...and wouldn't trade it for all the money in the world.
No joke.
But that doesn't change the fact that my eyes lit up when I saw that my former employer, Joann's, was hiring again. And they have a new general manager, and the assistant manager is a friend of mine. I just really need a job with enough hours to get my bills paid each month!
I had a conversation at Joann's while waiting in line to get fabric cut (beautiful rayon fabric I found for NCDF pants) with a woman whose son was thinking of dropping out of high school. Seems the kid's dad had recently been laid off and the woman's interior design business was in a real slump. So money had been tight, and the kid wanted to drop out of school to work full time at his part-time (fast food) to help his family. The woman was obviously endeared by her son's selflessness, but she obviously worried for his future. Suppose, she suggested, he were to get laid off as well? Then he'd be out of work, eighteen years old with no high school diploma. I didn't have to tell her a GED just wouldn't be the same unless he was skilled in a trade.
"I want him to go to college," she said. I told her I had a college degree and still couldn't find work. "You see?" she said. "If you can't find decent work WITH a college degree, how will my son find decent work without even a high school diploma?"'
And yet it seemed increasing the hours of his $6.75/hr job would be the only way he'd be able to pay for college in the first place. And of course incidentally, increasing his work hours would scholastically make getting into college to begin with a near impossibility. She lamented, "I guess if he'd worked harder in his classes..."
Yeah, because poor kids have to have a 4.0 to get into college, I thought, and also while working 25 hours a week just to pay the friggin application fees. It's true, though. My family was able to pay for me to go to college out of state and never once was I pressured to get higher grades except for the sake of having better grades... scholarships and other necessities never once factored into the scenario.
It reminds me of NC's new program for high schoolers. Kids enrolled in public schools can take college courses during their junior and senior years of high school online so that they only have to pay for two years of college and finish with a bachelor's degree. It sounds totally awesome, and I'm sure it's helped thousands of kids get their degrees, but it's also totally classist.
While I'm sure a lot of over-achievers will no doubt take advantage of this program, let's face it... the majority of kids doing this will be kids that can't afford to spend 4 years at a university. So while their wealthy classmates do keg stands at suburban house parties and dream of the following year at UNC Wilmington where keg stands will surely be a nightly ritual, working class kids fight the temptation to let it all go and get fucked up as an escape while they sit at home fighting through college course work at age 16 just to have a shot at a better life. And probably on top of having a part time job, or more. And we wonder why drug and alcohol problems are so ugly for the working classes.
Privilege is such a motherfucker.
It's also the thing that enables me to say I wouldn't change my college degree for all the money in the world.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Republicans putting lipstick on a sexist pig
Let's get one thing straight: the McCain camp has absolutely no right to be crying "sexism" every time someone takes a jab at Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin.
This week, Barack Obama responded to the McCain campaign's newest mantra of "change", saying, "You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig." This is an old analogy that's been used by politicians for years, but of course McCain didn't miss a beat in jumping on the chance to once again pander to disgrunteled Clinton supporters. Crying outright sexism, McCain asserted Obama's comment was in reference to Palin's recent comment about hockey moms. But that's not all; the McCain campaign has also attempted to anger all "hockey moms" by skewing the Democratic candidate's words to make it seem like Obama was calling them pigs.
I don't think I've ever heard such rampant reactionary responses from one campain in a single season! It seems like McCain is attempting to read into every word that comes out of Obama's mouth. But politically speaking, this saying can be traced back to July 1991, when then-Governor Ann Richards of Texas responded to allegations that her first legislative session had been ineffective, saying, "This is not another one of those deals where you put lipstick on a hog and call it a princess." Richards would again use this saying at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, and many other times as it became her trademark saying.
McCain should really check himself before he goes on these tirades. He would remember last fall where he used the exact saying Senator Obama used, word for word, when describing Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan that she had first pushed as First Lady. Dick and Lynn Cheney have also utilized this fun little colloquialism while not referring to women at all.
