Monday, February 3, 2014

Barbara Walters couldn't be more wrong about Woody Allen, and here's why

Oh Barbara. You are perpetuating every single myth about sexual abuse there is.

"I've seen him with his children. He's a loving father. So he can't possibly be a child molester."

"He can't be a child molester because he *married* Soon-Yi after he slept with her. Who cares if she was his 17 yo step-daughter?  And it's all a-ok because it was consensual."

And also, who cares anyway, because the statue of limitations has expired. So whatevs. *gives the raspberry*

She is so wrong on every point. Having nothing to do with whether he did it or not (this time, because he did it before with his underage step-daughter). She is wrong to perpetuate these myths about child sexual abuse.

She accuses Dylan Farrow of writing this article because Woody Allen is up for an award. Bullshit. She accused him years ago, and as recently as 4 months ago - back when award season was a twinkle in our eye.

No. A man who thinks that it is ok to sleep with his underage stepdaughter does not deserve my unquestioning support.

A man who thinks it is ok to sleep with his underage step-daughter is a pedophile. A child molester.

And research shows that if an offender acts he is likely to do it again.

In her statements, Barbara Walters is perpetuating rape culture. It must be the girl - she's lying. And Walters has a lot of celebrity support. In a tweet (now deleted), Stephen King called Dylan Farrow's article "palpable bitchery". The Daily Beast, instead of saying "no charges have been filed" or something similarly factual, stated that "he has the presumption of innocence." Meaning Dylan Farrow is presumed lying.

When it comes to sexual abuse, there is no middle ground. No misinterpretation. No "maybe I saw it, but I'm not sure." He either touched her and molested her or he didn't. And by giving him the presumption of innocence, you accuse Farrow of lying.

Before you start in on me, yes. Our constitution guarantees us the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That is in the judicial system. We all know that Woody Allen has never been charged with a sexual crime. Therefore, there is no judicial system at work here. You either believe him, or you believe Dylan Farrow. The journal, Violence Against Women, published a study in 2010 that placed the incidence of false allegations of rape at between 2 and 10%.

That means at a minimum of 90% and potentially as high as 98% of the time, allegations of sexual abuse are true.

And yet, we presume that he is innocent. Which, by default, presumes the victim is lying.

And Allen's attorney places the blame on Mia Farrow, a "vengeful lover". First off, I think Mia Farrow is happy that she isn't with him. I'm pretty sure she doesn't want him back. Also, this statement once again minimizes Dylan Farrow. The woman is 28 years old. She doesn't need her mommy to tell her what to do.

Like I said, I have no idea if he did it or not. I'm inclined to believe that he did. But, to perpetuate a culture that claims a girl or a woman must be lying about abuse, because "he's such a nice man" is pure and unadulterated bullshit.

And that's why Barbara Walters has it all wrong.

Friday, January 10, 2014

Quote of the day... double standards...

“How many second chances before they’re not second chances anymore?”
~Assistant State Attorney Richard Mantei, discussing Marissa Alexander's poor judgement

Not sure if you're familiar with the case of Marissa Alexander, the (black) woman who fired a warning shot at her physically abusive husband, harming nobody except her bedroom ceiling. She was sentenced to prison after a jury took 12 minutes to convict her because Stand Your Ground in Florida only applies to not black dudes and everyone knows that black women or really just women should shut up and take their abuse just like George Zimmerman's girlfriend did.

Alexander was finally released pending a retrial, after her conviction was overturned on appeal. She is on home detention until her retrial. It seems that she had the gall to request permission from her corrections officer to go to the grocery store and he had the gall to approve it.

This proves to the state attorney that she is unreliable because she left her house (with permission) and should be locked up again behind bars until her retrial. He claims she should have known she couldn't ask permission to leave.

Richard Mantei wants to know how many second chances we'll give someone before they're not second chances anymore?

Maybe he should ask George Zimmerman.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

How come you guys call us racist? Episode 10Gajillion: The burn

Since President Obama was elected, the GOP & the Tea Party have been trying to get him out of office. From claiming he's Kenyan, to conspiring against his presidency on the day of his inauguration, to showing him in his "traditional tribal garb", to calling him a monkey, to racist bumper stickers, to waving the confederate flag in front of the White House while 2 sitting senators and a washed up symbol of all that is wrong with America headline the event, to filling a lawsuit claiming he can't be president because he's black (no, seriously), to posting racist statements on their official websites, to holding election rallies in front of confederate flags, to claiming he's a A-rab terrorist (hell, even his opponent in the 2008 election had to defend him!). Seriously, watch.

