anythings.org

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) told Bush his comments on Democrats appeasing terrorists were “bullshit“:

“This is bullshit. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset…and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” Biden said angrily in a brief interview just off the Senate floor.

“He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has. His intelligence community pointed that out, not me.”

I like that the closer we get to the end of Bush’s reign from hell, the more outspoken and antagonistic our Senators are becoming. We need to see more of this!

I knew today was going to be a good day this morning when I came to work and checked my feeds and discovered three “news” items that made me grin from ear to ear. They are the following:

1. The Gallup poll that shows 71% of Americans don’t like Bush’s job performance. His rating is actually worse than Nixon’s 66% disapproval rating during the Watergate scandal. I think this warrants the purchasing of one of those “01.20.09″ bumper stickers.
2. Not that I’m bragging, but a poll done by CNN shows that Obama is losing support. In my completely unprofessional (and100% personal) opinion, his loss of support might be attributed to his losing Pennsylvania. Clinton lost support when she went through her losing streak during the February primaries, and she came back out alright, so there is a chance that Obama could easily regain that support. Either way, this election feels like it will never end. I guess I’ll just have to keep waiting for the convention in August.
3. A huge “lol of the day,” and probably the best thing I’ve seen in the past month (thanks, Anna):

From Popaganda artist Ron English, via Juxtapoz.

All in all, it’s looking like it’s going to be a great Friday.

Our lovely lawmakers have finally gotten up the nerve to tackle Bush’s abstinence-only sex education funding. It’s no surprise that it took a Democrat controlled House and Senate to allow this challenge to happen, but the question is, why didn’t it happen sooner? Despite years of outcry and criticism, it took our lawmakers seven years into Bush’s term as President to put any concentrated energy towards the removal of abstinence-only sex education in schools.

In a letter signed by 76 House and Senate members, they urged Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chair of the House Appropriations Committee, to redistribute abstinence-only education funds towards more effective programs, such as the comprehensive sex education that was used several Presidents ago. While I am all for a letter urging someone to action, I highly doubt that will be the solution to ending abstinence-only education. I’d think the many studies from prominent and well-respected institutions that have shown that abstinence-only education does not work would have pushed our legislators to action sooner, but apparently not.

From the National Partnership on Women and Families:

The letter did not suggest specific alternative programs that could be funded, CQ HealthBeat reports. Emily Kryder — press secretary for Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), who signed the letter — said that Capps would prefer to fund the type of comprehensive sex education programs authorized by HR 1653 and HR 819, which contain a variety of measures intended to increase access to contraception and comprehensive sex education. Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) — sponsors of HR 1653 and HR 819, respectively — also signed the letter.

Capps in an e-mail said, “Abstinence-only education, such as that funded through CBAE, doesn’t work and is a waste of our limited financial resources.” She added, “We need to give our young people access to accurate information that will enable them to make healthy decisions.” Shays said, “The extraordinary number of teen pregnancies and growing rate of sexually transmitted disease transmission among teens underscores the necessity of comprehensive sexual education.” He added that children “need a responsible education that includes both abstinence and contraception approaches to pregnancy prevention and sexual health.”

Reps. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) also recently sent a letter to Obey that asks for CBAE funding and policy guidelines to be maintained. “Millions of youth will continue to receive education that provides a risk-eliminating advantage gained by abstaining from sexual activity if abstinence education funding is continued,” McIntyre and Terry wrote, adding, “This is not a partisan issue” (Grimaldi, CQ HealthBeat, 3/31).

Call you local legislators and urge them to join sign onto this letter. It may not be the driving force to end oppressive abstinence-only sex education, but it could be the catalyst for something bigger.

Image from Getty.

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

Being a huge Hillary Clinton fan, it is only natural for people to assume that I will be voting for her in the upcoming California primary. I’m not going to lie - I love the Clintons. The whole family, actually. It’s a shame they didn’t have any sons or gay daughters, because I’d do anything to be a Clinton.

With that said, the upcoming Presidential election (that I have been waiting far too long for) is not as clear cut for me as it should be. I love Clinton and some of her policies. At the same time, I like some of Obama’s policies… and some of Edwards’s as well. When it comes to the 2008 election, I’m facing a bit of a problem: the Democratic candidates are all so solid that I’m not sure which one is most likely to take the White House on January 20, 2009.

