Friday, May 6, 2011

I'm Moving to Tumblr!

I'm in the process of making a Tumblr blog (and a cup of tea). I think that I'll update that blog more often, since it's fast and easy to reblog something and/or comment on it. So, no, I'm not dead. I'll post the link when I'm done with it. Woo!

Monday, April 11, 2011

In Defense of Jon Kyl

The big news this past weekend was the looming government shutdown that never was. While defending these riders, which were basically ideologically driven strips of funding for seriously controversial things like school lunch and NPR*, Jon Kyl proclaimed that more than 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion.





Everybody goes to clinics, to doctors, to hospitals, so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don't have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked**. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that's well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does.

Except not. If I wanted an abortion and walked into any of the 6 Planned Parenthoods in my area, they'd send me somewhere else. Which is why I personally wouldn't go to Planned Parenthood for an abortion. See, well over 90% -- a full 97% -- of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortion-related. Abortion accounts for 3%. Jon Kyl explained that his statements were "not meant to be factual."

I don't think Jon Kyl has to explain himself at all. It's SO HARD to find information in this information age of ours. I mean, how many spare seconds do you think Senator Kyl has to do the following:

1. Google "Planned Parenthood."
2. Click on the first link.
3. Click the "About Us" drop-down menu.
4. Click "Annual Report."
5. Click on the picture in the middle of the page.
6. Scroll down to page 6.
7. Admire the colorful pie chart showing the percentage of services that Planned Parenthood provides.

That was a workout. Cancel your gym memberships, people! Looking for facts is seriously sweat-inducing exercise.



* This is a list of the riders in lay terms and in an easy-to-read chart. Here is the full H.R. 1 bill.

** Unless you're poor and have no health insurance. It's a good thing Planned Parenthood provides these services.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

So Not Funny, George Lopez!



I get most of my feminist news from the mainstream feminist blogosphere, which likes to throw its trans news of the day in a little daily wrap-up, if at all. So I sincerely apologize for neglecting to get my feminist news from a place that's friendly to issues facing trans people. I will do better from now on. Being out of the loop in that regard is much worse than being out of the loop when it comes to Dancing with the Stars and Lopez Tonight. George Lopez is a guy that I never found funny. He probably doesn't think he's that funny either, since he tells transphobic jokes, the final resort in getting a cheap laugh. Last week, after the premiere of DWTS, he unleashed his fat hate and transmisogyny with this sorry excuse for a joke:

(At about 1:20) Finally my favorite male and female dancer of the season. Up first the male (he shows a clip of Wendy Williams' performance). It wasn't really her dancing that caught my attention, check this out. (he shows a clip of Wendy crying during dance practice). The last time she cried that hard was when she was on Maury and she heard Wendy Williams you are the father.

And then he called Kirstie Alley a pig, but he spared her her gender identity. George Lopez: A real revolutionary.

Alright, first of all, Wendy Williams is the bomb, okay? She's a Jersey girl, and she's really successful. She seems like a down-to-Earth woman, and she's one of three people I sort of pseudo-stalk when I hang out in Montclair (the other two are Stephen Colbert and baseball legend Yogi Berra). Most importantly, this "joke" doesn't hurt Wendy as much as it hurts trans women, particularly trans women of color, which make up about 100% of the trans people who are murdered each year. People have to learn that insulting someone by calling them trans isn't funny and leads to violence. It's a way of delegitimizing someone's being. And it needs to end like forever ago.

Not that you ever were funny to begin with. But, George Lopez, this is so not funny!

Thursday, March 24, 2011

How Exactly Does God Punish a "Fag Enabler?"

That's "Your Majesty Fag Enabler" to you, Westboro Baptist Church.


