Superheroes, Liberal Politics, and President Obama

To everyone who thinks MSNBC = Fox News. I'll try to be nuanced.

2010-11-02T21:40:00.006-05:00

Hello off-line friends, Facebook friends, fellow Americans, and fellow Global news watchers.

I've been watching the MSNBC commentary and the short Q&A's they tried to have with Republicans who either won or whose endorsee has won.

The link to the Q&A's will be here: ____________________ (when I get it).

I want to address something that has been either implied or explicitly stated: that MSNBC and Fox News are two sides of the same coin. Equally partisan and biased and differing only in direction. Like the Capulets and Montagues, the Hatfields and McCoys, the Phantom Tollbooth's dueling kings of Dictionoplois and Digitolopolis these pairs of news stations hide behind their "hatred" for each other the one thing they will never admit to sane, rational bystanders: that they are equally insane, destructive, self-interested, smug, and disingenuous about any claim they make about "fighting for a greater good".

Right?

It's a hell of claim. To make it and justify it one would need to study both Fox and MSNBC carefully and make lists of claims made by each. Personally I think it would be most informative to focus on the contradictory claims each made about the same thing. Then do some reality testing. This may include looking at the "unbiased" news networks like NPR and BBC. Though there's probably room to look further. Perhaps checking appropriate stats on the government site. See what the real numbers are. Fact Check.org might be another source. You all have a lot more knowledge in many areas that I do not have, so I bet you can add to this or figure out which of my suggestions might be done more efficiently or skipped entirely.

But how many of you have done such an analysis?

Hands?

I myself have not done something like this. I watch primarily MSNBC with some CNN. Since coming to NYC, I've seen a lot of NY1. I haven't listened to much NPR since maybe the few times from a couple years ago. And rarely, rarely do I watch BBC. I've seen Fox slightly more often.

I will agree with all of you that I would benefit strongly from watching NPR and BBC and taking their words into account especially when they claim that one of my favorite MSNBC commentators has fudged facts or even out right lied (have not heard this, but stand to be corrected). My first desire, the passions of confirmation bias perhaps, would be to see if Rachel Maddow or any of them would rebut it. My knowledge-craving part of the brain ought to go beyond this.

I will agree with you all that busy lives and schedules means we are limited in how much research we can do. For this reason picking a "sure bet" for unbiased news, like NPR and BBC, would at least keep a busy person well-informed if not fully and completely informed.

I will also add that while I keep insisting that you folks haven't proven that NPR and BBC are as unbiased as you think they are, the cognitive shortcuts you took in making that call (reporting facts without anger, not calling anybody a negative name, etc) are pretty-good cognitive shortcuts. As a graduate-level psychology student and an experienced person in life, I have come to respect the wisdom of quicker decision-making (and the unknown field of stereotype accuracy) even though such heuristics generally are less accurate than the slow and deliberate processes for which all social scientists have different labels.

But still the slow and deliberate thought/research/inference processes will usually catch what the cognitive shortcuts miss. Have any of you ever seen Rachel Maddow's interviews with people she disagrees with? Yes, she really tries to have dissenting thinkers on her show. Check out her interviews with Rand Paul, ex-gay advocate Richard Cohen, Pat Buchanan, (I'll list others as I look them up). And check out the follow-up commentary on that interview the next day's show.

Lawrence O'Donnel's interviews with Ron Paul and tonight's Q and A with Eric Cantor who would not answer a question on a deficit ceiling no matter how many times Lawrence asked it.

Chris Matthew's tough questions to conservatives and Republicans, like tonight's questions he asked to Michelle Bachman who would not answer Chris' question about Bachman's on-video statements about calling for an investigation of any Congressmembers with"Un-American thinking".

If I had more time (or at least more discipline) I might want to switch to Fox to see if they might rebut how these guys asked these questions, but these Q/A clips from tonight seem straightforward. If I see otherwise, I have to post another blog to correct what I'm saying here.

...........
...........
...........

I am betting a lot of you have responsibilities that I don't have. Families to care for, whether kids, partners, or financially-struggling parents. Even if it's just you, I imagine your still dealing with student loans and are probably doing part-time or full-time jobs, maybe while still in school and against your academic adviser's advice. I can't know how hard it is for you to find time to watch and study news. Neither me nor anyone can make any claims about your "laziness" without doing a full and complete objective analysis of how you spend your time and even that would be flawed because 1) you have a right to be left alone 2) no "objective analysis" can define the personal human values you use to guide your day to day choices. You have a right to these values.

BUT,

What I can say is that no matter what the reason is for why any of us can't do a thorough analysis to justify (or disprove) such a claim like MSNBC = Fox, what we can't do is make such a claim. We could say the same for the opposite claim: that MSNBC is NOT= to Fox. BUT, which of these two is the more reasonable assumption (pending a thorough comparative analysis)?

Perhaps I have to concede that I can't claim that MSNBC is better than Fox, or that NPR and BBC isn't better than MSNBC. I haven't done the homework to justify that. I may have good reasons for not doing that homework, but I still need to it to make those claims with reasonable confidence.

BUT, I would propose this hypothesis: That MSNBC is better than the "unbiased" news in connecting the dots to draw legitimate and objective moral conclusions. How do you get an objective moral conclusion? Isn't morality just an opinion?

That was not the consensus when Carl Paladino said his garbage about homosexuality so soon after the gay teen suicides. Nor was it the case when Anderson Cooper asked an Assistant Attorney General why he is following around a gay college student and blogging about him being a Nazi. The AG said "it's nothing personal". Anderson interjected: "well of course it is. your following him around. making comments about his family, etc. you can't say it wasn't personal".

Was Anderson being "biased" when he asked this accusatory question?

Are you being biased when you claim MSNBC = Fox?

When Rachel talks about candidates that oppose abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, is she really being "biased" when she says that this candidate is in support of "the government forcing the woman to bear the rapist's child"? Or is she just saying the moral truth that the "unbiased" news stations feel is too "biased" to say?

I would remind all of you who took some form of ethics course to review what you learned about moral relativism. Use these principles as a guide to help you understand what I am trying to say here.

I hope that, busy schedules permitting, there will be interesting commentary after I post this on Facebook.

Facebook status on the word "anti-choice"

2010-10-30T16:32:00.002-05:00

On Wed, October 27, 5:36P I made this status + comment on Facebook:

Facebook Status:

I have often preferred to use the word "anti-abortion" rather than "anti-choice", because the former is more specific. It's also the most neutral choice between "pro-life" and "anti-choice" and I hope this would be a good compromise if I ever speak with anti-abortion believers. But...

Comment under:
I feel that the "pro-choice/anti-choice" dichotomy can be different than the "anti-abortion/pro-abortion" dichotomy. For one thing, many self-identified pro-choicers find themselves to be "anti-abortion" is some way. Often these folks are ones who would never think they would have an abortion themselves, but would not want to stop others from having one whether by law or verbal lecture. Also, "pro-choice" is meant to be supportive of ANY choice the pregnant woman might make, whether abortion, adoption, raising the baby yourself, or maybe giving it to a family member to raise. Surely this includes such choices as raising a baby with the father BUT not marrying the father or perhaps not even continuing the romantic or sexual relationship. Ideally, I think the hetero-couple should psychologically keep their relationship's evolution separate from their co-parenting responsibilities. I disagree strongly and fiercely that couples should stay together "just for the kids".

So ultimately the "choice" word is far more meaningful than the "euphemism for abortion" that many claim it to be. I can't fully say that the motivation to euphemize is not there. And that is because I understand humans to be ALWAYS motivated by more than they are saying (or consciously thinking). BUT the motivation of standing for choice is strong enough to be NOT a peripheral motivation, but a primary one (if not THE primary one).

So now we are just left with the feelings of those who may be called "anti-choice". I can only say this: there is far more important things at stake than how you feel being called that. If taking this stand means I have given you permission to call me or my friends YOUR preferred labels (pro-death, pro-abortion, pro-abort, pro-murder) then I can live with that. I hope my friends might feel the same, but then again I know that my fellow pro-choicers suffer a lot more than me in fighting. I'm watching the Assassination of George Tiller and I see what clinic escorts and doctors have to put up with. I can't speak for them in determining how much THEY should have to tolerate in being called the preferred labels of anti-abortionists.

Even among the non-violent (in thought and deed) subset of anti-abortion citizens there are those who still support abstinence-only, no contraception, no sex outside of marriage or procreation, and no life without religion. They may not represent the whole subset, but it bothers me so much that even here among the better angels we find intolerance for people's choices to live as they are, sexuality and all.

I feel that the anti-abortion folks are "pro-life" only in the sense of life as biological function and absence of clinical death. Life is so much more than that, and that is what women are fighting for when they travel x-number of miles to an isolated clinic where anti-choice screamers will be.

It not an issue, it is the lives of women.