Which brings me to the question: how big of a role will my vagina and my race play in 2008? Now, granted, I’m white - but not everyone in this country is. It’s impossible to say that gender and race won’t have any involvement in the upcoming election - because they will. Should I vote for Clinton because I’m a woman? Hey, solidarity sister! It sounds great: there is an opportunity for a strong Democratic woman to be President, and I’m all for it. But do her policies sway on the fence voters? Does she have a shot at beating whatever drone the Republicans dig up? Is she electable?

But I think the same of Edwards and Obama. Are they electable? Are their policies and opinions and extremely short track records enough to sway on the fence voters? And really - we have to bring it up - what about the Oprah factor? This celebrity stunt makes Obama appear to be a weak candidate when he’s not, and it makes him less appealing to me as a voter.

But Obama could be the candidate that takes it all. Goodness knows he’s got the support. And I do like some of his policies. But will his race hurt him? I hate to ask the question, but let’s face it, someone has to (and better it be someone who doesn’t care about race in “that way”). Will the crazy racist bastards that still inhabit our country make it impossible for him to be elected? And if he is elected, it’s not a matter of if someone will attempt an assassination, but how soon will an assassination attempt come. Obama’s race is a big deal for many American voters. Will this impact his ability to take back the White House?

Which leaves me with Obama and Clinton. While Clinton is using the other Clinton to draw attention to her campaign, I have less of a problem with this. Bill has been involved in politics for a very long time: him lending support to his wife in her election campaign is to be expected, since they share some of the same views on certain issues. But focusing on the issues, I am still torn between the three candidates. Who has the drive, funds, policies, and charisma to take the White House back from the evil clutches of the Republicans? Will my vagina become more important than my politics? Will I feel compelled to vote for Clinton just because she’s a woman? It’s a sticky web and it all comes down to who can beat the Republicans.

My biggest fear is that Clinton couldn’t do it because she’s a woman, and the chauvinistic pigs would do everything in their power to stop it. My second biggest fear is that Obama couldn’t do it because he’s black, and the ignorant racists would do everything in their power to stop it. My third - and final - fear is that Edwards lacks the experience to persuade on-the-fence voters our way. Who can do it? But beyond that, who will save us?

In an interesting side note, being born in 1985, if Clinton gets elected, there will have only been Bushes and Clintons in the office for my entire life span. Well, except for my first 4 years of life, which were governed by Reagan.

Apparently, teen birth rates are up (quite a lot) for the first time in 14 years. I also enjoy the fact that births by unwed mothers are still connected with teen births. I thought we had accepted the whole single parent thing?

Think it has anything to do with Bush’s ridiculously failed attempt at sex education? Abstinence only education does not work, Mr. President.

[Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs]

I adored Knocked Up. I thought it was a funny movie - better the first time than subsequent viewings - that put a rather serious life issue into an amusing context to help people cope with the seriousness of the plot. But as a feminist, I have a problem with it.

While I understand it was a comedy about two adults getting into an awkward situation, with one of them semi-prepared for it and the other not even close. I even get that the movie wasn’t about Katherine Heigl’s character, Allison. I totally get (and was amused by) that fact that the movie is about Seth Rogen’s character and how he comes to grow as a man and accept his impending doom role as a father.

What I don’t understand, though, is why Katherine’s character did not even consider getting an abortion. I would have been able to accept the plot more easily had she even considered the option, instead of just glossing over the somewhat sticky subject. When works in the major spotlight such as Knocked Up decide to ignore all of the options available to a woman who finds herself with a bun in the oven, it makes it more difficult for young women to discuss all of their options if something similar happens to them. Movies like Knocked Up are, essentially, taking us back to the ideal that if you get someone pregnant, you better be ready to marry them and be in it for the long haul. While the two characters didn’t get married in the movie (and Heigl’s character actually turned down Rogen’s proposal), they were involved in an intimate relationship, and the movie made it appear that they moved in together after the birth and remained together years afterwards. I feel like the film’s creators opted to not include abortion as an option in the film because they didn’t know how to balance the seriousness of the subject with light-hearted (and occasionally crude) humor, like they did with an unexpected pregnancy. I understand that abortion is a heavy topic and could have potentially caused the comedy to take a turn for the worse, but they didn’t even try.