Elizabeth Taylor died yesterday of congestive heart failure. She is, of course, most well-known for her acting career and for being an anti-AIDS activist. But seriously, who's against AIDS? The Westboro Baptist Church! So they're planning on protesting Ms. Taylor's funeral. They're famous for being utterly insane and protesting outside of the funerals of fallen soldiers, claiming that those deaths are God's punishment for America's tolerance of gay people. What tolerance? Exactly. Clearly, Westboro Baptist Church believes that Elizabeth Taylor has been punished by God for supporting anti-AIDS initiatives. How so? Let me list the ways:

1. A successful acting career spanning 7 decades.

2. Five Academy Award nominations and 2 Best Actress Oscars.

3. The most beautiful violet eyes that anyone has ever or would ever see.

4. Four children, 10 grandchildren, and 4 great-grandchildren.

5. Legions of devoted fans that loved her until her death at age 79.

6. Seventy-nine years of living!

Yes, you'd think if God hated her so much for funding AIDS research, he would've snuffed her out a long time ago. But no. 79 years. Millions of dollars. Big family. 2 Oscars. Beauty. When will God punish ME???

Friday, March 11, 2011

Urge Senator Paul to Introduce the Protect Consumers from Electricity and Plumbing Act.

In a Senate meeting with the Energy Department regarding companies providing energy-efficient appliances to consumers, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) had this brilliant nugget to bestow on the congregation:

"I think there should be self-examination from the administration on the idea that you favor a woman's right to an abortion but you don't favor a woman, or a man's, right to choose what kind of light bulb, what kind of dishwasher."

Mr. Paul! I resent the fact that you believe pro-choicers like myself haven't thought about such pressing issues, like buying light bulbs and dishwashers. That's why I have proposed the following legislation that I hope Congressional Republicans will introduce very soon. Jobs can wait. Choosing appliances can have life-long ramifications. In fact, I think something like 84% of people regret purchasing energy-efficient products. because they hate saving money and the environment. I thank you in advance for your consideration in this ground-breaking, life-saving legislation.

We all know that purchasing appliances is a difficult decision. There's that hop on the freeway, walking through the parking lot, waiting for some salesperson to help you. And, of course, those salespeople are going to murder your freedoms and push some "Energy Star" product on you.

So, before someone buys an appliance, consumers must listen to a detailed description of the appliance. They must also point out all of the simple and complex machines and parts that make up the appliance. Then, they must go to a special Crisis Electricity and Plumbing Center and be counseled by anti-electricity counselors against buying the appliance. After that, consumers must wait at least 24 hours before purchasing the appliance. Or longer, if they need it. And if they're still convinced to buy the appliance of their choosing, they must walk through dozens of anti-electricity protesters holding signs and calling consumers murderous whores. "Use your finger nails to scrub out caked-on food, like REAL AMERICANS!!!" "Light bulbs MURDER candles!!!" Surely no one would buy an appliance after enduring all of that, but the truly terrible among us do.

But what about those appliance consumers who regret their decision to buy appliances? They can go back to the Crisis Electricity and Plumbing Center and get post-appliance-buying counseling for their Post-Appliance Syndrome, the terrible mental and spiritual disease caused by buying appliances. What? You've heard that Post-Appliance Syndrome doesn't exist? That's what those terrible science-y people want you to think! It's all lies. Beware of Post-Appliance Syndrome.

Prevent it with the Protect Consumers from Appliances and Plumbing Act.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

EXCLUSIVE: Interview with an Embryo

Big news, people. An actual 9-week old embryo will "testify" in an Ohio court during hearings for a bill that would ban all abortions after a heartbeat can be detected.

“For the first time in a committee hearing, legislators will be able to see and hear the beating heart of a baby in the womb–just like the ones the Heartbeat Bill will protect,” said Janet (Folger) Porter, President of Faith2Action, and former Legislative Director of Ohio Right to Life, where she helped pass the nation’s first ban on Partial Birth Abortion.

Two in-utero babies will appear live before the committee by an ultrasound projector which is able to not only show that baby’s moving arms and legs, but also display–in color–the baby’s beating heart. “When passed, the Heartbeat Bill will insure that once that heartbeat is detected, the baby is protected,” added Porter.

Pretty big scoop, right? WRONG! Only I have the exclusive interview with an 8-week old embryo. And yes, I got permission from the pregnant lady that the embryo is inside of. Don't know if I can say the same for Ms. Porter.



