anythings.org

The Kentucky Senate has passed a bill that, if passed in the House, will ban universities and state agencies from offering benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees.

Even worse than the actual decision is the way the Courier Journal describes those who voted against it. One was labeled a “homosexual” after his only quote in the article. The entire article is riddled with quotes about why people felt this ban should be passed. Of course, the big shocker, religious values played a huge part. Vernie McGaha, R-Russell Springs, the bill’s sponsor, said:

“I do not recognize domestic partnerships as being a correct thing. My Bible teaches against it.”

Of course, the ridiculous thing behind it all, is that it hurts the Universities in the area. It also hurts the students, who may not get a top quality education in Kentucky because the University couldn’t recruit one expert due to their sexuality and lack of available partner benefits.

University presidents have opposed the bill, saying it hurts their ability to recruit researchers and professors.

University of Louisville trustees voted in 2006 to become the state’s first public university to extend health-insurance benefits to unmarried domestic partners, including homosexuals. the University of Kentucky followed suit, and Eastern Kentucky University is looking at the issue.

Nearly 300 universities and colleges across the country, and more than half of the Fortune 500 companies, provide such benefits, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy group based in Washington.

“Our position is and remains that we are hopeful the legislature will allow the universities to have the flexibility to make health-care decisions for their employees and their families,” UK spokesman Jay Blanton said.

U of L spokesman John Drees said the bill would make it difficult to work toward its goal of becoming a top metropolitan research university — a goal the General Assembly set in 1997.

“If you want to compete with the best universities and the best corporations, you need to be able to offer the same types of benefits they offer,” he said.

This just SCREAMS DISCRIMINATION! I never understood why sexuality was such a difficult thing for people to comprehend discrimination of. Religions are constantly fighting for their right not to be discriminated against, and yet, that is a chosen identity. Identities that you are born with, such as gender (unless you change it), race, etc have been protected from discrimination for quite awhile… but sexuality has not. And that’s because the church has people believing that homosexuality is a choice, and therefore a sin:

They also see a homosexual orientation as being a choice. Because they see this “behavior” as wrong (at one point, it was criminal) and preventable, they view the LGBT community as asking for special rights that allow them access to the insitutions that privilege heterosexuals. The process goes something like this: if sin as a choice, and homosexuality is a sin, then homosexuality must be a chosen path. This argument is, essentially, flawed because it is based on the idea that being LGBT is a choice. (For the sake of time and length, I am not going to go into LGBT as being inborn v. chosen v. environmental debate. My reasons for this are because the Christian Right does not, so I do not need to do so to deconstruct their argument.)

Religious identity is a choice. And according to the Christian Right, being “a homosexual” is also a choice. If religious identity wasn’t a choice, it would be assigned in the ways that gender and race are. Religion is, however, a chosen identity.

Religion is, also, protected by the Consitution. Sexuality is not. This is special rights. The Christian Right’s response to this accusation is that they are not special rights because the designers of the Consitution put them in there, so they shouldn’t be removed. While it is true that religion was added into the Consitution and is protected by law, this response to the argument that religious identity does not dodge the issue of special rights. This still doesn’t answer the question of why religion gets protection but sexuality does not.

Chosen identity or not, there is simply not reason whatsoever that a person’s “choice” to be gay (or straight!) should lead to discrimination in every aspect of their life. The right to marry, secure health care from a partner, safe work environments and protection from employment discrimination, adoption, child custody, and more, are all rights that are not granted to LGBT individuals at the federal level. Instead, they are granted on a case-by-case basis.

My advice? Move to California. It’s nice.

Now I know why I never went ivy. A group of Zeta Psi pledges gathered up outside the Yale Women’s Center with a derogatory sign were completely blocking entrance to the center. Do you think you would be able to break through a group of 12 fraternity boys to get into the Women’s Center for your rape counseling? I’m doubtful I would take on that challenge, even if I needed to go to the bathroom and the YWC was the only bathroom within 10 miles walking distance.