So Obama is sexist now. I'm sorry... but I'm confused. Tell me, which party wants to limit a woman's reproductive options, including access to birth control (which 98% of women will use at some point in their lives)? What's McCain's take on the equal pay for equal work again? Didn't McCain vote to suspend the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993?
Besides, wasn't it the McCain campaign (all Republican campaigns in the primaries, really) who repeatedly asserted that Hillary Clinton wasn't "man enough" to "run with the big dogs," that she should just "get over it" whenever someone took a jab at her on the basis of gender or complained of gender bias on the campaign trail? And now we have a presidential race without Hillary, a Democratic ticket without women, and a Republican ticket with on... so that makes it suddenly okay for McCain and Palin to hipocritically cry sexism at every turn? Oh no, no, no. Try as they might, all the lipstick in the world couldn't soften the appearence of this sexist pig.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Why I Don't Counter-Protest at Functioning Clinics
A couple of years ago, during which time I was fully enmeshed with the political group The World Can't Wait, I received word that there were major protests going on in Jackson, MI at the last standing abortion clinic in the state. The demonstrations were led by the extremist group "Operation Rescue" (yes, the group that instigated the "No Place to Hide" campaign which disclosed the home addresses of abortion providers shortly before a wave of murders and clinic bombings in 1995). There were major counter-protests around this clinic and the call was to get everyone down there to stand in solidarity with the pro-choice movement.
Well needless to say, I was excited. I was all ready to make the 11 hour trip (22 total counting return time), missed classes and gas prices be damned. But then I learned that this clinic was still going to be fully operational for a few more weeks. Something at that point didn't sit right with me. I couldn't really explain it at first, but suddenly I was less enthusiastic about going. In fact, I didn't want to go at all.
After some soul-searching, I realized how morally opposed I was to adding fuel to a fire burning extremely close to an operational abortion clinic. After all, each and every time I drive by a Planned Parenthood with protesters, my heart aches. It's not just because I am so angered by the anti-choice extremists and their absolutely awful tactics in forcing women away from these clinics, but because I just can't imagine being a frightened and vulnerable woman having to walk past a crowd trying to make a political case out of your personal life.
I have a friend who volunteers at a Planned Parenthood. Her job is to escort women from their cars past protesters if necessary. As much as she wants to argue with them, she knows she should not for the sake of the woman she is escorting. I feel the exact same way about counter-protesting near a clinic. I put myself in the woman's position... most women are already dealing with so much shit when they make the decision to have an abortion: there's the initial "oh shit I'm pregnant" moment, the often difficult decision about what to do about it (which includes addressing one's own personal morals and societal stigmas), then she has to go in for a procedure that, while safe, is still surgical and, let's face it, no fun at all. While I can see myself defiantly marching past protesters as I go in to have an abortion (or maybe just get my annual pap smear or pick up a new NuvaRing), most women aren't all that comfortable being seen going into a Planned Parenthood by either protesters or passersby. The threat that Operation Rescue will take down your license plate number has to be equally traumatic. That being said, I somehow doubt a frightened woman ducking between signs and banners just to obtain medical care will care WHICH side you're on... I doubt she wants anyone to be out there at all. My presence as a counter-protester, I realized, would only increase her anxiety about being there in the first place regardless of whether I'm there to condemn her or "protect" her. I'm still screaming, arguing, and making a generally political issue over a personal decision.
Now overall, the abortion issue IS political, and I'm not saying it's not. In a perfect world, of course, it wouldn't be. But in our world, where a woman's control over her own body is a battle that has to be waged through discourse on rights and freedoms, birth control and abortion are both political as well as personal issues.
And by that I mean the overall issue is political, but the individual decision, while influenced by political culture, is personal, and I believe that respecting that (very) fine line should be one of the top priorities of the reproductive justice movement. After all, we can't all be Super Badass Jennifer Baumgartner who allegedly exited the clinic after her abortion to join the crowd of counter-protesters outside.