I understand the limits of a film and I can grasp the concept that the creators of the film may not have had adequate time in the film to include this plot in the movie. Allison’s “decision” to keep the baby didn’t even feel like a decision. It felt like someone coming to terms with the fact that they were pregnant, accepting it, and moving on. There was no decision because her character wasn’t given any other options. I’m not saying she should have had an abortion (although I would have) because then there would have been no movie. What I’m saying is the creators of the film could have spent 2 minutes discussing her options and then show her character coming to the decision that she wants to have a child and that keeping it is her choice.

Keeping a baby is never a simple choice for a young and single career woman. Knocked Up made it look like a young and single career woman has no other option than keeping a baby.

The scary thing is, if the Supreme Court continues going the way it does, no woman will any options other than having the baby - or adoption. To me, Knocked Up is a frighteningly realistic perspective on what the world could look like after the end of Bush’s presidency.

(Granted, it was a very amusing movie that I opted to eventually become an owner of.)

[images via getty]

What can I say, I’m not surprised. With Alito’s confirmation, this was pretty much going to be the only decision we saw handed down. The most disgusting part, the most frightening part, the most ridiculous part of this decision is that they made it without any considerations for a woman’s health. There is absolutely NO exceptions to this ruling: if a woman has a choice of dying or undergoing “partial-birth” abortion, she no longer has that choice. She has to die. You would think that even the most conservative person would want there to be an exception to this ruling for life or death circumstances.

The ramifications of this event are going to be severe.

Links for people who want to know more:
Information on the decision
Opinions and articles
AP story
Opinions of Presidential hopefuls

I think the most painful thing to read is that the Republican candidates for President support the decision made by the Supreme Court, even though it can potentially put a mother in danger. The Christian Right wants to raise live babies so they can go be dead soldiers (thank you, George Carlin) in their fruitless conquests that are motivated by exteremly ethnocentric reasons - not to mention to settle daddy’s squabble.

So - answer me this: if that fetus you saved at the cost of its mother’s life turns out to be gay, how much will you care about its rights then?

I think Obama said it best:
I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.

If things like this keep happening, carrying liquids on a plane won’t be the last thing we’ll be bitching about. People need to stop being so damn scared and quit giving up their freedoms because of “terrorist” attacks.

Don’t you get that our country has basically treated everyone like shit for the past century or two and now we’re finally getting what we’ve been handing out to everyone else? Eventually, we’re going to get attacked by a country NOT from the middle east and then Bush is going to have to redefine the meaning of terrorism.

Did it ever occur to you that we might be terrorists too? The good old U S of A has done some pretty shitty stuff since its inception (not to say that other countries haven’t) and now we’re bitching because someone finally grew enough balls to attack us.

WE ARE NOT INVINCIBLE. People need to realize this. Shit like the Patriot Act is not going to save you from “terrorists”. AND! Preventing immigrants from coming into this country is just one of the reasons why people are starting to hate us more.

And if Bush could stop referring to all of Islam as facist terrorists, I would greatly appreciate it. If he took 5 seconds and looked at the Koran and the majority of the people who practice Islam, he’d stop generating stereotypes that are causing people to be beat down in the streets. Not everyone is educated enough to know that Islam isn’t a violent religion. Every religion, every culture, has an extremist vein to it… and I’m starting to think that Bush is ours. I’d be willing to bet a large amount of money Bush is going to use this incidident to invade Iran. Iran is not Iraq. We should not be fucking with Iran. If we fuck with Iran… we’ll end up bending over and taking it.

All Bush is doing with these speeches is generating hate and prejudice towards a normally civilized group of people. I don’t know… this crazy part of me is thinking if we weren’t INVADING THEIR COUNTRY they wouldn’t be trying to attack us all the fucking time.

Muslims : Bush :: Jews : Hitler

I realize this is not the most articulated thing in the world, but I am extremely pissed off right now. I hate the fact that I am being associated with my country and the racist (not to mention sexist, classist, etc) views our President holds.