Following a frat stunt picturing twelve alleged Zeta Psis with a sign reading WE LOVE YALE SLUTS by the Yale Women’s Center, the Women’s Center is threatening to sue. From the Women’s Center directly:

The gentlemen of Zeta Psi have apologized to “YALE SLUTS” — but only for what they thought they’d been caught for. They didn’t apologize for chanting “dick” outside the Women’s Center before their photo-op, and intimidating a female student from entering the Center (which, by the way, services rape victims — roughly 25 percent of women). They didn’t apologize for using the word “slut,” and being proud of it. They didn’t apologize for committing premeditated hate speech, for documenting that hate speech with pride, or for exalting it on Facebook.

And they didn’t apologize at all until we threatened legal action. The bigotry of Zeta Psi is unexceptional. It is pervasive, at Yale and around the world. This sort of behavior has to change, everywhere, here, and right now.

Of course, their apology was ridiculously lame. No word from the national front, which is no surprised if you ask me.

Although, I guess, if you were single and desperate for a boyfriend, you could always knock on the door of the Zeta Psi house and say “hey! I’m a slut! I go to the Yale Women’s Center! Date me!”

Right…

Why do you vote pro-choice? For me, this has always been an easy question to answer. I vote pro-choice because, above all, I think every woman has the right to decide what is best for her, her future, her potential baby, and her life. Instead of enforcing strict, and more importantly, restrictive, policies on all women, I believe that women should be granted access to the most liberal policies and allowed to make their own decisions.

If you can’t trust a woman to make her own decisions about her life, then what are you saying about half of the human species? Does a uterus make women completely incapable of deciding what is best for their bodies and their life? Does lacking a penis make it impossible for women to make logical decisions about their reproductive, physical, and mental health? I didn’t think so. The bottom line is, by taking away abortion rights, Republicans are telling women one thing: they don’t trust us to make our own decisions.

It’s really that simple. I wish I had more to say, but that’s all there is to it. And maybe, well, KEEP YOUR ROSARIES OFF MY OVARY!

(Yes, ovary. I only have one.)

When I moved last August, the boyfriend told me that I had too many books. I had to buy the biggest bookshelf at IKEA in order to accommodate them all, and I’ve already run out of room. I can’t fit another bookshelf in my room, but I keep trying to cram more books onto the shelf and into my room. But despite the fact that my bookshelf is overflowing and my room is stock full of yarn and books to the point that I can barely move without stepping on one of the three cats I live with, I keep buying books.

Now, I don’t buy all of my books brand new. I buy most of them used from independent sellers at various online marketplaces or Powells. I do purchase the occasional book new if I know it will be essential to my future graduate school studies, or if I just really really want it. And I have a membership at Audible, so I do download some of my books and listen to them rather than actually purchasing them. But this doesn’t seem to be easing the burden on my bookshelf.

The problem isn’t the money I’m spending. The problem is the space I have officially run out of. Another, slightly larger, problem might be the fact that the boyfriend, father, and brother may refuse to help me move this coming August if I have acquired too many books. All they did last time was complain about how many boxes full of books I had. In my defense, I did put as many books as possible in each box… therefore making it too heavy for me to carry, and forcing the responsibility onto those with much more upper body strength. This was not some coy plan to make everyone but me do the heavy lifting, it was a genuine concern that I may run out of boxes.

But the big, glaring, obvious thing is: I have a problem, I am addicted to books. I pick them up, start them, and finish them months later. I think right now I’m reading 5 books and listening to 1. I used to be the kind of girl who would salivate thinking about finishing my latest book. It’s not that I’m uninterested in my current reading selections, everything I’m reading is fabulous. I’m just so distracted by my knitting that it makes it difficult to find time to read.