Enough is freaking enough already. Rep Alan Grayson (D-Freaking Awesome) has pushed back. Finally, someone is pushing back against all the hatred, all the racism, all the repulsiveness that is the Tea Party in America.

Telling it like it is:
Tea Party members also have persisted in falsely characterizing the President as Kenyan and Moslem… Tea Party members also called my fellow Member of Congress, civil rights hero John Lewis, a “n***er,” and Rep. Barney Frank a “faggot.” More generally, the leader of the Texas Tea Party displayed a poster saying “Congress=Slave Owner, Taxpayer=Niggar [sic].” Tea Party Members of Congress have referred to Hispanics as “wetbacks,” and having “cantaloupe-sized calves” from picking fruit. Tea Party candidates, including my opponent in the last election, have endorsed forcing Hispanics to speak English.

Here's a little more:
For example, when the President visited [Grayson's] home of Orlando, Tea Party protesters shouted "Kenyan Go Home." Other examples include Tea Party chants of "Bye Bye, Blackbird," and Tea Party posters saying "Obama’s Plan: White Slavery," "Imam Obama Wants to Ban Pork" and "The Zoo Has An African Lion, and the White House Has a Lyin’ African."

and this:
One could go on and on, because there is overwhelming evidence that the Tea Party is the home of bigotry and discrimination in America today, just as the KKK was for an earlier generation. If the hood fits, wear it. (emphasis mine)

A study in the academic, peer-reviewed journal Race and Social Problems showed that Tea Party members are more likely to be racist. Read the PPV article here.

And here are some signs! Signs prove everything!

And in response, the National Outreach Director of said, "He was mean to me!!" No, actually, she said, "there's nothing more offensive" than the comparison.

This, from the party that brings you Hitler & Nazi comparisons on a practically daily basis. Proving the Tea Party is not only racist, but ignorant too.

What, that was a surprise?

ETA: Literally as I was publishing this post, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the biggest newspaper in Atlanta, posted the following tweet about a lottery winner. The tweet has since been deleted, but ALL the people have saved screenshots for posterity.

Racism much?

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Quote of the day: Irony

"Our philosophy is do no harm, try to stop the bad from happening."
~ GOP Rep Matt Salmon (R-AZ)


The end.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Modifying our foods and respecting our young people

Rachel Parent, a brave and passionate young woman, appeared on a talk show in Canada to discuss her stand on GMOs. She is very educated on the subject, knows her stuff, and has a strong rationale for her positions. It's ok to say "Let's agree to disagree", but unfortunately, that isn't what happened. In an enlightened society, we listen to one another. And we respect each other's informed decisions.

I find so many things offensive in this video. First, for Kevin O'Leary to tell an obviously educated, passionate girl that her passion isn't really hers, but that she's a shill for environmental groups? No. Just no.

Then he goes on to challenge her belief in science, when she very eloquently stated that she's not against science. She's for responsible science. A-freaking-men.

Responsible science means long-term studies (not using the general population as your study group without knowledge or consent). Credible long-term studies include control groups. Credible long-term studies include people who have consented. Credible long-term studies conducted by independent organizations, not only the companies who stand to benefit from positive results.

O'Leary challenged Rachel that science could help kids in other countries get the vitamins they need, when in fact, she pointed out, rightly so, that the amount of rice required for a child to ingest the RDA for Vitamin A was 27 bowls of rice. (oh, yummy.) Science also proves that our body absorbs vitamins best in their natural state.

Instead of trying to genetically modify our food without our consent, how about we work to rid the world of poverty. Work to help educate the poor. Work to feed the poor and help them grow the foods that they need to live a healthy life. To produce the crops that give us what our bodies need.

Oh wait. To do that, we'd have to acknowledge science - because we all lurrrve science! Because science tells us we have a climate crisis. And in order to help grow the organic foods we need to thrive as humankind, we'd need to acknowledge the science behind climate change. But we'd rather say that science doesn't exist than solve a food crisis in drought-riddled or flood-riddled countries or even regions of our own country. Or blame it on G-d, because He is punishing us for loving teh gays.

Sensing the hypocrisy yet? I've mentioned it before. When something works for the right, they are all about it. When it doesn't work for them, they hate it or simply refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy. Science is great! When it says what I want it to. When I don't like it? Science is unproven!

