What’s wrong with Abstinence Only/Plus/Until Marriage education (Or, the victims of the Bush Administration’s Sex Ed Policy)

This post was inspired by an online petition on comprehensive sexual education I was asked to sign by Planned Parenthood of Western PA on behalf of some Pittsburgh Parents who are fighting the Abstinence Only/Plus/Until Marriage curriculum in their children’s schools. It bothers me that there is many times a lack of accurate information given to people my age in public schools. Censorship in all its slippery-slope forms bothers me. In this case information is censored because of the misconception that without information on how to safely have sex, adults (for that is what most teens become) will simply not have sex.

• It is my understanding that Abstinence only/plus/until marriage textbooks tell students the right thing to do before having sex is to get married.
  • The right thing to do is to marry someone of the opposite gender, since there is no mention of single sex relationships (this data I get from the Planned Parenthood review of the Pittsburgh Public School textbook, Awesome Health).
  • That the right thing to do, if you can’t get married now, or never want to get married, is to never have sex.
  • Since when was it the job of a Sex-Ed textbook to tell students what the right thing to do is?

Here are some other ways to reduce teen pregnancies and unintended pregnancies in general:

• Telling the truth about condoms, the pill, how a woman gets pregnant, how STIs can be contracted, etc (see below for statistics on the effect of comprehensive sex ed for teens).
• Not hiding safer ways of having sex.

And never, never, never through guilt.

The textbook used by the Pittsburgh Public Schools (Totally Awesome Health) tells teens:

“being sexually active can affect [your] mental health. Stress can result from guilt that is associated with being sexually active,”

And it never defines what “sexually active means”.

Now there are a lot of issues mixed into the “abstinence only/plus/until marriage” message:

• There is sexism, because the ability to choose when, if ever, to become pregnant is one of the biggest empowering changes of the past century for women. Access to accurate sexual education, family planning, contraception, and abortion allow women and men to treat each other as partners, equals. To my eyes, we do not yet live in a society where men and women are equally effected by unintended pregnancies. I hope they are someday–that would be another great way to lower the number of teen pregnancies.
• And homophobia is mixed into this: only heterosexual couples are even mentioned it leaves millions of teens ignored; their parents defined as other; their orientations termed abnormal.
• And a weird bias towards anglo-saxon nuclear families is mixed into this, because there is no room for single parent families; no room for being raise in a non-traditional family; no room for children raised by grandparents, aunts and uncles, friend parents. No room for anyone other than couples whose bedroom and family lives are pre-approved by the textbook writers.

Americans have had a president who pushes hard for abstinence only/plus/until marriage for 8 years. And what’s our track record? Here’s some quotes on the effect of the abstinence only/plus/until marriage policy pushed by the Bush Administration:

• A study from the University of Washington showing: “Students who receive comprehensive sex education are half as likely to become teen parents as those who get none or abstinence-only sex education,” (University of Washington)
• A study from the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing that one in four teen girls has a sexually transmitted infection (STI),” (Editorials Across the Country Echo Planned Parenthood’s Call for Comprehensive Sex Ed)
• “[I]n Pennsylvania the rate of unintended pregnancies has increased for teens for the first time in more than a decade” (Planned Parenthood email on this petition)
• “[T]eens who had comprehensive education, which typically discusses condoms and birth-control methods as well as abstinence, were no more likely to engage in intercourse than peers who were taught just to say no to sex before marriage,” (University of Washington)

There have been casualties of the pro-abstinence anti-education group. Every teen mother and teen father, every parent who suddenly find themselves a grandparent, every child who grows up with parents who know why their lives were limited are victims of Abstinence Only/Plus/Until Marriage miseducation. They suffer the of censorship in the classroom.

PS: Here is my followup post with a good Sex Ed resource called Scarleteen.

Inspirational Quote:

• Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”
• McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”
• Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”
• McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

(Reporter and John McCain talking about Sex Ed in the US)

Google Maps and David Rumsey collection–The Bay Area, then and now

This is an image I composed and then captured using my MacBook Pro’s screenshot capabilities. See what’s the same and what’s different. The map on the right is the Official map of the State of California. by Eddy, William M. from 1854 from the awesome David Rumsey collection. The left is the current Google Map of Silicon Valley/San Francisco Bay Area.