And seeing as how I just got 24 balls of yarn yesterday, I find it highly unlikely I’ll be quitting knitting any time soon…

I had the great privilege of seeing Bill Clinton speak at UC Davis last night. After waiting in the cold for over 2.5 hours to get inside, I was pleased to discover I was fewer than 20 feet away from the stage. My “review” of the rally is up on Dollymix.tv. Below you will find a selection of the best pictures I took last night. I took over 100 to make sure I got a few good ones to take home with me.

Join President Bill Clinton at UC Davis Rally!

When
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 8:30 PM - 9:30 PM

Where
University of California Davis
760 Orchard Road
Davis, CA 95616
General Area: The Activities & Recreation Center; Arc Basketball Court

Description
Join President Bill Clinton as he takes the stage at UC Davis to lead a Students for Change Rally in support of Senator Hillary Clinton! This event also features Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, and is sponsored by the UC Davis College Democrats. This rally is FREE to the public. Doors will open at 8:30 p.m. and the event will take place at The Activities & Recreation Center; Arc Basketball Court on campus. For any questions, please call our San Francisco Headquarters at (415) 255-7431 or email us at YoloCountyforHillary@gmail.com.

Host
Hillary for President Events

Also, if you live near Sacramento, you can go to the opening party at Clinton’s new campaign office tonight. I will probably be at the UC Davis rally tonight since I live a few blocks away. I also may be stopping by the new campaign office on my way home from work since my office is downtown.

Sacramento Office Opening & Debate Watch Party!

When
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 5:30 PM - 8:00 PM

Where
Sacramento Clinton Campaign Headquarters
One Capitol Mall, Suite 660
Sacramento, CA 95814
General Area: Capitol Mall

Description
The Clinton Campaign will host a party to celebrate the opening of the campaign’s Sacramento Field Office this Tuesday, January 15 at 5:30 p.m. pst. Attendees will also have the opportunity to watch a live broadcast of the MSNBC Nevada Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. pst. Please call (515) 508-9004 with any questions or email SacramentoCountyforHillary@gmail.com.

Host
Hillary for President Events

JANUARY 11, 2008, is the six-year anniversary of the first arrival of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

On January 11, we are calling on everyone opposed to torture and indefinite detention to WEAR ORANGE to symbolize their sadness and disgust with the national shame that is Guantánamo Bay.

Close Guantánamo Bay

A huge congratulations to Clinton for being the first woman in history to win a primary for a major political party!

This is a gigantic leap for women and I hope it is only a preview of the steps women will be taking in the future.

When talking about doctors giving women abortions and holding the doctors - but not the women - accountable when (not if) he makes abortion illegal and shoves women back into their barefoot and pregnant lifestyles, my least favorite person said the following of the woman seeking an abortion:

I consider her a victim, not a criminal.

A WOMAN IS NOT A VICTIM OF HER OWN CHOICES. A woman is not a victim when she gets up in the morning, puts on jeans and a sweatshirt, and walks past a man who has an urge to kidnap and murder a woman wearing jeans and a sweatshirt. A 12 year-old girl is not a victim when she decides to walk home from school instead of taking the bus and gets raped by a scary old man who likes to eat girls and bury their bones in his basement.

However, Huckabee’s stance is the only “easy” way to get around the question without hurting your poor, teeny, tiny Republican brain to to blame the doctor, not the woman. Who went to the doctor’s office. Specifically to get an abortion. And got one. Because that makes sense…

If you criminalize abortion, you have to punish the woman who gets it, or not make it illegal in the first place. Apparently, the Republicans don’t understand this concept.

Let’s try an analogy for those who cannot wrap their brains around it: let’s pretend buying cars is illegal. A lovely Mormon wife (gag) with her 8 full clothed and perfectly behaved children goes to purchase a minivan to haul around said children. She pays a fair price for the minivan, is satisfied, and drives away happily, knowing her quality of life is now much better, even though she has risked great harm to herself, her family, and her children by engaging in this grave illegal act of purchasing a car. The police discover her terrible crime, they pat her on the head “You silly woman!” they say, “You know buying cars is illegal!” and they run off and arrest the person she purchased the car from.