Optimism, pessimism, good intentions, success and feelings

2010-05-27T15:21:00.006-05:00

Many of us have often heard others say we should "be more confident", "believe in yourself", etc. You can all make your own list of examples.

There seems to be evidence that confidence by itself sometimes breeds success. When I say "confidence by itself" I mean believing in your aptitude, personality, etc regardless of whether or not you actually have those things. So believe in your skill even if you have none or have it inadequately. Be confident, show that confidence to others, and you will succeed.

I read a psychological science paper by Norem and Chang (2002) which suggested this and gave that strategy a name: "strategic optimism". It involves not only avoiding negative thoughts (which the "be confident" crowd would champion) but it speaks well of actually having positive illusions (Norem & Chang, 2002; Taylor & Brown, 1988).

However, Norem and Chang also talk about the other half of the story, one which echos the sentiments of many of us who are frustrated with the "be-confident" crowd: sometimes strategic optimism doesn't lead to success. Sometimes it's better to imagine the worst, to have low, low expectations ("unrealistically low"). This strategy is called defensive pessimism.

The paper says that the research suggests that strategic optimism and defensive pessimism work equally well for succeeding at tasks. And that a person will perform better if allowed to use their preferred strategy, whichever it is. This adds some hope for those of us who prefer a "to each her own" strategy. In other words, if "be confident" works for you, great. But don't assume it will work for me. Not only are you possibly imposing upon me (violation of my and many others' libertarian views) but you are doing the opposite of what you are intending to do: promote my success.

The true and good intentions of a "be confident" preacher should be recognized until he or she proves otherwise. But by now we know good intentions don't equal good effects.

On the other hand, there are those that can't stop criticizing. "Pedantic" is often a fancy name for them. Ironically, it's these often these same people who end their sermon do's and don'ts with the "be confident" preaching. Essentially we are told two messages: "you can be do anything and should believe that" and "you can only do this, this, but not that, but only this is this way...."

These people are not necessarilly overly-critical. A lot of them, I think, are telling exactly what is true and nothing more. I wouldn't call them "pedantic". But sometimes it may feel that way on the receiving end. There may not be anything that the advisor can do because they are already staying within the lines of being appropriately-but-not-excessively critical. This is probably where the phrase "suck it up" comes into play, though I personally feel that is an ugly phrase to be said against another person. But I have few qualms about saying it to myself, and I suppose others feel the same, meaning a lot of success-motivated people are telling themselves to "suck it up".

And this may be where the un-optimistic, hyper-serious facial expressions (or lack of expression) emerges for any person being coached, mentored, or otherwise given advice. We look anything but confident and excited, and yet we are told (if not by the advisor, then by the rest of the world) that we need to show confidence and excitement on our faces. I'm sure there is psychological evidence and definitely lots of anecdotal evidence that shows that smiles and confidence get you the job easier than those without. It makes sense to think these things, separate from real skill, are necessary. And yet, they are kind of dependent on real skill, because if you don't have the skill, or have not prepared sufficiently, how can you feel confident? What reason do you have to be? Don't forget, we are also advised by the world not to be overconfident, "pride cometh before a fall", and a hundred thousand stories of people who thought they were all that only to have reality "slap them in the face". And the lesson? They needed that.

Why not avoid such folly by assuming less than confidence would have you believe?

Every adult has every reason to be confident they can add single digits, that they can walk better than an infant, and that they can control their hand to turn a doorknob. Beyond these low-grade examples, there are hundred other things we can and should be 100% confident in. But these are things that are true beyond a doubt. Judgments of whether I know enough to answer this or that interview question in the right way, with the right emotional expression, excluding these or those words, all of which may change from interviewer to interviewer....to assess if one is ready for this is a far more ambiguous assessment. There is always room for realistic doubt (or nearly always, see told you). The success-obtaining value of showing confidence and smiles is real. But you also want there to be answers behind that confident grin.

Finally, I think there is another value besides success. There is also the value of being your own human self in whatever human emotional state you are in. And I'd like to think others ought to be tolerant of others emotional states, unless they involve an angry attack on them. While the darker, more serious moments on our faces are sometimes considered less "human" than the ideal of a laughing, confident, life-is-too-short demeanor, really all of our emotional states are human because we do not change species when we shift emotions. I turned to psychological science in this blog post because the field has in many ways a greater appreciation of the diversity of human expression beyond what society considers ideal or "normal". It was society that considered being gay "a sickness" and it was scientific psychology that disproved that, after cleaning out its own biases. I can't say nerds in the psych department always know more than people living in the real world. But we do have access to some objective thought strategies that can shed some light on so many claims made by people: "be confident", "suck it up", etc.

I know this means that sometimes the people making those claims will be proven right (at least until more evidence comes in). Though that is probably why I chose to end this piece talking about the value of freely-felt emotional states. Because even if psych science shows that the preachers pushing me to act and feel against my desire are truly bringing me towards a successful interview or whatever, will it be justified? Don't forget, we have "ends don't justify the means" principle. Though I know we choose to break it a lot and that is what defines much of mature pragmatism. And I can support a lot of that.

I think that it is always good to learn as much as we can about a place before we have an interview there. Learning about the place means learning about the culture and the people there. The advantage is that you can hopefully see how much of your true insecurities is ok to express. In social psychology, they call these "display rules", and we already know such unspoken rules differ between cultures.

A place that does work with weird results (like scientific research) might have folks in the place of employment that are all-too-empathetic with colleagues that looked frazzled. In some places, it is more ok to let them see you sweat (or have an unsmiling/nervous face).

It's searching for places you fit.

.........
References

Norem,J.K. & Chang,E.C. (2002). The positive psychology of negative thinking. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58 (9), 993-1001

Taylor, S.E. & Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological bulletin, 103, 193-210.

Sampling some of my best posts

2010-03-28T17:44:00.008-05:00

November 20, 2007: How I Spent my Transgender Day of Remembrance

Nov-Dec 2007: In the comments section of this article, I debate pro-lifers on the question of abortion and whether women should get jail time like any other murderer. The main pro-lifer I debate is “AndyJ”. My name is “Harry834”. Since this time I have often made comments asking this same question to other prolifers, though I don’t necessarily invest as much time in the debate as I did in this one with AndyJ. Also, anyone can jump in to comment, so be sure to see commenter’s name to see if it is my words or someone else’s. But the convergence of so many different commenters is great because we often add on to each other’s points.

The article has 65 comments as of today. Back when it was only 32 comments, I commented about the progress of that debate on my blog.

Jan 22, 2008: I wrote this on the anniversary of Roe v Wade. It is a list of things I think heterosexual men should do to advance and respect women’s rights: For Pro-Choice Straight Men

A commenter had emailed me some questions about what I said in this post. So I felt it was necessary to write a clarification (Feb 10, 2008)

Jan 25, 2008: This is a commentary I wrote on another the post of another advocate, Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out. He advocates against the scientific falsehoods of the ex-gay movement. Some of my commentary might read like a book report, but I add my opinion too.

March 10, 2008: Around this time, an audio tape had been release of State Senator Sally Kern at rally with fellow social conservatives. She expressed anti-gay views and said historical falsehoods such as “no society with homosexuality has lasted more than ten years”. This post was about how I saw the issue of free speech in relation to my views, her views, and the views of her other critics.

Approx. March 19^th 2008: Once again, I get into a debate with someone on RH Reality Check about the issue of whether women should be imprisoned for getting abortions the way murderers are. The link you hit here to the pro-lifer’s response, and if you scroll down you will see me comment back as “Harry834”. Warning: the font got messed up, so all our words are in bold.

*May 20^th 2008: A big blog post analysis - “Should women who have abortions go to prison?”

*July 8^th, 2008: My comment as Harry834 on a RH post on late-term abortion. My comment is has the heading, “this is why”

*July 11^th 2008: My differing and nuanced opinions on immigration issues

September 11^th 2008: Bill O’Reilly had made some negative comments about the unplanned pregnancy of Jaime Lynn Spears, younger sister of Britney Spears. Bill was criticized by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show for not giving similar negative commentary for Bristol Palin’s unplanned pregnancy. Bill defended himself saying we had media documentation of Britney’s crazy lifestyle but none of Bristol’s. I take all these statement, combine them with knowns and unknowns, and give my assessment, logically charting out.

*September 17^th 2008: Not all teen marriages are failures

November 21, 2008: Another Transgender Day of Remembrance. My post, A just society protects all citizens, transgender or not

December 20^th 2008: Having doubts about the Rick Warren fight

February 11, 2009: I emailed a letter to network planning to air an anti-gay documentary. Here is that letter.

*December 1, 2009: comment on RH as Harry834. I make a suggestion about anti-abortion laws, heading “good point”

More recently:

I debate "Logical Brian" (as Harry834), scroll down far

I debate folks (as Harry834) at the politically conservative gay site, Gay Patriot: here, and here, and here.

