anythings.org

Courtesy of Shakesville, I found an absolutely disgusting story on ABC News today:

Hillary At White House on ‘Stained Blue Dress’ Day
Schedules Reviewed by ABC Show Hillary May Have Been in the White House When the Fateful Act Was Committed

Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been in the White House when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives.

I have to say that I am completely shocked that ABC would even consider this as news. This story was published to embarrass Senator Clinton, plain and simple. This is not news! In now way, shape, or form is this news! I also like how they call her “Hillary” in the header: almost as if it doesn’t matter that she’s a Senator or a Democratic presidential candidate.

From Shakesville:

Susie Madrak says, “In all my years in journalism, I’ve never seen anything quite as disgusting as this,” while Brad Friedman notes, “A more shameful display of ‘journalism’, we don’t believe we’ve ever seen.”

Meanwhile, Lambert offers dryly: “Some people are of the opinion that misogyny has been pervasive in this campaign. How could they have gotten such a crazy idea?” Indeed.

And it doesn’t matter whether you support Hillary or not; letting the media get away with this tactic against her only legitimizes and tacitly encourages it, which means they’ll inevitably use it against everyone.

You can contact Brian Ross of ABC (the genius behind this spectacular piece) and the Executive VP of ABC News Dave Davis from the information Susie Madrak has here. Make sure to be concise, polite, and to the point in any messages you send their way. We don’t want to stoop to their level!

You can also check our more at Salon, Gina Cobb, Feministe, Slate, Glenn Greenwald, and probably dozens more.

As a woman who falls into the 18-24 and sexually active statistic, it should come as no surprise that I have used emergency contraception at least once in my life. I am lucky enough to live in a liberal town where access to Plan B (and other emergency contraceptives) is readily available without scrutiny.

However, many woman do not live in towns where they can obtain Plan B without scrutiny, discrimination, or harassment. Some women aren’t even aware that Plan B is available to them (at a steep cost) without a prescription from their local pharmacy. In an effort to combat the lack of knowledge, resources, and availability of emergency contraceptives, Back Up Your Birth Control has launched a Day of Action to increase awareness surrounding this vital piece of women’s reproductive health.

From Back Up Your Birth Control:

Back Up Your Birth Control (BUYBC) is a national campaign to expand access to EC by increasing EC education and awareness.

2008 BACK UP YOUR BIRTH CONTROL DAY OF ACTION

The Back Up Your Birth Control Campaign Day of Action is March 25, 2008! Join advocates across the country in raising awareness of EC and ensuring that every woman can back up her birth control with EC when and if she needs it.

FEATURED 2008 BACK UP YOUR BIRTH CONTROL ACTIVITIES

The 2008 Day of Action is dedicated to making EC available to all women regardless of their income, insurance coverage or immigration status. While we celebrate the FDA decision that made EC available over-the-counter to women 18 and older, we know that the high cost of EC over-the counter, usually between $40-70 in pharmacies nationwide, is a continuing barrier to some women accessing EC. Making the situation even worse is the fact that many college health centers and safety-net family planning clinics have had to drastically increase the cost of regular birth control methods because of a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act passed in 2005 that eliminated discounts on birth control for these clinics. This means that the four million college-age women across America – along with low-income women who rely on the 400 safety-net family planning clinics – may need to back up their birth control now more than ever before.

This year’s campaign will focus on:

• Raising awareness of the barrier to EC access posed by the high cost of EC over-the-counter
• Educating women, and teens who can’t access EC OTC, about sources of free and low-cost EC in their communities
• Encouraging and providing resources for advocates who are working for a resolution of the DRA price increase
• Highlighting innovative models that advocates and health departments across the country are implementing to help increase access to affordable EC (including free EC days, websites that help women compare EC prices at their area pharmacies, states covering EC OTC under their Medicaid programs, etc.)

Check out their website for more ways to get involved in this year’s Day of Action!

I guess today is the day for humor! As I’m sure everyone knows, the Vatican has just recently released new sins. Yes, much like a summer blockbuster or a new fashion line, the Vatican decided to get hip with the times and tell everyone that there are more things they need to not do in order to get into heaven.

Of course, the hilarious part is the sins are totally and completely political. Some, quite ironically, are liberal… but the majority, in true Catholic fashion, are conservative and completely irrelevant to your level of innocence and sin free-ness.