I truly believe counter-protesting outside functioning abortion clinics is more "stooping to their level" than the mainstream pro-choice movement would like to admit. Which begs the question: if we can't confront the likes of Operation Rescue where they thrive, where can we confront them? Or what can we do to ensure the safety and emotional well-being of the women who are entering a clinic well-guarded by antis? Unfortunately, separating our politics from our hearts may have to come into play here. On the political side, we can be a powerful force anywhere else in the world. On any random street corner, in political office, in masses around a city hall or capitol building, in Washington... anywhere that doesn't involve making a political spectacle out of women's personal lives (now, should a woman want to make a political statement out of her decision, I think that's totally great, but we cannot assume all women entering or exiting an abortion clinic will think that way). On the personal side, we can (and should) volunteer as escorts at clinics that regularly have crowds of protesters outside. Or donate money, should we have the means, so that these clinics can hire security personnel or paid escorts. There are millions of ways we can be a powerful force in ensuring the political and personal safety of a woman's right to enact control over her own reproductive destiny without further problemitizing her situation.
But Lauren, you might say, What about that weekly demonstration you're trying to get together at the CPC in Greensboro? It did occur to me that that might look like a major contradiction, a lapse of personal morals for the sake of a political agenda on my part, but I have thought it through and think it's just fine. Why? Mainly because CPCs are not the kind of place where potential clientele need to be "left alone," because CPCs do not offer any controversial medical treatments, because they don't offer much legitimate information at all, and sure they may be confused about an unplanned pregnancy when they arrive, but they're bound to be more confused once they get into the CPC. Because CPCs aren't real clinics, and because I am committed to spreading that fact, I find it perfectly fine to stand on the sidewalk near a CPC with signs reading things like "This is not a real clinic," etc. I will not, however, approach any woman going to the CPC. I will only engage these women should they approach me first, and I would encourage my fellow protesters to do the same. While protesters at abortion clinics spread lies around legitimate medical clinics, we would be a force to spread truth around deceptive centers that pose as clinics. And of course that little bit can be argued, but not without getting into the whole abortion debate, and that's a cyclical debate I really don't feel like getting into right now.
Well needless to say, I was excited. I was all ready to make the 11 hour trip (22 total counting return time), missed classes and gas prices be damned. But then I learned that this clinic was still going to be fully operational for a few more weeks. Something at that point didn't sit right with me. I couldn't really explain it at first, but suddenly I was less enthusiastic about going. In fact, I didn't want to go at all.
After some soul-searching, I realized how morally opposed I was to adding fuel to a fire burning extremely close to an operational abortion clinic. After all, each and every time I drive by a Planned Parenthood with protesters, my heart aches. It's not just because I am so angered by the anti-choice extremists and their absolutely awful tactics in forcing women away from these clinics, but because I just can't imagine being a frightened and vulnerable woman having to walk past a crowd trying to make a political case out of your personal life.
I have a friend who volunteers at a Planned Parenthood. Her job is to escort women from their cars past protesters if necessary. As much as she wants to argue with them, she knows she should not for the sake of the woman she is escorting. I feel the exact same way about counter-protesting near a clinic. I put myself in the woman's position... most women are already dealing with so much shit when they make the decision to have an abortion: there's the initial "oh shit I'm pregnant" moment, the often difficult decision about what to do about it (which includes addressing one's own personal morals and societal stigmas), then she has to go in for a procedure that, while safe, is still surgical and, let's face it, no fun at all. While I can see myself defiantly marching past protesters as I go in to have an abortion (or maybe just get my annual pap smear or pick up a new NuvaRing), most women aren't all that comfortable being seen going into a Planned Parenthood by either protesters or passersby. The threat that Operation Rescue will take down your license plate number has to be equally traumatic. That being said, I somehow doubt a frightened woman ducking between signs and banners just to obtain medical care will care WHICH side you're on... I doubt she wants anyone to be out there at all. My presence as a counter-protester, I realized, would only increase her anxiety about being there in the first place regardless of whether I'm there to condemn her or "protect" her. I'm still screaming, arguing, and making a generally political issue over a personal decision.