It’s fascinating how all of the counties’ names are the same and that Antioch, San Jose and Livermores Ranch were there–but no Oakland or Fremont. Also see how the coast above the Golden Gate bridge (in San Rafael) has been reshaped in the past 150ish years. Here’s the link for the David Rumsey collection section with more old maps of the San Francisco Bay Area (some going back to 1797). Here’s another look from 1953 (left is closeup, right is file page):

Inspirational Quote:

“The David Rumsey Collection was started nearly 20 years ago, and focuses primarily on cartography of the Americas from the 18th and 19th centuries, but also has maps of the World, Asia, Africa, Europe, and Oceania. The collection includes atlases, globes, school geographies, books, maritime charts, and a variety of separate maps, including pocket, wall, children’s and manuscript.”

“When I am Laid in Earth” on YouTube (Or, 3 ways for Dido to die)

I was looking around for recordings of the Purcell songs I am now working on (”What can we poor females do” and “Music for a while”) and I found these three interesting takes on Dido’s final scene in Purcell’s “Dido and Aeneas”.

The first is the most innovative. It is performed by the Swingle Singers. I really like the jazz take on the music–isn’t it neat how human sorrow translates across styles and centuries?

This second one may be the most famous version, performed by Janet Baker. I had never performed this piece as a request and an apology to Belinda (Dido’s sister) but I always sang it to all of Dido’s subjects. Here Janet Baker performs a much more personal version which branches off into a more general appeal.

I couldn’t figure out what language the aria is being translated into–maybe an eastern European or Asian language? I like how much she plays with the notes here.

The one thing I did not like in all of the version I found was that Dido is always in fancy delicate clothes. Now, having read The Aeneid in English and Latin, there is no doubt in my mind that Dido was a fighter if not a Warrior Queen. She single-handedly forged a colony out of the wilderness for her and her people to live in peace away from her brother. She is not the kind of woman to be wearing little wispies of nothing or a huge frilly hoop skirt–not with a country to run and battles to fight. The whole point was how devastating different her lovesickness for Aeneas was from her usual habits.

Anyhoo, other than a disturbing trend to make Dido excessively fem, I liked all of these videos and hope you do as well!

Inspirational Quote:

Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There’s a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning. - Bill Gates

Why I can’t vote for John McCain

I was looking around Senator McCain’s website when I found this under his “Issues: Human Dignity” section. It seemed an odd title given his position on women’s ability to control their bodies.

Here is John McCain’s abortion stance:

Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”

Then his site goes on to talk about how he is seeking “ways to promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy.” Because John McCain knows what is right for every woman in America with a crisis pregnancy.

Here is the NPR spot on the misconception that John McCain is pro-choice.

He also knows what information should be availible to patrons of our nation’s libraries and children in our schools. See his sponsorship of CIPA, Children’s Internet Protection Act, which required filters such as Bess (in fact, most commonly Bess) to be used in all libraries and schools which wanted internet in 2000. Bess is famous for blocking on demand and without review–from breast cancer websites to political websites, to tor’s instruction site (which I found blocked at my high school).

Censorship is the name of that game.

I don’t know whether abortion should be a litmus test for a Presidential Candidate. I think McCain’s record of supporting the Global Gag rule and abstinence only Sex Ed makes him an enemy of the free flow of information.

And that is enough for me.

Inspirational Quote:

“chaining sax handlers, Jed Parsons“

Makes me feel bad (Hacking John McCain)

Ok, so I went to sign up for John McCain’s mailing list and it asked me to “become a member” with a password and stuff. As I ogled at the bizarre security requirements required to get on a mailing list, I found I could make a webpage on John McCain’s site. I sent the first paragraph of my last post, expecting it to be rejected. But no, go here to see my new website:

http://feelingelephants.johnmccain.com/

Now I would feel bad for taking advantage of the filtering challenged, but darnit, he’s running a national campaign. He should know how to protect himself. Sigh.

