12 May 2008 @ 02:12 pm
Congressman Barney Frank Speaks Out On John McCain  
"In a number of areas, Senator John McCain is praised for moderation that he has not in fact shown in his votes. It is true that by comparison to many of the angry right-wingers that have dominated the Republican Party with Senator McCain's general support he is less extreme and he has from time-to-time shown an amiability that contrasts with the snarling demeanor of some of his co-partisans. But all this shows is that it is possible to be prejudiced all of the time and pleasant some of the time when it comes to the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. With one exception, the relevance of which Senator McCain himself is rapidly diminishing, John McCain's record is completely opposed to our efforts to combat prejudice and gain legal equality.

"The one exception has to do with his vote against the constitutional amendment that would have banned marriage. He did vote against that amendment on states' rights grounds. But in his effort to win over the right wing support he has needed to secure the Republican nomination and hold Republican votes in November, he has paved the way for a retreat from that position. He has begun to outline circumstances in which he would support such an amendment, even taking the unconstitutional position that he would "sign" a constitutional amendment if elected president. In fact, presidents do not get to sign or not sign constitutional amendments, and McCain did subsequently clarify that he would only support such an amendment if the courts had held that states must recognize each other's marriages. He has of course made it clear that he will support constitutional Amendments banning marriage at the state level, including in his own state of Arizona, and he regretted the fact that Arizona rejected such an amendment.

"In every other area, McCain has a consistent voting record against our efforts. In 1996, the only time the Senate voted on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, McCain was one of those who voted no. He has also consistently voted against extending hate crimes protection to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individuals.

"In the area of gays in the military, he is one of those who made sure that President Clinton's effort to lift the ban would fail. For example, when President Clinton first proposed lifting the ban, McCain was one of its leading opponents, saying for example on January 27, 1993, "It is incredible to me that President Clinton ... has decided to lift the ban without consulting any leading military official or veterans' organization." In fact, there had been such consultations with military officials and they had opposed the president. Colin Powell, then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was our leading opponent and McCain, Sam Nunn and other leading pro-military figures combined to defeat the effort.

"Now that many who supported the ban when it was first imposed, including former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Army Chief of Staff John Shalikash-Vili, and with Senators Clinton and Obama firmly committed to lifting the ban, John McCain has firmly renewed his support for it -- "I believe that the don't ask don't tell policy is working ... I hear that from our military commanders all the time. There are some issues in which you just have to rely on the views of our military leaders if you're going to give them responsibility for the lives and the welfare of men and women who are serving under their command."

"This apparently reflects the prejudiced view that he expressed in 1993 when he was helping block President Clinton's effort when he said on February 4th, as recorded in the Congressional Record, "The issue of allowing open gay lifestyles in the military is completely different from the kind of changes taking place in civil life ... Homosexuality is a behavioral trait, unlike skin color."

"In addition to strongly opposing same-sex marriage, suggesting that he could modify his opposition to a federal constitutional amendment banning states like Massachusetts from adopting same-sex marriage, voting against ENDA, consistently opposing hate crimes coverage for us, and being recorded against every other effort in the Senate to give us fair treatment, Senator McCain also promised if he becomes president to reduce those protections we have been able to achieve at the Supreme Court level. He has noted his admiration for those justices who have consistently voted against any efforts by GLBT people to establish any right to legal equality, for example Chief Justice Rehnquist, a dissenter in the Lawrence v. Texas case, in which the sodomy laws against gay and lesbian people were stricken.

"Given the alignment of Supreme Court Justices, and their ages, it is virtually certain that if John McCain is president, he will appoint justices who will overturn the Lawrence decision and the leading Supreme Court opponent of fair treatment for gay and lesbian people, Antonin Scalia, will gain allies from McCain's appointments.

"It is also the case that under Republican presidents we have seen virtually no significant appointments of openly gay and lesbian people, with the exception of an ambassador and some appointments to fairly unimportant commissions. In the Clinton administration, by contrast, and the administrations of most Democratic governors, there are appointments made to high positions without regard to any LGBT prejudice and so we are fairly represented."

Via The Democratic Party
 
 
09 May 2008 @ 01:47 pm
An Internet Quiz that actually has something to say  
Can you tell the difference between George W. Bush and John McCain?
Hint: It's harder than you think.
 
 
09 May 2008 @ 09:11 am
Sad people sometimes experiment with drugs. Shocking!  
"A teen who has been depressed at some point in the past year is more than twice as likely to have used marijuana as teens who have not reported being depressed — 25 percent compared with 12 percent, said the report by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy."
-- Feds: Teen use of pot can lead to dependency, mental illness

This is what I like to call ASS-BACKWARDS REASONING. They use this data to say that marijuana use causes depression, when in fact, doesn't it make more sense for depression to cause drug use?