I wonder what a long-term study might have to say about the increasing incidence of gluten allergies in the last decade. Or celiac disease. Or obesity (wait, we already know the answer to that one). Or diabetes. (wait - we know the answer to that one, too). Or the best way to ingest vitamins (wait ... ditto). Think that GMOs might possibly have something to do with that? Gee... I wonder.

Additionally, Rachel Parent is a passionate advocate for food labeling. I agree completely. If GMOs continue to produce GE food, at least label them as such and let us make informed decisions. And don't make it more difficult for organic farmers to produce and bring to market their products. Equal opportunities and all (SOCIALISM!!). We have the right to know what is in our foods and make our own choices. Informed consent and all is important, right, the right?

Apparently not. Because Congress passed the "Monsanto Protection Act", which pretty much nullifies any state required food labeling and provides additional subsidies for those GMOs. And in a bonehead move, President Obama signed it. Remember, conservatives? - federal law supercedes state law. So even if you love it, like you do right now, or hate it like whenever it means you don't get your way (like reproductive rights), we still have to live with it. Or die with it.

To suggest that because this young woman is 14, she doesn't know her own mind, and to patronize her and condescend to her by saying she'll change her mind as she gets older (even though we all know 14-year-olds are far older than their chronological years) is insulting to the highest degree. That young woman proved her point over and over and made Kevin O'Leary look like a sad little shill for Monsanto. Yup, who's the shill now?

Watch the entire interview below. If I were Rachel Parent's umm... parent, I would be hugely proud of her. Hell, I don't know her and I'm hugely proud of her. She's a hero for our generation and our children's generation.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Wait... how come you guys call us racist?

So, this is a little far over the line. OK, it's completely and totally and irrevocably catapulted over the line.

One of the most respected and longest-tenured Congressmen, John Lewis, participated in the March on Washington. The original and last weekend's commemorating the 50th anniversary.

In covering Lewis' speech this weekend about the voting rights act and immigration reform and generally spouting racist shit, Laura Ingraham played about 10 seconds of Lewis' speech and then played a gunshot followed by complete silence.

In case you happen to be wondering what's wrong with this scenario, ummm... she just gleefully pretended that someone assassinated a sitting Congressman with a shotgun. The only surviving person to give a speech at the original March on Washington and the 50th anniversary march. Lovely, no?

Yeah, so how come the GOP is branded as racist? Uhhh... gee, I don't know.

There are also some other terms I might like to call Ingraham in addition to racist, but my mom hates it when I swear, so I'll settle for letting you use your imagination.

Hint: It's not "brilliant" or "human being" and it rhymes with a whole lot of things.

(h/t Media Matters)


Tuesday, June 25, 2013

The impact and power of SCOTUS decisions

2013 is the year that SCOTUS unraveled 150 years of social and economic progress in the United States.

In just the last week, the Court has handed down decisions that have taken steps backward in worker’s rights, voting rights, and consumer rights. Gee, can’t wait to see what the rulings are on DOMA & Prop 8. Hmmm, I wonder whatever might they be?

In two cases, SCOTUS pulled back worker’s rights. They ruled that harassment can only take place from one’s supervisor, and they narrowly defined supervisor as someone who has the power to make a “significant change in [your] employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” (via ThinkProgress)

In other words, if I want to harass my subordinate and only HR can fire them, woohoo! GO FOR IT! As long as I don’t have the ability to directly fire you? You’re shit out of luck.

The justices also struck another blow to compassionate conservatism (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) when they ruled in a different case that employers can retaliate against workers who claim harassment. Because it’s now imcumbent upon the worker to prove that the “sole” cause of the dismissal or retaliation was discrimination. No other factors involved, period. How lovely.

Basically, SCOTUS gave a huge FU to the American worker today. Their attitude is one that was prevalent 100 years ago. Be happy you have a job. If you don’t like the way I treat you, you’re welcome to go somewhere else. Without a reference, of course. Good luck to you. Fuck you very much.

Also, in a case that may definitely affect you and me, the justices ruled that customers cannot sue makers of generic drugs for any adverse effects, even if they weren’t noted or labeled on the drug. In a HAHAHAHAHAHA moment, the conservative justices invoked the Supremacy clause HAHAHAHAHAHAHA saying that even though the state’s laws had required proper labeling, the federal laws didn’t – and we all know that federal law trumps state law.

There’s a good short summary of the court’s actions on these cases early this week at The Atlantic.

Also this week, the Supreme Court punted on affirmative action, asking the lower court to look at the case again. They could have noted that the statistics bear out that minorities still comprise a disproportionate percentage of students accepted into and entering college.

