centering around white families.) Why do people watch that crap? And why can't we have more shows where the characters just happen to be black/Latino/Asian or whatever? Seriously, the reason The Cosby Show was so good and popular was because the Huxtables could have been any family. They just happened to also be black. It was funny. It was heart-warming. That's what I miss about family comedies.
There is some hope with dramas. At least characters are allowed to be real, normal, and not stupid. I admit I don't watch much tv these days. Between getting the boys in bed and the late schedule, I find too many shows start to feel like a chore. The only serial series we watch regularly are Castle and The Big Bang Theory. Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs and Man Vs. Food are other shows we watch, but it's ok if we miss an episode. So there may be some quality shows out there that I just don't know about (and please feel free to leave suggestions in the comments.)
But back to the topic. First, what is the difference between race and ethnicity? Because I think race is a loaded word used purposely to highlight something that is really a matter of ethnicity. Here's an interesting chart that points out one of the major issues for me: race is defined by governments, not science. And my background is science. The government in the US defines race by skin color, but not all skin colors.
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't define people by their ancestry? Or by their difference from us? Can we get to a point where someone is a person who happens to be (fill in the blank)? I know it's idealized, but maybe if we all try to change how we talk, we'll change how we think. And if we can't change how we think, maybe at least our kids will think in that idealized way. And maybe one day people will be so mixed (multi-ethnic or multi-racial is a growing demographic as it is), it won't be an issue.
Small as a peanut
Big as a giant,
We're all the same size
When we turn off the light.
Red black or orange,
Yellow or white
We all look the same
When we turn off the light.
So maybe the way
To make everything right
Is for God to just reach out
And turn off the light!
A few things have conspired to put race/ethnicity in my mind. I guess my thoughts here apply to a lot of differences that people use to separate groups into 'them' and 'us'. Does it really matter what the 'other' is?
I recently read The Help by Kathryn Stockett for book club. A major theme of the novel is race relations. It takes place in Jackson, MS, in the early '60's. At the discussion, one mom brought up the idea from a book she'd been reading that we all need to talk to our kids, as young as 3 and 4 year olds, about race. Another mom, who happens to be African American, talked about how she actually did that with her older daughter, which helped with schoolyard confrontations. A third mom mentioned that she doesn't even think of herself as Asian unless someone points it out to her. And yet another mom who works at a school for children with learning disabilities pointed out that they really strive to not define the children by their difference: they have dyslexia, they aren't dyslexic. Interesting distinction.
Last night I watched an interesting movie, Dancing in September, which follows a fledgling show at a fledgling network. There is a lot more to the story, but the show is about black characters, written and produced by a black woman, at a network that is trying to appease activists because of backlash about the lack of representation for African American actors on tv. It's a really good movie and I recommend it if you want to see a little of what happens to shows we love. Because the show starts as a really good, heartfelt show and slowly becomes that cliche of dumb black characters through suggestions from the network. Because it's all about ratings and keeping advertisers happy.
One of the things that irritates me about a lot of 'ethnic' shows in the last decade or so is that the characters are all caricatures. It doesn't seem to matter if the show centers around a black family or a Latino family, they all seem to have to be dumb. (That's actually even true about comedies centering around white families.) Why do people watch that crap? And why can't we have more shows where the characters just happen to be black/Latino/Asian or whatever? Seriously, the reason The Cosby Show was so good and popular was because the Huxtables could have been any family. They just happened to also be black. It was funny. It was heart-warming. That's what I miss about family comedies.
There is some hope with dramas. At least characters are allowed to be real, normal, and not stupid. I admit I don't watch much tv these days. Between getting the boys in bed and the late schedule, I find too many shows start to feel like a chore. The only serial series we watch regularly are Castle and The Big Bang Theory. Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs and Man Vs. Food are other shows we watch, but it's ok if we miss an episode. So there may be some quality shows out there that I just don't know about (and please feel free to leave suggestions in the comments.)