An analysis by Amanda Marcotte on choice and shame

2010-03-09T19:59:00.007-05:00

Good read.

Here's an exerpt:

"But my shoulders really start to tense up when I hear, 'I'm pro-choice, but ... .' What follows that 'but' is 99 percent guaranteed to be egregiously sexist, a suggestion that huge numbers of women wait eight months and abort for the hell of it or that women prefer to have their uteruses vacuumed out instead of taking a pill or that you should feel ashamed—or at least act like it. And that's what I got off this guilt-tripping 'I'm pro-choice, but ... ' whine written by Mary Ann Sorrentino. "

My thoughts

At center is the the idea of women who have had abortions speaking out. I believe women who choose to do this should be encouraged through whatever medium they choose. This is their coming out. I never want women to be pressured to speak about her experience, but if she chooses to, she should be encouraged because the absence of these real stories is what allows stereotypes and anti-choice testimonies by "women who regret" to become the primary definers of the abortion experience. I accept that there are women who regret, and I am still learning about how large their numbers are. I believe these women, like all women, should seek the counselors that are best for them as individuals, if they choose to have counselors.

I simply wish that these women gave other women the same acceptance for their personal choices and experiences, even if they don't agree or approve of them. What do you think "pro-choice" stands for?

To learn more about the stories of women who don't regret, see I'm Not Sorry. I should say that this group alone is still not representative of the entire abortion experience, though I suspect more women belong to the "no regret" group than the "regret" group (I don't mean these website's numbers, I mean the general society of women of the abortion experience). I do remember a site that tries to include a broad range of many types of abortion experiences. I'll get that link later in an update.

An online friend of mine is doing a study. Needs your help.

2010-03-04T21:52:00.002-05:00

Hello gang,

One of my online allies, Heather Corinna, sent me and others a description and link for a survey she is doing for a scientific study. Here is the description, as copied and pasted from her facebook message to me:

......

Heather Corinna is doing a large study on multigenerational experiences with and attitudes about casual sex. The data will ideally be used for publication, but answers are completely anonymous and will only be used anonymously.

There's a lot of buzz now about "hooking up," the newest term for casual sex, though casual sex isn't new at all -- nor does it only belong to the current generation, despite often being presented that way. Unlike most of the buzz out there, she's not interested in telling anyone how to have sex, warning people off any given kind of sex or in presenting any one kind of sex as "the best way." She's just looking for what's real, both in sexual attitudes and experiences among a diverse array of ages, genders and sexual identities, races and sexual ideologies/constructions. The only requirements for participating in this study are being over the age of 16, and having had some kind of sexual partnership before, even if none has been casual. The study will take around twenty minutes.

She would like the study to show as diverse an array of people as possible, especially since so often media representations or cultural conversations about casual sex are usually only about heterosexual white women or about gay men. She particularly wants to be sure LGBT people, people of color, those over 45 and social conservatives are adequately represented, so please share this link with your networks after you take the survey yourself, especially if your networks include people in any or all of those groups.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/S97WR6H

If you don't know who Heather is, she's been working in human sexuality for around 12 years. She is the founder and executive director for Scarleteen.com, does sex education outreach at youth shelters and women's clinics in Seattle, and has been a sex columnist and writer online for sites like The Guardian and RH Reality Check. She has also been published in a handful of anthologies and is the author of S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know-Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and College (DaCapo Press). If you have any questions, you can contact Heather at hcorinna@mac.com

A leader of the Ugandan kill-the-gays bill speaks back to us

2010-03-02T13:25:00.002-05:00

He speaks to our American LGBT blog, Pam's House Blend. Enjoy.

"Why I'm getting an abortion"

2010-02-22T22:43:00.001-05:00

by Angie the Anti-Theist, here

I debate Logical Brian

2010-02-21T18:04:00.001-05:00

He is a secular anti-choicer. Scroll to bottom....enjoy

And now some light sadism...

2010-02-20T19:32:00.002-05:00

The Filet-O-Fish song!

Here are the lyrics:

Give me back that filet o’ fish,
Give me that fish.

What if it were you
hanging up on this wall?

If it were you in that sandwich,
you wouldn’t be laughing at alllllll!

Amanda Marcotte on parental notification laws

2010-02-16T14:02:00.001-05:00

Like Literacy tests, also enjoy comments, (11 so far, including one from me)

I debate Progo35 on abortion

2010-02-14T10:16:00.001-05:00

Enjoy, this first comment is mine

Amanda Marcotte's Against Valentines' Day

2010-02-13T16:20:00.001-05:00

Against Valentines' Day

Johnny Depp defends Roman Polanski

2010-02-07T23:12:00.001-05:00

See Shakesville's, Johnny Depp: Rape Defender

Planned Parenthood responds to Tim Tebow Ad with their own ad

2010-02-05T19:47:00.004-05:00

In case you haven't heard, there's a controversy over Super Bowl Player Tim Tebow airing an anti-abortion commercial. No one except Focus on the Family has seen it, and that is beacuse they helped make it.

Specifically, the ad is the story of Tim's mother, Pam Tebow, when she was pregnant with Tim. the doctors told her her health was in danger and advised her to abort. She chose not to, and pro-choice groups have not protested that choice. What they do protest is the idea that it is good to have pregnancy against doctor's orders, because "hey, you never know" what the kid will grow up to be. Also the idea that taking such a risk is necessary to "choose life" (implying that avoiding the risk, following doctor's advice, is to "choose death" or "choose against life")

I'm not saying I want the ad pulled, though many pro-choice individuals and groups want this. However, many other pro-choicers want the ad to go on. Perhaps there should have been a medical disclaimer in the ad.

I'm actually happy with Planned Parenthood's response, which is to create their own ad, now blossoming on You Tube and other places. This ad has football stars of its own, one who talks about his mother, another who talks about his daughter. Both football stars want a world where women's medical decisions are respected, no matter what they are.

Check it: Video

Also, for more of my online activism regarding this issue, check out my email to sports writer an Sally Jenkins', who supports the Tebow ad (here) and my debate with "Logical Brian" on a facebook hub created by those who created the Tebow ad (scroll down, he calls me "Socrates"!!!)

Americans United joins with other groups to write President Obama

2010-02-04T13:00:00.002-05:00

Separation of church and state. See their letter.

The best of Amanda Marcotte (in the past month or so)

2010-02-01T22:52:00.010-05:00

She's an awesome pro-choice blogger.

What she believes: pro-lifers are less concerned about protecting "unborn children" than they are about punishing women for having sex. This explains why pro-life organizations are often anti-contraception and anti-sex ed (unless it's abstinence-only). She has considered the possibility of pro-lifers who might not be so anti-woman, who are merely "naive" who haven't thought through the issues - and the women - who are affected by anti-abortion laws and philosophy.

She also believes that a reason so many pro-lifers call for adoption is that they want a market for white babies. The links that follow don't touch much on that issue. But try a Google search "amanda marcotte unruh we want more babies" and you may read more on that issue.

Also, she like many pro-choicers, object to the idea of pro-lifers being called "pro-lifers", especially since she believes that they truly hate life.

Why she believes it: Below is a snipet of the blog posts she had written in recent days. It doesn't touch on all the issues, but it may explain some, mostly about anti-choicers.

101 Reasons Not to Have an Abortion

What If My Mother Had Aborted Me?

Celebrating Choice: The New Fad Among Anti-Choicers

The Stupak anti-abortion health care bill is about fear of women's agency

Pseudo-science and Pseudo-sympathy in the abortion and breast cancer debate

Scott Roeder is guilty. Now what?

Well at least he's admitted to being opposed to contraception

Mystery of right-wing freak out

Something a little older...from Jan 29, 2008:

Fear of a My Space Planet

"The debate over gay marriage will never again be the same"

2010-01-29T21:07:00.000-05:00

So says this Times article.

Interesting article on abortion, choice, and the Constitution

2010-01-26T17:10:00.001-05:00

Abortion

I only wonder about his analysis about the Hyde Amendment being ok, but then again I'm not a constitutional scholar

What would you do if your friend murdered her child?

2010-01-24T02:15:00.002-05:00

I asked this question to Derek P, using these two examples of murder: 1.) throwing your newborn in the trash 2.) having an abortion

See our debate and his responses. I'm Harry 834.

Roe is 37 today. Amanda Marcotte's blog for choice

2010-01-22T21:25:00.001-05:00

Enjoy: Why am I pro-choice

Cindy McCain supports marriage equality

2010-01-21T13:53:00.002-05:00

What's going on here? The commenters in this article suggest that the Republican party ought to be looked at with more nuance. Some disagree, saying that these pro-gay/pro-stem cell/pro-choice Republicans are the minority in the party. Some say, they aren't doing enough, and ought to do more if they want to be counted.

Read the comments, see what thoughts you come up with.