Now overall, the abortion issue IS political, and I'm not saying it's not. In a perfect world, of course, it wouldn't be. But in our world, where a woman's control over her own body is a battle that has to be waged through discourse on rights and freedoms, birth control and abortion are both political as well as personal issues.
And by that I mean the overall issue is political, but the individual decision, while influenced by political culture, is personal, and I believe that respecting that (very) fine line should be one of the top priorities of the reproductive justice movement. After all, we can't all be Super Badass Jennifer Baumgartner who allegedly exited the clinic after her abortion to join the crowd of counter-protesters outside.
I truly believe counter-protesting outside functioning abortion clinics is more "stooping to their level" than the mainstream pro-choice movement would like to admit. Which begs the question: if we can't confront the likes of Operation Rescue where they thrive, where can we confront them? Or what can we do to ensure the safety and emotional well-being of the women who are entering a clinic well-guarded by antis? Unfortunately, separating our politics from our hearts may have to come into play here. On the political side, we can be a powerful force anywhere else in the world. On any random street corner, in political office, in masses around a city hall or capitol building, in Washington... anywhere that doesn't involve making a political spectacle out of women's personal lives (now, should a woman want to make a political statement out of her decision, I think that's totally great, but we cannot assume all women entering or exiting an abortion clinic will think that way). On the personal side, we can (and should) volunteer as escorts at clinics that regularly have crowds of protesters outside. Or donate money, should we have the means, so that these clinics can hire security personnel or paid escorts. There are millions of ways we can be a powerful force in ensuring the political and personal safety of a woman's right to enact control over her own reproductive destiny without further problemitizing her situation.
But Lauren, you might say, What about that weekly demonstration you're trying to get together at the CPC in Greensboro? It did occur to me that that might look like a major contradiction, a lapse of personal morals for the sake of a political agenda on my part, but I have thought it through and think it's just fine. Why? Mainly because CPCs are not the kind of place where potential clientele need to be "left alone," because CPCs do not offer any controversial medical treatments, because they don't offer much legitimate information at all, and sure they may be confused about an unplanned pregnancy when they arrive, but they're bound to be more confused once they get into the CPC. Because CPCs aren't real clinics, and because I am committed to spreading that fact, I find it perfectly fine to stand on the sidewalk near a CPC with signs reading things like "This is not a real clinic," etc. I will not, however, approach any woman going to the CPC. I will only engage these women should they approach me first, and I would encourage my fellow protesters to do the same. While protesters at abortion clinics spread lies around legitimate medical clinics, we would be a force to spread truth around deceptive centers that pose as clinics. And of course that little bit can be argued, but not without getting into the whole abortion debate, and that's a cyclical debate I really don't feel like getting into right now.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Introducing Bristol Palin, Poster Child for Mommy's Values
When I heard the rumors (yes, rumors) that 4 month old Trig was actually the son of Bristol Palin, daughter of VP candidate Sarah Palin, I'll admit to sharing a private "Oh Snap!" moment. However, the more compelling evidence I read about the subject, the more I started to feel just plain sorry for Bristol. I mean, if these rumors are true, her family structure (as well as the overlying societal structure she lives within) completely disallows Bristol from claiming her own baby. And that's just sad.
Well this morning, the Maverickette spoke out, clearing Bristol's name the only way she could: Bristol can't be 4-month old Trig's mama, because Bristol is 5 months pregnant now! Another private "Oh Snap!" moment.
Wow. Well, okay. That of course doesn't mean (as Nikki suggested) that they're not fudging her pregnancy and she's not pregnant with a second child immediately following the first (it's very easy to get pregnant immediately after birth), but really this is all aside the point.