I was in therapy when I was eight. I was suicial at eleven. I was diagnosed clinically depressed at twelve. I first tried pot when I was eighteen. I doubt my experience is unique.

I'm sure my old prof Pete at Drug War Rant will be all over this in no time.

Some of my favorite recent DWR posts:
- Veteran suicides may exceed battlefield deaths
- News flash: war on drugs is still racist
- "Soccer mom" reporter braves clouds of pot smoke
- Drug war lies and the liars that tell them
 
 
07 May 2008 @ 07:05 pm
Man assaulted in Champaign because of sexual orientation  
Hate Crime in Champaign
"Steven Velasquez is a student at the U of I. He was walking with friends when he says he was attacked for his sexual orientation... He was walking down Green street with two girls and another guy when a man started yelling at them for being gay... He's shaken up but taking a stand ready to press charges. It's not going to be easy but he won't let this go unnoticed... Velasquez was released from the hospital the following day. Doctors say he was knocked out unconscious and suffered from some head trauma... The man arrested, Brett Vanasdlen is charged with a hate crime. He's out on bond."

A site run by wackos called "Americans for Truth" alleges that Velasquez (they refer to him as "the homosexual") started the conflict. I didn't find much media coverage, but I did find a story on Box Turtle Bulletin and some analysis at Daily Kos.

If you find yourself wanting to believe the story spread by "Americans for Truth," take a look at this. The post has been deleted, but thanks to Google Cache, you can get the gist of Brett's position: "How badly is a gay marriage going to hurt your family? ...If a gay couple adopts kids... What about their future? How would life be growing up?" It's pretty obvious that no matter what his parents or friends or coaches say, he was openly hostile to gay people.

If you're a U. of I. student or alum, get in touch with the Office of LGBT Resources. If you are a Parkland College student or alum, or if you live in Champaign, you can attend a meeting of "Queer and Ally" (Q&A). If you have other suggestions for action, please post them in comments.
 
 
07 May 2008 @ 02:01 pm
No More Bush Judges!  
If you haven't signed up for the Credo Action Network, go do it now. (Giving them your phone number is optional.) The most recent e-mail I got from them was about judges nominated by Bush. You can send an e-mail to Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, asking him to shut down the judicial confirmations process until a new president is sworn in next January. I mean, unless you want all your civil rights taken away from you by scary motherfuckers...
 
 
06 May 2008 @ 01:49 am
No Marriage Amendment on the Illinois Ballot!  
"Protect Marriage Illinois did not file a petition to put an anti-gay marriage question on the November ballot... The deadline has now passed, and so a statewide referendum effort is not possible for the anti-gay folks until 2010! The signatures PMI collected over the past year may not be used for a 2010 petition; they will have to start from scratch."
-- Rick Garcia, Equality Illinois

It's distressing that Protect Marriage Illinois exists in the first place. It's disturbing that they collected so many signatures. But they're not getting their gay-bashing referendum on the ballot in MY state this year! Mourn the losses, because they're many, but celebrate the victories, because they're few.
 
 
05 May 2008 @ 04:26 pm
Desperately Seeking Minions  
I'm hating LJ more and more. It's been kind of a downhill journey ever since they went all corporate, with their sponsored communities and this new "Explore LJ" feature is just... sickening. Is it just me? Blogger has its problems, too, but you get a hell of a lot more freedom. Plus, there's the simple fact that since graduating college, a lot of people have stopped writing in and reading their LJs. As far as I know, Erin and Kathy are the only people who read my posts... I love you both, but still, this is discouraging. There are just so many blogs that are fantastic, I barely have time to read them all, much less write my mediocre, "Yeah, me too!" LJ posts... I'm not trying to make excuses for my laziness, I just want to explain why, even though I'm the same angry socialist I've always been, I've been too depressed to feel like my rants can have any positive effect.

What I really, really want... is to talk to someone who already agrees with me. I'm so tired of feeling alone in my beliefs. I don't want people to argue with me. I want someone to say, "You're right! Patriarchy fucking sucks! What should we do about it?" I want to preach to the choir, because that's how you make them sing. I want to persuade other people - but I want to have fun and make friends while I'm doing it. I don't want to bicker over semantics, I want to lead.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I love Jessica Valenti. Does anyone else love Jessica Valenti? Does anyone want to have a "49 Double Standards" book club? Because I'm there. I'm so there.
 