Inspirational Quote:

It is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.
See G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Michigan Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071, 1079 (6th Cir. 1994). (Brown v Pittsburgh)

Why I support Hilary (more details in responce to comments)

This post is a response to two very different comments on my post “Misogyny lives (and why I support Hilary Clinton)“.

I support Hilary because I feel she is the single best mainstream candidate (there I go, capitulating to CNN’s valuation of a viable candidate) not because she is a woman. That would be absurd. To Eric, I wish there was a viable cyber-libertarian candidate who was neither isolationist nor so rampantly anti-government that s/he could see no use for it at all, but until that time comes I sort of have to make do.

My problem with Barak is that, though I get shivers listening to him speak, I can also get that reaction listening to a tenor sing a high C. I’ve looked at his voting record:

Planned Parenthood Senate Scorecard

ACLU Senate Scorecard

and compared it to Hilary’s:

Planned Parenthood Senate Scorecard

ACLU Senate Scorecard

My biggest problem is with Senator Obama is that he did not vote on some of the greatest human rights issues of our decade (see the Planned Parenthood Senate Scorecard for the “Abortion Ban” (’03), “Fetal Rights” (’04) and “The Right to Choose” (’03)).

I’m not saying Senator Obama is anti-choice or pro-life, but because he wasn’t there he has had no voice on these major issues.

Obama 12? Maybe! Obama 16? Even better. I like his style and if he could backup his message of “si se puede” with some “lo he hecho” I would be comfortable voting for him. But until he shows the kind of comfort on Capital Hill that Senator Clinton does, I do not consider him a good choice for president.

Because we have seen what idealism without insider support does in a divided country (see President Carter, best ex-president we have but as a President he was incredibly in effective). To use a bumber-sticker phrase: the President of the United States of America is not an entry level job. Senator Obama has so much potential but I am unswayed by his outsider posture: I think you have to know a system to be effective within it, and I think he needs to learn to live inside the belt-way a little before he makes much of how broken it is.

Here is my best evidence:

Barak on Petraeus:

Hilary on Petraeus:

Here Clinton impressed the hell out of me; Obama did not. Rambling about the date of the inquiry and posturing about his voting record is not his job: his job is to get answers from a very important and influential General on a disastrous war and try to help the USA and Iraq and Afghanistan come to a successful outcome for as many people as possible. Clinton was on topic, clear and got the General to clarify a worrying discrepancy in his testimony (she got him to say he would be adverse to staying the course if the situation in Iraq was exactly the same as it is now).

Obama’s worrying tendency to complain about the ills of government may be popular, but there is much that is right and good in our government. Most of our highways work; most of our schools teach; most of citizens can get passports to travel. Though CNN and other buzz-word news sources make it sound different, most of the time our country works. It is never good enough–yes. But too often outsiders see only what is going wrong and don’t notice that budgets get passed; cybercrime is fought effectively; college students get grants. And I am tired of hearing complaints from someone who prides himself on his ignorance of the system.

One of the sourest complaints against Senator Clinton is that she is too comfortable with how Washington works. But do you know what? I’m ok with that. I’d rather have a President who is comfortable enough to get something done than one who will make pretty speeches and give us four years of recession and unfulfilled promises. Because let’s be clear: to get something done in the US political capital, the President will have to know politics.

I am of course open to discussion and comments and linked posts are welcome. Thank you,

Inspirational Quote:

“The first duty of love - is to listen.” Paul Tillich

Estonia: Information Warfare and Lessons Learned “The First Internet War” (a presentation I watched from DefCon)

These are some notes I took while watching a slideshow from last year’s DefCon (watching online *sigh*). It is on the attacks against Estonia last year and how they were responded to. Fascinating stuff for anyone interested in Security, emerging threats and online/internet/cyber-terrorism. If you have no idea what happened to Estonia a year ago, find out briefly here. Note: according to the presenter (Gadi Evron) this was not the first or the largest such attack (the article I linked to says it was).