Me: Hey, embryo. How's it going.
Embryo: Meh. Mommy threw up like 5 times today. Sometimes I understand how much physical pain I cause her, but that's my food too that she's puking.
Me: Yeah, it's hard out there for an embryo.
Embryo: You mean IN there.
Me: Sure. I wanted to ask you about this Heartbeat Bill in Ohio.
Embryo: Huh?
Me: You know, the one that could ban abortion once a heartbeat of the embryo is detected.
Embryo: Didn't hear about that one. Does it matter that the pregnant woman has a heartbeat?
Me: No, her heartbeat doesn't matter. She'd be forced to continue the pregnancy and give birth.
Embryo: It kind of seems unfair that my heartbeat counts so much more than my mother's.
Me: Tell me more.
Embryo: I mean, if the people for this Heartbeat Bill would treat my mommy like that, you know, give her no significance at all, how would they treat me once I'm born?
Me: I have some experience being outside the womb, and anti-choicers don't treat women very nicely. They call them sluts and whores and put guilt trips on them when they're raped. And they don't just hate pregnant women. They hate women who choose not to get pregnant or can't get pregnant, whether they're straight, lesbian, or transgender. What do you think about that?
Embryo: That's a terrible world. I don't know what kind of person I'd be. But it seems like I have a great chance of becoming the kind of person that these pro-lifers would care about at all. They seem to like me now, but once I'm born, they'd rather me be dead, unless I become their perfect vision of a person.
Me: Is that possible?
Embryo: My mommy's an Atheist. And my daddy's a gay sperm donor majoring in Africana Studies.
[We laugh -- hard]
Embryo: Seriously, though. I thought it was hard being an embryo. It's a lot harder to be a person, especially if you're not male, cis, Christian, heterosexual, White, able-bodied, and rich.
Me: Would you rather be aborted?
Embryo: That's all up to my intelligent, responsible, autonomous mommy.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Please Welcome the New Republican Congressman from South Dakota



It's Borat! He ran a really great campaign, going door to door talking about his policies. When explaining the role women should play in society, Borat claims the social order should be "God, man, horse, dog, then woman." Of course, he ran as a Republican. God and men are pretty much all they care about, except if they're poor, non-Christian, or part of the TLGB community. Plus, at least as far as access to birth control goes, horses have more of a right to it than women. The only state where poor old Borat would even stand a chance is South Dakota. They subjugate women to the status of baby-making slave more than any other state. In fact, they tried twice to push abortion bans in the state, while still allowing people to shoot someone to death for steal or vandalize their property. I'm sure Borat thinks your wheel barrow lands somewhere before women on his social ladder. And now that South Dakota is considering a law that could justify the murder of abortion doctors, perhaps Borat would fit right in this state that has reckless disregard for everyone but zygotes. Congratulations on your win, Borat! I'm sure you'll do great work!

Friday, February 4, 2011

Kristen Schaal on Redefining Rape Law

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rape Victim Abortion Funding
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire Blog</a>The Daily Show on Facebook

If you follow me on Twitter, you would have noticed that I've spent the better part of a week tweeting about the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a law that seeks to deny abortion rights to any woman with a health insurance policy in which any amount of the premiums can be written off on a tax return, unless that woman can pay for the procedure out of pocket. Right now, the vast majority of health insurance policies cover abortion, and a percentage of those premiums can be written off by the individual or business who purchases the policy. House Republicans and conservative Democrats who have signed on to this bill equate the tax write-off with abortion being federally subsidized. Of course, tax breaks for the wealthy aren't considered federal spending, but tax breaks for Americans with health insurance that covers abortion is. Basically, this law further screws over low and middle income women who wish to use the perfectly legal medical service called abortion. Essentially, such women must pay a tax on their policy (in that their policy is taxable income), even if they never have an abortion. The law would also deny abortion coverage on any private policy that is included in the health insurance exchanges in the new healthcare law.