 
30 April 2008 @ 01:24 pm
Announcements  
Jessica Valenti's new book is out! It's called He's a Stud, She's a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know.

There's a Facebook application that allows you to register to vote. You can also find unregistered friends and peer pressure them into voting. For a Democrat.

People for the American Way has compiled some revealing quotes about John McCain's "ideal Supreme Court Justice." It's mostly a lot of bullshit about how he wants no "judicial activism." But there are a few gems about "protecting the institution of marriage" and "moral principles." And of course, he has no problem with "legislating from the bench" when it comes to Alito and Roberts.
 
 
03 April 2008 @ 04:09 am
I want to end the anti-contraception movement - 22 people at a time.  
Tonight while looking at causes on facebook, I typed in "Contraception" in the Search box... and stumbled on a group called "Stop Contraception." There are 22 members. Here are some quotes:

"Contraception makes any woman available, therefore enslaving her to man's lust and pulsions... We overfeed our women with [hormones] to be able to use them to our pleasure!"

"Contraception makes any woman available" - what does that exactly mean? Just because someone uses birth control doesn't automatically make them a willing sex slave. I have first-hand experience to back this up. Has it not occurred to these people that women might want to have sex, too? I guess not. And what, while we're on the subject, is a pulsion?

Sex is meant for bonding AND babies. The two cannot be separated. That's how God invented it! Sex is not meant for recreation only!

If God "invented" sex... then didn't he also "invent" contraception? Didn't he also "invent" sex acts that don't result in conception? I mean, if God had wanted all sex to result in procreation... couldn't he have made women who were only capable of being aroused when fertile? (And couldn't he have made oral sex a lot less enjoyable?) Is this the same God who made gay and lesbian people...? They are his children, too, right?

Since contraception started in the 60's there has been an increase in divorces, unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Okay, post hoc ergo prompter hoc, anyone? Obviously no other factors besides contraception could have contributed to these societal conditions... Right.

Contraception gives a contraceptive mentality that cannot accept children as gifts, therefore fostering abortion.

98% of American women will use birth control in their lifetime. I'm willing to be that most of them think that children are a gift - that's why they want to make sure that any children they have are wanted, loved, and provided for. Contraception prevents unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancies are what foster abortion, not contraception.

The Pill, Norplant, the IUD, and Depo-Provera are designed to cause early abortions by preventing implantation when an egg is fertilized.

This is perhaps the most manipulative and irresponsible claim they make, and at that point, I did turn red and steam came out of my ears.

Anyway, I couldn't help myself. I wrote a post on their discussion board, then e-mailed the administrator and three members with personalized pleas for logic and rationality.

I know. I know. They're just 22 people. I should ignore them and hope they go away, right? But these people vote. These people donate money to candidates like John McCain - who would never promise to ban contraception... but he has promised to make it less accessible - especially for poor women, young women, and women in other countries. We need more contraception, not less. We need a Democrat in the White House, we need a Democratic Senate and Congress. We need a liberal America. And when we have those things... then I will ignore the crazy-ass right-wing sexist throwbacks on the facebook. I promise.
 
 
01 April 2008 @ 10:58 pm
Don't be Fooled by McCain  



Send an April Fool's Day card to your friends and family - and make sure that no one gets fooled by yet another right-wing practical joke.
 
 
25 March 2008 @ 03:23 pm
Happy Back Up Your Birth Control Day!  
Radical right-wingers refer to emergency contraception (also known as EC, also known as Plan B) as "the abortion pill" but it is not the same thing as Mifeprex or RU-486. EC will not terminate an existing pregnancy. EC will not work if a woman is already pregnant. EC is a higher dosage of the same hormones found in birth control pills. EC, when used within 5 days of unprotected sex, can significantly reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy.

Every women can use a back up method. No contraception method provides 100% protection. And sometimes, mistakes happen – a condom breaks, a diaphragm slips, a woman forgets to take her pill. Or she has sex when she didn't plan to – or want to. In fact, women who use a regular birth control method account for just over half of all unintended pregnancies.

Emergency contraception gives women a second chance to prevent pregnancy. But they need to know about it and be able to get it in time. More than 60% of voters don't know there's a product that's been proven effective for preventing pregnancy after sex. And only 6% of women have ever used emergency contraception.

Even though the FDA has made Plan B available over-the-counter to women 18, the high cost of EC - usually between $40-60 in pharmacies nationwide - is a continuing barrier to access.

Here are some ways that you can get involved. If you're a pro-choice college student (is there any other kind?), make sure you check out the EC Campus Challenge. And there is a Facebook Group you can join - a quick and easy way to show your support for choice.
 