Should ERs give a blastocyst the same care as the rape victim?

2010-01-20T17:00:00.003-05:00

I should have a link to what a blastcyst looks like, but anti-abortion (but pro-birth control) Paul Bradford is already saying about rape victims in the ER:

"What is hard for me -- and it really is hard -- is your comment that the blastocyst isn't showing up at the ER. Where on earth do you think the blastocyst is? The blastocyst is most assuredly showing up at the ER and the blastocyst is most assuredly vulnerable to physical assault -- in fact, physical assault in the ER is imminent for the blastocyst if her/his mother is given mifepristone....Clearly we disagree on the question of whether a blastocyst is as deserving of our care and concern as a rape victim is -- but the disagreement isn't because I care less about rape victims than you do because I care a great deal more than you know. Our disagreement is rooted in the fact that you care less about blastocysts than I do -- a position I find extremely curious since you yourself were once a blastocyst."

Pam Spaulding's thoughts on why Dems lost Kennedy's seat

2010-01-20T10:53:00.001-05:00

Thoughts here.

What to do if you see a woman get groped

2010-01-18T15:40:00.001-05:00

Some practical thoughts: How bystanders can help groping victims

Amanda Marcotte's thoughts on conservative support for marriage equality trial

2010-01-18T15:11:00.001-05:00

Her thoughts.

Link to CNN: How you can help Haiti

2010-01-18T00:46:00.001-05:00

Right here: which organizations are doing what, etc. Here.

Someone writes about me!

2010-01-17T13:29:00.003-05:00

For better or worse I got into a debate/dialogue with someone named "Any" on RH Reality Check (scroll to comments). She now has written a post about me. Will figure out a response in time.

Nancy Polikoff writes about the Prop 8 trial

2010-01-16T18:07:00.002-05:00

Nancy Polikoff is the law professor and author of Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: Valuing All Familes Under the Law. She has a blog (which I follow, scroll down) which talks about these issues as they relate to current events. Nancy's cause is to go beyond the struggle for legal recognition of married gays towards a legal recognition of all types of family constellations, including unmarried parents, unmarried couples, people raising aging parents, grandparents and aunts raising nephews and nieces, single parents whether gay or straight....you get the idea. Essentially all family forms regardless of whether there is a married couple (or even any couple) in the picture. Because you shouldn't have to get married to get needed support for your family.

She does support legalized marriage equality as a matter of equality under the law. Here, she writes her views on the current Prop 8 trail.

No abortions with your tax money? What about mine?

2010-01-15T13:20:00.003-05:00

The anti-abortion amendments of Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson have reignited the fight over the original financial ban on abortion money: the Hyde Amendment. For 30 years before Bart and Ben, the Hyde Amendment had already banned federal money for abortion. Bart and Ben want to take it further by bringing these restrictions into private insurance market, meaning even if a woman would pay for an abortion with her own money, she'd be restricted.

Center for Reproductive Rights is doing a campaign to speak out against the Hyde Amendment and the idea that anti-abortion folks get to pick-and-choose with their tax dollars while the rest of us don't get to pick and choose.

So what would you prohibit your tax dollars going to? The video asks and people answer.

What would I deny tax money to? Glad you asked...

I don't want my tax dollars going to fund any organization, school, church, or charity that teaches anyone homophobia, anti-abortion views, abstinence-until-marriage views, "tough love" philosophy of any kind, evolution denialism, anti-athiest views, the idea that you only have rights if you have money to pay for them, any person or organization that says "get over it" or "grow up", any one who teaches anything I find offensive or hurtful or irrational or unkind or having misplaced sympathies of any kind...

That's the most I can think of. I have other things to do today, so I can't be here too long. But just know that I'd be frugal with my tax dollars.

To what would you deny your taxes? Click on the "people answer" link and tell them!

Update (9:45P): Pro-choice Goth is debating anti-choicer Jen H in the comments section of this post on the topic: click here, scroll down

My Facebook friend gives me the scoop on TRUE biblical definitions

2010-01-09T21:53:00.002-05:00

Lisa Equality Talmadge sent me this: Dicese of Saints Albert and Aelred > On Inclusiveness

Lisa has been a very informative friend to me on the issue of what is happening in Uganda. I'd recommend friending her.

Portugal legalizes marriage equality

2010-01-08T17:14:00.003-05:00

Another nation beats us, and a Roman Catholic one at that. NYT.

I see the celebration in the article: "Gay rights campaigners applauded from the galleries, hugged and kissed outside the building and ate wedding cake."

Ah, joy and love. Blenders react.

Commenter Crowepps' gives sexual assault prevention tips

2010-01-08T16:57:00.003-05:00

novel ideas, take a look

Michael Steele to RNC: "fire me or shut up"

2010-01-08T14:44:00.000-05:00

Google this, bitches

Obama appoints transgender woman to commerce department post

2010-01-05T11:13:00.002-05:00

Awesome!

Though we have to keep in mind that when Obama does things like this, he might be partially motivated by the angry LGBT groups, individual LGBT citizens, and straight allies that have spoken out. If this motivational theory is correct, then we see how you can get progress by being stubborn.

Amanda Marcotte's wish list for the pro-choice movement

2010-01-05T03:36:00.002-05:00

What should we do in the next ten years? A list.

The first point on that list is repeal of the Hyde Amendment, the 30 year rule that prevents federal funding for abortions. One op-ed writer writes how the fight for abortion rights has mostly been for those who didn't have money, "Don't make abortion about ability to pay"

NYTimes catches on: Articles on Uganda

2010-01-04T20:03:00.001-05:00

Americans' Role Seen in Uganda

Gay in Uganda, and Feeling Hunted

Jib Jab's 2009

2010-01-02T19:08:00.000-05:00

One for the year: jib jab

HIV experts say Gender Identity Disorder should be reclassified

2009-12-30T14:17:00.001-05:00

GID is the name for the diagnosis that allows transgender people to have the medical services - counseling as well as possible, but not definite, surgery - that allow them to transition to a new gender or come to terms with their birth-assigned gender. These HIV experts want a second look.

Security technologist explains the recent terror attacks

2009-12-29T12:35:00.002-05:00

Bruce Schneier on Rachel Maddow. About 7 minutes. Be sure to click on second clip from yesterday's show, 12/28/09. It will change day to day.

Pakistani Supreme Court recognizes transgender people

2009-12-29T12:34:00.000-05:00

I love the courts.

Robert Reich's assessment of things

2009-12-22T18:37:00.001-05:00

Reich: Slouching Towards Health Reform

Co-operation between gays and ex-gays?

2009-12-21T07:35:00.002-05:00

With the Uganda bill to lock up gay Ugandans and possibly force them into ex-gay therapy, those fighting against this bill have forged a co-operative statement between gays and ex-gays.

Box Turtle Bulletin's complete coverage of the Uganda bill

2009-12-20T14:02:00.004-05:00

and the involvement of our own religious righties.

starting Feb 24th, check it.

Ssempa sends similar but different version of letter

2009-12-20T06:28:00.002-05:00

Check it, with comments by a professor who is against their bill

Anti-gay Ugandan religious leader angry at Rick Warren

2009-12-19T18:54:00.002-05:00

Now that killing gay people is too much even for anti-gay Rick Warren, a Ugandan anti-gay religious leader, Martin Ssempa, sees Warren as soft. Read his words, and check the links for a response back from Gay Uganda blogspot (which I follow)

Link to Gay Uganda's response: "Stop lying Ssempa" (has link to actual bill)

The need to do more

2009-12-19T00:14:00.003-05:00

A fellow New Yorker posts on the Blend, asking why he didn't do more for equality. It's a good read: "A dangerous point of view"

Human Life Alliance's comments on their support for rape-pregrancies to "heal" rape victims

2009-12-18T15:17:00.005-05:00

The post I linked earlier now has comments from Human Life Alliance. You can read them:

living breathing reminder = human being

Life

You'll read in both links the story of one person (and links to others) who were children conceived in rape. The gist is that these children grow up to live good human lives. I'm happy that this is true. I'm happy for that same result for any child born to a woman who CHOOSES to carry their child, regardless of how the child was conceived. The key word is "chooses". As far as I know, HLA probably supports rape exceptions in anti-abortion laws. BUT, they still pump out the message that women in general are better to carry their rapist's child, because 1.) to abort is to kill the child, and 2.) carrying the rapist's child will help them heal.

I feel they have more care for reason 1 than reason 2, in the which case the message is that having an abortion after a rape makes the rape victim a murderer. The movement won't explicitly say this, preferring to blame the doctor, the boyfriend, economic pressure, family pressure, etc, though all the these reasons could pressure a pregnant woman against having the abortion - in addition to religious pressure, religious family pressure, disapproval of your religious community, etc. And I include economic pressure in there, knowing that raising a child costs more than abortion, because women need funds for abortion and more and more sources of funding are being taken away to satisfy the "conscience" of those who'll never bear the consequences in their own body, life, mind, and future.