Per the National Center for Education Statistics
The percentage of American college students who are Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Black has been increasing. From 1976 to 2010, the percentage of Hispanic students rose from 3 percent to 13 percent, the percentage of Asian/Pacific Islander students rose from 2 percent to 6 percent, and the percentage of Black students rose from 9 percent to 14 percent. During the same period, the percentage of White students fell from 83 percent to 61 percent. Race/ethnicity is not reported for nonresident aliens, who made up 2 percent and 3 percent of total enrollment in 1976 and 2010, respectively.
What this means Is that affirmative action is working, and that it has helped us achieve something very close to ethnic parity in colleges.

Per Census 2000
Percentage of population:
                    All ages    15−29     College-aged
White     69.1 62.1 61
Black 12 13.4 14
Asian 3.6 4.2 6
Hispanic 12.5 16.9 13

However, as we’ve historically seen, without this oversight, the inclination of American institutions is to directly or indirectly promote racial inequity. Look at the organizations, the workplaces, the states. Which brings me to the next case.

Today, the Voting Rights Act was dealt a mortal blow, with the entire basis of the law struck down.
Steve Benen at The Maddow Blog says this:
“Five justices believe institutional racism and systemic discrimination in voting rights have effectively vanished to their satisfaction.”

One only need review the rhetoric in the states since the election 5 years ago of a black president. Immediately, states began to erode voting rights by enacting unsurpassable roadblocks for so many minority voters.

Per the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law:
At least 180 restrictive bills introduced since the beginning of 2011 in 41 states.
27 restrictive bills currently pending in 6 states.
25 laws and 2 executive actions passed since the beginning of 2011 in 19 states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin).
15 states have passed restrictive voting laws and executive actions that have the potential to impact the 2012 election (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). These states account for 203 electoral votes, or 75 percent of the total needed to win the presidency.
Of these, restrictions from 18 laws and executive actions are currently in effect in 13 states (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).
In the past two years, vetoes, referendums, court decisions, or the Department of Justice have blocked or blunted restrictive measures in 14 states (Arizona, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin). Note: this list does not include successful legislative victories such as those in Nebraska and other states.
The NY Times also has a very interesting and telling look at how states affected by the VRA have tried to change law to discriminate. Last year, The Atlantic had a look at state voting restrictions as well.

We have had state leaders admit fully that their voting restrictions were designed to keep minorities from voting so that Republicans could maintain control.

In what universe do the Justices live that they believe that racial inequities no longer exist when it comes to voting?

This entire issue is summed up perfectly with this tweet, and in and of itself, explains why the VRA is still needed. Because the blacks might elect another black dude.

The proof of the poor judgement of SCOTUS will be in the pudding. Let’s see how many states enact the equivalent of poll taxes, restrictions, Jim Crow and more. By this time next year, I predict that several more red states will enact voting restrictions that will make it difficult for traditionally underserved voters to cast their ballots. And all with the blessing of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. But there's no race-based attitude issues here in the states.

As long as Supreme Court justices rule from ideology rather than law, there can be no real justice in the United States. There can be no real rule of law.

Friday, June 21, 2013

No really, why do you guys call us racist?

Holy shit. This is an actual thing that was said. They aren't even trying to couch the blatant racism in any other terms.

This asshole is Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, noted bigot, racist, and all-around general dickwad.

“What you’re about to see, ladies and gentlemen, is Barack Obama is going to be kicked to the back of the Democratic bus... This guy has now become a liability for the Democratic Party.”

“And the Democratic Party is going to tell him to ‘Sit in the back of the bus, the front of the Democratic bus belongs to the white person, Hillary Clinton.’”

Holy motherfucker. Good thing that the American Family Association is so keen on teaching us proper American values. Maybe he should have Paula Deen on his show next time? She only wants her waiters to dress up like slaves, not actually be slaves.

And then there's this from Yahoo News' Rachel Hartman (screencap from my phone):

Here's a different screencap with her byline (from my laptop):

Yahoo has given up all hope of looking like it's not an arm of the right wing. This birther article was later amended to say he won't be stopping in his ancestral homeland. (emphasis mine)

Seriously? How is that more his ancestral homeland than Ireland? When he went to Ireland, I don't recall that being the media narrative. Why is this different?

Oh yeah. *whispers* He's black.

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP. Oh, and there's no war on women.

Well, well, well. Hypocrisy is surviving and thriving once again still in the GOP. Women have one set of rules, and GUNZ get another.

You see, this horrid doctor, Kermit Gosnell, was performing late term abortions on women in his clinic, and actually murdered a baby that was born alive. He's a horrible man, and was tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. Nobody disputes this set of terrible circumstances and crimes.