Estonia’s government is fully internet based
-they have online elections
-elementary school teachers give nightly updates to students

The government knew that there would be a threat around the day that it occurred because it was the anniversary of the Russians defeating the Germans in WWII and there’s a lot of craziness on that date. So they,

-Asked sensitive websites to create plaintext versions
-did CERT preparation

During the attack only Open BSD server survived well.

The attack resulted in an increase of traffic from 100 to 1000 times (estimated).

Because of riots in the streets, they called the DOS attacks “cyber-riots”

Meme spreads through Russian Language forums and blogs–much faster than normal memes spread. The phrase “fucking estonian fascists/Nazis” appeared over and over again. Made many think it was an organized attack.

Those coping sent everyone home for the weekend to rest and recoup and when they came back they found that websites had set up instructions for bloggers on how to ping-attack Estonian websites “pinguem estonskie servera”

“First self-correcting attack” speaker had seen

Spam attack on the Estonian Parliament resulted in 2 days of downtime for the internet-based country

2 routers crashed. One router was misconfigured and the other just couldn’t handle the traffic.

There seem to be measurement attacks for 2 minutes at a time, with an internal of an hour or two weeks. This indicates organization of botnets.

The botnet attacks were quite regular, there were nearly no bots attacking from within Estonia.

There were forums where people ask for botnets and offered them.

The speak suggests implementing redundant (non-technical?) systems for critical infrastructure–private and business sector were the attacked systems. Not military. But ISPs, banks and media web sites were critical. Also, home computer security.

Think: internet warfare is scalable. Individuals can fight each other in the same way countries can fight each other.

Botnets are similar to trading prisoners but infecting them with a disease first–”unwitting zombie fifth column”.

Dealing with cyber-terrorism is like mob control, mass psychology. Bellweathers can controlled masses.

Defenders must enact crowd control–counter intelligence. Keep the president (’s website) and parliament (’s email) safe!

Broken windows theory. Deal with small attacks first.
If you want to see for yourself, here is the very cool presentation:

Estonia: information warfare and lessons learned “the first internet war”

Inspirational Quote:

I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it.
- Thomas Jefferson

Shrove Tuesday, Fat Tuesday, Marti Gras and Maslenitsa

From New Orleans to Moscow, the celebration at the Spring Equinox, harbinger for Chrisians of the beginning of Lent, pancake parties shook the world. My theory is that pancakes include all of the things which start to run low in February and which Lent asks people to use less of: fat, sugar, preserves, suggary condiments and all of these Pancake celebrations are good ways to get in some good eating before the time of deprivation comes.

Have great days!
And here are my previous posts about this celebration:

How to run a Shrove Tuesday Pancake Supper

Pancake Supper Update

Inspirational Quote:

I have enough money to last me the rest of my life, unless I buy something.
- Jackie Mason

Brown v Pittsburgh (my student legal brief)

Hey all. So I read the 69 page Opinion, and I figured the best way to summarize it was to practice my legal briefing skills! Here it is. The summary: Ms Brown has no effective challenge of the statute as it is nearly identical to the one the Supreme Court upheld in Hill v Colorado. Have fun!

1. Title and Citation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARY KATHRYN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, et al., Defendants. )
Civil Action No. 06-393 Judge Nora Barry Fischer

2. Facts of the Case

Ms Brown sought a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Bubble Zone Ordinance which places a place restriction on protesting outside of health care facilities.

In December 2005 the Pittsburgh city counsel passed the Bubble Zone Ordinance which requires a protester within a 100 foot radius of a clinic or hospital to ask permission before approaching a passerby with his or her message. Ms Brown, a protester, argues that this Ordinance violates her First Amendment rights to Free Speech and Free Exercise and that it therefore facially unconstitutional. The relevant law is here:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ” (Amendment I, US Constitution)
–

§ 623.03 EIGHT-FOOT PERSONAL BUBBLE ZONE
No person shall knowingly approach another person within eight feet (8′) of such person, unless such other person consents, for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling with such other person in the public way or sidewalk area within a radius of one hundred feet (100′) from any entrance door to a hospital and/or medical office/clinic.