The new sins also are seven in number, and as far as I can tell, have not been advertised with quite the “deadly” fervor of the original sins, even though they are (apparently) also considered deadly. The Catholic Church divides sins into venial, or less serious, sins and mortal sins, which threaten the soul with eternal damnation unless absolved before death through confession and penitence. Guess what kind the new sins are? Yup! Mortal! Mmm death by hellfire!

Side note: this is going to be confusing, now there are original sins and new sins - as opposed to original sin, which is one particular type of act. Damn Catholicism and their sins.

For the record, the original seven deadly sins are:

1. Pride
2. Envy
3. Gluttony
4. Lust
5. Anger
6. Greed
7. Sloth

While I can understand the root in the original seven deadly sins, I don’t really understand how some of the new sins are, well, deadly. Unless, of course, you’re a Democrat, in which case there is also a nice cozy chair made of nails and thumb tacks for you right next to Satan and Bill Clinton. The new sins are decidedly political in nature, and somewhat amusing, especially since they don’t contain pedophilia, which is kind of a huge hello, DUH.

1. Bioethical violations: birth control seems to be the big example everyone is using. So, apparently, it is now a sin punishable by death and eternal hellfire to wrap it up or pop a pill that prevents pregnancy. Courteous of Mark Morford: “Speaking of babies, here’s a terrific new statistic: 25-40 percent of American teenage girls have a sexually transmitted disease. Isn’t that wonderful? Abstinence education has been a blessing and a joy.” I’m thinking adding “bioethical violations” to the list of deadly sins isn’t going to help that problem.
   
2. “Morally dubious” experiments such as stem cell research. You know the Catholic church had to squeeze something in there related to abortion, they just had to. And, of course, the only way the Catholic church sees stem cell research is as a close cousin, or hell, maybe sibling, to abortion.
3. Drug abuse: duh, but somehow I think their definition of drug abuse is vastly different from mine or the legal and psychological definitions.
4. Polluting the environment: a shockingly liberal point of view, if they mean saving the trees and oceans and fluffy baby penguins. However, they could also mean polluting the environment by talking about sex, drugs, and alcohol, so maybe not.
5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor: so, basically, you can’t be a Republican. How sad!
6. Excessive wealth: this one just makes me giggle. I mean, the Catholic church saying excessive wealth is a sin? Are you serious? Again, thank you Mark Morford for writing what I was thinking: “I also enjoyed the new sin of excessive wealth, given how the Vatican is one of the most — if not the most — gluttonously wealthy organizations on the planet, oozing with real estate and massive stock portfolios, dripping with cash, billions of dollars in hoarded treasure and unknown gems, icons, art, the solid gold vaginas of 1,000 pagan goddesses locked up in its vaults. The hypocrisy is positively comical. Epic.”
7. Creating poverty: …

I AM SO GOING TO HELL.

Is it just me, or are sins #5-7 all related to wealth? Couldn’t they have just combined that all into one happy sin? Apparently not. I guess the whole point was to not have excessive wealth by donating to the Catholic church so they could use some of that to stop poverty.And because I always find a way to tie everything back to women, feminism, and reproductive health:

Note to the Vatican: You want true sin? Here you go: Lying to women is a sin. Pathological hypocrisy is a sin. Half a billion dollars in pedophilia lawsuit payouts is a sin. Homophobia is a sin. Hiding those golden vaginas is a sin. And creating new sins in a strange attempt to stay relevant as your church withers and struggles and falters in the new and spiritually hungry but religiously mistrustful world, that’s surely a sin.

No, wait. Check that. That’s not a sin at all. It’s actually just a sad, inexcusable joke.

See! I don’t hate the Catholic church. I just find them absolutely hilarious and moderately (to severely, depending on the day) annoying.

[Image via Getty]

While I’d rather not discuss the whole Elliot Spitzer thing, I found this absolutely hilarious:

Most of the focus was on “Kristen”, the prostitute he met at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington DC and booked for $1,000 an hour. She was described as, “American, petite, very pretty, brunette, 5 feet 5 inches, and 105 pounds”.

My female friends in New York were outraged. “105 pounds? No way.”

This was the biggest grievance. Not that she was a hooker. Or even that she was from New Jersey. The fact that somewhere along the line she had claimed to weigh 105 lbs and now it was being printed as fact. “Come on!” My friend Heather fumed. “No one weighs that unless they’re 12.”

After that, the biggest complaint was the money. $80,000? And he wouldn’t pay the extra $50 for her to travel on the business-class train from NY to DC – she had to go coach.

But also, there was bewilderment. The Governor’s wife, the lovely Silda Wall Spitzer, was standing by her man. She did not look happy. Why was she there?