Case closed.

Except it's not.

Because apparently the actions of one horrible criminal necessitate a change to federal law. ASAP. See, what he did was so heinous, we can't ever allow any more doctors to ever perform legal abortions ever again.

Seems our illustrious legislators in Washington are bound and determined that this never happen again. They intend to do this by making abortion, a constitutionally protected right, illegal. Bless their hearts. They're so busy looking out for me. I can't tell them how grateful I am. No, really. I can't tell them.

Per John Boehner:
Asked whether the bill might turn off women voters, Boehner replied, "No. Listen, after this Kermit Gosnell trial and some of the horrific acts that were going on, the vast majority of the American people believe in the substance of this bill and so do I."
And Randy Hultgren (R-IL) had this to say:
"I was deeply shaken by the horrific accounts of Dr. Kermit Gosnell's late-term abortion practices. These gruesome acts need to be barred. It is our duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I am proud to cosponsor and support this legislation and fight to protect unborn children."
Also, of COURSE women back this bill, because Marsha Blackburn!

During the debate on HR #1797, the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”, which oh yeah incidentally passed the House today 232-193 (WTF?!?!), we learned a lot of interesting things about pain, pleasure, and fetuses. And i for one, am truly grateful to the GOP for helping me uinderstand what I am obviously too stupid to understand all on my own.

Apparently, babies at 15 weeks are soooooo mature and ready for marriage that they are masturbating in utero. Of course, only boy babies do this because girl babies are far too demure at that age, given that they're still in utero and therefore protected and virginal. According to Rep Michael Burgess, who somehow got his medical degree and actually had his hand up some poor woman's ladyparts as an supposed OB:
“You watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. I mean, they feel pleasure..."
Ahhh. So boys diddling outside the uterus = BAD because GOD, but boys diddling in utero = LIFESAVING because GOD.

Forget that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and every other doctor in history disputes this - fetuses do not have any purposeful movement at that stage of development.

Louie Gohmert (R-Horrible), everyone's favorite fucktard, told a woman who testified before committee that she should have carried her non-viable fetus to term and given birth to it even though the fetus had no possible chance of life because it had no brain function. Louie's argument seems valid, actuallyHe obviously does perfectly well with no brain function, so 'sup dumb babykiller lady?

And since this bill seeks to ban abortion at 20 weeks (even though Burgess thought it should be 15 - think of the poor masturbating fetuses!!), they also needed to deal with what happens for us ladies who invite and ask to be raped.

Well, according to Trent Franks (R-Assholeville), the ladies don't get preggers from rape anyway, so no exception needed.

"The incidence of rape resulting in pregnancy are very low", said Franks, himself an OBGYN. Oh wait, no he's not. He's just an asshole.

However, he's apparently a persuasive asshole because he got an exception for rape written into the bill only if the rape is reported. Well, that's helpful. because unless it's reported, it's not really rape. And we all know how well that turns out for women who report it.

So today, the House passed this atrocious law, limiting abortion to 20 weeks. Which, oh yeah, has already been determined by the SCOTUS to be an invalid timeframe. Because 14th Amendment, yo. At least it won't pass the Senate. And if it does, President Obama is sure to veto the shit out of it.

However, this little civics lesson has an actual point, other than simply crying about how fucked up it is that men seem to think they always know what's best for everyone, paternalistic little shits. Oh right. My point. Which is this.

Kermit Gosnell is soooo horrible, and what he did is sooooo atrocious that we have to make a law based upon his criminal actions - and his alone.

Let's look at this in a different light, shall we?


What happened in Newtown to little children (practically fetuses themselves!) was soooo atrocious and soooo horrible that we had to make a law limiting access to assault weapons and ensuring that we know who is purchasing guns. Thank goodness!!!

Wait, what?? Oh, my bad.

What happened in Newtown to little children (practically fetuses themselves!) was soooo atrocious and soooo horrible that we had to make a law expanding everyone's access to assault weapons and all the states need to pass laws nullifying any federal legislation, and Sherrifs are now G-d. Because 2nd Amendment, yo.

Well now. That makes sense. I feel better and more educated. Don't you?

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Quote of the day: AR-15s: Good for the goose, but not for the gander

Photo Credit: AP
"It's been bugging me for weeks now, why IRS agents are training with a semi-automatic rifle AR-15, which has stand-off capability. Are Americans that much of a target that you need that kind of capability?... I think Americans raise eyebrows when you tell them that IRS agents are training with a type of weapon that has stand-off capability. It’s not like they’re carrying a sidearm and they knock on someone’s door and say, ‘You’re evading your taxes."
~Rep Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.)