Most egregious of all, the law also redefined rape as "forcible rape." The qualifier "forcible" implied that some rape isn't forced, but merely coerced or maybe implied. Women who were unconscious, drugged, or mentally handicapped were excluded from the definition. The language was then taken out, thanks to Sady Doyle's #DearJohn campaign on Twitter and the above video from The Daily Show. The combination of anger and satire woke the anti-choice morons who cosigned this disgusting bill to the fact that ALL rape is forcible. Duh.

Although it's nice that they stripped the word "forcible" from the bill, this bill is still terrible and needs to be defeated. This law will deny millions of women abortion coverage. Incest is also redefined, in that it excludes women who became pregnant by a family member after they turned 18. It allows the government to interfere in personal decisions and private business, and it increases taxes. The new Republican party, everyone!

Monday, January 31, 2011

So Not Funny, Saturday Night Live!



I could stop with just that title and follow with a randomly selected clip, since Saturday Night Live hasn't been funny in about 15 years. But not only is this skit not funny, it's downright offensive. It's a mock commercial for hormone replacement therapy aimed at M to F transgender people. It shows several of the male cast members in varying stages of transition. The punch line is basically, "Get it? Trans women! Ha-ha!" I guess cissexist knuckle draggers find this hilarious, but mocking the experience of trans women is not a joke. Looks like NBC might have new ownership, but it has the same tired transphobic stereotypes that pretty much every other comedy has.

GLAAD has a petition that you can sign, demanding that NBC apologize for this disgusting sketch and remove it from future airings.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Blog for Choice: Am I Concerned About Choice in 2011?


Despite my home state electing a governor who didn't quite campaign on defunding Planned Parenthood (although, I knew that just from looking at his campaign website for 3 seconds), but did exactly that like on Day One, I think we New Jerseyans can fist-pump our way out of this. Having a pro-choice legislature really helps, and they are currently working their damnedest to override Chris Christie's veto of funding women's healthcare. I think New Jersey realizes that defunding Planned Parenthood doesn't do anything but drastically reduce the capacity with which healthcare professionals can serve jobless, impoverished, and working poor women. That's because only 3 Planned Parenthoods out of 29 in New Jersey actually provide abortion services in their facilities (which didn't stop conservative websites from proclaiming "Chris Christie closes abortion clinics!" Really, just Google "Chris Christie defunding Planned Parenthood"). The rest provide preventative care. Defunding them defunds thousands of women's only access to affordable treatment. Pro-life indeed.

To answer the question posed by NARAL Pro-Choice America on this 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, yes, I am concerned about choice in 2011, because attacking reproductive freedom goes FAR beyond controlling women's reproductive capacities. It also controls where poor women get their primary healthcare. It is unfathomable that a so-called pro-life governor (one with "Christ" in both his first and last name, at that!), legislature, or constituency would sacrifice the basic healthcare of thousands of women to not even prevent a single abortion. Then again, misogyny tends to cloud judgment, so it's not all that unbelievable.

Another extremely deadly consequence of restricting abortion access is evidenced in the recent indictment of "Doctor" Gosnell, who performed countless illegal late-term abortions on mostly poor immigrant women in a filthy clinic. And when I say "illegal," I mean pretty much every thing that took place in his facility was illegal. Consider this.

1. Mr. Gosnell isn't an OB/GYN, so he should not have been performing any abortions at all.


3. Mr. Gosnell induced birth of live infants and split their spinal cords with scissors, which is no more an abortion than if someone did that to me.

4. Like I said before, his clinic was unsanitary, with cat urine, body parts, and dirty medical tools scattered all over the place.