§ 623.04 FIFTEEN-FOOT BUFFER ZONE
No person or persons shall knowingly congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate in a zone extending fifteen feet (15′) from any entrance to the hospital and or health care facility. This section shall not apply to police and public safety officers, fire and rescue personnel, or other emergency workers in the course of their official business, or to authorized security personnel employees or agents of the hospital, medical office or clinic engaged in assisting patients and other persons to enter or exit the hospital, medical office, or clinic.

§ 623.05 Penalty Section
Any person, firm, or corporation who pleads guilty or nolo contendere, or is convicted of violating of [sic] this section shall be guilty of a summary offense and punished by a fine of at least fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense; a fine of at least one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for a second offense within five (5) years; and a fine of three hundred dollars ($300.00) for a third offense within five (5) years.

For fourth and subsequent offenses within five (5) years the fine shall not be less than three hundred dollars ($300.00) and/or imprisonment for not less than three (3) days but not more than thirty (30) days. No part of the minimum fine may be suspended or discharged, except upon proof and a finding of indigence by the court. Indigent defendants may pay fines imposed under this section by participation in a court designated community service program, crediting the commensurate dollar amount of each hour of community service toward payment of the minimum fine owed.

§ 623.01 Intent of Council
The City Council recognizes that access to Health Care Facilities for the purpose of obtaining medical counseling and treatment is important for residents and visitors to the City. The exercise of a person’s right to protest or counsel against certain medical procedures is a First Amendment activity that must be balanced against another person’s right to obtain medical counseling and treatment in an unobstructed manner; and The City of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police has been consistently called upon in at least two locations within the City to mediate disputes between those seeking medical counseling and treatment and those who would counsel against their actions so as to (i) avoid violent confrontations which would lead to criminal charges and (ii) enforce existing City Ordinances which regulate the use of public sidewalks and other conduct; such services require a dedicated and indefinite appropriation of policing services, which is being provided to the neglect of the law enforcement needs of the Zones in which these facilities exist. 8

The City seeks a more efficient and wide deployment of its services which will help reduce the risk of violence and provide unobstructed access to Health Care Facilities by setting clear guidelines for activity in the immediate vicinity of the entrances to Health Care Facilities. The Council finds that the limited buffer and bubble zones outside the Health Care Facilities established by this Ordinance will ensure that patients have unimpeded access to medical services while ensuring that the First Amendment rights of demonstrators to communicate their message to their intended audience is not impaired.
–

The RFPA provides that “an agency shall not substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion, including any burden which results from a rule of general applicability, unless the agency proves, by a preponderance of the evidence that the burden is (1) [i]n furtherance of a compelling interest of the agency, and is (2) [t]he least restrictive means of furthering the compelling interest.” Combs v. Homer Ctr. Sch. Dist., Civil Action No. 04-1599, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32007, at *30 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2005) (quoting 71 PA. CONS. STAT. § 2404) (2007).
–

A district court may grant the “extraordinary remedy” of a preliminary injunction upon consideration of the following four factors:
(1) whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits;
(2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured by denial of the relief;
(3) whether granting the preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and
(4) whether granting the preliminary relief will be in the public interest.
–

The following factors must be present before a prior decision has stare decisis effect:
(1) The decision must constitute a holding of the majority of the court and if a particular result is adopted by a clear majority of the court, it has absolute precedential effect in substantially identical legal and factual circumstances.
(2) The decision must involve an issue of law.
(3) Similar factual situations must be involved.
(4) An issue was actually determined by the decision.
(5) The decision must be from the same court or from a court which the court applying stare decisis owes obedience.
–

Summary of complaint
Ms Brown contends that her right to Free Speech and Free Exercise are restricted by an Ordinance which she argues is facially unconstitutional at three different clinics in the City of Pittsburgh (for a statute to be facially unconstitutional, it must conform to the above criteria). Ms Brown says the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and constitutes prior restraint of her speech. She asks for a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Ordinance.