So let me get this straight. AR-15s are a-ok for you and me to carry and use against the IRS when they come a-knockin. Because 2nd Amendment, yo.

AR-15s as a stand-off weapon are intended only for dumbass 'Muricans who want to assassinate anyone they don't like or agree with (like the IRS, maybe?), but they are eyebrow-raising if government law enforcement agencies use them for training?

I see. Thanks for clarifying the Constitution for me, douchebag.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

And this is why women need choice

And why the rape culture in this country and around the world must stop.

So Republicans, you think we should accept rape babies as a gift from G-d? You think we ought to make the best of a bad situation?

How about this bad situation?

It seems that a 13 year old Indiana girl was raped. An actual, real rape, because wowza – her rapist was actually convicted. Though the poor dear is only 17, and has his whole future ahead of him, so of course, he is out on bond while awaiting his (likely minimal) sentencing for not only raping her, but also sexually assaulting 2 other young girls. And because 13 isn’t young enough for this paragon with such a promising future, one of his other two victims was only 12. Yes. 12.
he’s been free since he was charged in January — and even after being convicted on three child molesting charges in May.
Apparently questions do remain, because it seems this 13 year old girl got pregnant while being held down and raped by a boy who wouldn’t accept no. Which, I guess, means that maybe she wasn’t really legitimately raped since her body didn’t actually shut the whole thing down? And pregnancy hardly even happens from rape. In which case, slut! Whore!!

Which is exactly what this little girl is facing.

She did what all you nice older white men want made her do. She is carrying the pregnancy to term. Because ABORTION!!! So what is her reward for doing just what you all want made her do?

Well, it seems that every time she walks out her door, the people in her town yell things at her like SLUT and WHORE, even going so far as to vandalize her house by painting it on the walls. Does she get the protection of the police for this? They of course aggressively pursued the people bullying this little girl who is doing just what you wanted her to do, right?
The repeated vandalism incidents at the family’s home — including the words “whore” and “slut” scrawled on the garage doors — were reported to police. But Green said no charges were filed because there were no witnesses to the acts.
Oh, well ok. Forget investigating it. Since there are no witnesses, she obviously vandalized the house herself to get pity because WHORE!!

Green said she and her daughter were both opposed to abortion, but the topic came up after she learned her “baby girl” was pregnant.
“Under these circumstances,” Green said, “it would have been easier.” But after a two-hour heart-to-heart conversation, her daughter held firm to her convictions.
“I just looked at my mom,” the girl recalled, “and told her I wanted to keep the baby.”
It is a decision, the girl acknowledged, that means she will never get to enjoy typical teenage activities and pursuits.
She already has scaled back her goal of attending the University of Michigan and studying to become a veterinarian.
Now, she’s hoping to attend an alternative school to earn her high school diploma, then possibly study to work in child care or as a hair stylist.
So this young girl has to give up her dreams of a wonderful career because she was raped. And yes, she made the choice to keep the pregnancy. A brave choice. One we should all support her in and help her.

And when she does what you all wanted her to do, when she doesn’t terminate the result of her rape, when she makes a brave decision that is going to affect the rest of her life, does she get the support of her community? Her church? Her friends?

A former self-proclaimed “social bug” — she was a cheerleader and athlete — the young victim has become reclusive since learning she was pregnant.
“I can’t walk out the door without someone calling me a whore or slut,” the girl said. “I used to have a lot of friends, or people I thought were my friends, but as soon as this happened I just isolated myself.”
Slurs scribbled on the garage doors at the girl’s home have been painted over, but their faint outlines — and the sting — still linger. They are remnants of repeated vandalism at the girl’s home after she told police that an older neighborhood boy had raped her.
My heart aches for this young girl (and the other 2 victims of this man’s sexual assault).

The rape culture in this country must stop.

When will parents teach their boys that no means no? Even if the girl only says no twice before you rape her, she still probably maybe really meant no.
“I was telling him ‘no,’ ‘no,’ ” she said, “but he wouldn’t stop.”
When will we teach our sons and daughters that rape is NEVER the fault of the victim? It’s an act of power and control over a more vulnerable person.

When will we teach our children that we shouldn’t feel sorry for the convicted rapist’s lost future?

When will our communities show compassion? When will we give more support to the victim than the rapist?

When will we come to our fucking senses?