What interests me here is the way the campaign has handled it. Well okay, the way the campaign has basically HAD to handle it. The family (Sarah and husband) have publicly stated how "proud" they are at Bristol's "decision" to carry to term. Now, I'm not saying Bristol didn't REALLY make that decision on her own, but what good is it considering that's most likely the ONLY option she had regarding her pregnancy? In Alaska (as in many other states), 17-year-old Bristol wouldn't have been able to obtain an abortion without parental consent, and Palin supports that law. In Alaska (as in many other states), Bristol wouldn't have been able to access EC without finding doctor to write an underage woman a prescription without her parents finding out, and Palin supports that law. Let's go to the beginning: in Alaska (as with any state that needs federal funding for schools), Bristol would not have been taught about contraception in school, and given her mother's take on birth control and condoms (she's against them even in marriage), I doubt there was much education at home either.
Bristol Palin is one of thousands of poster children for abstinence-only education. She is one of thousands of young women who find themselves without options due to lack of access or laws barring "underage" women from making their own decisions about their bodies. And worst of all, Bristol Palin has become a convenient political tool for her mother and runningmate to use against the case for reproductive justice, just as Sarah Palin herself has used her decision to carry a fetus known to have Down's Syndrome to term. ("If I can do it, so can you... and you WILL.")
Now my only other thing is this: what if Joe Biden (or, heaven forbid, Barack Obama) had a pregnant teenager? Not being seen as champions of the so-called "pro-life" movement, the Democrats would hardly be able to turn a case which would so obviously have left a horrible taste in the mouths of social conservatives into a politically-OK situation without serious spin (awe, she's marrying the father!), and could have easily destroyed a once-flourishing presidential campaign. In fact, it would have added a great deal of fuel to an already out-of-control fire in regards to the way many see the daughters of more liberal legislators: conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel, for example, believes that legislators with daughters are more liberal on reproductive rights issues because liberal legislators have, and I quote, "slutty daughters." In fact, she went so far as to say they support abortion for "selfish, personal reasons." Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have echoed these sentiments many times over. A pregnant daughter on any Democratic candidate's behalf would please the conservative think-tanks to no end: "Can we really elect a president with such a slutty daughter?" "If he can't raise his daughter to behave right, how can he run a country?" etc etc etc. And if Obama had a pregnant teenage daughter, well, I don't even want to imagine the blatant old-school racism regarding black women's inherent "looseness" that would resonate from the mouths of these pundits.
And yet with Bristol you have the Jaimie Lynn effect. Conservative white girl gets pregnant and, my god, decides to carry to term! And she's getting married to the baby's father. How endearing. (There's just no way the endless financial support from multi-millionaire family members had ANYTHING to do with that decision!) She's not slutty, she's MORAL. She's a poster child for Traditional American Values.
Isn't it amazing how a little spin can turn that frown upside down?
Well this morning, the Maverickette spoke out, clearing Bristol's name the only way she could: Bristol can't be 4-month old Trig's mama, because Bristol is 5 months pregnant now! Another private "Oh Snap!" moment.
Wow. Well, okay. That of course doesn't mean (as Nikki suggested) that they're not fudging her pregnancy and she's not pregnant with a second child immediately following the first (it's very easy to get pregnant immediately after birth), but really this is all aside the point.
What interests me here is the way the campaign has handled it. Well okay, the way the campaign has basically HAD to handle it. The family (Sarah and husband) have publicly stated how "proud" they are at Bristol's "decision" to carry to term. Now, I'm not saying Bristol didn't REALLY make that decision on her own, but what good is it considering that's most likely the ONLY option she had regarding her pregnancy? In Alaska (as in many other states), 17-year-old Bristol wouldn't have been able to obtain an abortion without parental consent, and Palin supports that law. In Alaska (as in many other states), Bristol wouldn't have been able to access EC without finding doctor to write an underage woman a prescription without her parents finding out, and Palin supports that law. Let's go to the beginning: in Alaska (as with any state that needs federal funding for schools), Bristol would not have been taught about contraception in school, and given her mother's take on birth control and condoms (she's against them even in marriage), I doubt there was much education at home either.