Women who choose to carry their pregnancies, any pregnancy, should get all the support we can give. So too, should women who choose adoption OR abortion. The anti-abortion movement is hell-bent on blocking and coaking women out of the option of abortion and the main rationale is that abortion equals murder. If one of women's choices makes the woman a murderer in the eyes (and religion, philosophy, "family values") of those around her, can they claim to be supportive of her regardless of her choice?

Equality California director writes about acceptance in the school environment

2009-12-18T00:38:00.002-05:00

Right-wing school tactics = death

TODAY is Call-Day at White House on Uganda (and now Rwanda)

2009-12-16T14:20:00.002-05:00

Rwanda is also getting a kill-the-gays bill running. Facebook user, Waiyde Palmer is sending out this:

JOIN OVER 30,000 OTHER PEOPLE IN A NATIONAL CALL-IN DAY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS TOMORROW!! We have coordinated this action across all the different Facebook groups committed to this cause. Please join us.

CALLING ALL U.S. RESIDENTS OR CITIZENS -- PLEASE PARTICIPATE TO FIGHT THE ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY BILL IN UGANDA. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND ASK THEM TO CALL THE WHITE HOUSE AND STATE DEPARTMENT ON WEDNESDAY THIS WEEK!!!

FIGHT THE UGANDA ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY BILL!

Call the U.S. White House and State Department WEDNESDAY, 16 DECEMBER 2009

You can reach the White House Comments by calling:
202 – 456 – 1111

You can reach the State Department by calling:
202 – 647 - 6575

WHITE HOUSE CALL IN SCRIPT-PLEASE CALL!
1. Call the White House Comments Line at 202-456-1111.
2. The receptionist will answer. Introduce yourself and let them know you are a U.S. resident or citizen from from (city, state) __________.
3. “I am calling today to thank President Obama for his recent public condemnation of Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. I urge the President to follow up with action. Specifically, I am calling on the President to support economic sanctions on trade and the withdraw of foreign aid to Uganda if this bill passes.”
4. You can stop there or add an additional sentence or two about why this issue is important to you (ex: human rights, the fight against HIV/AIDS, etc.)
5. Thank the receptionist, hang up and call the State Department.

STATE DEPARTMENT CALL IN SCRIPT -PLEASE CALL!
1. Call the State Department switchboard at 202-647-6575.
2. The receptionist will answer. Introduce yourself and let them know you are a U.S. resident of citizen from (city, state) __________.
3. “I am calling today to thank the State Department for its recent public condemnation of Uganda’s proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. I urge the Secretary of State to follow up now with action. Specifically, I am calling for support of economic sanctions on trade and the withdraw of foreign aid to Uganda if this bill passes.”
4. You can stop there or add an additional sentence or two about why this issue is important to you (ex: human rights, the fight against HIV/AIDS, etc.)
5. Thank the receptionist and hang up.

Recently, members of the Ugandan Parliament introduced the draconian 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill. The Parliament will soon vote on this bill, which if passed, will sentence homosexuals to life in prison. If arrested, a person will be forced by the government to take an HIV test. And, any HIV+ person convicted of homosexuality will be executed. Anyone who “aids and abets” a homosexual risks 7 years in prison. Anyone in authority who does not turn in a homosexual can be put in prison for 3 years. You can see the actual text here: http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf

Furthermore, it will reverse the significant gains that Uganda has made in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Persons with HIV or suspect they may have HIV will not come forward for testing or treatment. People will die needlessly, the virus will spread through society undetected, and the rate of infection in Uganda will rise once again.

This bill is a significant offense to internationally recognized norms of human rights and a threat to public health. It must be stopped. It is urgent that the international community come together and let the Ugandan government know that this extreme legislation is unacceptable and that there will be consequences. If the bill passes and becomes law, the Ugandan government should be subject to economic sanctions including the denial of access to lending, withdraw of grant-based aid, and the nullification of trade preferences.

THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN UGANDA!! NOW RE-POST, INVITE OTHERS, WRITE YOUR OWN NOTE AND LETS KEEP THE PRESSURE ON!!

All my posts on Uganda - includes the videos

2009-12-14T23:04:00.002-05:00

Rachel Maddow vs Uganda law parts 1, 2, 3, 4

The voice of one gay Ugandan living there.

The above four Rachel clips show how U.S. religious-Congressfolks have helped the passage of the bill. Also hear more from our own fanatics.

The new blog I follow: Gay Uganda

2009-12-14T01:24:00.002-05:00

I follow many blogs as you'll see in my profile. Today I follow another: Gay Uganda.

Check it in my list of followed blogs in my profile. Also see it here.

Rachel vs Uganda law, pt 4 - Republican Senator Chuck Grassley

2009-12-11T23:37:00.003-05:00

Last night's Rachel clip.

Grassley has also been one of the Senate Republicans who are ALL against the health reform bill or any public option. Grassley has also accused the health reform bill of "killing grandma" . To contact Grassley, click here.

Juxtapose him to Democratic Senator, Russ Feingold (also in Rachel clip).

Rachel vs Uganda law, pt 3 - Rick Warren's role

2009-12-11T10:27:00.006-05:00

Last night, one clip relating to Rick Warren.

Also, Box Turtle Bulletin reports its list of coverage on the Uganda issue: BTB

Added (Dec 11, 10:59P): More on Rick

Rachel vs Uganda law, pt 2: Our legislators helped the Uganda bill

2009-12-10T02:12:00.009-05:00

Two secret investigators give Rachel the inside scoop. Check out part 1 and part 2 of last night's episode (hit the "play" symbol on part 1). I wrote about the original Cohen interview plus context yesterday.

Also looks like Time Magazine is writing about this.

Also happened to find a reaction from one of the ex-gay advocates. I'm sure you can Google others. This one is from an ex-gay group that's been around for awhile, Exodus International.

Can carrying a rapist's baby help the victim heal?

2009-12-09T22:46:00.002-05:00

According to the Human Life League, the answer is yes:

Copy/paste:

For example, both editions [of Human Life's materials] claim:

that abortion causes breast cancer;
birth control pills only suppress ovulation 50% of the time; and
rape victims would feel they "conquered" their attack/rape if they carried their child to term and gave birth to it.

Bart Stupak op-eds about his amendment; pro-choice Rep. Lois Capps responds

2009-12-09T22:31:00.002-05:00

Stupak's op-ed...

Capps's response.

Julie Watkins is awesome

2009-12-09T14:46:00.002-05:00

Her explanations of Nature's sexism are brilliantly illuminated. Enjoy her comment, "moral implications of killing versus systematic sexism"

Google this...

2009-12-09T14:31:00.002-05:00

Google: I'm reading it from your book dude

Rachel vs Uganda law, pt 1: Rachel interviews "ex-gay" advocate Cohen

2009-12-09T10:24:00.014-05:00

Watched it last night. It was a split screen interview. Google: Rachel Maddow Richard Cohen

Richard Cohen heads the International Healing Foundation, a group that claims to help people change their sexual orientation.

Prior to doing the Cohen interview, she provided the context by talking about Uganda's proposed "kill the gays" legislation, and the links between the Ugandan proponents of this bill, and the American C-street crowd and the American evangelist movement, including the ex-gay movement. She also interviewed a Mark Benajamin, of the Salon journal, who pretended to be gay and sought ex-gay counseling as a means of investigating these groups. One thing he witnessed, and which is a common theme in expose's such as Wayne Besen's Anything But Straight, is that the ex-gay movement confuses, possibly with intent, the meaning of sexual orientation with sexual behavior. Orientation is what you feel and desire and behavior is what you do. Stopping one's behavior does not stop one's desires. But the ex-gay "success stories" often use the stopping of behavior as evidence that "change is possible", a phrase Cohen used over and over last night (even while claiming that he does not offer a "cure").

Another point is that no two ex-gay programs are the same. Many might do a "secular" approach, and Cohen explicitly said he does not do prayer. Often such places employ the disproven research of Paul Cameron and others which point to (false) causes of homosexuality like childhood traumas. The Freudian lingo is used a lot with these individuals. Cohen's techniques have included asking a male client to cuddle with him or a "male mentor" as an attempt to rebuild a "fractured" relationship with a father figure. Another technique is having the client hit a tennis racket against a pillow, screaming angrilly at their mother, in order to resolve that aspect of their childhood. Now that these techniques have been highlighted on videos that I'm sure you can You Tube, I wonder if he still talks about them in his public talks.

Also note that the terminology can change. The term "ex-gay" may not be used. You read above that even the word "cure" may be denied. Some may not acknowledge the term "sexual orientation" or "gay". Indeed, many words - "change", "orientation", "heterosexual", "homosexual", etc - are all subject to differing definitions by different groups.