But back to the topic. First, what is the difference between race and ethnicity? Because I think race is a loaded word used purposely to highlight something that is really a matter of ethnicity. Here's an interesting chart that points out one of the major issues for me: race is defined by governments, not science. And my background is science. The government in the US defines race by skin color, but not all skin colors.
Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't define people by their ancestry? Or by their difference from us? Can we get to a point where someone is a person who happens to be (fill in the blank)? I know it's idealized, but maybe if we all try to change how we talk, we'll change how we think. And if we can't change how we think, maybe at least our kids will think in that idealized way. And maybe one day people will be so mixed (multi-ethnic or multi-racial is a growing demographic as it is), it won't be an issue.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Balance
I'm actually happy that Scott Brown was sworn in as Massachusetts Senator today. It has nothing to do with party affiliation as I consider myself an Independent.
No, I may be in the minority, but the reason I am happy is because I don't think either party should have a filibuster-proof super-majority. Whichever party is in power should have to listen to the other party. There should be some consensus required to pass legislation. The last decade or so has seen party politics take an ugly turn to the point where politicians would rather vote against something just to throw a wrench in the other party's legislation than try to work out a compromise.
Like in a marriage, members of a legislative body need to compromise and give a little to gain a lot. While back room deals and pork bribes weigh down bills and laws, having to listen to the other guy should create better laws because more than one side is being considered.
Just remember, if you are mad because the Democrats lost their super-majority, next time the Republicans get 60 votes, they can do whatever they want. Turnabout is fair play and isn't it better to play nice to begin with? As we all should have learned as children, if you are nice when you are on top, you are less likely to be beaten up when you fall. Violent revolutions tend to overthrow repressive regimes, not permissive ones.
Really, there are good and bad arguments on both sides of the aisle. Maybe this will force them to cut the chaff so the wheat can rise to the top.
No, I may be in the minority, but the reason I am happy is because I don't think either party should have a filibuster-proof super-majority. Whichever party is in power should have to listen to the other party. There should be some consensus required to pass legislation. The last decade or so has seen party politics take an ugly turn to the point where politicians would rather vote against something just to throw a wrench in the other party's legislation than try to work out a compromise.
Like in a marriage, members of a legislative body need to compromise and give a little to gain a lot. While back room deals and pork bribes weigh down bills and laws, having to listen to the other guy should create better laws because more than one side is being considered.
Just remember, if you are mad because the Democrats lost their super-majority, next time the Republicans get 60 votes, they can do whatever they want. Turnabout is fair play and isn't it better to play nice to begin with? As we all should have learned as children, if you are nice when you are on top, you are less likely to be beaten up when you fall. Violent revolutions tend to overthrow repressive regimes, not permissive ones.
Really, there are good and bad arguments on both sides of the aisle. Maybe this will force them to cut the chaff so the wheat can rise to the top.
Just my opinion
Ok, a few things I just don't get:
Politicians get elected on a platform of spending money on schools, educating children, children are our future, invest in education, school reform, etc, etc, etc. As soon as they are in office, they cut school funding. For an interesting study on the topic of education spending and future savings (prisons, crime prevention) read this. Spending on education reduces crime, meaning less spending on prisons, plus generally leads to less spending on welfare.
The military complains that it is tough to recruit, yet they manufacture reasons to keep people out with policies like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which have no bearing on a person's ability to perform the job.
I'm reading the current issue of National Geographic, the cover story of which is about the FLDS. Now, I don't agree with plural marriage and certainly don't understand why someone would do it (I don't share well, that way), but why the witch hunts? It seems as long as something is between consenting adults, can we stay out of people's bedrooms? And let me just state for the record that I get the objections and court cases in regards to teenage girls being forced to marry middle-aged men. There are already laws about that without getting into whether she's a first wife or a fifth wife. And cases where someone marries multiple times where the spouses don't know? That's not consenting.
In conjunction with the above, why do some heterosexual couples feel their marriages are somehow threatened or lessened by people unlike them getting married? But I've already covered this topic recently, so I'll let my previous post speak for itself.