“If my husband spent that kind of money on 105-lb ho’s” my friend, Laura, said, “I would demand he give me the same amount to spend the following months in the nicest hotel in the Seychelles while he faced the press all by himself.”

I couldn’t figure out which was more disturbing for her – that he spent the money, or that he spent it on someone who weighed 105 lb.

He he hee… hilarious! As someone who is under 5′5″ and thin, I also find it difficult to believe that she was 105 pounds, but really, that wouldn’t have been my complaint either.

[Image via Getty]

Apparently, a company called Pipedream Products (google at your own risk) produces celebrity blow up sex dolls as part of their “Super Star Series”. They have dolls of:

Eva Longoria: she’s your whore next door!
Lindsay Lohan: no witty slogan, just references to her bad driving and Herbie movie
Jessica Simpson: Crazy Daisy! (pictured)
Jessica Alba: Jessica Sin, explore the dark side of this sexy lil angel!
Sarah Jessica Parker: Sex in her Shitty, She loves Big!, and Sarah Jessica Porkher

You can view all of the images here (if you dare). While some of the dolls do not look identical to the real person, they similarities are uncanny, especially when they borrow from current or past roles to encourage the sense of familiarity and desire.

This is absolutely disgusting. While I am horrified by sex dolls and the way they objectify women’s bodies for the sole purpose of sexual fulfillment, I am sick to my stomach at the thought of these dolls being produced. I’m not big on lawsuits, but I could definitely get behind any of these women for suing the shit out of Pipedream Products for producing sex dolls in their likeness.

I can understand that for some people, sex dolls are an innocent fetish and they do not intend to objectify women… but too bad. You do. A sex doll is 100% under the control of its owner and serves as a passive sex object. These women did not consent for their likeness to be used to create a sex toy, and highly doubt many women (except for those who have willingly entered the sex industry) would.

There is a huge difference between female porn stars and these dolls. For one, (most) female porn stars provide their consent every time they make a pornographic film. For another, well, they have a pulse. I don’t really know what I can say to illustrate the vast difference between sex workers and sex toys. Some sex workers feel a sense of agency in their work, while others are forced into it and suffer from violence, drug addiction, and STDs. Sex toys, more accurately sex dolls, are not alive, they cannot consent. They are passive recipients, to put it mildly. For the women whose likenesses have been used to create these dolls, I’m sure it’s a more horrifying experience and an extreme personal violation. I highly doubt they see the dolls as passive recipients of sex.

[Image from Splash News]

When I was younger I was quite the reader. I liked to read because I wanted to be just like my mom (and I still do want to be just like my mom, hence the knitting and the reading) and she loved reading, too. After my brother was born, we spent a lot of time trying to prepare him for school by teaching him how to write and read (he has Asperger’s). When we started working with my brother, I started reading more because my mom began purchasing books that were shorter, quicker, and easier to read. I like books that go by quickly, even if they are 700 page bricks. But the one author I never liked was Dr. Seuss.

I was scared to death of Dr. Seuss. The rhymes, the scary pictures, the political undertones, it was all too much for little four year-old me. The only Dr. Seuss book I read was I’ll Teach My Dog 100 Words - which I probably still have memorized. And then, one day, even though she knew better, my mom brought home Horton Hears A Who!. I begrudgingly read the book, and it ended up being one of my favorite books as a child. As an adult, I even have a Horton Hears A Who! tshirt with his catch phrase “a person’s a person, no matter how small.”

So this weekend I went to see the movie. I was excited for many different reasons, but the two most prominent being 1.) Horton!! and 2.) amazing new animation technologies. And I can just say, I really really do not like it when my childhood memories get hijacked by wing nuts.

From AlterNet:

Anti-choicers demonstrate at a children’s movie to claim that “a person’s a person no matter how small” — unless that person has a uterus.

The book was written in 1954, long before Roe v. Wade and the modern framework of the abortion debate. If Seuss’ simple rhymes do contain social commentary, they appear to be a condemnation of Cold War era paranoia. But context doesn’t matter to the anti-choice crowd — in fact a quick internet search reveals that there are many out there who believe that God spoke through the decidedly liberal Seuss’ pen, willing him to write this line that can now be used to justify a movement he didn’t support. They are undeterred by Seuss’ widow’s support for Planned Parenthood and an interview with Seuss Scholar Philip Nel, who said that the author threatened lawsuits against anti-choice groups: “It’s one of the ways in which Seuss has been misappropriated. He would not agree with that.” Death of the author, indeed.