Bristol Palin is one of thousands of poster children for abstinence-only education. She is one of thousands of young women who find themselves without options due to lack of access or laws barring "underage" women from making their own decisions about their bodies. And worst of all, Bristol Palin has become a convenient political tool for her mother and runningmate to use against the case for reproductive justice, just as Sarah Palin herself has used her decision to carry a fetus known to have Down's Syndrome to term. ("If I can do it, so can you... and you WILL.")
Now my only other thing is this: what if Joe Biden (or, heaven forbid, Barack Obama) had a pregnant teenager? Not being seen as champions of the so-called "pro-life" movement, the Democrats would hardly be able to turn a case which would so obviously have left a horrible taste in the mouths of social conservatives into a politically-OK situation without serious spin (awe, she's marrying the father!), and could have easily destroyed a once-flourishing presidential campaign. In fact, it would have added a great deal of fuel to an already out-of-control fire in regards to the way many see the daughters of more liberal legislators: conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel, for example, believes that legislators with daughters are more liberal on reproductive rights issues because liberal legislators have, and I quote, "slutty daughters." In fact, she went so far as to say they support abortion for "selfish, personal reasons." Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have echoed these sentiments many times over. A pregnant daughter on any Democratic candidate's behalf would please the conservative think-tanks to no end: "Can we really elect a president with such a slutty daughter?" "If he can't raise his daughter to behave right, how can he run a country?" etc etc etc. And if Obama had a pregnant teenage daughter, well, I don't even want to imagine the blatant old-school racism regarding black women's inherent "looseness" that would resonate from the mouths of these pundits.
And yet with Bristol you have the Jaimie Lynn effect. Conservative white girl gets pregnant and, my god, decides to carry to term! And she's getting married to the baby's father. How endearing. (There's just no way the endless financial support from multi-millionaire family members had ANYTHING to do with that decision!) She's not slutty, she's MORAL. She's a poster child for Traditional American Values.
Isn't it amazing how a little spin can turn that frown upside down?
Friday, August 29, 2008
Election perspectives from an independent
Please don't misconstrue my "independent" status as "moderate". I'm not a moderate in any way shape or form... that would make choosing a candidate easier, but gaining perspective a whole lot harder.
It's been interesting, myself, hardly putting her hopes and dreams in the hands of a bipartisan system, watching this circus unfold. And yes, I'll admit, I get carried away with Obama now and then. Hell, the man is a DAMN GOOD speaker. I mean really good. Charlie and I noted last night that during his entire 1 hour speech, he never once looked down at a card, and there was just no way he could have been reading from a teleprompter at that stadium.
Of course that's no reason to vote for someone. But I truly did like 80% of what he was saying. Unfortunately I know what he represents, and knowing that, I know he won't necessarily deliver. I know I have to take these things into my own hands... let me rephrase, I know WE have to take these things into OUR own hands.
It's not just that McCain is boring and Bush comes off as an idiot (he's not) that we dislike them... that's just comedic value, perspectives used to make us laugh and create an overly simplistic view on the real threats facing us. And there are real threats. John McCain, who not only believes that life begins at CONCEPTION but believes that that belief should be legislated, who not only believes women should stay at home but that companies shouldn't be required to pay women equal pay for equal work, who not only turns up his nose at the very real challenges facing working class women but actually blames them for it... these anti-woman policies cannot be erased by simply nominating a similarly sexist woman as your veep. The thing is, who really knows much about Sarah Palin? She's hardly outspoken, not one of the contenders in the primaries, so on the surface, McCain is "doing women a favor," giving them "representation" on his ticket the way the Dems refused to.