Politicians get elected on a platform of spending money on schools, educating children, children are our future, invest in education, school reform, etc, etc, etc. As soon as they are in office, they cut school funding. For an interesting study on the topic of education spending and future savings (prisons, crime prevention) read this. Spending on education reduces crime, meaning less spending on prisons, plus generally leads to less spending on welfare.
The military complains that it is tough to recruit, yet they manufacture reasons to keep people out with policies like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which have no bearing on a person's ability to perform the job.
I'm reading the current issue of National Geographic, the cover story of which is about the FLDS. Now, I don't agree with plural marriage and certainly don't understand why someone would do it (I don't share well, that way), but why the witch hunts? It seems as long as something is between consenting adults, can we stay out of people's bedrooms? And let me just state for the record that I get the objections and court cases in regards to teenage girls being forced to marry middle-aged men. There are already laws about that without getting into whether she's a first wife or a fifth wife. And cases where someone marries multiple times where the spouses don't know? That's not consenting.
In conjunction with the above, why do some heterosexual couples feel their marriages are somehow threatened or lessened by people unlike them getting married? But I've already covered this topic recently, so I'll let my previous post speak for itself.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
A guest post
A friend of ours, Nicole, wrote a really good essay about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military. I asked if I could share it here and so, with her permission, here it is:
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
I get nervous on stairs; my heart races dangerously when I feel
someone walking too closely behind me; I'm out of shape and
prone more to dialogue than action. I am no soldier.
I don't have the resolve to put on armor to face not only an
enemy's bullet, but a citizen's disdain. If that citizen is the
one on foreign soil, I imagine it's frustrating and confusing;
if that citizen is one of your countrymen, I imagine it's
enraging and heart wrenching. My deepest hope is that
the latter is infrequent because though I may be your
ideological opposite, I am grateful for your ability and
willingness to act on behalf of those who will not and cannot.
Just as I am no soldier, I cannot envision a soldier's life. Intense
training against imaginary opponents leading to life-threatening deployment against real threats. Pepper that with a lot of down
time where your military company becomes family and your
ability to get along with and trust your colleagues could mean
the difference between life and death. When times are quiet,
you're left to prepare and live in conditions that are, at best,
not like home and, at worst, hostile and primitive. I imagine
the lag time is when you build bonds and seek out soldiers
whose personalities, ideologies and training you trust most
to keep close and watch your back.
However, there are those in the company, just as with any
situation, whose behaviors and skills you don't respect as much.
But, barring anything truly egregious, you move forward because
you put trust into the training you were given and a soldier's ability
to put aside differences in times of war. As bullets fly, I assume
you will fight with and for that soldier as wholeheartedly as your
best buddy. And then, once that battle is won and your nerves
restore, you align yourself again with your closest allies to heal
and de-stress but, possibly, look to that other soldier and his ability
to serve and survive with more respect.
Again, I'm no soldier and I will never fully understand the
bonds created and the necessity for company cohesion that
exists when lives are at stake. But I think civilians look to
soldiers to uphold a certain sense of decorum and dignity
just as we would a civil servant like a police officer or
firefighter. And maybe that's unfair; maybe we should
acknowledge that soldiers are often young and venturing
beyond their parent's doorstep for the first time. Maybe we
should forgive their brashness as a mere symptom of the
toughness it takes to be in combat. And I get that, I do; I think
that it takes a certain machismo (both in men and women)
to risk your own life for such an intangible thing as 'freedom'.
I think it would take someone or something pushing me to my
limits for me to take up arms against another person, but even
with my beliefs I do believe war is sometimes necessary. But
these men and women enter the service with free will and,
mostly, under conditions of stateside peace. I respect them
for that.
I respect each and every one of them for that; black and white,
male and female, younger and older, Christian and Muslim,
gay and straight. Each and every one of them has left their
homes and their families in search of careers, stability, honor,
service and love of country. But, we are currently at a crossroads
within our military with Obama's promise to repeal Don't Ask,
Don't Tell and there are those that fear this decision will change
the entire makeup of the U.S. military. To them I want to ask...
and explain...so very much.