This past Saturday a group of anti-abortion protestors filtered in to the Hollywood premiere of the “Horton” film, voiced by Jim Carrey, Steve Carrell and Carol Burnettt, and others. They interrupted the screening with a coordinated protest, shouting during the film and then walking around with tape over their mouths. It was a bizarre stunt, considering the fact that most of the audience was made up of children who doubtless missed their political message, and Hollywood journalists who made fun of them.

But these kinds of shenanigans, while frustrating, weren’t exactly shocking. Despite lawsuits and voiced disapproval from Dr. Seuss and his widow, the “a person’s a person no matter how small” line has snowballed and is now a de facto motto for the anti-abortion movement. Just google the line: some pro-life sites show up above Dr. Seuss.

[…] The anti-choice protesters, incidentally, were happy to ruin the afternoon of hundreds of those kids, too busy advocating on behalf of blastocysts to pay attention to real people — real “small people,” in fact. This kind of behavior sums up the hypocrisy of a movement that would give personhood to a fertilized egg while denying health care to children and physical autonomy to women.

The problem is that those who are particularly proud of saying “a person’s a person” don’t care about actual persons.

And from Seuss’s side of things:

None of this sat well with Audrey Geisel, widow of Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel), who attended the screening. So did Karl ZoBell, the lawyer who represents her and who has represented the interests of Dr. Seuss for some 40 years. In an interview with NPR, he said he couldn’t make out the yelling and thought maybe “some nut” was in the theater. Later, he asked the protesters what group they represented, and none would answer. Their silence didn’t seem like an accident to him, which makes sense, because ZoBell has not been bashful about sending cease-and-desist letters to those who appropriate Dr. Seuss’ material for their own purposes. And many do. (According to ZoBell, politicians love to sling the term Grinch at their rivals.)

ZoBell says it would be nice if these people came up with their own material. But if they don’t go too far—by copping the illustrations, for example—they can use a line like “A person’s a person, no matter how small,” even if it wouldn’t have pleased Dr. Seuss. And it wouldn’t have. The Geisels were opposed to using the Dr. Seuss books for any political agenda.

STOP RUINING MY CHILDHOOD, ANTI-CHOICERS! And more importantly, stop ruining the childhoods of the millions of children going to see this movie.

I understand that they are trying to make their point in as public a venue as possible, but it is a children’s movie: the primary audience is children (and families)… not exactly the kind of people that need to be converted to their cause.

If a person’s a person (no matter how small), then why is the person in my uterus more important than me?

Site update: Because I so often find things I want to blog about, but lack the time, I have start bookmarking them on my del.icio.us account for your reading pleasure. They are also viewable here, or by clicking the “Articles of interest” tab above.

Life update: I am very pleased to announce that I have been accepted to graduate school at San Francisco State University! I will be starting my Master’s degree in Women’s Studies this fall. I can’t wait to be back in college again!

Update update: Also, an update on… well… updates: I have been selected to be on a jury for a very long trial. I usually do my updates during my breaks at work, but I obviously can’t do that at the court house. I had jury duty all of last week, and it was incredibly boring. I’ll have updates this week, but things will be slow March 24-28 and April 7-11.

Ridiculous! I am not that shocked that a Catholic school would cancel Dolores Huerta’s speaking engagement, but at the same time, I thought they would have enough intelligence to understand that the talk was about “her founding role in the United Farm Workers and the importance of public service” and not abortion.

Apparently, to the Catholic church, it doesn’t matter what kind of a person you are, or what type of good you have done for humanity: if you’re pro-choice, you’re out.

From the LA Times:

Huerta said that the school’s principal, Sister Eva Lujano, left a voice mail at her Bakersfield office over the weekend, informing her that she had been disinvited. Lujano was out sick Thursday and unavailable for comment, school officials said.

But the editor of California Catholic Daily, a website that published an article about Huerta’s planned appearance, took credit for scrubbing the talk. Editor Bob McPhail said that after the website’s reporter called the school and a diocese superintendent to ask about the talk, Lujano agreed to cancel the planned assembly for sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders.

“Her appearance would have created the impression that the school was overlooking her prominent role in promoting abortion,” he said.

Huerta, who lives in Bakersfield and runs a foundation there, said she was puzzled by the school’s action. She has been unable to reach Lujano, she said.

“I was not going to talk about reproductive rights at all,” Huerta said. “I think the parents could have asked if their child could be excused.”