Basically, Mr. Gosnell performs back alley abortions, the kind that caused the deaths and serious injuries of countless women in pre-Roe days. And as you saw in my last post, people can't set aside their woman-hate for a second to consider that maybe women dying isn't a good thing. In fact, some were downright gleeful. The deaths of the woman and infants that Mr. Gosnell have been charged with (and any others we don't know about) make me wonder if this would have been allowed in a society that a) respected poor women, b) respected immigrants, and c) respected pregnant women, and trusted the decisions of such women to the point where the only restriction to a woman's access to a late-term abortion was her own judgment. Instead, we live in a society that restricts abortion based on socioeconomic status and gestation of the fetus, even if the woman's health is at risk or if the fetus is dead inside of her. Certainly, the women's health was at risk the second they entered Mr. Gosnell's clinic. Perhaps if they had somewhere else to go, they would have. There's a reason pro-choicers want abortion to be safe and legal. Again, I'm concerned about choice in 2011, since if anti-choicers have their way, we'll have over a million women seeking abortions from greedy predators like Gosnell.

WTF: Anti-Choice Deraliers

I usually read the comments on abortion blog posts in safe places, like those that mostly pro-choicers frequent, to spare myself from the idiotic anti-woman rhetoric espoused by anti-choicers. But there are just some really strange reactions to really no-brainer situations, such as the recent indictment of an illegal late-term abortion provider in Pennsylvania. The reports about the incident are horrific (I'll talk more about it tomorrow in my Blog for Choice post). In short, the "doctor" performed illegal late-term abortions on mostly poor immigrant women. He is charged with 7 murders of babies that he delivered alive and then severed their spinal cords with scissors, and one murder of a woman who overdosed on painkillers while waiting to have an abortion. I read some of the comments left in this Care2 post about it, and they just blew my mind.

The people that went to the clinic for late term abortions agreeing to have this done should be charged with murder. If you are six, seven or eight months along and change your mind about having a baby, you need to stick it out and give the baby up for adoption. Killing it to avoid the inconvenience of carrying it for another month or two should not be an option. The women that died doing this deserved it.

Pro-life, indeed! Isn't it great when a poor pregnant immigrant woman who is probably uneducated and doesn't speak English gets painkillers shoved down her throat to the point where she dies? That'll show that whore! I'm sure glad that my mother didn't abort me, or else I'd never be able to pass judgment on women so desperate to end their pregnancies that they'd get a back alley abortion. It's the best part of living.

Late term abortion is murder. Period. I am very liberal but i have absolutely NO pity for a woman who would allow her infant to be slaughtered. Infanticide should never ever ever be legal and i think the women who died getting an abortion at 8 months deserved what they got. There is ALWAYS another option. And even if they felt there wasn't, what's to stop them having an abortion at 8 wks or 12 wks before their child IS A VIABLE INFANT WHO HAS MORE OF A RIGHT TO LIVE than its mother.

Did you know that? Did you know that viable fetuses have more of a right to live than the pregnant women they're inside of? I didn't know that, but someone on the Internet screamed it at me in ALL CAPS, so it must be true. Yes, the only thing this person is "very liberal" with is their use of misogynistic rhetoric.

To save the mother's life a late term abortion I can understand, I don't understand waiting up to the very end to decide on abortion if the women is not at risk. One would imagine this guy could make more money being a baby broker for parents wanting to adopt a black market baby, and split the cost with the birth mother.

What? What??? Seriously, this lady has to be fucking shitting me. Who reacts to a story about women and infants dying from an unlicensed abortion provider performing illegal abortions, that aren't even performed by licensed providers, with such nonsense? What this person is basically saying, without realizing it because she's too busy demonizing pregnant poor women of color, is that these babies could have been even more money in the bank for a sex trafficker or slave trader, and everyone would be better off that way. Financially speaking. And she would understand that better than poor women seeking later-term abortions in a country where they're illegal. Seriously. What the fuck. Selling babies to pedophiles -- good. Late-term abortions -- very, very bad, according to this lady.

I shouldn't say that only anti-choicers totally derailed that conversation. The vast majority of the comments I saw didn't mention the "doctor" that was indicted and used the comments section as a forum to debate whether or not abortion is a moral choice, the personhood of fetuses, and the reasonableness of late-term abortion. Of course, the proper reaction would have been to hope for justice for the women and babies who were allegedly murdered by this guy, no matter what your stance on abortion. But anti-choicers simply cannot get past their deeply held hatred of women to even respond appropriately to these murders. Their first instinct when they see an article about women dying from an illegal abortion is to blame the women first.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Anonymous Misogynist Strikes Again!