 
20 March 2008 @ 09:06 pm
Housekeeping  
Hey, everyone, I'm just posting to let you know that I've updated some of the activism links on my profile. Mostly I just deleted the dead links, and added a few new ones to each category. But as I was checking the links, I found a lot of interesting petitions and news. You should take a look.

I was really terrible about posting for the past several months, but I'm going to try to get back into posting at least once a week. I'm also thinking about moving the site off of livejournal, since the templates are so very limiting and I don't really know many people who still read their LJ friends page.
 
 
19 March 2008 @ 04:27 pm
Meet the REAL McCain... (From NARAL)  
Did you know that John McCain wants more funding for "abstinence-only" programs and less access to birth control?

Did you know that of 130 choice-related votes that have come up since he's been in Congress, John McCain has voted anti-choice 125 times?

Did you know that he has repeatedly voted to stack our courts with judges who want to repeal Roe v. Wade?

When it comes to issues of choice and reproductive freedom, John McCain is not what he appears to be.

The fact is, during a quarter century in Congress, Sen. McCain has shown nothing but contempt for our reproductive freedoms. Funding for discredited Bush "abstinence-only" programs - he's for it. Access to birth control and family-planning services - he's against it. Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court - he's for them.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has launched a campaign to introduce voters to McCain's extreme anti-choice record. In order to win back the White House in November, 327,001 people must meet the REAL McCain.

Copy and past the URL below into your browser to join me and tell the world that you know the truth - that you've met the REAL McCain.
https://secure2.convio.net/choice/site/Advocacy?id=457&pagename=homepage&autologin=true

It's time for a little straight talk. Don't let the Republican nominee pose as a moderate while winking and nodding in the direction of anti-choice forces.

www.MeetTheRealMcCain.Com
 
 
15 March 2008 @ 02:09 pm
Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America  
By Eric Alterman
Viking Press

Republicans have devoted a lot of resources to the smearing of liberals, but Eric Alterman is not going to let them get away with it. He has a mission to correct misconceptions spewed by conservatives and regurgitated by mainstream media. His well-researched Why We're Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America is chock-full of the staggering statistics, rational reasoning, and liberal principles that are under-represented – and sometimes completely absent – in the so-called "liberal media." This history of liberalism is an opportunity for young progressives to read about a time when liberalism was unbelievably popular, and to discover the origins of stereotypes that plague modern liberalism, many of which are baseless.

In chapters like "Why Do Liberals Hate Patriotism?", "Why Do Liberals Hate Religion?" and "Why Are Liberals Such Wimps?", Alterman attacks the assumptions that liberals are "soft" on national defense and crime and rejects the nonsensical labels – like "elitist," "tax-and-spend," and "anti-family" – that form the modern liberal public relations crisis. While any self-described liberal should realize the ridiculousness of these accusations, many are treated as fact by both conservative and moderate pundits and media sources. Proud liberals may feel the book is preaching to the choir, but as the old saying goes, "That's how you make them sing." Liberals have a lot of singing to do if they want to reclaim their good name, and provide the logic and compassion America needs to fight the reactionary politics and religious fundamentalism offered by conservatives.

Alterman insists that liberals have a unique opportunity at this particular moment, and also acknowledges the difficulties we face. He has no problem with telling liberals what they're doing wrong, and he makes some interesting suggestions for politicians and pundits in the wake of the utter catastrophe of the Bush regime. Some of his ideas are already being used by prominent Democrats; however, other ideas of his walk a fine line between pragmatism and abandoning liberal ideals. Alterman does not want liberals to make the same mistakes they have made in the past – a logical, if somewhat bloodless stance.

The most inspiring part of Why We’re Liberals may be the argument that a supermajority of Americans hold liberal viewpoints, but do not call themselves liberals. In his conclusion, Alterman writes: "...most Americans are indeed liberals. They'd prefer to live in a society with increased equality of opportunity; greater access to health care for all; a more equitable system of taxation; a healthier respect for the environment; and a less belligerent and more cooperative foreign policy." If liberals are in fact an all-but-silent majority, it is time for us to demand the representation we deserve.

Originally published by Feminist Review.
 
 
24 October 2007 @ 01:07 pm
Happy Birthday Pete!  
Today is the birthday of one of my old college profs, Pete Guither. He is the man behind Drug War Rant, a great blog.

Thanks to Amazon, you can Buy Pete a Birthday Present for around $20.

(P.S. My own birthday is October 31, and I also like presents.)
 