Thursday, June 6, 2013

In which I singlehandedly solve the Texas budget deficit

via Obsidian Wings
'tha fuck, Texas?

I have figured out how you deal with a budget crisis. On my recent business trip to you, I visited your fair cities of Plano and Austin. You managed in that time frame to bilk me out of $250. Not bad for 4 days work. Just imagine if you did that to every visitor to Texas, how soon you could magically turn a deficit into a surplus!

It appears that you have made a practice out of charging customers without telling them you are doing so. In the 4 days I was in Texas, here's what I got charged for:

I prepaid for my car rental in Dallas. In an attempt to save my company money (never again, BTW), I rented from Advantage Rent-A-Car instead of my usual Hertz. My charge for picking up a car Sunday night at 11 pm and returning it on Tuesday at 2 pm was $56 including all taxes and charges. Excellent, no?

Until I got to the rental counter. Where Advantage proceeded to charge me $200 to drive my PREPAID car off the lot. They claim they refund the money when you return the car. They refused to give me a receipt for said $200 when I paid it and when I returned the car. There was no notice on the rental agreement I printed off the internet when I booked and paid for my car that I'd be charged an extra $200. Like that's going to cover the cost of the car if I don't return it? 'Tha fuck, Texas? I've never been charged up front for a deposit from a rental agency before. Ever. And I've rented a lot of cars in a lot of states in my day. Why the hell did I even use them then? Well, I would have walked away from my $50 and gone to the Hertz counter, but my flight was delayed and I didn't arrive at the rental counter until midnight (about 5 minutes before they were closing). I was exhausted from a long day of travel, it was midnight, for chrissakes, and the Hertz counter was closing. It was hard to walk away from a waiting car at midnight. Next time? I'd walk to my hotel before renting from Advantage.  Advantage obviously stands for "take advantage". Do NOT use them. Ever.

From Dallas, I hopped on a plane to Austin. Where I checked into the very lovely Embassy Suites there. And gave them my credit card for incidental charges (the room was already paid for by my company). Where they proceeded to charge my card $50 without telling me as a guarantee against any charges. IO discovered this on the way home from the airport when I checked my balance. So I called them this morning to say 'tha fuck? And just like Advantage, I was promised that since it was only a "deposit", the charges would be reversed. Once again, I have no receipt for these charges, and wasn't told they would be making them. I've stayed at Embassy Suites many times in many different states and never been charged up front a deposit for incidentals. 'tha fuck, Texas?


Also, Texas, you brag about having no state income tax. That is lovely. However, I was speaking to my colleague there who said yes, it's true, but her property taxes on her house (equivalent to mine in size and value) are $30,000 annually.

'tha FUCK?

Yes, $30,000. Mine are approximately $4,600. Now granted, I live in California where we are still 'protected' under Prop 13. But still - holy guacamole, $30k is a lot of money! I think I'd rather settle for a couple hundred less per paycheck and pay state income taxes than have a whopper like that due in one fell swoop. Either way, the state manages to screw its citizens. So quit bragging on how awesome you are because Texans don't pay income tax.

So now that I have single-handedly solved the budget crisis in Texas... how was your week?

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Quote of the day: I have a few words for Erick Erickson

“When you look at biology, when you look at the natural world, the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it’s not antithesis, or it’s not competing, it’s a complimentary role."
~Fox "News" Contributor Erick Erickson on the "science" of why women should be submissive

First off, every time I hear his name, I hear Andy Rooney in my head. "What kind of a name is Erick Erickson? Kind of sounds like Sirhan Sirhan."

*Note: I came to this Sirhan Sirhan comparison via my inferior mind and my submissiveness. My MANLY MAN husband likely would view him as THE VIKING. And I know I should be complimentary and tell him how smart and brave and RIGHT he is, him being dominant and me being submissive and all...

Anyway, enough about Andy Rooney.

I have a few words for Erick Erickson about who actually has the dominant role in the animal kingdom:

golden eagle
praying mantis

Thoughts on terrorism 4 years after George Tiller's murder

I've been thinking about this for a while, and the anniversary of the murder of Dr. George Tiller seemed a good time to put my thoughts down for posterity.

Merriam-Webster defines Terrorism thusly:

: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

According to the FBI, terrorism is defined as:
Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international, depending on the origin, base, and objectives of the terrorist organization. For the purpose of this report, the FBI will use the following definitions:
Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.
International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. International terrorist acts occur outside the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
The FBI Divides Terrorist-Related Activities into Two Categories:
A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or of any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
A terrorism prevention is a documented instance in which a violent act by a known or suspected terrorist group or individual with the means and a proven propensity for violence is successfully interdicted through investigative activity.