Then the interview started. Cohen started off by saying "Uganda got it wrong...and so did you Rachael...since the 1950s, the Uganda government has been punishing homosexual behavior, so this is not new...we do not believe in this legislation. We had no knowledge of it.". Throughout the interview, Cohen said that his group advocates compassion and tolerance for those who "choose" to live a homosexual lifestyle and those who choose to come out straight. At the end of interview, he mentions Rachael as an example of the former.

Notes on Cohen's books -

Rachael reads a passage from Cohen's book "Coming Out Straight", which makes claims about how homosexuals are x-times more likely to recruit and molest children. This is Rachael's rebuttal to Cohen's claim that he is about fostering tolerance towards gays. Cohen said, that is not in the new version of his book, version 3. Racheal notes she read it from version 2. Cohen said he took out that part because of the way he fears it may be used to justify hateful Ugandan legislation against gays (which is Rachael's whole point against him).

She also reads from, "Gay Children, Straight Parents", about how certain factors can cause homosexuality such as, "divorce, adoption...and race". He acted surprised that the word "race" was in there. Cohen said she quoted him out of context prodded her to read above and below that quote, which she did. It didn't seem to reveal any significant qualifier, though Cohen said it did. The qualifier? That homosexuality is caused by multiple factors. This was meant to steer away from the idea that he was blaming any one factor that he listed out. Rachael then repeatedly asked him how race makes someone gay. He used the it's-not-any-one factor argument.

Always be wary of that argument. It seems a classic way for advocates to toss out multiple rationales, and try to take back those that don't sell. I'm wondering if someone else put race in there, or he was just tossing out social science categories, and forgot to edit his book. It might explain his surprised look.

Teleology can be an oppressive philosophy

2009-12-08T14:28:00.001-05:00

Teleology - the idea that "things happen for a reason" - is less wonderful than it sounds. It can be used to justify and glorify the status quo of societal expectations. Commentor Julie Watkins, who reminds us that "natural" is not the same as "right", notes this:

The way human biology works...

Tomorrow, Rachael Maddow debates ex-gay activist Richard Cohen

2009-12-08T03:21:00.004-05:00

Aside from promoting a a false, unethical "therapy", Rachael says that Richard's views have reached Uganda where they are drafting new legislation to give gays life or death sentences. Rachael's point is that by creating the (false) idea that sexual orientation is a choice, it is easier for legislators to treat is as a chosen behavior that a law abiding citizen can and should suppress.

Rachael's debate is on her show, the Rachael Maddow Show, which runs today at 9P, 11P, and 2A

Chances are, the video clips for tomorrow's show won't be there till Wed. But the above link should get you to the clips once there.

Or Ti-Vo, DVR it. i-Tunes podcast (free). Pick a time to watch.

Chris Hedges explains why liberals are cowardly and useless

2009-12-07T14:55:00.003-05:00

Liberals are useless

In my own view, I'm thinking we all need to start looking into third, fourth, fifth, etc, parties. I hear a dissatisfaction in America's two parties that calls for this new search. More importantly, we ought to consider voting our conscience and values. Otherwise, one of the two parties will always own you.

It's perhaps time to spoil some elections (for the right reasons). Vote socialist, vote communist, vote libertarian (I wouldn't), etc

Also, we should consider the option of not voting if none of the candidates are right. Get involved another way.

Jennifer Senior writes, "Why the Abortion Wars Will Never End"

2009-12-06T14:30:00.001-05:00

Well, it's a journey. Take note.

An American Episcopal bishop condemns Uganda's proposed "kill the gays" law (unlike our other American bishops)

2009-12-05T15:04:00.005-05:00

On Pam's

While all the commentors agree that violent homophobia needs to be fought, one commentor suggests that it ought to be from the inside:

copy/paste -

"I still think that any effort to fight this must come from the inside. People in general don't like to be lectured by foreigners. If on the eve of the Proposition 8 battle the leader of France made a big speech condemning homophobia, how would the American electorate react?..."

- zazu

One answer to zazu's question might be that only the bigots (both in America and Uganda) would react to being "lectured" by foreigners. The victims would likely be grateful, at least if our efforts brought real change. Of course, the bigots hold the power, so maybe it's more about pragmatics than principle.

Though other commentors recall the example of Nazi Germany and how it taught us that no nation can afford to be silent to another's internal oppression.

NY Senate votes against equality - here are their names

2009-12-02T20:12:00.002-05:00

List of names: remember them in 2010

**This was a bill FOR marriage equality, so the "no" votes are the assholes. But also look at the parentheses to see who was undecided, and when.

8 Democrats voted against equality. It seems that Democrat majorities aren't what we were promised.

Update (9:13P): NY Senate's Facebook page

Comments on Pam's Blend respond to Obama's Afghanistan decision

2009-12-02T09:56:00.006-05:00

Pam's House Blend is a site started by Pam Spaulding, an African-American lesbian blogger, where she and other bloggers talk about issues relevant to LGBT rights, racial justice, and progressive issues in general. In the following post, Obama's speech is transcribed (warning, it's long, scroll down alot), and below the commentors start.

Really there is a diversity of opinions. My experience is that most commentors on the site have a negative opinion about Barack regarding his slowness on LGBT rights issues. But on this issue of Afghanistan, I see more of a mix. There are some who say we need to be there.

Remember to scroll down the long Obama speech in order to see the comment thread. Click here.

Update (2:54P): Joan Walsh on Salon says that progressives have only themselves to blame.

Stupak: How did pro-choicers let this happen?

2009-12-01T10:00:00.002-05:00

Advocates For Youth worker, James Wagoner, explains.

Also, the fight is on against Stupak. Facebook the revolt.

Made an awesome legal argument on abortion rights

2009-12-01T06:55:00.000-05:00

Check it, on "good point"

There'll be sure to be comments later, including those from anti-choicers. Enjoy those too.

Firedog Lake group promises to fight conservative Democrats in primary

2009-11-24T02:14:00.001-05:00

Hope? You decide.

Check 'em out: Firedog Lake

WebMD lists famous healthy habits...that may backfire

2009-11-23T12:16:00.003-05:00

Among those that might make you less healthy:

Cleaning your kitchen.

Using ergonomic products.

Drinking water.

Brushing your teeth.

For the full list, plus explanations of the above (because you already see the need for explanation), click here.

A speech for anti-abortion Democrat Bart Stupack

2009-11-23T09:23:00.001-05:00

here

Facebook group is gathering those who support the rising FEDERAL case against Prop 8

2009-11-22T09:54:00.001-05:00

When you hit "attended", that doesn't mean you are going anywhere, just means you support the case. In times past, the idea of a federal case may have been less advisable, but I think it's getting ripe now.

Of course, I'll post contrary opinions when I find them (or feel like it).

I've made some comments as "Harry Nagendra". Enjoy them.

On the politics and science of the mammogram debate

2009-11-22T09:13:00.002-05:00

Daily Kos

Update (11/24/09, 11:50A): What Breast Cancer Action says

Enjoy the text of tonight's health bill

2009-11-21T18:19:00.000-05:00

reading is fundamental.

The Daily Show puts out video supporting young allies

2009-11-20T16:56:00.004-05:00

It's here.

What do pro-choice Republicans think of the health care bill

2009-11-19T15:46:00.003-05:00

While not all pro-choice Republicans are the same, here is a statement from the Republican Majority for Choice (from an email they sent me):

With the Senate finally releasing their healthcare package, we are taking a look at their plan and comparing it to the House version. We also wanted to provide you with an in-depth look into how the Stupak amendment would change things for everyone.

Senate Health Care Plan

Last night Senate Democrats, lead by Harry Reid, unveiled their plan for healthcare reform: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Congressional Budget Office said this package would cost $848 billion over 10 years, and still leave 24 million uninsured (a third of which are illegal immigrants).

The plan has many of the same proposals the Democrats have been pushing as the answers to fixing health care: more government intrusion, little to contain cost. There is an individual mandate, a creation of state/regional health insurance exchanges, federal subsidies for low and middle class families and a public option.

As you know, the House already passed their plan at the beginning of the month; and there a quite a few differences between the two packages. One instance of this is the different methods of funding the plans. The House wants to add 5.4% surtax to wealthy people; collect annual fees from health insurance companies; medical devices manufacturers and drug companies and make cuts to Medicare. The Senate is proposing an excise tax on the so-called "Cadillac Health Care Plans"; collecting annual fees from health insurance companies, medical devices manufacturers, and drug companies; making cuts to Medicare; increasing Medicare payroll taxes for workers; and collecting a tax on elective cosmetic procedures.

Another area where they differ is abortion coverage. The House's plan bans abortion coverage with the passage of the Stupak amendment. The Senate has adopted a plan that aims for abortion neutrality. The exchanges would be required to offer plans that cover and do not cover abortion care, so people have a choice. Any insurance companies who receive federal subsides or are members of the public plan insurance companies would be required to segregate the federal funds, and could only use beneficiary premium and private dollars to fund the service.