I want to understand how they think a person's sexuality affects
their pride in their country; if anything, a gay citizen might be
forgiven by many for having lost respect in the U.S. as a beacon
of freedom and hope. But the gay soldier is still willing to
serve a country that does not always serve him.
I want to understand how they believe a person's sexual
orientation itself could cause commotion in the barracks; if
anything, it is the miseducation and fear-mongering surrounding homosexuality that would lead to incidents rather than the
gay soldier's actions. I've read today comparisons between
homosexuality and pedophilia; I've read today that the
straight soldiers should fear gay men in the shower; I've read
today that if gay men are allowed to share quarters with
straight men then they should just mix the genders because
it'd be like having a woman in there anyway.
When you read such things, it's so disturbing and deflating to
all the supposed progress our community has made in the
past few decades. In 2010, we're still comparing two adults
engaging in consensual sex or enjoying loving relationships
to an adult preying on children. In 2010, there is still a
pervasive idea that gay men are attracted to each and every
man or that lesbian women will be after you merely because
you're a woman. There is no furthered understanding that our
preferences are not tied to gender, but that gender is tied to
our preferences.
And in 2010, there is an undercurrent of belief that homosexuals
are hedonistic and immoral people who have no self-control
over their sexual impulses. As if any soldier, gay or straight,
trained to use high- powered weaponry to defend his country
couldn't keep control over his hard-on. Every soldier faces
the most extreme factions on foreign soil; they are our defenders,
but also our diplomats and I expect them to act with a sense of
understanding that they are the symbol of our nation to people
that have potentially heard nothing good. I expect that of our
soldiers and if, under those circumstances they can remain
calm and rational, I definitely expect the same should a gay
soldier offer to take them out for dinner.
When women were finally allowed to serve in combat, some
of these same arguments were given. The male soldiers wouldn't
be able to stay focused if female pheromones were in the air;
that the masculine bonding that occurs when women aren't present
would be disrupted and lives would be lost; that the women
wouldn't be safe on long deployments and how could the men
be expected to control their impulses.
And, granted, there have been too many instances of sexual
assault in the military and gender biases are still prevalent but,
overall, the integration has been successful for one reason:
there are bigger issues at hand than libido and your own
personal ideology. I think, implemented carefully, the repeal
of DADT will be a positive change for our military for the
same reason. And should any soldier not hold themselves to
that expected sense of decorum and dignity, gay or straight,
may they incur the legal and civil punishment given by a
court of law. When you're called to serve, you are chosen
for your ability to complete a mission. You are called because
you have the appropriate weapons training or linguistic education
or science background and, should the world work how it is
supposed to, the most talented in these areas will be chosen
for those skills alone.
But, of course, the process will be slow. Soldiers acknowledge,
and take pride, that military foundations are built on tradition
and conservative values. There are codes of conduct that
exist in the books and ones that remain unspoken but adhered
to as if written in blood. It will take brave soldiers to step
forward and lead the way for the gay and lesbian soldiers
that wait for calmer seas; it will take top Brass, , both active
and retired, stepping forward and claiming their sexuality; it
will take strong straight allies who educate and advocate on
behalf of their gay brothers and sisters in arms. It will take years.
For those that feel the 'gay agenda' is being pushed down their
throats, I ask you to step outside your own beliefs for a short
period and look up heterosexual privilege. Just like white
privilege or male privilege, it explores the unspoken advantages
that a majority enjoys without even considering them to be
advantages. You've heard so many in other civil rights discussions;
the ability to walk down the street at night without being fearful
(male privilege), the ability to walk through a department store
without being watched more closely (white privilege) and the
ability to talk about your partner in your workplace (heterosexual
privilege).