It's pure danger. Suppose the woman McCain picked had been Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Jill Stanek, or Bay Buchanan? No Hillary-supporters-turned-swing-voters there. However, a quick peek at Palin's "on the issues" page will reveal Sarah Palin as nothing more than the worst of the worst balled up into one... except, obviously, the belief held by Schafly that women should stay at home (no place in Government, no sir-ee!). Sarah Palin has been endorsed by the Eagle Forum, an anti-choice, anti-GLBTQ group that demonizes feminism as a "rebellion against God" and has enacted an agenda to fill governmental policy with such beliefs. She has even used her own case of having her fifth child diagnosed with Downs Syndrome in-utero instead of terminating the pregnancy as a political stance against other women's personal decisions to abort.
Granted Obama's decidedly fuzzy stance on late term abortion would have probably disallowed Palin from being able to terminate due to Downs (a condition only feasibly detected in the 3rd term of pregnancy). Or not... maybe Obama, like other supporters of the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban, doesn't care to ban the more unsafe of the two later term procedures, D&E (ID&E, the procedure specifically targeted by the ban, is safer for the woman and has a much lower rate of complications). I'm not really sure. What I do know is that Obama supports a state's right to limit access to 3rd term abortion regardless of situation.
We shall see. And hey, I may be pleasantly surprised. If I am, I will GLADLY eat my words. I will not, however, go into this election season hungry in anticipation.
It's been interesting, myself, hardly putting her hopes and dreams in the hands of a bipartisan system, watching this circus unfold. And yes, I'll admit, I get carried away with Obama now and then. Hell, the man is a DAMN GOOD speaker. I mean really good. Charlie and I noted last night that during his entire 1 hour speech, he never once looked down at a card, and there was just no way he could have been reading from a teleprompter at that stadium.
Of course that's no reason to vote for someone. But I truly did like 80% of what he was saying. Unfortunately I know what he represents, and knowing that, I know he won't necessarily deliver. I know I have to take these things into my own hands... let me rephrase, I know WE have to take these things into OUR own hands.
It's not just that McCain is boring and Bush comes off as an idiot (he's not) that we dislike them... that's just comedic value, perspectives used to make us laugh and create an overly simplistic view on the real threats facing us. And there are real threats. John McCain, who not only believes that life begins at CONCEPTION but believes that that belief should be legislated, who not only believes women should stay at home but that companies shouldn't be required to pay women equal pay for equal work, who not only turns up his nose at the very real challenges facing working class women but actually blames them for it... these anti-woman policies cannot be erased by simply nominating a similarly sexist woman as your veep. The thing is, who really knows much about Sarah Palin? She's hardly outspoken, not one of the contenders in the primaries, so on the surface, McCain is "doing women a favor," giving them "representation" on his ticket the way the Dems refused to.
It's pure danger. Suppose the woman McCain picked had been Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, Jill Stanek, or Bay Buchanan? No Hillary-supporters-turned-swing-voters there. However, a quick peek at Palin's "on the issues" page will reveal Sarah Palin as nothing more than the worst of the worst balled up into one... except, obviously, the belief held by Schafly that women should stay at home (no place in Government, no sir-ee!). Sarah Palin has been endorsed by the Eagle Forum, an anti-choice, anti-GLBTQ group that demonizes feminism as a "rebellion against God" and has enacted an agenda to fill governmental policy with such beliefs. She has even used her own case of having her fifth child diagnosed with Downs Syndrome in-utero instead of terminating the pregnancy as a political stance against other women's personal decisions to abort.
Granted Obama's decidedly fuzzy stance on late term abortion would have probably disallowed Palin from being able to terminate due to Downs (a condition only feasibly detected in the 3rd term of pregnancy). Or not... maybe Obama, like other supporters of the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban, doesn't care to ban the more unsafe of the two later term procedures, D&E (ID&E, the procedure specifically targeted by the ban, is safer for the woman and has a much lower rate of complications). I'm not really sure. What I do know is that Obama supports a state's right to limit access to 3rd term abortion regardless of situation.
We shall see. And hey, I may be pleasantly surprised. If I am, I will GLADLY eat my words. I will not, however, go into this election season hungry in anticipation.
Friday, August 22, 2008
In other news, Jill Stanek is batshit crazy.