Look in tomorrow's Voice for Choice for a more in-depth look at the two packages.

The Impact of Stupak

If the President signs a bill with Stupak-like language, it would change how health insurance companies handle abortion coverage and would lead to completely eliminating abortion coverage in insurance plans.

Currently, most employee-based insurance plans cover abortions. The Stupak amendment bans plans within the exchange that accept federal subsides from offering abortion coverage (even though the coverage would be paid for out of non-federally funded premiums). Technically, people who do not get subsidies will be able to buy plans which do cover abortion. The likelihood that plans which offer abortion coverage will actually exist in the exchange is unlikely, according to insurance company experts.

The reason for the lack of optional plans is that it does not make business sense to offer two near-identical plans, with the lone exception of abortion coverage. Most people who are shopping within the exchange will be getting subsidies, and could not buy a plan with coverage, so it makes little sense to insurance companies to offer one.

This is not purely conjecture. Researchers have looked into the 5 states that prohibit private insurance companies from covering abortion. In those states, no supplemental abortion rider actually existed for purchase, especially since women and families don't expect an unplanned or a life threatening pregnancy.

Whether or not the intention of the bill was to severely limit abortion coverage in this country, it will. The bottom-line is if this language passes, abortion coverage will go from being normally covered by insurance companies to abortions being normally excluded from coverage - anything but status quo.

What is bigotry?

2009-11-19T14:32:00.001-05:00

An blog post on Truth Wins Out offers some answers.

Text of Stupack amendment (plus link)

2009-11-17T23:10:00.002-05:00

Copy and paste from this link:

H.AMDT.509 to H.R.3962 An amendment printed in Part C of House Report 111-330 to codify the Hyde Amendment in H.R. 3962. The amendment prohibits federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.
Sponsor: Rep Stupak, Bart [MI-1] (introduced 11/7/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 11/7/2009 House amendment agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Stupak amendment (A001) Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 240 - 194, 1 Present (Roll no. 884).

Update (11/19/09, 2:29P): The above copy and paste is NOT the actual text but only a description of it. To find the actual text, it seems (I haven't found it yet my self) that you have to turn to the parts of the "House Report" listed above ("printed in Part C of House Report 111-330").

With the upcoming ENDA vote, we need to be wary of religious right distortions

2009-11-07T02:07:00.007-05:00

The main theme they will hit on is that they claim ENDA will force religious employers to hire people they don't want (despite ENDA's religious exemptions), and that religious co-workers may be "persecuted" for speaking their beliefs.

But what constitutes "speaking your beliefs"? Does that include telling your coworker they're a sinner? Blogger BlackTsunami discusses this.

Disclaimer: While I used the phrase "telling your co-worker they're a sinner", there doesn't seem to be evidence in the post that the guy in question said that to her. Though it does seem he used the term "deviant" in his letter describing the incident to his superiors at work.

Update (Nov 7, 2:40P): section of ENDA dealing with religious exemptions, section 6:

"This Act shall not apply to a corporation, association, educational institution or institution of learning, or society that is exempt from the religious discrimination provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pursuant (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a), 2000e-2(e)(2))."

Also the Senate had a hearing on ENDA on Nov 5, and Al Franken is on the committee! Third Senator to speak. Enjoy.

A hetero woman's "selfish" reason to support marriage equality

2009-11-07T01:43:00.002-05:00

Michelle Bell tells why she wants marriage equality

Health care bill being voted on tomorrow in House

2009-11-06T16:29:00.001-05:00

Text, HR 3962

Update, Nov 7, 9:04P: CBO estimate, most recent date, Nov 6

What Scalia said about abortion

2009-11-05T14:49:00.004-05:00

His words:

From the subsequent "60 Minutes" Scalia interview transcript:

"My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons [emphasis mine -BG]. You don't count pregnant women twice."

For whole article quoting this, see Diploid Dave

Have fun on the Google

Equality California asks for petition to President Obama

2009-11-04T13:54:00.002-05:00

Check it.

I already signed it.

More alternative perspectives on Maine

2009-11-04T13:12:00.001-05:00

Wayne Besen asks us to stop acting like it's training camp: The Civil Likes movement

Maine lost, but the fight goes on...tomorrow!

2009-11-04T10:06:00.005-05:00

Everyone who worked hard in Maine deserves our praise, whether or not they feel it themselves.

This was how I found out the news:

Maine voters repeal same-sex marriage laws

And here is one Blender saying we need to keep perspective: You want pity because of Maine? You won't be getting it from me.

The attitude of "keep fighting" is what I get. And here is the next fight: ENDA - The federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Tomorrow at 10A the Senate will have a hearing on this bill which will protect employees NATIONWIDE from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

This was always meant as the follow up to the hate crimes bill. Well, we WON on hate crimes, now its time to repeat that victory for worker's rights.

Call your Senators

Go to the upper-right corner ("Find your senators" search engine) of the U.S. Senate site to find your Senators contact info, and LOCAL office.

Go to the upper-left corner of the House site and do the same.

**Update (11:05A): Just called my Senators. Both co-sponsors of ENDA. What about yours?

**Update (12:50P): More takes on the day:

Words about Maine and the dying hog of homophobia

Of the three LGBT equality votes, one has been called. We won that!

2009-11-04T00:21:00.002-05:00

Remember 3-2-1? Three ballot fights

* To keep marriage equality in Maine (Vote "No" to keep equality)

* To approve domestic partnerships in Washington State (Vote "Yes" to approve the partnerships)

* To approve Kalamazoo's gay and transgender rights ordinance

Of these three, the third has been called. We won Kalamazoo!

Kalamazoo was a town in Michigan. While state victories get our attention (for many good reasons), change often starts locally. Many of the transgender-inclusive LGBT rights laws started as local ordinances. And this town was no easy win. Citizens fought hard to win in that town, and their work paid off.

"What if your mother had aborted you?": Ruminations on an idiotic question.

2009-11-03T16:48:00.004-05:00

I love you Amanda Marcotte: What if? What if? What IF?!?!?

Another great debate: Fetuses "born alive" or just a myth?

2009-11-03T11:01:00.002-05:00

RH Reality tackles in post, The "Born Alive" Myth, and the commentors make several criticisms of anti-abortion advocate Jill Stanek. Jill gives a rebuttal here.

My own comments are under screenname "Harry834".

How is federal money being spent? Hit this link to find out.

2009-11-01T23:03:00.002-05:00

I just saw Biden on TV saying that if you hit recovery.gov you can track the spending of all federal dollars, down to the way it is (or is not) being spent in your local community (think about potholes, repairs, etc).

Have fun and learn at recovery.gov

Great debate on this post. Pasting one of the comments

2009-11-01T22:41:00.004-05:00

Should we consider zygotes and blastcysts people? That is what the comment thread on "What Now? Colorado Groups Seek Personhood For Cells" has transformed into, for better or worse.

One commenter, crowepps gave a good, illuminative comment on sexist assumptions about male and female sexual interest...

---------
Crowepps' words

As I understand the psychology underlying this issue from other reading, and as evidenced by Paul's focus on the word 'intention', the problem is not so much the blastocysts, thousands of which are lost naturally all the time, but instead outrage at the idea that women seize the agency to assert that they have a right to INTEND to avoid pregnancy and still have sex.

As near as I can get into the mindset, it is that women should understand that FOR THEM sex is only a tolerable activity if pregnancy is possible because only the possibility of motherhood can sanctify a woman allowing her body to be polluted. In this worldview, there are only two possible reasons for a woman to have sex - because she wants to get pregnant or because she is depraved.

Men, of course, are recognized to have urges that impel them towards sex, sometimes disastrously, urges which create temptations impossible for them to resist. Women, however, are believed to be free physiologically of any such urges and able to easily and absolutely control themselves so that the default position of girls/women is to stay forever chaste.

On this biologically unlikely foundation is built the meme of the 13-year old girl's ability to rationally 'chose' whether or not she has sex, since she is assumed to have no interest in sex herself and no urges leading her forward but that instead all the impulse to go ahead comes from outside, from some male who is 'taking advantage of her' by using power, the lure of possessions or psychological judo to coerce her into a behavior in which she would otherwise have no interest. From here it's easier to understand those who insist that 'all sex is rape'.

-------End of Crowepps' words

What we can learn from other countries who discuss abortion

2009-10-30T11:48:00.003-05:00

Abortion and contraception are health care. Any health insurance plan, public or private, should cover abortion and contraception - and the education that goes with it - with the same level of coverage as any other health care. Humans have sex. Humans walk. Humans drive cars. Humans exercise (or think about doing so). Humans eat. All these human activities should be considered in any plan to cover human health. Either that, or every unmarried adult, from birth to death, should be required to be abstinent (as if marriage ever stopped STDs, unplanned pregnancy, or even violent injury).