It would, of course, just make more sense for abortion to stay SAFE, LEGAL, and ACCESSIBLE to women of all ages, races, socio-economic status, and location.

(Also, please, laugh with me as you realize Huckabee believes the “her” in victim is always a woman, but that the abortion provider is always, without a doubt, a man. Probably an atheist Democrat trying to steal the aborted fetus for stem cell research.)

Having a semi-scientific background and understanding the ways in which scientific studies work, I have to say I was more than a little miffed to read this article about a study done linking adolescent girls’ weight to their perception of their own popularity. They claimed that girls who viewed themselves as unpopular gained more weight over a two year period than girls who viewed themselves as popular. What was the weight difference, you ask? Popular girls only gained 6.5 pounds over two years, while unpopular girls gained 11.

While how a woman feels about herself can be important when looking at her weight gain and loss, it isn’t always the source of their “fat”. I have met fat, popular high school girls and I have also met skinny unpopular high school girls - all whose happiness did not hinge on their weight. But then again, what one person knows isn’t true for the entire world of American high schoolers. Unless, of course, I’m completely off base here and everyone is walking around high school in mini skirts and stilettos like the ladies of Mean Girls.

Now, maybe it’s just me being “old” and “uncool” (ok, I’m 22, I’m not that old and uncool)… but have things really changed so much since I was in high school? Sure, girls were dieting and drinking Slim Fast for lunch - or skipping lunch altogether - but they were not nearly as concerned with their weight as high school girls are today. The last time I sat in a room surrounded by 15 year old girls was only a few months ago and all they seemed to care about what their weight, their appearance, and how this would attract boys. They spent eons criticizing other girls out of the yearbook or on their MySpace pages and almost as long looking at themselves in a mirror. Maybe it’s because I went to high school in a smaller and less urban town, but there is something wrong with this picture. Are young girls really connecting thinness with popularity?

Of course, we can always blame the celebrities, models, and other worthlessly famous individuals for this sudden “thin is in” craze. We can even blame Apple, Inc. for their last iMac commercial - “Thin is Powerful.” But really, can we blame anybody? Thin has been in for quite awhile. We can’t blame Lindsay Lohan or Nicole Richie for a trend that has been raging for years - more years than I think most of us have been alive.

While I’m sure being rail thin, but supple in all the right places, has helped many actresses and talentless famous people further their “careers”, is it really helping people in the real world? Other than the occasional “scientific study” claiming pretty people get hired more frequently and those of us blessed with an hourglass body make more money, there isn’t really much of a claim to be had by being thin.

One minor reflection on the previously mentioned study: they compared girls using their self-reports of popularity. While they are claiming to link a girls “self-image” of her popularity with her weight, how do we know this wasn’t impacted by a psychological illness such as depression, or even more serious life events such as sexual assault, family problems, or trouble with classes? Or, even more minor in a researcher’s eye, a recent break-up with a boy who told a girl she was disgusting and nobody would ever love her? In addition to this, they compared 4,264 self-reported popular girls with only 182 self-reported unpopular girls, leaving quite a few questions unanswered as far as I’m concerned.

This study is trying to link a poor self-image of popularity with unhappiness by preying on our deeply ingrained stereotypes that nobody likes a fat girl.

While the data for this study was taken in 1999, they are interpreting the it with today’s societal perceptions of body image and weight, which have become more and more in favor of increasingly thinner bodies. I was a high school freshman just turning 15 in 1999 and I knew I was dreadfully unpopular. Hell, I was even harassed on a daily basis for being rail thin and flat as a board and I still didn’t gain the weight this study is claiming the girls they took data on did. I didn’t even weigh 100 pounds, and didn’t hit anything above 110 until after I was in college for two years. While my weight is mostly due to genetics, my self-image didn’t have much of an impact on whether or not I gained weight.

But then again, I like to think of myself as a fairly logical and level-headed person: I don’t connect two variables together that are entirely unrelated and try to draw conclusions to support society’s stereotypes.