Huerta said it was the second time in a month that a talk she had scheduled had been canceled due to protests. Last month, administrators at St. Thomas University in Texas called off an appearance citing her views on abortion.

A man in Oklahoma was found not guilty under a “Peeping Tom” statute for putting his camera up a 16 year old girl’s skirt (without her consent, obviously) and taking photos. Don’t go commando in Oklahoma!

What kind of world do we live in where this kind of violation is legal? At the very least I would think of this as sexual assault or some sort of violation of privacy. Apparently the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals disagrees with me.

From the Feminist Majority Foundation:

Oklahoma’s Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that taking pictures up someone’s skirt in a public place is not a crime. The court voted 4-1 in favor of 34-year-old Riccardo Ferrante who was arrested for putting his camera up an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl’s skirt in a department store, reports the Associated Press.

The lone dissenting voter on the court, Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin, wrote, “What this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress. In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman’s dress.”

Ferrante was charged under Oklahoma’s “Peeping Tom” statute, which makes such offenses felonies punishable of up to 5 years in prison. Tulsa World reports that the court ruled that the statute only applies in situations where the victims are in a reasonably private place such as their own homes, a restroom, or a locker room.

State Representative Pam Peterson is working on a bill to reform the current “Peeping Tom” statute so that it will also include offenses committed in public places. She also proposes to change the statute from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris told Tulsa World, “How do I go back to this victim and tell her she has no expectation of privacy to her private parts in a public place?”

Emphasis mine. Absolutely ridiculous!

[Image from Getty]

I am a huge Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan. Ask my boyfriend and my roommates: I watch it constantly, and I listen to the musical all the time. If Buffy could be a religion, I would be a devout follower.

Since Buffy is no longer on television, I’ve been going through a bit of a Buffy drought. Once the comics appeared on the scene, I began reading them sporadically, waiting for the paperback volumes to be released to purchase them. I caught an article on the New York Times about Issue #12 and Buffy’s lesbian “experimentation”. This isn’t the first time Joss Whedon has included lesbianism in his series.

For those not familiar with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series, Willow - a witch and Buffy’s best friend - develops a lesbian relationship with a fellow witch, Tara, during college. After Tara’s death, Willow begins dating a potential slayer.

Joss Whedon has often said that making Willow a lesbian wasn’t so much about her being a lesbian, it was about her finding in love in someplace unexpected, regardless of whether it was a man or a woman. As a character, Willow’s most obvious trait was her ability to love anyone wholeheartedly, and Whedon played on that trait in her relationship with, and grieving of the loss of, her girlfriend. While BtVS wasn’t the biggest pop culture hit during its seven year run, it was a show that used science fiction and fantasy story lines to highlight true life experiences and the struggles teens and young adults face growing up.

Besides, there’s nothing more fabulous than a show that takes the “high school is hell” metaphor and turns it into the basis for an entire seven season show.

From the NYT:

In a new issue of the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” comic book series, being released Wednesday, Buffy sleeps with a fellow slayer. And, oh yeah, she’s a woman.

It’s an unusual development for a lead character of a series, whether on television or in comic books.

The story line “evolved naturally,” said Joss Whedon, who created Buffy for the 1992 film and the 1997 television show, which ran for seven seasons. Mr. Whedon is also executive producer of the comic book, published by Dark Horse Comics and promoted as “Season Eight.”

He has written several stories for it, including an opening arc that introduces Satsu (pronounced SOUGHT-sue), one of nearly 2,000 slayers activated in the television show’s finale. One of Buffy’s prized disciples, she ends up sharing her bed.

Mr. Whedon has developed their liaison over several issues. In No. 3 Buffy is overcome by a “Sleeping Beauty” spell undone only by a kiss from someone who loves her. In No. 4 Buffy realizes that Satsu saved her. Last month the pair discussed Satsu’s feelings. Buffy, although flattered by Satsu’s attentions, said the risks of involvement were too great.

“People who love me tend to … oh, die,” she said. Or, she added, they leave, because “sooner or later everybody realizes there’s something wrong … something wrong with me, or around me.”

My favorite part, however, comes from none other than Mr. Whedon himself:

But before fans start blogging frantically, they should know that Mr. Whedon is clear where this is headed. “We’re not going to make her gay, nor are we going to take the next 50 issues explaining that she’s not. She’s young and experimenting, and did I mention open-minded?”

I can’t wait to read this issue! Nerd alert…

[Image from Dark Horse Comics, NYT]