I'm far from the most P.C. person you'll ever meet; I have my
biases and discriminations that I feed and I fight but when
pushed I always come back to the thought "even if that person
really wasn't being discriminated against, they 'felt' they were
and that has to have a huge impact on their psyche". That's just
my way of keeping myself in check when I want to rail against
someone's call of misogyny or racism or homophobia (yes, I
get mad about this one too). But, step outside yourself and try
to feel, truly feel, what it would feel like to be judged for
something over which you have no control (and I'm not getting
into 'choice' discussions here re: homosexuality).
Now, try to imagine what that would feel like with bullets
whizzing by and 'freedom' on the line.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Love and marriage
A friend recently posted this link showing that more states allow marriage between 1st cousins than same-sex couples, including Indiana. Before a great controversy erupts, I verified Indiana marriage law which is that under normal circumstances, the closest relatives who may marry are 2nd cousins. The exception for 1st cousins is that both must be at least 65 years of age.
But the whole thing, along with Indiana's passing SJR-13, which would add a ban on gay marriage (already illegal under Indiana law) to the state Constitution if it passes a voter referendum in November, got me thinking about marriage issues.
It seems that some of the current arguments against allowing gay marriage (without getting into religious arguments) stem from procreation. It goes something like this: the point of marriage is to have children and gays can't have children (under strictly biological circumstances) so they shouldn't get married.
To show how ridiculous this argument is, I present the following:
1) If the sole purpose of marriage is procreation, the following should not be allowed to marry either:
* post-menopausal women
* infertile/sterile men or women (whether by choice or biology)
* the elderly
* anyone who does not plan to have kids
1b) In addition, a contract to produce at least 1 child within a certain time limit would need to be part of the marriage procedure or the marriage would have to be invalidated.
2) Many, many, people procreate without benefit of marriage, so marriage is obviously not required to have children. Do we need to institute licenses to have kids?
3) If the groups listed above have other reasons to get married than producing children, don't these same reasons apply to ANY couple wanting to get married?
* Love (to me, the #1 reason)
* Legal benefits including, but not limited to, insurance, medical visitation, inheritance
* Whatever other reasons people have
That's pretty much the basis of my argument.
For the record, I don't think this is the slippery slope to allowing marriage with animals (hello, make marriage dependent on both parties being human!). I don't think two men or two women marrying has anything to do with my own marriage or will somehow cheapen it. I think divorce is the real threat to marriage. I think allowing gay marriage might actually alleviate some current issues by expanding health coverage to more individuals (via their spouse).
But the whole thing, along with Indiana's passing SJR-13, which would add a ban on gay marriage (already illegal under Indiana law) to the state Constitution if it passes a voter referendum in November, got me thinking about marriage issues.
It seems that some of the current arguments against allowing gay marriage (without getting into religious arguments) stem from procreation. It goes something like this: the point of marriage is to have children and gays can't have children (under strictly biological circumstances) so they shouldn't get married.
To show how ridiculous this argument is, I present the following:
1) If the sole purpose of marriage is procreation, the following should not be allowed to marry either:
* post-menopausal women
* infertile/sterile men or women (whether by choice or biology)
* the elderly
* anyone who does not plan to have kids
1b) In addition, a contract to produce at least 1 child within a certain time limit would need to be part of the marriage procedure or the marriage would have to be invalidated.
2) Many, many, people procreate without benefit of marriage, so marriage is obviously not required to have children. Do we need to institute licenses to have kids?
3) If the groups listed above have other reasons to get married than producing children, don't these same reasons apply to ANY couple wanting to get married?
* Love (to me, the #1 reason)
* Legal benefits including, but not limited to, insurance, medical visitation, inheritance
* Whatever other reasons people have
That's pretty much the basis of my argument.
For the record, I don't think this is the slippery slope to allowing marriage with animals (hello, make marriage dependent on both parties being human!). I don't think two men or two women marrying has anything to do with my own marriage or will somehow cheapen it. I think divorce is the real threat to marriage. I think allowing gay marriage might actually alleviate some current issues by expanding health coverage to more individuals (via their spouse).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)