 
09 August 2007 @ 09:17 pm
Much Love for "Weeds"  
There's a feature story about season three of "Weeds" in USA Today. I absolutely love this show. The actors are brilliant and the writing is genius. A few notes on the politics of "Weeds" make it into the article:
...With government estimates that 96 million Americans have tried pot, Weeds "crosses all social, ethnic, political and economic lines..." [Creator and executive producer Jenji Kohan] insists Weeds "isn't a soapbox" for marijuana. But writers get topical on pot and other topics, often with timely, charged zingers. A stoned character rants about a businessman who "overcharges like Halliburton." Another lambastes the Iraq war. A sixth-grader complains, "Bush is the worst president ever...

...The show's pot-centric theme hasn't drawn much ire outside of anti-drug advocacy groups, says Showtime entertainment chief Robert Greenblatt... Marijuana advocates cite the authenticity of the behind-the-scenes pot economics, augmented, Kohan says, by consultation with actual growers and dealers. "Weeds is incredibly accurate, and the writing is topical," says Allen St. Pierre, director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).
In an era where the media is drowning in conservative anti-drug propaganda, I'm glad that someone is taking a common sense approach. For more drug war politics, check out my former professor's blog, Drug War Rant.
 
 
07 August 2007 @ 02:44 pm
Liberal Candy and Liberal Canada  
New post today at Liberal Candy about 2008 presidential candidates and their positions on GLTB issues. As Dan always used to say, "What's with GLTB issues? They're so gay!" Not much commentary, I mostly just let the Task Force peeps speak for themselves.

Also, someone wrote a book for liberals like me, called Wait! Don't Move to Canada!

Fun Fact: Those of you familiar with Amazon.com know that there's a feature that links to related products. It says things like, "65% buy the item featured on this page..." Well, 8% buy How to Move to Canada: A Primer for Americans!

Canada - where the death penalty has been abolished, same-sex marriage has been legalized, and they have 1/8th as many firearm homicides. O Canada, I stand on guard for thee.

I stand on guard for thee.
 
 
06 August 2007 @ 06:26 am
Republicans Quietly Court the Anti-Contraception Movement  
It would be irresponsible not to at least mention Christina Page's article at the Huffington Post,
Contraception: The Unspoken Campaign Issue. She describes how various G.O.P. candidates are trying to get the "pro-life" organizations to support them, by selling out moderate Republicans and "pro-life" individuals who disagree with abortion but support contraception. Here's the bit on McCain:
Senator John McCain's campaign officials boast that their candidate has "consistently voted against taxpayer funded contraception programs." And McCain reports his advisor on sexual health matters is Senator Tom Coburn, who is famous for leading campaigns claiming the condom is unsafe and opposing expanded access to emergency contraception.
Listen up, politicians: You can speak for the majority of America (and the majority of individuals who consider themselves anti-abortion) or you can be the hero of the out-of-touch War on Sex and War on Women Brigade. You can't have it both ways.
 
 
05 August 2007 @ 04:59 am
Liberal Candy: Examining "Pro-Life" Propaganda  
Look, everybody!

It's my first post on Liberal Candy!

And it's about reproductive rights!

Shocking!
 
 
03 August 2007 @ 09:05 am
Ohio Tries to Recreate the Dark Ages  
A group of Ohio lawmakers have proposed a bill that would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus. It's unlikely that such a ridiculous, insane bill could become a law, but the rhetoric is no less frightening.
"Simply taking a look at this as a possibility is a step in the right direction," Mackura said. "Pregnancy is a unique human condition and obviously a woman is affected differently than a man. As a woman, I can sympathize. However, to completely take rights away from the father is unfair. Currently, even in a marriage situation, a man has no right to even be informed of an abortion. But if a woman doesn't have an abortion, men sure have a lot of responsibility then. It's really not fair."
Yes. What would be fair would be for a woman to be forced to carry and give birth to an unwanted child. What would be fair would be for the law to treat women as baby-making machines, instead of people equal to men under the law. Right.

I can understand that a man would want to be informed and consulted before a woman decides whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term. But surely, we can all see that ultimately, the burden of carrying a child is the woman's, and the decision must ultimately be hers also. Imagine it the other way around - if a woman needed a permission slip from her boyfriend or face a state-mandated abortion. Then no man would have to be a father if he didn't want to!

Can people not understand that there's a difference between being forced to financially support a child and being forced to surrender your body for nine months? It's your body. This proposal positively reeks of paternalism and sexism, and they're not even trying to hide it. Try to imagine a world where the law told men what they could and couldn't do with their own bodies - or where the law gave power over a man's body to his female sex partner. It's not just unfair, it's fucking unfathomable.