She argues that she is unable to exercise her right to Free Speech because the ordinance places an undue burden on her activities: ie, by requiring her to ask permission to communicate within 8 feet of a person the Ordinance makes it extremely difficult for her to get her counseling across in the time and space relevant to the clinic (this Ordinance is for all intents and purposes identical to the Ordinance in Hill which was upheld by the Supreme Court as facially constitutional and which this court finds guides this case by state decisis).

Ms Brown also says that she is unable to exercise her religion freely for the reasons given above.

She contends that she does not understand how to obtain consent, whether she may force people to walk by her while she stands still and hands our pamphlets, and whether the statute applies only to her and her cause or to other causes which might warrant protesting in the 100 foot zone (she was a ER Nurse for many years; it is difficult to believe she does not understand consent and informed consent).

She argues that the statute is overbroad in that it restricts both violent and non-violent protest outside the clinics when it was violent protest which she believes the statute was created to protect against (this is not the case: the Ordinance was also created to facilitate the right “to be let alone” which it can be assumed includes the right to have someone backup when they are asked to do so).

She argues that because she must ask passersby for permission to speak to them within 8 feet, she is under prior restraint (a doctrine which applies only to government entities).

3. Issues

Does a government entity have a compelling interest in protecting patients of abortion clinics and all other health care facilities from violence and intimidation?
Do Bubble Zone laws violate protesters’ First Amendment rights?
Are restrictions which protesters find make it more difficult to spread their messages/for them to practice their religion facially unconstitutional?
How can the First Amendment right to speech and the right “to be let alone” balanced?
Is being forced to walk in the street, bump into trees and trashcans and backup when asked to sufficiently burdensome that they leave the Bubble Zone Ordinance facially unconsitutional?

4. Decisions

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [DE 22] is DENIED.

5. Reasoning

The case is controlled by Hill v. Colorado in which the Supreme Court found a nearly identical statute to be facially constitutional. In addition, Ms Brown failed to show on any point that her issue necessitated a preliminary injunction as it 1) failed to show probability of success on the merits as she has been able to continue protesting, 2) as she has continued protesting she is not irreparably injured by the Ordinance and she waited 6 months to file a for an Injunction anyway, 3) allowing only Ms Brown to continue protesting would cause all of the traffic flow and imitation of access problems that the Ordinacne was designed to help, 4) protecting a citizen’s constitutional rights in always in the public interest; however Ms Brown did not show her Constitutional rights were being violated and the public interest in allowing all people access to health care is protected by this Ordinance.

Therefore, Ms Brown’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied.

6. Separate Opinions

None

7. Analysis

This decision means that it will continue to be only massively unpleasant to access abortion services in the Pittsburgh area rather than impossible. It is possible Ms Brown will continue trying for a permanent injunction.

Inspirational Quote:

There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. - Kurt Vonnegut

Misogyny lives (and why I support Hilary Clinton)

Stuff like this makes me sad. Over and over again I see and hear and find that demeaning, underestimating and abusing women is more acceptable than doing the same to men. Whether it is this hilarious article rebutting an flawed article on women’s inherant inferiority (apparently we can’t manipulate 3-D objects very well). Or this illuminating essay on demeaning language and tactics in the current presidential race called “Goodbye to all that.2″ by Robin Morgan. Here are some of her best points:

“Goodbye to the double standard . . .

“Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.”

“When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor”

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .

“Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, ‘Citizens United Not Timid‘ (check the capital letters).”

“John McCain answering ‘How do we beat the bitch?’ with ‘Excellent question!’ Would he have dared reply similarly to ‘How do we beat the black bastard?’ For shame.”

“Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.“

Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .

“Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages — not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and — hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t be alive if we hadn’t given birth to it.”

Goodbye, goodbye to . . .

“blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys–though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant.”

“an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s ‘cooler’ to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.”

“the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job,”

“goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.”

Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .

“Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said ‘made me feel like a dork.’”

And finally, a statement very close to my own heart:

“Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, and because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.”

Inspirational Quote:

If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate. - Henry J. Tillman