With each passing day, it becomes funnier and funnier when somebody tries to post a comment on the old blog, since no one has updated it in more than two years. This guy, who, in all fairness, identified himself as Ralph and did not remain anonymous, really wants to let me know that it just pains him to be a sexist douche, but he just can't help it.

Well I love my girlfriend and I WANT to treat women as equals, but nature built us different.

Translation: It's not MY fault that I'm a sexist douche. I'm just built that way. Blame MOTHER nature. SHE made me this way.

Women are good at somethings, and men at some things. End of the day a man is just built stronger and better at engineering/math/innovation, women better at history and literature and innovation always pays more.

And stereotypes about abilities based in gender have nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with what the jobs that require those abilities pay. Nothing at all. It's just a coincidence that men are believed to be better at innovation in math and engineering and those careers pay more than innovation in fields that women dominate. Big coincidence.

So you could say, women are getting as much as they are capable off. Their limitations created these issues in the first place.

Is this guy deliberately misspelling things to prove his point that men such at expressing language? And did he just blame his sexism on mother nature while blaming women for "their limitations" that are supposedly gifts from mother nature? Yes, and yes.

They're better at emotions than men though.

What does this mean? Seriously, what does it mean to be "better at emotions?" Emotions are things that everyone has, and they are automatic responses. It's not something someone is good or bad at, or is that the point he's making.

I'm an engineer myself, the few women engineers there are in my workplace, are really not upto the mark. Sometimes even when they work 4 times as hard as a male, their output quality is much lower.

Four times? And this is quantifiable how? And this guy, being the Grand Hucken Muckus of All Engineers, can make such judgments. Because he's a big smart man. Asshole.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Michelle Malkin Warns of Retaliation by Bow and Arrow Wielding Liberals

This morning in Tucson, Arizona, Democratic United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head from point blank range at an outdoor town hall type of event in her district. Early reports stated that she was murdered, but thankfully, she is recovering from emergency surgery. However, Federal Judge John Roll, a 9-year-old girl, and 4 other people were shot to death (click here for news results). Representative Giffords was one of 20 Congresspeople targeted with crosshairs on this infamous map from SarahPAC, Sarah Palin's political action committee, in response to their votes to support healthcare reform.



A day or two after Ms. Palin posted that image on her Facebook page, Rep. Giffords' office was vandalized. She talked about the crosshairs placed on her district in light of the vandalism:

We really need to realize, the rhetoric and firing people up, and even things, for example, we're on Sarah Palin's 'targeted list.' But the thing is, the way she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. And when people do that, they've got to realize there's consequences to that action.

It's really a sad day for Tucson, Arizona, and the United States. In attempt to make us all laugh in light of this tragedy, right wing media darling Michelle Malkin tried to point the finger at liberals for being equally violent, or at least violent-minded. Her first example: Comments made by a regular person who blogs on Daily Kos. She posted a screen shot of a post entitled My CongressWOMAN Voted Against Nancy Pelosi! And is Now DEAD to Me!, which is a rant against the Congresswoman by someone who raised money and donated to her campaign and was disappointed by her decision not to vote for Pelosi for Minority Leader. That user has since deleted the post and stated the following:

i now am FULL of guilt after writing this diary.

I kind of feel bad that this person feels guilty about what they said, especially when this person isn't and never was an elected official, prevalent voice in any national political movement, or potential presidential candidate. But even they can own up to something unsavory that they said about a Congresswoman. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas used the term "bulls eye" in the following quote in a post he authored over 2 years ago about FISA (and as we know, nobody vandalized Rep. Giffords' office -- or anyone else's -- within 48 hours -- or 30 months -- of that vote):

Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can't save their jobs, they'll pay more attention to those who can.