So… here’s my question. We call an isolated incident of a pair of disenfranchised brothers accused of bombing at the Boston Marathon terrorism. Don’t get me wrong, it was a “terror-inducing” act. On the surface, it appears that the older brother was angry about the US government and some of its policies. But the younger brother, from all accounts so far, had become a US citizen in 2011, was a great guy (NOT that that has anything to do with it), but had never shown anything but love for his adopted country. SO much so, that he became a citizen. Which, BTW, entitles him to ALL rights afforded to citizens.

Is it the mode of weapon that creates terrorism? Is it a bomb? An airline hijacking? Obviously, we know it is not a massacre with an assault weapon. And if it is a bomb, why aren't all bombings considered terrorism?

If we take the FBI definition: “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”, then other things qualify as terrorism as well. Things that aren’t identified as such by the US government, the politicians, or any media outlet. Things like systematic bombings and arsons, murders, and other extreme violence including sending anthrax-laced letters aimed at women’s health clinics that may (or may not) provide LEGAL pregnancy termination care.

Why are we so quick to identify an isolated incident such as the Boston Marathon as terrorism, and yet we don’t aggressively seek to arrest and prosecute perpetrators of women’s health clinic violence as terrorists?

Could it be because the health clinic incidents are intended to intimidate women? And women are definitely treated as 2nd class citizens in this country, to do and say they are told. We should keep a quiet dignity, let our men be dominant, focus on why we married our cheating husband in the first place, or remember why we married our abusive husband in the first place.

Health clinic violence, and the accompanying violence that follows clinic workers to their homes is, plain and simple, terrorism. It meets the government definition. Far more than the Boston Marathon bombing does. Because the Boston bombing was a statement - made out of anger rather than out of a desire to intimidate or coerce, whereas the terrorism that leads to the murders and intimidation of women's health care personnel is systematic, prolonged, and meets every single definition put forth on what constitutes terrorism. There can be no doubt as to the motivation behind women’s health clinic violence. It is solely intended to intimidate and scare women, politicians, and the courts into overturning Roe v Wade and criminalizing women’s health choices, turning them into the inanimate sperm receptacles and incubators that some on the right would like to see.

It seems that only one thing meets the definition of terrorism these days. Is the perpetrator Muslim? That’s it. It couldn't possibly be terrorism if the perpetrator is white, male, and fighting FOR 'Murica. Because who cares about YOUR right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if I can't do everything I want, when I want, and with whatever gun I want? And also make YOU do what I want you to do, and worship who I want you to worship?

Incidents of Islamic terrorism in the US are far less frequent than women’s health clinic violence. However, we immediately assume that because someone has different religious views that must be a terrorist. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

I am calling on the US government to investigate every attack on women’s health clinics and their workers as terrorism. The motivation meets the definition.

What about Sandy Hook? Was the systematic massacre of 20 children and 6 adults terrorism? Well, it certainly seems to invoke terror. We may never know Adam Lanza’s motivation. We don’t seem to call massacres with assault weapons terrorism at all. Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech, Seal Beach, Tucson, Lancaster PA, and so many more.  Yet we don’t call these terror attacks. No, instead, we use them as a call for more opportunities for more people to commit these crimes.

Why wasn’t the 1999 racial & religiously motivated attack on a Jewish Community Center full of small children prosecuted as a terrorist attack, or even as a hate crime? Furrow admitted it was racially and religiously motivated. But Buford Furrow only faced murder, civil rights violation, and weapons charges.

If we are going to be so selective in our assignment of the terrorism label, then we ought not publish our definition of it at all.

When we focus on one group only, racially profile them as terrorists and ignore all other incidents as "fighting for the rights of the unborn" or "fighting for my 2nd amendment rights" or "put women in their place" or "get that BLACK man out of the WHITE house" then we disavow all that our country has stood for these last 237 years.

Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who perpetrates it, and no matter in whose name.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Quote of the day: Chris Kluwe has all the awesome

"Now, I would hope that I would get the chance to play football again, because I think I can still play. But if it ends up being something that costs me that position, I think making people aware of an issue that is causing children to commit suicide is more important than kicking a leather ball."
~Chris Kluwe on whether his outspokenness on LGBT rights had anything to do with being released from the Vikings

(AP Photo/Genevieve Ross)

Chris Kluwe rocks something fierce. And he has it completely right. Thank you, Chris!

via HuffPost Impact