When we talk about abortion, we feel we need to give "equal time" to those who want to criminalize it in our laws. They call themselves "pro-life". Unfortunately restrictive abortion laws cause a harm for women which is real in a way that the "harm" for zygotes is not. People have to look at a sonogram and imagine what the fetus feels. You look at a women dying, or in fear of dying, from unsafe abortion and no imagination is necessary.

We are scared to talk about this issue as a health issue, rather than a "culture war". But doctors in other countries far stricter than ours found ways to talk about it. What can we learn from them? How can we support patient's choices against an angry crowd/society/culture which would not exist for any other type of medical care?

Read this and see: Why It's Good the Leave the US To Talk About Abortion

The new health care bill, with yesterday's date of introduction

2009-10-30T09:11:00.004-05:00

House version, H.R. 3962

Tom Price (Republican) has said Republicans have their own bill H.R. 3400

Finally, after YEARS, America passes federal hate crimes law

2009-10-28T15:27:00.002-05:00

Reactions on Pam's

Thank you, Mr. President

Next Tuesday, Nov 3, three fights for LGBT equality

2009-10-28T11:31:00.003-05:00

No Bittersweet Victories

Google this...

2009-10-24T20:38:00.000-05:00

Google: 30 republican males

Tell me what you find...

Bill Maher's end of the year New Rules

2009-10-23T00:30:00.004-05:00

While this non-HBO subscriber usually catches him on podcast, his final skit of New Rules had to be done right. So I Googled the You Tube

Enjoy (7 minutes)

He will return February.

WWII veteran speaks about marriage equality

2009-10-21T16:32:00.004-05:00

With just 12 days before citizens of Maine decide to reject or accept the decision of the state legislature to end discrimination in marriage, many are speaking out.

Here is a video message from a lifelong Republican, WWII veteran, Phillip Spooner.

He supports marriage equality.

Update (Thur, 10/22, 4:04PM): I found a link to this video on you tube, with people's comments including words by anti-gay commentor screenamed "ChrisIIIcube". There's no pint in trying to change his mind, but here are some of the pro-equality commentors rebutting Chris:

fuzzyprism : So, now a decorated 86-year-old who served our country with his life and saw the atrocities of war and prejudice is a "drama queen," ChrisIII?

I would say "give up" but really, you're very amusing. I remember once passing a pet store where a monkey swung by his tail, banging his head against the plexiglass wall over and over again. Give that monkey internet access and I'd be hard-pressed to tell you two apart.

busterholzapfel: Its just mind boggling how many hate filled, ignorant, uneducated people the U. S. produces. It is no wonder that it is a nation that is going down the sewer. I feel bad for great men like Mr. Spooner, he is witnessing the self destructt. of a society that once held such hope and promise. America has turned Satan in God and used Christianity as a means to spread evil. But then Jesus warned us of these sheep in wolves clothing and their blindness. God bless the few truly holy people left there.

janicepsu: love is not abnormal. there isn't one way to love. thank you philip spooner for your service and also for understanding that if we treat even one group as second-class citizens, we are laughing in the face of the constitution

DrArthurFrederickIde: Homosexuality is genetic--people are born gay. All people have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and happiness is not defined but inclusive in the USA Constitution. To deny gays and lesbians equality is to make the USA Constitution a lie and worthless document, and denies that there is democracy in the USA. Those who oppose equal rights are more than bigots--they are mental fascists, and I regret that I served the military for 15 years if this bigotry continues.

.........

Keep fighting...

Non-heteronormative Americans are also victims of private health industry

2009-10-21T03:43:00.007-05:00

Columbia Law School professor, Katherine Franke, writes in Queering of Health Reform about how Americans are not only deprived for lack of money. They are also deprived for lack of similarity to the traditional married hetero family. And of course, being both non-heteronormative and low income makes you a target worse than being only low income.

I have used the term "non-heteronormative" instead of "LGBT" because the former encompasses a much broader span of the human race that defies traditional expectations about gender/sexuality. This actually includes heterosexual individuals who don't lead lives by the book of marriage and parenting. Some are unmarried parents in romantic relationship, some are unmarried parents not in romantic relationship, some are on-again-off-again in their relationships but always try to keep the kids lives well provided for and loved, married couples without children, etc, etc.

A final note about what I mean by "tradition expectations". By traditional expections, I not only mean religious or social conservatives, but also the general modern popular culture - supported by magazines, movies, Hollywood - that show women in certain roles of "sexiness" and men in other roles. I speak of the varoius images that seem like liberal liberation and free sexuality, but which, upon study, seem to be the opposite side of the same coin of required gender roles and expectations. This is one of the few things pop culture and social conservatives have in common.

We need a second Obama election night - for health care

2009-10-19T00:07:00.004-05:00

We need the giant crowds that won Obama his presidency. Today our goal is not electing a person, but passing a law that will give us the first crucial step towards ending the deaths caused by lack of health insurance. There are many words we could use to describe the private industry's incentive to deny care: greed, responsible business management, pragmatism, necessary rationing, need to pay overhead, heartlessness, sincere belief in free markets. But whatever word we choose to call it, the result is the same. For lack of money, people will be left to die.

In our conversations with our doctors, we are often told how much we need to take personal responsibility for our health. But if we don't have the money, we can't do that. This lack of money does not change the medically necessity of doing what we need to do, as individuals, for our health. But the fact remains: we can't do anything without money.

What do we do? Some people answer that we should "stop whining and get a job", and sometimes these same people know that means getting a second job. And they still say "get a job" with the same unshaken self-assurance. It's the "real world" they say, and no one owes you anything.

So those who don't get that second job, don't get the money, and they or their families die. The self-assured advisors will say this death is "their fault". They should have "grown up and gotten a job". Oh well.

This view is not held just by insurance company CEOs and employees. Lots of people, including middle-class workers, share this view. Some of them are at town halls screaming calling Obama a Nazi. But many others were too tired to go and simply speak their views when they are around like-minded others, who eventually vote and elect Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who share their views, but choose kinder-sounding ways of saying them...or perhaps hide them entorely behind claims of pragmatism and "how the real world works, or maybe "bipartisanship".

This might explain why I saw fit to attribute non-greed motives in the list of words I used above in describing health insurance executives. Because maybe their not only greedy jerks that want to profit on death. Maybe their just serving the values of their customers, which include thousands of people - in and outside the South, at and not at town halls - who have the "just grow up and get a job" mentality that I described above. I have heard the idea that Blue Dogs were elected by a different constuency. Maybe it includes these people I described.

The question is, what to do the rest of us who don't share this worldview plan to do about this? The election of Obama was not just about his campaign team. It was about the millions of us who got involved when we normally would not. We donated money, and when we didn't have money, we donated a smaller amount, and asked our friends to donate more for us. Or we donated time. We hooked up with the local Obama volunteer group and knocked on doors, did phone calls, got petitions, etc - whatever our group chose to do. We didn't need to spend money to go to Washington. We went to our local organizations - or local U.S. Senators offices - and made our work and voices known there. Clearly the people on the other side are doing all of these things. Why aren't WE at town halls?

I currently donate monthly to Save the Children, the ACLU, and the National Abortion Federation, because these things protect the health, well-being, and civil and human rights of children, women, and men. I have been donating to Save the Children and NAF for months now, with my graduate-student, unemployed budget managed fairly well for my needs. But I have little more to give in terms of money. So I'll look for ways to donate time. I'm hoping you will donate money (or time) where I cannot.

And we MUST have a public option. It is absolutely ridiculous and shameful that we feel the need to critcize Obama for choosing the name "public option" when we should be condemning our fellow citizens for having a neurotic fear about the phrase when the words "public" and "option" have NEVER scared any sane, non-brain-damaged person, much less a large percenatage of our society.

Maybe we should have called it "Medicare for All", or some psychologically-tested phrase that would have sat well with the American audience. But STOP WHINING America about a harmless phrase! "Public school", "optional", "Public library", "opt-out", etc. These phrases and their variants don't set off alarm bells. Why should "public option"?

How to get involved

Go to the upper-right corner ("Find your senators" search engine) of the U.S. Senate site to find your Senators contact info, and LOCAL office.

Go to the upper-left corner of the House site and do the same.

It's true that the Senate, not the House, that is threatening the public option. But not all of you have House Reps that are on board, and they need to hear from you. PLUS, while the public option IS indispensible, it is not the only important part of this bill. I have a wikipedia article that explains the most current changes with the bills and debate (look to the right, second box in column, "specific bills", and I have the text to the original bill, BUT I'm wondering how much has changed since I posted that text here.

It's big fight, and I think Democrats may be more to blame on this one. But in speaking our criticims, let's not forget our work.

What's on your to-do list? For ideas, check out my 15-option voting poll on Daily Kos, scroll down.