Any reasonable individual reading this quote wouldn't seriously believe that Mr. Moulitsas is suggesting that Rep. Giffords, or the other 100+ Democrats on that list, be targeted for violence. He's talking about voting lukewarm Democrats out of office, and specifically states that he doesn't support saving their JOBS, whereas the crosshairs picture makes no mention of voting people out, and depicts blood red crosshairs to symbolize Representatives whose political careers are over (you might say "dead").

Lastly, Ms. Malkin compares the crosshairs image to one used by the Democratic Leadership Council in 2004.


And, with my powerful ability to remember the past 6 years, not a single conservative elected government official from any of those states was a target of violence by radicals, liberal or otherwise. Furthermore, nobody was mentioned by name in that map, unlike in Sarah Palin's crosshairs map. However, Michelle Malkin believes that those targets somehow advocated or still advocate violence against conservative office holders in America, even though Barack Obama won 7 out of 9 of those states in 2008 (without a single progressive shooting a single congressperson! We're either really great terrorists, or the threat doesn't exist).

I find such comparisons to be disingenuous and hilariously absurd. The target used in the DLC map is one that people shoot arrows at. Crosshairs aren't targets. Crosshairs are used to get a kill shot on a specific target. What does Malkin think? Bow and arrow toting progressives are going to shoot conservatives? We're going to advocate a constitutional amendment to our right to bear bows and arrows? Are we going to petition governments to open carry our bows and arrows at political events? Are we going to support measures that allow us to carry a concealed bow and arrow without a permit (Good luck with that, liberals! Bows and arrows are bulky!)? Why does she think the Native Americans lost? Because bows and arrows are no match for guns!

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Shorter Allstate: We'll Pay for Your Negligence



Particularly if some woman dares to look good while running past your car.

BTW, this is my 350th post!

Age-Appropriate Sex Ed: A Comparison

Remember this advertisement during the presidential campaign in 2008? John McCain attacked Barack Obama's stance on age-appropriate sex education for all children, including Kindergartners.



Basically, Barack Obama supports age-appropriate sex-ed. In Kindergarten, that's teaching young children "good touch/bad touch" and ways that kids can protect themselves from pedophiles, like not talking to strangers, not going into a car of anyone they don't know, and telling a trusted adult if they've been touched inappropriately. It turned out that the bill wasn't even passed during Obama's time in the Illinois State Senate, and he wasn't even a co-sponsor, so it blew over and Barack Obama won the election.

Let's fast forward to 2011. Kind of a lot has changed in less than 3 years, but there haven't been such radical changes taking place from where conservatives have kittens over someone somewhere suggesting that 5-year-olds know the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching to where talking to those same kids about abortion is a-OK. But apparently it has, in this second wind of hippie free love, I guess.

Congressman Steve King (R-IA) admitted that he talks to children of all grade levels, including Kindergartners, about abortion. He said:

I often go into a high school auditorium or meet with people at even the K-through-12 level in their entirety, and I will tell them: “You will be asked to answer one of the most profound moral questions of our age and that is where do you stand on the abortion issue. And you need to only ask and answer two questions. The first question is do you believe that human life is sacred in all of its forms. Is the person sitting to your left and to your right and everyone in this room, is their life sacred?” And they’ll nod their heads.

Yes, which would mean they're pro-choice. Anti-choicers certainly don't see the life of the pregnant woman as sacred, since they see her death in childbirth or suicide as no great loss to humanity. Needless to say, that's not age-appropriate. It's also a stupid argument to make, and it's why I hate it when men and self-righteous teens are asked about this very profound moral question. Men in particular can have a really nice philosophical debate about abortion, because they don't experience abortion in the slightest, and they never will. Men might like to think that they experience it in the same way that women do, but that's because they're really stupid assholes who believe their superior man-brains and powerful imaginations can make them feel that way. The point is, the only person who can answer that question honestly is the woman experiencing the pregnancy and making the decision herself. It's really easy to say "I believe all life is sacred," or even, "Abortion is a morally acceptable decision all the time," and all of that philosophy flies out the window once she sees a plus sign on the pregnancy test. Oops. So to even pose that question to students who are too young to experience pregnancy or make a moral judgment is totally age-inappropriate and a bit brain-washy.