I was reading this News Hounds report on anti-choice extremist Jill Stanek's August 20th appearance on Hannity and Colmes. She was there to discuss Barack Obama's alleged "support of infanticide" for voting against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act". Obama, then a state Senator, voted against the bill not because he was against protecting infants who survive what Bill authors called a "botched late-term abortion," but because the language of the bill is worded in such a way that could encroach on reproductive rights. According to Obama, Illinois already had similar legislation in place without such anti-choice language, and besides, what medical professional would leave an alive infant, whether the product of an induced abortion or not, to die on the exam table?
I feel I must interject here that I am not 100% behind Obama as a candidate, especially in the realm of reproductive politics. His record here has not been perfect, hence his candidacy for president of this country. In his early days as an Illinois state senator, he voted "present" many times over on controversial issues surrounding issues of birth control and abortion. His policy on late-term abortion is short-sighted and does not take a lot into account.
However, there's all kinds of information floating around on the internet, in media sources, etc about Obama's lack of support for the "Born Alive" act that's, well, anti-choice-created bullshit, and I want to point the finger at that. Stanek's appearance on Hannity and Colmes was a perfect example of this.
Jill Stanek, interviewed the entire time by Sean Hannity without any interruption or constructive debate from Colmes (very fair and balanced, indeed), claims to have "cradled" an aborted fetus who was "born alive" as it died in her arms in a hospital utility closet. In fact, she told that story under oath during the Born Alive hearings. However, her claims have been refuted by the hospital she was at that point working at, saying that she would have been unable to carry a fetus from a procedure room to a utility closet without getting picked up by security camera, and no such video exists.
Who really knows if this cradling-infant-incident really happened or if it was just a figment of Stanek's imagination. Either way, there was, in fact, already state legislation in place to protect said born-alive infant. Stanek obviously just wasn't pleased with that version of the bill and wanted more, i.e., criminalized abortion in all three trimesters of pregnancy. I mean, this is Jill Stanek, who praises Godfather character Michael Corleone for hitting his wife after she told him she'd had an abortion:
I rest my case.
BTW, here's Obama's response to the controversy surrounding his voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_V0UPUkXhA
I feel I must interject here that I am not 100% behind Obama as a candidate, especially in the realm of reproductive politics. His record here has not been perfect, hence his candidacy for president of this country. In his early days as an Illinois state senator, he voted "present" many times over on controversial issues surrounding issues of birth control and abortion. His policy on late-term abortion is short-sighted and does not take a lot into account.
However, there's all kinds of information floating around on the internet, in media sources, etc about Obama's lack of support for the "Born Alive" act that's, well, anti-choice-created bullshit, and I want to point the finger at that. Stanek's appearance on Hannity and Colmes was a perfect example of this.
Jill Stanek, interviewed the entire time by Sean Hannity without any interruption or constructive debate from Colmes (very fair and balanced, indeed), claims to have "cradled" an aborted fetus who was "born alive" as it died in her arms in a hospital utility closet. In fact, she told that story under oath during the Born Alive hearings. However, her claims have been refuted by the hospital she was at that point working at, saying that she would have been unable to carry a fetus from a procedure room to a utility closet without getting picked up by security camera, and no such video exists.
Who really knows if this cradling-infant-incident really happened or if it was just a figment of Stanek's imagination. Either way, there was, in fact, already state legislation in place to protect said born-alive infant. Stanek obviously just wasn't pleased with that version of the bill and wanted more, i.e., criminalized abortion in all three trimesters of pregnancy. I mean, this is Jill Stanek, who praises Godfather character Michael Corleone for hitting his wife after she told him she'd had an abortion:
- That spontaneous slap was the reaction of a real man who a woman had just told she aborted his baby. Compare that to the modern day cowardly male response, "It's your choice. Whatever you decide, I'll support you."
{Emphasis mine}
I rest my case.
BTW, here's Obama's response to the controversy surrounding his voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_V0UPUkXhA
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
